March 2009 Volume 12, Number 4
	Contents   |   TESL-EJ Top

Periodicity and Its Use in Language Teaching

Yupaporn Piriyasilpa
Rajamangala University of Technology Isan
Khon Kaen Campus, Thailand
<ypiriyasilpagmail.com>

Abstract

Writing in English is often a problem for EFL learners in part because students may translate literally from their L1, and also because they may organise their writing by focusing on the grammatical structure at the level of clause or sentence. However, many studies argue that language is meaningful at a unit larger than a clause or sentence (e.g., Halliday, 1994; Ravelli, 2005; Martin & Rose, 2003). To write successfully, students need to be trained to take broader perspectives and learn how to organise the text as a whole. Given that text unity can be created through hierarchies of waves of information ("periodicity"--see Martin & Rose, 2003), this article argues that discourse organisation and grammatical structure are systematically related, and that it is useful for the language teacher to consider both levels when investigating students' use of language, and teaching language in the classroom. Using systemic functional linguistics (SFL), I discuss the relationship of discourse and grammar and examine the implications for the language classroom.

Many EFL students find writing the most difficult area of language learning (Chinnawongs, 2001; Syananondh & Padgate, 2005). In the meantime, teachers also find it hard to assist students in producing pieces of quality academic writing (Synanondh & Padgate, 2005). The underlying reasons can be drawn from a number of factors, for instance, the inherent complexity of the skill, students' limited knowledge of the topic, insufficient practice, or inadequate feedback (see, for example, Chinnawongs, 2001). Additionally, studies of language teaching tend to focus mainly on accuracy and correctness of grammar and writing mechanics (see, for example, Myles, 2002; Farrell & Lim, 2005). Students may also focus on surface level of grammatical structure and literally translate their thoughts into English when writing.

While the teaching and learning of writing skill in many contexts has been focused on the communication of accurate grammatical structure, other studies argue that writing should be seen as a recursive activity in which students attempt to create meaning to serve the purpose of writing and to meet the reader's expectation (e.g., Chinnawongs, 2001; Martin & Rose, 2003; Leeds, 2003; Ravelli, 2005). To enable students to write effectively, Leeds (2003, p. 81) claims that there is a correlation between 'idea' and 'form' in the writing process. However, according to Leeds, it is also often that students may have difficulties in finding expressions to communicate their ideas or vice versa. The correlation of 'idea' and 'form' reflects a significant relationship between two levels of language: discourse semantic and grammar (see Halliday, 1994), and suggests that to enable students to write effectively it is important for the language teacher to focus on both levels. In so doing, students should be trained to construct language at sentence level to meet the goal of discourse and create a unified text at discourse level. One important way to create a unified whole in a text is through the construction of cohesion and coherence (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Butt et al., 2000; Martin & Rose, 2003) as the text unfolds, and this can be done through different strategies, for instance, the use of reference, conjunction, lexical cohesion, and through the relationship of Theme and Rheme (to be discussed later--Halliday & Hasan, 1976).

Using systemic functional linguistics (SFL), this article examines how the two levels of language (discourse and grammar) are related and work together to create unity as the text unfolds. In this study, I take both discourse and grammar perspectives and explain in particular how cohesion and coherence can be created through the hierarchical structure of hyperTheme and Theme. Based on the findings, this article also provides some guidelines of how these hierarchies of language can be taught in language classrooms.

This article is developed from a previous study (Piriyasilpa, 2007) in which online discussion was employed as part of the writing curriculum in a university in Thailand for students to practice writing out of the classroom. In that study, I investigate the generic structure of students' online discussion postings, and argue that online discussion posting is a macro-genre organised to communicate two meanings: interpersonal and experiential. Interpersonal meaning is foregrounded mainly at the beginning and the end of the postings, while experiential meaning is negotiated in the middle parts, where students discuss the tasks assigned by the teacher. Based on these social purposes, the parts that communicate interpersonal meaning contain speech-like features and the parts which discuss the tasks are writing-like (see Piriyasilpa, 2007). This research further develops and focuses on the parts of students' texts where the language is more writing-like (see Appendices A and B for full texts of students' postings). In this article, I begin by demonstrating how textual meaning is organised in these writing-like parts of students' texts by taking the lens of hyperTheme, hyperNew, Theme, and Rheme in SFL. Based on the findings, I draw some conclusions of how the notion of Theme and Rheme can be taught in the language classroom to support students to better write their essays.

Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is used as a framework for the analysis. Language in terms of SFL is described as functional and is adaptable to social context. The theory emphasises that language is used to communicate three meanings:

1. the experience of the world (ideational)
2. the relationship between the interlocutors (interpersonal)
3. the way that the two previous meanings are communicated in a coherent way (textual)

To build up the three meanings, language is explained as being organised in semantic units beyond words and sentences (e.g., Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Martin & Rose, 2003). That is, the process of making meaning begins from the grammatical form of language being chosen according to the social context of where language is used to construct a meaningful text. This means that in terms of SFL, language and social context interact interdependently in the process of making meaning . While context provides an environment for a text, within the realm of language, there is a relationship of text and grammar. In other words, a meaningful text is built up from the grammatical structure that is selected in accordance with the nature of social context (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Martin, 2001; Eggins, 2004). This study focuses on the realm of language only, looking more closely at two levels: text and grammar.

What is Text?

"Text is language that is functional" (Halliday & Hasan, 1985, p. 10). It includes the "instances of linguistic evidence in which people actually engage: whatever is said, or written in an operational context, as distinct from a citational context like that of words listed in a dictionary" (Halliday, 1978, pp. 108-109). To exemplify this, Figure 1 below is not a text.

Figure 1. Language Not Counted as Text (Eggins, 2004, p. 24)

The language presented in Figure 1 is not read as a text because "the sounds or letters do not in sequence combine to give us words of English language" Eggins (2004, p. 24). What is presented in the figure are only alphabetic or sound units at the lowest level of language, which are not meaningful. A text therefore has to be glossed as authentic products of social interaction (Eggins, 1994, p. 23). Butt et al. explain:

Texture comes from the way the meanings in the text fit coherently with each other--in much the same way as the threads of a piece of fabric or carpet are woven together to make a whole. Structure refers to the way that most pieces of language in use will contain certain obligatory structural elements appropriate to their purpose and context. (1985, p. 3)

The nature of texture and structure signifies two main components of a text: coherence and cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Eggins, 1994). Coherence includes the text's relationship to its extra-textual context (the social and cultural context of its occurrence--cf. Eggins, 1994, p. 24) and cohesion involves the way the elements within a text bind it together as a unified whole. In this way, cohesion includes the use of linguistic resources to combine the text as a whole and coherence is concerned with the meaningful way of how a text unfolds within particular social setting. In this section, how texture (coherence) and structure (cohesion) are organised in a text to create a text unity is presented.

A text's texture can be created through a coherent, whole organisation. To create such a text effectively, writers and speakers need to keep their readers and listeners well informed about (a) where they are, and (b) where they are going. In other words, in order to create a meaningful text, the writer must construct the text with clear organisation by creating "explicit signal[s] of abstraction and theorisation in some overt framework" (Ravelli, 2005, p. 104). In this sense, successful writing requires the writer's ability in creating relations of the whole discourse other than the ability in composing grammatically correct sentences in isolation.

Martin and Rose (2003) explain that a meaningful text is created from periodical waves of information flow: "Periodicity is concerned with information flow: with the way in which meanings are packaged to make it easier for us to take them in...giving readers some idea about what to expect, fulfilling those expectations, and then reviewing them" (p. 175). This means that the writer's ability in creating relations within the text is one of the crucial factors in organising cohesive ties within the discourse. To indicate the periodic flow of information in a text as explained by Martin and Rose (2003), an extract from one student's composition from the online discussion is discussed (Text 1).

Text 1: Extract from Surin's Writing

Text 1 presents extract from a student's writing (Surin is a pseudonym) in an online discussion. For this discussion, students watched a movie about prostitution and the teacher posted a question asking whether students agreed or disagreed with the character's career. The argument made here is that Text 1 contains numerous errors in grammatical form, for example misspelling, word form, tense error or punctuation. Despite these mistakes, however, the text is meaningful and also shows some strength, pointed out as follows.

The text is organised to meet the discourse goal

As previously mentioned, the topic for this discussion assigns students to share their opinions about the character's career of prostitution. It is clear from Text 1 that Surin organises his discourse to meet the set goal of a discourse by discussing his opinion of this career, and the details are relevant to the topic.

The text is organised in a periodical way

Text 1 shows that the arguments are relatively easy to follow due to a cohesive relation created in his text through different strategies at the level of discourse, for example, the use of conjunction ('and', 'but', 'although') or reference ('she', 'her') and importantly, this phase of his text is organised cohesively through hierarchy of waves of information, called 'periodicity' (Martin & Rose, 2003). In the following sections, I will examine in detail how periodicity is created in this student's text. The ways that other types of cohesive resources (e.g., conjunction or reference) are used to create a cohesive text will not be discussed.

To indicate the periodic flow of information in a text as explained by Martin and Rose (2003), Text 1 can be reformatted diagrammatically as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Periodicity in a Text

Figure 2 shows that Surin begins by indicating clearly his opinion about the character's career ("I didn't know why Nual become to be the prostitute. I know that work is not good but I agree with her"). The second sentence in this phase signals the concern of the writer in this phase and functions as a hyperTheme (Martin & Rose, 2003, p. 181). HyperTheme serves to predict what follows in a discourse. In Figure 2, the reader can predict from the hyperTheme that Surin will discuss the supporting reasons for his agreement in this part. HyperTheme is similar to a topic sentence, although with some differences. While a topic sentence is normally located either at the beginning or the end of paragraph, hyperTheme exists at any level of the discourse.

After predicting what follows a hyperTheme, the second phase in Surin's text (the body of the text) reveals relevant information supporting his opinion. In the final phase of the discourse, the discussed ideas are accumulated ("The other people should understand and forgive her. Everyone can not choose to born. If she can choose, I think she have to choose better than she was") to reflect the point made by the writer; this phase of a discourse is named "hyperNew."According to Martin and Rose (2003), a hyperNew is not a summary of the discussion; it applies a new point to the text, which we could only get to by "surfing through the waves." In other words, a hyperNew makes point of the text from, which the discussion in the following phase of a discourse can be further built up . From the example, we can see that the extract from Surin's posting is organised periodically as waves of hyperTheme and hyperNew. These waves are constructed in a "sandwich" structure, having a hyperTheme predicting what is to come, the body unfolding relevant information, and a hyperNew distilling what has been said (Martin & Rose, 2003.).

The hyperTheme in Figure 2 is an example of student writing in which hyperTheme is organised at the level of the paragraph. However, hyperThemes can also be organised at a level beyond the paragraph, resulting in hierachical waves of information flow. Figure 3 demonstrates the structure of an extract from Surapol's text about the same topic. This extract is organised from different levels of hyperThemes (see Appendix B for full text of Surapol's posting).

Figure 3. Periodical Waves in Extract from Surapol's Text

In Martin and Rose (2003), the highest level of hyperTheme in a discourse is called the 'macroTheme.' In this study, the different levels of hyperThemes are called 'hyperTheme, 'level A,' 'level B,' and so forth for explicitness and convenience. HyperTheme and hyperNew create a cohesive tie of a text at a broad structure, at a lower level, there is a manifestation of cohesive devices to build a meaningful text.

Grammar in terms of SFL is not rigid; it is functional, flexible, based on the notion of 'resource', semantic in focus, and oriented towards the text (Martin & Rothery, 1993, p. 144). This means that in the SFL perspective, a text is made up of grammar, and it is grammar that makes meaning in a text. For this reason, the selection of different kinds of grammatical structure influences the meaning communicated in a text, and as a text is a product of human activity within a social context, the selection of grammatical structure is related to the nature of the social context. In other words, if we know something about the text's context, we can make predictions about its grammar; and conversely, if we analyse a text's grammar, we can recover information about its context (Martin & Rothery, 1993, p. 144). One aspect of grammar which organises the clause in such a way that it fits into its environment is the system of 'Theme' (Martin & Rothery, 1993, p. 124). To examine how Theme constitutes a meaningful text, the lower structure of Surin's text (see Text 1) is analysed and discussed further.

In accordance with the clear organisation in the level of discourse, there are also other devices which enable text unity at the clause level. That is, after creating expectations in the hyperTheme, vocabulary or pronouns relevant to the hyperThemes are chosen to begin each clause and to clarify the writer's point. The first element that orients the clause and serves as the point of departure is called Theme and the remainder is Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 64). Theme and Rheme map out in the system of Given and New information. In other words, Theme contains given information from previous clause and Rheme contains new information available to be selected as Themes of the following clauses. Table 1 demonstrates the structure of hyperTheme and Themes in extract from Surin's text.

Table 1. HyperTheme, Theme, and Rheme in Extract from Surin's Text

Table 1 shows that at the clause level, Themes relevant to the predictions are used to discuss experiential meaning, and the clauses are related with a conjunction ('if', 'and', 'but', 'because'), which is also part of the Theme. The relationship of Themes from clause to clause is called 'thematic development.' In this phase of Surin's posting, Themes are developed in two significant ways: by placing the elements from the Rheme of the previous clause in the Theme of the following clause (zigzag pattern--clauses 2 to 4, 5 to 7 and 17 to 19) and by repeating elements from the Theme of the previous clause in the Theme of the subsequent clause (linear pattern--clauses 1 to 3, 3 to 5, 5 to 6, 6 to 14, 7 to 9, 9 to 13, 13 to 15, 14 to 20, and 19 to 21--see Butt et al., 2000). The development of Themes at the clause level construes the meaning of the whole text and enhances the coherent flow of meaning. The pattern of thematic development in Surin's posting is demonstrated diagrammatically in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Thematic Development in Extract from Surin's Posting

Figure 4 shows that when the main concern is the career of prostitution, the vocabulary and third person pronouns relevant to the concern (for example, 'that work', 'Nual', 'she, 'other people') are mainly selected as Themes to orient the clauses, and these Themes are developed in zigzag or linear patterns. This shows that though mistakes are made at word level, the discourse in this part of Surin's text is organised in a periodic way and Themes at the clause level match the purpose of the discourse. This suggests that discourse goal and grammatical structure at clause level work together to build up a unity whole at discourse level, and that the two levels of language are related. This relationship is important for the language teacher to take into account and implies that it is important to train students to consider both level of language when writing.

The prior discussion implies that periodicity is important for student writing, and that it is important to practice creating periodicity in their unfolding text in order to compose effectively. In this section, I propose some guidelines for teaching periodicity in the language classroom. To raise students' awareness of periodicity, the teacher needs to plan well and create logical learning activities. In so doing, the teacher may organise the learning activity into three main stages, that is, whole class teaching, group writing, and individual writing.

The first stage includes the teacher providing clear conceptual knowledge of what periodicity is and how it can be organised in discourse. To do this, a model text can be chosen and then the teacher can discuss with the whole class the text's structure (that is, hyperTheme, hyperNew, Theme, and Rheme), and the way these textual resources are organised in a text. The teacher may encourage students to analyse the text by asking the following questions:

Figure 5. Guideline Questions for Analysing Text Structure

The guideline questions in Figure 5 are proposed for a broad structure, for the cases in which hyperThemes can be set up at different levels in longer text. To construct a text containing only one hyperTheme, students can skip the questions 4, 5 and 6 of hyperThemes at this lower level.

After students have a clear understanding of how periodicity is organised in a text, they can practice writing their own texts. To raise students' confidence, the teacher may begin with group writing. In this way, they have a chance to brainstorm and discuss how to organise their group writing prior to conducting their own independent writing (Leeds, 2003, p. 99). Students' group writing can follow the guidelines in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Guidelines for Creating Periodicity in a Text

When students understand clearly, they can finally begin to do their own writing. To construct their own texts, students may follow the guidelines given in a group-writing stage, and organise their writing as shown below.

In this section, I will demonstrate how a text can be organised, following the guidelines given in Figure 6. The topic for this sample text can be drawn consistently from the topic of students' discussion, that is, 'should prostitution be made illegal?'

The writer has to set up the goal of the discourse in the beginning by deciding what the main goal of the discourse will be. In so doing, the writer may begin by considering the answer to the topic. In the context under discussion, the topic is 'should prostitution be made illegal?' If the answer is 'yes', for instance, then the overall goal for the discourse is to argue that 'prostitution should be made illegal', and the writer can set up the main hyperTheme of the discourse from this discourse goal (or macroTheme according to Martin & Rose, 2003).

The next step is to outline the arguments to support the discourse concern. To support the main hyperTheme, the possible supporting arguments of why prostitution should be made illegal may include the reasons: health problems, family problems, and/or social problems. The hyperTheme for each argument can then be set up.

At this stage, the writer can list some details or examples to clarify each argument, and the point can be made after individual arguments where necessary. The writer may also consider locating relevant vocabulary or pronouns in Themes in order to construct cohesive ties at the clause level.

4. Make the point of the argument where necessary by setting a hyperNew of each argument. (HyperNew: Level B-optional)

5. Make the point of the whole text by setting up a hyperNew: Level A.

A hyperNew of the whole text can be made at the end to accumulate the whole discussion. An example of the outline of a text is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Outline of a Text

After constructing the discussion outline, students can start writing, and the full text can be organised as shown in Text 2.

Text 2. Full Text Organised According to the Guidelines

Text 2 shows a sample text the writer might construct after making decisiosn about hyperTheme, hyperNew, and Themes. In this text, hyperThemes are organised as hierarchical waves of information which create periodicity in a discourse. To ensure that the text unfolds cohesively, the periodical waves of hyperThemes and hyperNews in Figure 7 are demonstrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8. HyperThemes and HyperNew in Sample Text

At the clause structure, Text 2 unfolds relevant details to support each argument and to build up the whole text. To do this, vocabulary relevant to the argument is used in Themes. Evidence of this can be seen in the pattern of thematic development in the final argument as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The Pattern of Theme and Rheme in Argument Three of the Sample Text

Figure 9 presents the pattern of thematic development in Argument Three.

Figure 9. Thematic Development in Argument Three of the Sample Text

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate cohesion and coherence of the model text at different levels through the structure of hyperTheme, hyperNew, and thematic development.

Conclusion

The identification of periodical waves of information flow after writing can be useful for students in that it can help them to self-check periodicity in their own texts prior to submitting the work to the teacher. It is also important to mention here that this article demonstrates how periodicity is made in students' texts and how it can be taught in a writing class. However, to create cohesive ties in a text, there are other devices which work together with periodicity, and which have not been discussed in this study, for example, conjunction, reference, and lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Further study may investigate how these cohesive devices work together with the system of Theme and Rheme and how their relationship can be applied in the teaching of writing in the language classroom.

About the Author

Yupaporn Piriyasilpa teaches English at Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Khon Kaen Campus, Thailand. She completed her PhD in Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Her research interest is genre and discourse in online communication.

References

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feeze, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer's guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Chinnawongs, S. (2001). In search of an optimal writing feedback strategy. PASAA, 31: 27-39.

Dana, F. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second-language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional grammar (1st ed.). London and New York: Continuum.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional grammar (2nd ed.). London and New York: Continuum.

Farrell, S. C. T. & Lim, P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers' beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9(2). Available online at tesl-ej.org/ej34/a9.html.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, M. I. M. C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Leeds, B. (2003). How to teach EFL/ESL writing: A basic guide for Thai teacher. PASAA, 34: 80-102.

Martin, J. R. (2001). Language, register and genre. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a global context: A reader (pp. 149-166). London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, M. I. M. C., & Painter, C. (1997). Working with functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. & Rothery, J. (1993). Grammar: Making meaning in writing. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 137-153). London: The Farmer Press.

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2): 2002. Available online at http://tesl-ej.org/ej22/a1.html.

Piriyasilpa, Y. (2007). Identifying generic features of EFL students' online discussion postings. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Genre Studies, Tubarão, Brazil. Available online at http://www3.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/linguagem/cd/English/37i.pdf.

Ravelli, J. L. (2005). Signaling the organisation of written texts: hyperTheme in management and history essays. In J. L. Ravelli & A. R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised framework (pp. 104-130). London: Continuum.

Syananondh, K. & Padgate, W. (2005). Teacher intervention during the writing process: An alternative to providing teacher feedback on EFL academic writing in large classes. PASAA, 36: 67-87.

Appendix A: Surin's Text

Comment/view comments on this article. There are currently comments.