Discourse is use of language viewed as a form of social action.
Discourse analysis, in turn, is analysis of how the language used in texts functions as social action. This type of analysis demands attention from various angles: semantic, grammatical, lexical, contextual, among others (McCarthy, 1991).
A working assumption in critical discourse analysis is that any piece of language use may be assessed critically, conceiving textual analysis as commentaries not only on the content of texts, but rather on the content of texture (form) of texts. Form and content cannot be dissociated, for different representations of content entail different realizations of form and vice-versa. Shortly, form is an intrinsic part of content.
In this regard, the systemic -functional theory of language (Halliday, 1994) is notably fruitful for textual analysis. Halliday’s theory of language claims that language functions as the expression of meanings according to the context in which it is embedded, and that it consists of a set of systems of choice, each system offering the speaker/writer different forms for expressing the intended meaning.
Systemic linguistics is thus functionally, contextually, semantically, and semiotically oriented. Eggins (1994:02) offers an explanation for this theoretical claim:
...that language use is functional; that its function is to make meanings; that these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they are exchanged; and that the process of using language is a semiotic process, a process of making meanings by choosing.
The functional dimension of language has to do with the meanings one makes through language. Functionalists are interested in how people use language to accomplish everyday social life. In asking
functional questions about language, one has to bring into focus not only language, but language use in a given situational context, or in the immediate environment of a communicative event.
Regarding language orientation to semantics, people interact in order to make and exchange meanings. Language expresses three kinds of meanings simultaneously, which are known as the metafunctional components of the semantic system: ideational (which is here regarded as experiential only, since the logical component is not considered for the purposes of the present study), interpersonal and textual.
Experiential meaning is concerned with content or ideas. It refers to how we use language to represent our experience and the way we see the world. Experiential meanings are realized by means of the transitivity system, which in turn, is realized through processes (verbs), participants (nouns) and circumstances (prepositional phrases of time, manner, place, etc.). Transitivity structures make up the functional configuration of the clause as representation.
The transitivity system thus concerns the clause in its experiential function conveying our experience of the world or, in other words, transmitting a picture of reality. Such experience consists of ‘goings-on’
– doing, happening, sensing, being, saying, meaning – which are all arranged in the grammar of a clause and which can be divided into three functional components: i) process (realized by a verbal group), ii) participants (realized by a nominal group), and iii) circumstances (realized by an adverbial group and/or a prepositional phrase). Processes center on the part of the clause which is accomplished by the verbal group, or on what ‘goings-on’ are portrayed in the clause. The participants are the entities evoked in the process. Circumstances are more marginal than participants, being usually concerned with setting, temporal and physical matters.
As follows, the process types together with the main participant roles associated with them are explored. Since the present analysis focuses in four process types (cf. Martin et al, 1997), only these ones are here addressed, namely material, mental, relational and verbal.
Material processes are processes of doing and happening. They represent the notion that some entity ‘does’ something or ‘makes’
something happen. This entity, which is understood to be the main participant, is labeled as Actor. Mental processes are clauses of sensing, best described as states of mind or psychological events. The main
participant, called Senser, is a conscious being that feels, thinks and/or perceives. Relational process clauses are said to be those of being. This type of processes relates the main participant to an identity (Identified) or to an attribute (Carrier). Verbal processes, finally, are processes of saying, in which the main participant is called Sayer.
Interpersonal meaning expresses the roles played by interactants as well as the writer’s/speaker’s attitude and judgement of the subject matter being exchanged. In interpreting the clause in its function as exchange, interpersonal meanings are encoded by the Mood System, which in turn, sets the speaker’s/writer’s and the listener’s/reader’s roles in the interaction, and his/her personal commitment to what is being said or written.
Interpersonal meanings cover two main areas: the type of commodity being exchanged and the way interactants take a position in their exchanges. The exchanges can be recognized across four kinds of speech act: i) statement (giving information), ii) question (demanding information), iii) offer (giving goods and services), and iv) command (demanding goods and services). When exchanging information, the clause takes on the form of a proposition, while in exchanges of goods and services it is called a proposal. The distinction in the grammatical system of mood lies between imperative and indicative kinds, with the indicative type having the further differentiation between declarative and interrogative types.
The mood element consists of two parts: subject and finite. The former consists of a nominal group which can be recognized in the clause by repeating it in pronoun form in a tag. Finiteness is expressed by means of a verbal operator. An essential feature of finiteness is polarity: clauses can be positive or negative. However, between these two poles are intermediate positions referred to as modality, within which one can express probability or frequency of propositions through modalization, or obligation or inclination of proposals through modulation.
Textual meaning, finally, regards the way the text is organized in relation to its context. The clause as message projects textual meanings, which in turn, are projected by the Theme System, which concerns the point of departure of the message (Theme) and its continuity (Rheme) in the organization of the clause.
Even though the three meanings represented in language (experiential, interpersonal and textual) “contribute simultaneously to the meaning of the message” (Thompson, 1998: 28), in this study, only the experiential and the interpersonal metafunctions are directly addressed. Yet, they interweave in terms of the meanings emerging from the texts.
This semantic complexity, which allows language to encompass experiential, interpersonal and textual meanings simultaneously into linguistic units, is only made possible because of the semiotic orientation of language.
Semiotic systems assume choice as an intrinsic element of the potential of language. Therefore, making a choice from a linguistic system takes us into an examination of actual linguistic choices and potential linguistic choices. While the former relate to what people did or said in a given communicative event, the latter refer to what they could have done or said instead.
To sum up, the meanings one wishes to make through language as well as the selection of certain words and structures (lexicogrammar), as opposed to others, that encode these meanings, are of primary relevance to semiotic systemicists.
Research has shown that the systemic functional approach to language, whose aim is to help analysts to understand the meanings built up through language, has served as an effective descriptive and interpretive apparatus for analyzing language as a strategic and meaning-making form of action. Consequently, it is pertinent to critical discourse analysis.
CDA and SFG were selected to base this study not only because they allow interpretations from several perspectives, but also due to the importance they give to research made out of samples that evolve around particular forms of social practice, of which the foreign language classroom constitutes an example.