Modes of Meaning

in

High School Physics1

Richard F. Young and Hanh Thi Nguyen

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Paper presented at a colloquium on

“Microanalyses of Classroom Discourse: Employing Various Analytical Frameworks”

at the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics,

August 1–6, 1999, Tokyo, Japan

1
Data for this paper come from the project, “The Socialization of Diverse Learners into Subject Matter

Discourse,” Jane Zuengler and Cecilia Ford, Principal Investigators. The project is part of the Center on English

Learning and Achievement (CELA), which is supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of

Educational Research and Improvement (OERI Award #R305A60005). However, the views expressed herein are

those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education, of CELA, or of

the project’s principal investigators.

Introduction: Teachers, Textbooks, and Science

In schools around the world students are exposed to instructional input from a variety of sources.

In many situations, teachers provide a large part of the input by speaking and interacting with

their students but, in addition, instructional input is available from other sources that include

fellow students, textbooks, teacher-produced materials, and instructional media ranging from the

chalk board to the computer. Each of these various inputs to students has characteristic

situational and linguistic properties, such that we may regard each as a separate situationally

defined variety – or register – of the language of instruction. One example of this difference in

registers is the difference between the characteristics of the spoken English used in classroom

interaction between teacher and students and the written English of the students’ textbooks. In

this paper, we will be concerned to describe these differences and to draw implications from

them for the complementary and overlapping ways in which the two registers construct the

subject matter of instruction.

Thanks to a research tradition going back at least 30 years, we now know much about the

differences between speech and writing as modes of communication and the differences between

spoken and written English in particular (Biber, 1988; Chafe & Tannen, 1987; Halliday, 1989;

Kroch & Hindle, 1982; Tannen, 1982; and see Atkinson & Biber, 1994, for a review). The

functional and formal distinctions that have been identified between speech and writing are, of

course, applicable to a very wide range of specific instances of spoken and written texts. Thus

while this high level distinction will be useful in understanding major differences between
 Variation across Speech and Writing 3

teacher talk and textbooks, there are also more specific differences due to the educational context

of these instances of speech and writing. Again, we have considerable knowledge about the

characteristics of spoken language used in classrooms (Barnes, Britton, & Rosen, 1971; Lemke,

1990; Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992) and about the written registers of school

textbooks (Biber, 1991; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin, 1985; Taylor, 1983).

We are not aware, however, of any research that has been done to compare the

presentation of related instructional material by the teacher and in the textbook. To understand

the degrees to which textbook and teacher presentations of related subject matter overlap and

complement each other is an interesting applied linguistic undertaking, as is any investigation of

register variation. Such a study is also relevant to several other fields besides applied linguistics.

First, in the social construction of disciplinary knowledge, it is important to understand how

novices are socialized into both the written and spoken practices of the field. Second, in

educational practice, curricula may be better designed and teachers’ instructional practices may

be better informed if teachers and textbook authors understand the differences between how

knowledge of a field is constructed through live face-to-face interaction and through a textbook.

And then, in assessment, it is important to understand the degree to which the tests and quizzes,

which provide institutional evidence of student learning, reflect the ways that instruction is

provided by the teacher and the textbook. These three questions motivate the study that we

report on here.
 Variation across Speech and Writing 4

The focus for the present study is a 12th-grade physics class that was videotaped regularly

during the spring 1997 semester at an inner-city high school in the American Midwest. A total

of 24 class periods were taped and field notes were made of the print materials that were used by

the students in and out of class. The data were collected as part of an ongoing longitudinal

project on academic language socialization (Ford, Zuengler, & Young, 1995). We report in this

paper on a study of the presentation of one topic from a class period about half way through the

semester and the presentation of the same topic in the textbook. The topic of the lesson and the

textbook is reflection in a plane mirror. The two texts on which we focus are presented below.

Figure 1 is the transcript of about one minute’s classroom interaction beginning with a student’s

question to the teacher and ending when the teacher overtly closes the topic by saying “But I

don’t wanna spend any more time on this” and then moves on to a different activity.2

< FIGURE 1>

The textbook assigned to the class is Conceptual Physics (Hewitt, 1992) and we show in

Figure 2 a passage two paragraphs (20 lines) long that begins immediately under the section

2
The oral interaction in the class is transcribed according to the conventions developed by Gail Jefferson

and published in Atkinson and Heritage (1984). Speakers are identified by initial only, and the teacher is “T.” If a

speaker cannot be identified, the label “?” is used. The instructional phases of the lesson are marked using the

activity types described by Lemke (1990).

 Variation across Speech and Writing 5

heading “29.3 Mirrors” and ends just before the topic shifts in the third paragraph to reflection in

a curved mirror.

< FIGURE 2>

These two texts are tiny because this is an initial study carried out in order to generate

hypotheses about the differences among the text and the teacher talk. The conclusions that we

present are necessarily tentative because they are based on a small amount of data, which we

nonetheless believe to be representative of two much larger corpora of interactions and texts.

Before beginning our analysis, we also wish to distinguish our approach from that of others

working on similar problems of instructional discourse. First, we stress that in comparing these

two texts, we treat them as exemplars of two registers that interest us. We are not considering

them primarily as inputs to the students in this particular class, for while we can identify the

students that participated in the lesson, we cannot be sure which of them – if any – read the

passage in the textbook. Second, our analysis of the teacher talk makes only occasional

reference to the interactional nature of the discourse, and we carry out our analysis of the

textbook with barely a mention of the interaction in real time between reader and text. In other

words, we have severely limited our focus on interaction in this paper. We do this, not because

we believe that interaction is not important to the understanding of instruction – quite the reverse

is true, but rather because it is necessary to understand the two texts qua text before going on to

understand how they function in interaction.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 6

Because we are looking through these texts at a high school science lesson, it will be

important to understand the ways in which science – in particular physics – is done through

language. Here, again, there is an extensive literature on many aspects of language in scientific

activity (Bazerman, 1988; Elliot, 1975; Gunnarsson, 1993, 1997; Halliday, 1988; Halliday &

Martin, 1993; Harris, 1990; Jacoby, 1998; Jacoby & Gonzalez, 1991; Lemke, 1990; Myers,

1985, 1994; Ochs & Jacoby, 1997; Ochs, Jacoby, & Gonzalez, 1994; and see also the

bibliography of empirical studies of scientific register in Atkinson & Biber, 1994). The language

of school science textbooks has been a topic of particular interest in the United Kingdom and in

Australia, resulting in the U.K. schools-based Reading for Learning in the Sciences project and

the work carried out in systemic functional linguistic framework in Australia (Halliday & Martin,

1993; Martin, 1985). And it is this latter framework that we have adopted in our present

analysis.

Methods for Studying Variation across Registers

Scholars studying variation across registers have adopted several different methods of analysis.

One approach (e.g., Biber, 1988) has been to analyze the formal properties of texts from different

registers and to compare the formal features of one register with another. Another approach

(e.g., Swales, 1990) has been to investigate the context of situation and the purposes associated

with certain texts and to compare these situational and functional parameters with those of other

texts. In our own analysis, we have chosen to follow, first, Biber (1994) by outlining and

comparing the situational and communicative parameters of the registers of teacher talk and
 Variation across Speech and Writing 7

textbook. In comparing the two texts themselves, however, we have chosen not to limit our

analysis to the identification and comparison of lexical and grammatical features across texts, as

Biber and others have done in their multidimensional quantitative analyses of registers. Instead,

we attempt to understand how the two texts function as instances of communication and we have

carried out a systemic-functional analysis of the two texts following Halliday & Martin (1993).

Systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centered on the notion of the

purposes to which language is put in communication. In SFL, the functions of language are

central, that is to say, systemic functional linguists focus on what speakers do through the

medium of language and how they do it, in contrast to more structural approaches (including

Biber’s multidimensional analysis), which focus on the forms of language and their

combinations. SFL thus starts with the interpersonal context in which language is used and

examines how language both influences and is constrained by this context.

< TABLE 1>

Situational Parameters

Biber (1994) provides an explicit and detailed framework for describing the situational

parameters of registers. This is a useful basis for comparison of the two texts and is divided into

seven major headings, (1) the communicative characteristics of participants, (2) the relations

between addressor and addressee, (3) the setting, (4) the channel, (5) the relation of participants

to the text, (6) the purposes, intents, and goals of the communication, and (7) the topic or subject
 Variation across Speech and Writing 8

of communication. Table 1 compares the situational parameters of the classroom interaction

with those of the textbook. Of the several differences that are apparent from this table we would

like to point out two. First, in Section 2 of the table, the roles of addressor and addressee differ

most markedly in the degree of shared personal knowledge and in the degree of interactiveness.

The teacher and the students in this class have been together for at least one semester before the

recording was made and know each other well, whereas the students have no personal

knowledge about the author of the textbook and he has no personal knowledge of them.

Moreover, the focal class involves extensive interaction among the teacher and the students,

whereas the interaction of the readers and the text is much more limited.

Another marked difference is in Section 5, which deals with the addressor’s attitudinal

stance toward the text. On the one hand, the teacher appears emotionally invested in his

interaction with the class. He uses wide pitch range and first and second person pronouns; he

also takes a humorous stance and makes jokes that are appreciated by the students such as his

imitation of a ray gun in turns 210 and 212. In contrast, the textbook author takes a more

removed stance toward his topic. His first paragraph contains only third-person references and

while he addresses his reader directly in the second paragraph beginning “Your eye cannot

ordinarily tell the difference,” there are no first-person references. There is a degree of humor in

the second illustration accompanying the text, but none in the text itself. We will explore the

consequences of these situational differences further as we analyze the semantic properties of the

texts themselves.
 Variation across Speech and Writing 9

Systemic-Functional Analysis of the Two Texts

There are clear advantages to a systemic-functional analysis rather than a purely formal analysis

of these texts since we are concerned to elucidate how each works as an instance of

communication. In our analysis, we have followed quite closely the methods used by Halliday

and Martin in Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (Halliday & Martin, 1993). We

have done so because the systemic functional analysis that Halliday and Martin provide is more

empirically based than other SFL analyses we have seen and also because their analysis was

developed to deal with science texts similar to the written text that we are investigating here.

Our analysis focuses on three ways in which meaning is communicated through the two texts: (1)

the means by which physical and mental reality is construed in the texts, (2) the degree of

abstractness or concreteness of the texts, and (3) the rhetorical structure of scientific reasoning

that the texts demonstrate. In SFL terminology, these three features are referred to as

metafunction, stratification, and textuality.

Metafunction – Modes of Meaning

Halliday & Martin (1993) recognize three complementary ways in which texts have meaning:

texts are designed to represent the material processes of the physical and biological world, they

are also attempts to influence the social world through verbal and mental processes, and

moreover texts are organized through the relational processes of self-reference. Examples of

these three processes from the texts follow.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 10

Material processes construct “a world of action in which physical and biological entities

interact, by themselves, or on other things” (Halliday & Martin, 1993, p. 27) and are generally

represented by verbs of action. For example,

Rays of light are reflected from its surface in all

directions. (Textbook, page 433)

I’m looking at my eyeballs (Teacher talk, turn 204)

Verbal and mental processes construct “a world of semiotic activity in which typically

conscious entities negotiate meaning” (Halliday & Martin, 1993, p. 27) and are often realized by

verbs denoting internal psychological or perceptual states. For example,

Consider a candle flame placed in front of a plane (flat)

mirror. (Textbook, page 433)

Nuh- Well, think about it. (Teacher talk, turn 202)

Relational processes construct “a world of relationships among entities – a world in

which things can be without doing” (Halliday & Martin, 1993, p. 28) and are often represented

by copula “be” and copula-like constructions. For example,

Your image is the same size your identical twin would

appear. (Textbook, p. 434)

 Variation across Speech and Writing 11

I look smaller, cuz I’m farther away. (Teacher talk, turn

208)

< TABLE 2 >

Tables 2–4 allows us to compare the ways in which these two texts realize these three

modes of meaning, and we find similarities and differences between them. Comparing first

material processes in Table 2, we find that material processes are used by both the textbook

author and the teacher with high frequency, probably because of the expository nature of the two

texts. A marked difference, however, is that while the textbook uses passive voice for the two

action verbs “placed,” and “are reflected,” the teacher talk has no passive voice at all. The

teacher’s active action verbs are mostly first person and even when the verb is third person, the

referent is still the teacher, as in “does my height get different?” A consequence of this

difference is that the teacher talk places the teacher at the center of action – a participant in the

material process of reflection in a plane mirror – and indexes a direct and live relationship

between the speaker and his audience. A good example of the participation of the teacher in the

scientific process he describes is the way he casts himself in turns 210–212 as a cartoon

character, a role that may have emotional appeal to his teenage students.

T: But really my- the height- my eye- now look at the

rays from my eyes, ehhhhhhh- ((machine pitch)) They’re

still going at the same- (.) angle, aren’t they.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 12

?: Yeah.=

T: Uhhhehh:::: ((machine pitch)) So I must be the same

height.

In contrast, third-person verbs in the textbook cast the writer and the reader as observers,

and keep the reader at a distance from the process. In so doing, the textbook presents scientific

processes as observed objective entities independent of the reader and the writer, while the

teacher brings science into the established lived relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

Thus while the textbook casts the reader as an observer, the teacher casts himself – and by

implication his students – as participants.

< TABLE 3 >

Turning now to verbal and mental processes, as Table 3 shows, the textbook appears to

have a slightly higher density of verbs representing mental processes than appear in the teacher

talk. The textbook author tries by means of imperative mood to direct the reader’s mental

processes. For example, the textbook has “Consider a candle flame placed in front of a plane

(flat) mirror,” “Note that the rays diverge,” “Notice that the image is far behind the mirror,”

“Notice also that,” and “Figure 29-4 shows only two rays.” On the other hand, the teacher

invokes mental processes at the beginning of his exposition, which serves to focus his students’

attention and engage their cognition: “Well, think about it” (turn 202), and “Let’s say” (turn
 Variation across Speech and Writing 13

202). And then once more in turn 210 to direct students’ attention to his nonverbal imitation of

light rays: “now look at the rays from my eyes.”

The slight discrepancy between the textbook and the teacher talk may perhaps be

explained by the different modes of communication: The text is the only medium available to the

textbook writer to direct the reader to the points he wants them to focus on. The teacher, on the

other hand, can focus his students’ attention by his body movement, facial expression, gaze

direction, finger pointing, and the prosody of his speech as well as linguistically by means of

verbs denoting psychological or perceptual states.

< TABLE 4 >

Finally, relational processes in both the textbook and the teacher talk are realized most

often by a copula “be.” As Table 4 shows, however, the textbook author uses a far wider range

of ways of expressing relational meaning in the textbook than does the teacher. The teacher talk

contains only the copula “be” and one other verb, “look” in “look smaller.” The textbook, on the

other hand, not only has copula “be” and verbs of near-being, it also has a wide range of less

obviously relational verbs such as “every one obeys the law of reflection,” “the image … is

called a virtual image,” “[light] … behaves virtually as if it did.” This greater range of

vocabulary for expressing relational processes in the textbook has the advantage of precision but,

at the same time, it may make it harder for the readers to comprehend that a relation between

entities is being described.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 14

Stratification – Levels of Meaning

Halliday & Martin (1993, p. 29) discuss several ways in which meaning is condensed in

scientific discourse. One way is by the use of technical terms, in which commonsense meanings

are compacted. Another way of condensing meaning frequently used in science discourse is by

means of grammatical metaphors such as nominalization. Nominalizations encode multiple

meanings in each noun phrase and, in order to derive or “unpack” the commonsense meaning of

a nominalized phrase, the reader needs to use the co-text and the more general context of the

text. For example, a compact noun phrase such as “the law of reflection” is a grammatical

metaphor for the non-nominalized phrase “the law of how things reflect light.” The technical

term “reflect” also needs to be unpacked, in order to yield the commonsense meaning, “the law

of how light bounces back when it hits things.”

Since these kinds of condensed meaning are characteristic of science texts, it is not

surprising that both technical terms and nominalizations are frequent in both the textbook and

teacher talk. The difference between the two texts lies in the degree to which the condensed

meanings are unpacked within the text itself. The textbook leaves the reader to do most of the

work of unpacking, while the teacher does all the work of unpacking himself in his subsequent

exposition, mainly by his gestures and body movement but also by answering his own rhetorical

question. This difference is illustrated in Table 5.

< TABLE 5 >

 Variation across Speech and Writing 15

This explicit visual unpacking that the teacher provides seems to indicate a marked

difference between the teacher talk and the textbook. Moreover the nominalizations in the

textbook require two stages of unpacking. First, the nominalization needs to be unpacked into a

verb indicating a process, and then the technical term needs to be unpacked into non-technical

language. Thus the condensed meanings in the textbook are removed from the base meaning by

at least two levels, while those in the teacher talk are removed by only one. In addition, the

teacher is able to make extensive use of nonverbal resources to unpack technical terms, while the

only nonverbal resource that is available in the textbook is a diagram. These differences

highlight the need for more complex cognitive processing by the reader of the textbook than by

the students in the class.

The technical nature of scientific language is underlined in the textbook by the

introduction of a new technical term “virtual image.” This term is marked as new and technical

by its appearance in bold face and by the explicit packing of nontechnical terms in the definition

that precedes it: “The image of the candle the person sees in the mirror is called a virtual

image….” As we shall see in our analysis of assessment, this process of packing and unpacking

is a central part of the way in which students’ knowledge is assessed.

Textuality – The Rhetorical Structure of Reasoning

A third way of characterizing science texts according to Halliday and Martin (1993) is by setting

out the rhetorical structure of reasoning in scientific explanations. This can be done at two
 Variation across Speech and Writing 16

levels: first, at a macro level, which shows the topical organization of the text as a whole, and

then at a micro level, which sets out the conjunctive relations between adjacent clauses in the

text.

Macro-Level Structure: Thematic Levels

Halliday & Martin (1993, p. 244) view texts as having different levels of thematic organization.

Above the level of clausal theme, there is a hyper-theme, which is a clause that can predict “a

pattern of clause themes constituting a text’s method of development.” Hyper-theme is thus a

kind of overarching theme, which serves the metacognitive function of aiding the comprehension

of the text as a whole. In this sense, it is similar to the topic sentence of a paragraph. Texts may

also have a hyper-new, which is an accumulated expression of the pattern of new selections that

make up the point of the text. Hyper-new is thus like a summary of the text’s point and also

helps the comprehension of text (Halliday & Martin, 1993, p. 247). On a yet broader level, there

are macro-themes and macro-news, which relate hyper-themes together and hyper-news together,

respectively. A macro-theme is “a clause or combination of clauses predicting one or more

hyper-themes,” while a macro-new is “a clause or combination of clauses collecting together one

 Variation across Speech and Writing 17

or more hyper-news” (ibid., p. 249). Table 6 compares the thematic organization of the textbook

and the teacher talk.3

< TABLE 6 >

In the textbook excerpt, the author has an advantage that the section title serves as the

macro-theme and signals the topic of the section. He also has two hyper-themes in the first

sentence of each paragraph to signal their topics. The teacher talk in contrast does not seem to

have an explicit macro-theme, except for the expectation, or schema, that the teacher and

students share of what will be done in this going-over-the-homework section of the lesson. Thus

an implicit macro-theme may be inferred from the sequential organization of the lesson. The

teacher talk hyper-theme, on the other hand, is provided interactionally by the student’s question

in turn 200, and the teacher’s orientation to answer that question over the next several turns.

Thus the teacher constructs the student’s question as the hyper-theme of his subsequent talk.

The thematic organization toward the end of each of the two texts differs markedly. The

author provides no explicit hyper-new in the textbook immediately following the presentation of

new information. No hyper-new is provided until the summary at the end of the chapter – 15

pages further on. This hyper-new is far removed from the text, and although a reader may turn to

3
In our analysis we will only look at topical theme since our concern is how the content of the argument is

laid out. Topical theme in English (following Fries, 1983, p. 116) “is realized as the initial constituent of the clause

or sentence.”
 Variation across Speech and Writing 18

this summary, it is quite likely that a long time elapses before a reader reaches the chapter

review. In contrast, the teacher in turn 214 repeats his answer to the student’s question in turn

200 and thus immediately and succinctly summarizes his exposition.

To summarize the thematic organization of these two texts, the textbook has an explicit

macro-theme and hyper-theme, and an explicit but distant hyper-new at the end of the chapter.

The teacher talk has an implicit macro-theme that may be deduced from the sequential

organization of the lesson, an interactionally produced hyper-theme and an explicit and

immediate hyper-new at the end of the text.

Micro-Level Structure: Conjunctive Relations between Clauses

In addition to the macro-level thematic organization of a text, clauses in a text are linked together

by meaning relations that may be explicitly marked by conjunctions or, alternatively, may be

implicit, i.e., unmarked. These meaning relations, Martin (1983, p.1) has referred to as

conjunction, which he defines as “the semantic system by which speakers relate clauses in terms

of temporal sequence, consequence, comparison, and addition.” Although these conjunctive

relations may or may not be made explicit in a text, most clauses are connected to others through

one or more of these relations. Explicit conjunctions require only that the addressee notice and

understand the conjunction in the text in order to comprehend the connection between the ideas

expressed in clauses; implicit conjunctive relations, meanwhile, require the addressees to bring

extra-textual knowledge to bear in order to interpret the connection.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 19

Conjunction, as defined by Martin (1983) and other SFL linguists, is only one way in

which speakers create and structure text. Conjunction is a system by means of which speakers

connect the sense or meaning of clauses, using interclausal relations sometimes referred to as

“logical.” Other ways of creating textuality do so by means of relations of reference, that is,

relations between clausal constituents that have the property of referring to other constituents or

to elements outside the text itself. We have already presented one of these systems in our earlier

discussion of textual theme. There are also other systems, including referential relations between

clauses in a text realized by anaphor, lexical linkage, and structural parallelism, as well as

relations between a text and its nonlinguistic context realized by indexical expressions. We

focus in this paper on conjunction because it is the system by which speakers/writers reason

through language and particular patterns of reasoning have been shown to characterize particular

academic disciplines. In studying the ways in which novices are socialized into the discourse

practices of a particular field, it is therefore important to understand the how reasoning is done

through conjunctive relations in text.

The teacher talk is divided into clausal units below and its conjunctive structure is

outlined in Figure 3.4

4
The reticula presented in Figures 3 and 4 follow Martin (1983) and Halliday and Martin (1993).

Conjunctive relations are considered either internal or external. Internal conjunctive relations have an interpersonal

function and are those speech acts often realized in speech by discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1987) and are listed in
 Variation across Speech and Writing 20

(a) Nuh- Well, think about it. (b) If I’m standing here, (c) and looking at my face,

(d) Okay here- here Let’s say this is maybe easier to see (e) I’m looking at my

eyeballs (f) and I’m gonna see the top of my head, (g) so I have to look up at an

angle about that much. Right? (h) Cuz I’m this height (i) As I move away, (j) does

my height get different? No. (k) I look smaller, (l) because I’m farther away,

right? (m) But really my- the height- my eye- (n) now look at the rays from my

eye, (o) They’re still going at the same angle, aren’t they. (p) So I must be the

same height. (q) I look smaller (r) cuz I’m farther away.

< FIGURE 3 >

The textbook passage has been analyzed into clauses in a similar way below and its

conjunctive structure is presented in Figure 4.

(a) Consider a candle flame placed in front of a plane (flat) mirror. (b) Rays of

light are reflected from its surface in all directions. (c) The number of rays is

infinite, (d) and everyone obeys the law of reflection. (e) Figure 29-4 shows only

two rays that originate at the tip of the candle flame (f) and reflect from the mirror

the first column of the figures. External conjunctive relations, on the other hand, are meaning relations between

elements of the text itself and are listed in the third column. All conjunctive relations are classified, at a primary

level of delicacy, as temporal, consequential, comparative, or additive.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 21

to someone’s eye. (g) Note that the rays diverge (spread apart) from the tip of the

flame (h) and continue diverging from the mirror upon reflection. (i) These

divergent rays appear to originate from a point located behind the mirror. (j) The

image of the candle the person sees in the mirror is called a virtual image, (k)

because light does not actually pass through the image position (l) but behaves

virtually as if it did. (m) Your eye cannot ordinary tell the difference between an

object and its reflected image. (n) This is because the light that enters your eye is

entering in exactly the same manner, physically, as it would (o) if there really

were an object there. (p) Notice that the image is as far behind the mirror as the

object is in front of the mirror. (q) Notice also that the image and object have the

same size. (r) When you view yourself in a mirror, (s) your image is the same

size your identical twin would appear (t) if located as far behind the mirror as you

are in front (u) – as long as the mirror is flat.

< FIGURE 4 >

The reticula in Figures 3 and 4 reveal a number of similarities between the two texts. The

texts are very similar in length as measured by the number of clauses in each. Both the teacher

and textbook author use mostly explicit conjunctions and most conjunctive relations in both texts

are “external” – that is they relate events in the physical world of light rays, mirrors, and

observers that constitute the field of discourse. Most of the conjunctive relations expressed in

both texts are consequential (cause and effect) and temporal (before, after, and simultaneously),
 Variation across Speech and Writing 22

reflecting the fact that both texts are explanations through descriptions of a process. These

relations – as well as comparative (contrast and similarity) and additive conjunctions – connect

most adjacent pairs of clauses in both texts. The teacher appears to use more “internal”

conjunctions (discourse markers like “okay” and “now”) than the textbook writer in organizing

the phases of his presentation for the students, which serve to make the rhetorical structure of the

discourse explicit. On the other hand, the layout of text in the textbook with its typographically

salient heading and its visual division into paragraphs serves the same function.

Although the conjunctive structures of the two texts appear quite similar, there is one

difference between the two texts that a conjunctive analysis reveals. The largest category of

conjunctions in the teacher talk comprises those consequential conjunctions expressing relations

of cause and effect and they realized by only two lexical items: “cuz” or “because” and “so.”

Most conjunctions in the textbook, by contrast, are temporal. This difference implies that while

the teacher describes relations of cause and effect explicitly, the textbook does so implicitly

through the description of a process in time. The difference between teacher talk and textbook

may be attributed to differences in the modality of communication. The textbook writer has no

alternative but to describe the process verbally, whereas the teacher is able to construct the

process in real time through gesture and movement and only has to resort to linguistic

communication to describe the relations of cause and effect.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 23

Summary

In our attempt to understand how the teacher talk and textbook function as communication, we

have considered in turn the situational parameters of the two texts, the means through which

physical and mental reality is construed, their level of abstractness, and the rhetorical structure of

scientific reasoning that they embody. Those similarities and differences that we have identified

are summarized in Table 7.

< TABLE 7 >

Conclusions

The purpose of the analysis that we have carried out is fourfold. Our basic aim is to conduct a

contrastive analysis of two registers – to understand the ways in which communication of related

subject matter by the teacher and the textbook overlap and complement each other. We are

equally concerned, however, with three educational issues. We wish to understand, first, how

the two different registers socialize students to ways of thinking and talking about science. We

also wish to draw practical implications for the design of textbooks and for teachers’

instructional practices. And we wish to relate assessment practices to the instructional input that

students receive from teacher and text. Each of these issues will be considered in turn below.

Science through Talk and Text

We have compared two very small sample texts from a single teacher and from a specific

textbook, and it would be unwise to generalize about the registers of teacher presentation and
 Variation across Speech and Writing 24

textbook presentation of science from such limited data. There are certainly teachers whose style

of presentation is much closer to the discourse of the textbook and there may be textbooks that

attempt a more interactive style of presentation than this one. Nonetheless, we can say that a

basic structure of scientific presentation is common to both texts: They both explain a physical

phenomenon by means of describing a physical process. Both texts describe the process by

means of action verbs and meanings are condensed in technical terms and nominal groups. The

teacher and textbook writer both organize their explanations in similar ways, beginning with a

macro-theme to provide a frame for the topic to follow and a hyper-new to summarize it. And

both texts instantiate scientific reasoning by means of a network of cause-and-effect

conjunctions. These features of discourse characterize reasoning in science education and, as

Martin (1993) has shown, distinguish instructional discourse in science from instructional

discourse in humanities disciplines such as history.

The differences we find between the ways in which science is presented by the teacher

and the textbook result from the fact that the teacher has much better personal knowledge of his

students than the textbook writer has of his readers. One of his students comments that the

teacher is “down to earth, [he] puts everything on our level.” Another difference lies in this

teacher’s extensive use of gesture and body movement, which one of his students characterizes

as presenting “things you can see.” In our analysis, we have seen just how the teacher does this

by means of first person verbs and nonverbal communication that together cast him and his

students in the role of human participants in the physical process of reflection in a plane mirror.

The textbook, on the other hand, maintains a distance between the reader and the phenomenon
 Variation across Speech and Writing 25

by casting the reader in the role of a third person observer. Once could say that the text helps

construct the reader as objective observer, while the teacher helps construct the students as

subjective participants.

Academic Language Socialization

Ochs (1986, p. 3) observed that “sociocultural knowledge is generally encoded in the

organization of discourse.” When an expert in an academic discipline talks with a novice, the

organization that the expert imposes on the conversation is part of the knowledge of the field that

the novice must acquire in order to become a fully fledged member of the disciplinary discourse

community. In the situation we are describing in this paper, the teacher and textbook writer are

the experts and the students and readers are novices in the field of physics. We may then ask,

how does the organization of the textbook and teacher talk discourse socialize the students and

readers to the discourse community of physicists?

We have already answered this question in part by showing the specific patterns of

metafunction, stratification, and textuality that are common to both registers because of their

common pattern of explanation through process description, of cause-and-effect conjunctive

relations between clauses, and use of grammatical metaphor. There are differences, however, in

the degree to which the textbook and the teacher use grammatical metaphor, which are more

frequent in the textbook and which are not explicitly unpacked. We have also noted the

subjective versus objective roles in which the students are cast by the teacher and by the
 Variation across Speech and Writing 26

textbook. Many previous analyses of written scientific register in English (e.g., those studies of

research articles summarized in Swales 1990, chapter 7) have identified the same features as

those found in this extract. Scientific objectivity is constructed in these texts by means of the use

of passives, third person verbs, use of nominalizations to encode processes, and high frequency

of technical vocabulary. More recent work on the spoken discourse of lab meetings, however,

has shown that in the course of making sense of scientific research, practicing scientists blur the

distinction between the scientist and the physical world to “construct a referential identity which

is both animate and inanimate, subject and object” (Ochs, Gonzalez, and Jacoby, 1996, p. 328).

In this respect, the teacher’s enactment of the physical process of light reflection (“I look smaller

cuz I’m farther away”) is a very similar referential strategy to that adopted by the practicing

physicists studied by Ochs et al. (“When I come down I’m in the domain state”). Thus the

teacher’s subjective, participatory approach, rather than being a popularization of the objectivity

of the textbook, is an accurate reflection of the discourse of practicing scientists.

Teachers and Textbooks

What can be gleaned from this analysis for the design of more effective science curricula? A

more specific question is: What kind of instruction is more appropriate to the spoken or the

written modality? The students in this class appear to prefer the teacher’s presentations to the

textbook. One student comments that “[I] learn more from the teacher’s discussion than from the

textbook” and all students remark that they find the class fun and interesting. Because the

students were not asked to comment on the textbook, it is impossible to judge the extent to which
 Variation across Speech and Writing 27

they used it and whether they considered it a success. We have remarked earlier on the

cognitively more demanding presentation in the textbook, which we attributed in part to

linguistic features such as passive verbs, more specific vocabulary for expressing relational

processes, absence of an accessible summary (hyper-new) at the end of the passage, and – most

significant perhaps – the lack of unpacking of nominalizations and technical terms. We have

also suggested that this greater cognitive complexity is typical of scientific writing and the

textbook is therefore providing an effective socialization into written scientific discourse.

Because the setting of textbook communication is private and because readers do not have to

comprehend the text with the time constraints imposed by oral interaction, there is perhaps

greater probability of the reader comprehending more difficult material than in class.

In contrast, the teacher in his presentation to this class exploits the nonverbal media to

great advantage, using movement of his body to show the path of a ray of light and his voice in

comic imitation of a ray gun. Since almost all the students mention the fact that this class is

“fun,” we can conclude that the teacher is also highly effective in bringing humor and positive

affect into the classroom. These qualities of teacher talk are difficult to achieve in a textbook.

… And Tests

In order to complete the picture of the educational function of these two texts, we must finally

consider the ways in which each text relates to the institutional measures of student learning in

this class: the tests and quizzes administered and graded by the teacher. To do so we have
 Variation across Speech and Writing 28

carried out a preliminary analysis of an in-class quiz. Because we have limited access to the

assessment instruments used in this class, we were not able to obtain the written tests themselves

but we are able to reconstruct the items from the videotape of a lesson that took place a few days

after the lesson reproduced in Figure 1. This subsequent lesson included a segment in which the

teacher showed ten test items related to reflection in a plane mirror on an overhead. The students

were given time to answer the items by themselves, after which the teacher went over the

questions and answers with the whole class. Figure 5 is our reconstruction of the items and

answers in the quiz from the videotaped class.

< FIGURE 5 >

We wish to compare the meaning-making functions of language in the quiz with the

communicative functions of language in the teacher talk and textbook. And we do so by

conducting a functional analysis of the quiz in a broadly similar way to the way we analyzed the

teacher talk and textbook. We consider the modes of meaning that are realized in the quiz and

then its levels of meaning. We have not analyzed the textuality of the quiz since it consists of ten

separate sentences unconnected by explicit conjunctions.

Within the quiz, relational verbs such as copula “be”, “is called”, and “appear”.are used

with very high frequency. In fact, nine out the ten items describe relational processes. Material

processes are signified infrequently in the quiz. Only three quiz items refer to material processes

through action verbs: item 1 (“bounce off”), item 2 (“made of,” “deposited”), and item 5 (“look,”

“touch”). Mental processes are not signified by any item in the quiz. Relational processes, are
 Variation across Speech and Writing 29

thus the principal metafunction of the quiz, since almost all items require students to signify a

relationship between physical and/or verbal entities. Thus the discourse of the quiz differs from

both the textbook and the teacher talk since these texts make much greater reference to material

processes and the quiz has a predominance of relational processes.

With regard to levels of meaning, half of the items in the quiz require students to move

either up or down levels. The students are required to pack commonsense knowledge into

scientific terms, such as in items 1 and 10 and they are also required to unpack scientific terms

into their commonsense meanings as in items 6, 7, and 8. These items ask directly what these

terms mean and thus the test is highly marked with technicality. The purpose of these items

seems to be to assess the students’ understanding of technical terms. The remaining items (2, 3,

4, 5, and 9) require students to correctly name the relationship between physical entities.

The main semiotic activities carried out by the students in answering the quiz involve

them in negotiating and naming relationships among physical entities and in negotiating levels of

meaning. They do the latter through processes of packing and unpacking technical terms such as

“protractor” or denominalizing processes such as transforming “incident ray” into “a ray that

strikes a surface.” Neither of these semiotic activities predominates in either the textbook or the

teacher talk, although a small number are found in both. The textbook contains more relational

processes than the teacher talk and the textbook contains the sole instance of explicit packing in

“The image of the candle the person sees in the mirror is called a virtual image….” Because of

the institutional value that is placed on the results of assessment instruments such as this quiz,
 Variation across Speech and Writing 30

these particular kinds of meaning-making activities are privileged in this instructional setting. It

is a question for further research whether the privileging of certain kinds of semiosis over others

by tests influences the discourse in other parts of the curriculum.

* * * * * *

In conclusion, we have presented here a comparison of two instructional registers carried

out within the framework of systemic functional linguistics. We have analyzed in depth only

very small samples of teacher talk and textbook and we do not wish to generalize from these

samples until more data have been analyzed. Our preliminary results within this framework

show the contrasting ways in which teachers and textbooks make meaning within the academic

discipline of physics. And our analysis has several possible implications for education, including

the socialization of students to ways of thinking and talking about science, the meaning-making

activities that are most appropriate for live teacher presentation and those that work best in print,

and the relationship between institutional assessment practices and the curriculum.

References

Atkinson, D., & Biber, D. (1994). Register: A review of empirical research. In D. Biber

& E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 351–385). New York: Oxford

University Press.
 Variation across Speech and Writing 31

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J.

Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Rosen, H. (1971). Language, the learner and the school.

Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the

experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Biber, D. (1991). Oral and literate characteristics of selected primary school reading

materials. Text, 11, 73–96.

Biber, D. (1994). An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E.

Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–56). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Chafe, W. L., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language.

Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383–407.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 32

Elliot, H. C. (1975). Similarities and differences between science and common sense. In

R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 21–26). Harmondsworth,

Middlesex: Penguin.

Ford, C., Zuengler, J., & Young, R. (1995). Socialization into subject matter discourse:

A longitudinal study of diverse learners, [Worldwide web page]. Proposal submitted to the

Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available:

http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/CELA/Socialization_in2Subject_Matter/.

Fries, P. H. (1983). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. In J.

S. Petöfi & E. Sözer (Eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts (pp. 116-152). Hamburg:

Helmut Buske Verlag.

Gunnarsson, B.-L. (1993). Pragmatic and macrothematic patterns in science and popular

science: A diachronic study of articles from three fields. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register

analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 165–180). London: Pinter.

Gunnarsson, B.-L. (1997). On the sociohistorical construction of scientific discourse. In

B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse

(pp. 99–126). London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.),

Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features (pp. 162–178). London

and New York: Pinter Publishers.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 33

Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1993). Writing science: Literacy and

discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Harris, D. P. (1990). The use of “organizing sentences” in the structure of paragraphs in

science textbooks. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and

pedagogical perspectives (pp. 69–86). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages.

Hewitt, P. G. (1992). Conceptual physics: The high school science program. (2nd ed.).

Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Jacoby, S. (1998). Rethinking EST: What can “indigenous assessment” tell us about the

communication culture of science? Durham, NH: Unpublished ms.

Jacoby, S., & Gonzalez, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific

discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 149–181.

Kroch, A., & Hindle, D. (1982). A quantitative study of the syntax of speech and

writing (Final report ). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.
 Variation across Speech and Writing 34

Martin, J. R. (1983). Conjunction: The logic of English text. In J. S. Petöfi & E. Sözer

(Eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts (pp. 1–72). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and the

humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive

power (pp. 221–267). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Myers, C. L. (1994). Question-based discourse in science labs: Issues for ITAs. In C. G.

Madden & C. L. Myers (Eds.), Discourse and performance of international teaching assistants

(pp. 83–102). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Myers, G. (1985). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology

articles. Social Studies of Science, 15, 593–630.

Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language

socialization across cultures (pp. 1-13). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., Gonzalez, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down I'm in the domain

state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs,
 Variation across Speech and Writing 35

E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Ochs, E., & Jacoby, S. (1997). Down to the wire: the cultural clock of physicists and the

discourse of consensus. Language in Society, 26(4), 479–505.

Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzalez, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk

and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 1, 151–171.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard

(Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1–34). New York: Routledge.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Taylor, C. V. (1983). Structure and theme in printed school text. Text, 3, 197–228.
 Variation across Speech and Writing 36

Activity Type Turn # Speaker Transcript

STUDENT-QUESTIONING 197 C: If he moves then how far he is away.

DIALOGUE 198 (.)
199 T: Well as he moves away,
200 C: If he’s three feet away, would he be
smaller?
201 (.)
TEACHER EXPOSITION 202 T: Nuh- Well, think about it. (.) If I-
If I’m standing here, and looking at
my face, Okay here- here Let’s say
this is maybe easier to [see.
203 ?: [Like (um
gree)
204 T: I’m looking at my eyeballs and I’m
gonna see the top of my head, (.) so I
have to look up at an angle about that
much.(.) Right? Cuz ^I’m this height.
205 (.)
206 T: As I move away,(.) does my height get
different?=No.
207 ?: ºNo.º
208 T: I look smaller, because I’m farther
away, right?
209 ?: Yeah.
210 T: But really my- the height- my eye- now
look at the rays from my eyes,
ehhhhhhh- ((machine pitch)) They’re
still going at the same- (.) angle,
aren’t they.
211 ?: Yeah.=
212 T: Uhhhehh:::: ((machine pitch)) So I
must be the same height.
213 ?: [You s-
214 T: [I look smaller cuz I’m farther away.
215 (.)
STUDENT-QUESTIONING 216 D: So then it would be one quarter,
DIALOGUE would[n’t it?
217 T: [I don’t know.
CLASSROOM BUSINESS 218 T: [But I don’t wanna spend m- any more
time on this,=
219 ?: [(ºIt could be theo )
220 T: =We’ll talk about this after the lab.

Figure 1. Transcript of Part of a 12th-Grade Physics Lesson on the Topic of Reflection in a Plane

Mirror
 Variation across Speech and Writing 37

Figure 2. Extract from a High School Physics Textbook on the Topic of Reflection in a Plane

Mirror. Source: Hewitt, P. G. (1992). Conceptual physics: The high school science program.

(2nd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Pages 433-434.

 Variation across Speech and Writing 38

Internal Clause External Conjunction

b
explicit/temporal “and”
c
explicit/additive “okay”
d

e
explicit/temporal “and”
f
explicit/consequential “so”
g
explicit/consequential “cuz”
h

i
explicit/temporal “as”
j
implicit/comparative (as if)
k
explicit/consequential “because”
l
explicit/comparative “but really”
m
explicit/additive “now”
n

o
explicit/consequential “so”
p

q
explicit/consequential “cuz”
r

Figure 3. Conjunctive Relations in the Teacher Talk (Conjunctions which may be used

to make implicit relations explicit are enclosed in parentheses.)

 Variation across Speech and Writing 39

Internal Clause External Conjunction

a
implicit/temporal (at that time)
b

c
explicit/additive “and”
d

e
explicit/temporal “and”
f

g
explicit/temporal “and”
h

j
explicit/consequential “because”
k
explicit/comparative “but”
l

m
explicit/consequential “because”
n
explicit/consequential “if”
o

p
explicit/additive “also”
q

r
explicit/temporal “when”
s
explicit/consequential “if”
t
explicit/consequential “as long as”
u

Figure 4. Conjunctive Relations in the Textbook (Conjunctions which may be used to

make implicit relations explicit are enclosed in parentheses.)

 Variation across Speech and Writing 40

No. Question Expected Answer

1 Light that bounces off an object is said Reflected

to be …

2 Today most mirrors are made by False

depositing a thin layer of silver on the
front sheet of a glass. True or false?

3 You have an object that’s placed in Behind

front of a glass plate. Will the image
appear in front of or behind the glass
plate?

4 A candle is placed ten centimeters in C. The image appears ten centimeters

front of a glass plate. Which of the behind the glass plate.
following statements is true?

A. The image appears ten centimeters

in front of the glass plate.
B. The image appears in the same
place as the glass plate.
C. The image appears ten centimeters
behind the glass plate.

5 If you look into a plane mirror and The right

touch your left ear, which ear will your
image appear to touch?

6 A perpendicular line is a line that Ninety degrees

makes an angle of …

7 An incident ray is a ray of light that … Strikes a surface

8 A reflected ray is a ray of light that … Bounces away from a surface

9 For a plane mirror the angle of the Equal to

incident ray is ________ the angle of
the reflected ray.

10 A ________ is used to measure angles Protractor

Figure 5. Quiz on Reflection in a Plane Mirror

 Variation across Speech and Writing 41

Table 1. Situational Parameters of Teacher Talk and Textbook

Parameter Teacher Talk Textbook

1. Communicative characteristics of participants

Addressor Single Single
Addressee Plural others Unenumerated others
Audience (i.e., onlookers) No No
2. Relations between addressor and addressee
Social role relations Addressor has more –
power
Extent of shared specialist knowledge of topic Low Low
Extent of shared personal knowledge High Low
Interactiveness Extensive None
Personal relationship Respect, like –
3. Setting
Characteristics of the place of communication Public Private
Domain Education Education
Audiovisual media None Print
Extent to which place is shared by participants Immediate Removed
Extent to which time is shared by participants Immediate Removed
Specific place and time of communication Morning at school –
4. Channel
Mode Spoken Written
Permanence Transient Recorded
Medium of transmission Face-to-face Printed, published
Embedded in a larger text from a different register? No No
5. Relation of Participants to the Text
Addressor production circumstances On line Edited
Addressee comprehension circumstances On line Off line
Addressor’s and addressee’s personal valuation of text – –
Addressor’s attitudinal stance toward the text Emotionally involved, Removed, emotionally
humorous uninvolved
Addressor’s epistemological stance toward the text Belief Belief
6. Purposes, Intents, and Goals
Factuality Purported to be factual Purported to be factual
Purpose(s) Transfer information: Transfer information:
high high
Entertain: medium Entertain: low
7. Topic/Subject
Level of discussion Less specialized More specialized
Specific subject Science: reflection in Science: reflection in
a plane mirror a plane mirror

Notes: “–” indicates parameter is undetermined. Table and categories based on Biber (1994).
 Variation across Speech and Writing 42

Table 2. Material Processes Expressed by Action Verbs in the Teacher Talk and Textbook

Teacher Talk Textbook

“I’m standing here “ (turn 202) a candle flame placed

“and looking at my face “ (turn 202) rays of light are reflected

“I’m looking at my eyeballs “ (turn 204) two rays that originate

“I have to look up at an angle” (turn 204) [two rays that] reflect

“I move away” (turn 206) the rays diverge

“does my height get different?” (turn 206) [the rays] continue diverging

“they’re still going at the same angle” (turn light does not actually pass through

210) it did [pass through]

the light that enters your eye

[the light] is entering

you view yourself

 Variation across Speech and Writing 43

Table 3. Mental Processes Expressed by Verbs Denoting Psychological or Perceptual States in

the Teacher Talk and Textbook

Teacher Talk Textbook

“Well, think about it” (turn 202) Consider a candle flame placed in front of

“Let’s say” (turn 202). Figure 29-4 shows only two rays

“I’m gonna see the top of my head “ (turn 204) Note that the rays diverge

“now look at the rays from my eyes” (turn the image of the candle the person sees in the
210). mirror

your eye cannot ordinarily tell

Notice that the image is as far behind the

mirror as…

Notice also that

 Variation across Speech and Writing 44

Table 4. Relational Processes Expressed by Copula Constructions in the Teacher Talk

and Textbook

Teacher Talk Textbook

“this is maybe easier to see” (turn 202) The number of rays is infinite

“I’m this height” (turn 204) and every one obeys the law of reflection.

“I look smaller” (turn 208) The image of the candle the person sees in the

mirror is called a virtual image

“I’m farther away” (turn 208)

but behaves virtually as if it did.

“I must be the same height” (turn 212)

This is because
“I look smaller” (turn 214)

the image is as far behind the mirror

“I’m farther away” (turn 214)

as the object is in front of the mirror.

the image and object have the same size.

your image is the same size

 Variation across Speech and Writing 45

Table 5. Implicit and Explicit Unpacking and Packing of Condensed Meanings in the
Teacher Talk and Textbook

Teacher Talk Textbook

“I have to look up at an angle” a plane (flat) mirror

Ø flat (explicit unpacking of technical term)
Ø “about that much” (T indicates angle by
gesture, explicitly unpacking the technical The law of reflection
term “angle”) Ø the law of how things reflect light (implicit
“does my height get different?=No.” unpacking of nominalization)
Ø do I look bigger or smaller? (implicit Ø the law of how light bounces back when it
unpacking of nominalization) hits things (implicit unpacking of technical
term)
Ø “I look smaller …” (explicit unpacking of
nominalization in turn 206) Upon reflection
Ø when it is reflected (implicit unpacking of
“now look at the rays from my eyes”
nominalization)
Ø ehhhhhh- ((machine pitch)) (T uses gesture
Ø when light hits it and bounces back
and sound to indicate rays leaving his eyes,
(implicit unpacking of technical term)
explicitly unpacking the technical term
“ray”) the rays diverge (spread apart)
Ø spread apart (explicit unpacking of
technical term)
These divergent rays
Ø these rays that diverge (implicit unpacking
of nominalization)
Ø these rays that spread apart (implicit
unpacking of technical term)

The image of the candle the person sees in the

mirror is called…
Ø a virtual image (explicit packing of
commonsense language into a technical
term)
 Variation across Speech and Writing 46

Table 6. Thematic Organization of the Teacher Talk and the Textbook

Teacher Talk Textbook

Macro-Theme: CONTENT OF THE Macro-Theme: MIRRORS (i.e., Section Title)

HOMEWORK (Implicit) Hyper-Theme: Consider a candle flame

placed in front of a plane (flat) mirror

Themes: Rays of light / The number of

rays / Every one (ray) / Figure 29-4 /

Note / These divergent rays / The image

of the candle / Light

Hyper-Theme: If he’s three feet away, Hyper-Theme: Your eyes cannot ordinarily

would he be smaller? tell the difference between an object and its

reflected image.

Themes: think/ I / this / I / I / I / I / I / my Themes: This / The light / It / There /

height / I / I / look/ they / I / I / I Notice/ the object/ Notice / You / Your

image / Your identical twin / You / The

Hyper-New: I look smaller because I’m mirror

farther away. (turn 214) Hyper-New: A plane mirror forms a virtual

image of an object; the image appears to be

as far in back of the mirror as the object is

in front of it, and is the same size as the

object. (In Chapter Review, page 449)

 Variation across Speech and Writing 47

Table 7. Summary of Similarities and Differences in the Teacher Talk and Textbook

Teacher Talk Textbook

SITUATIONAL PARAMETERS
Shared personal knowledge of teacher and students No shared personal knowledge
Teacher takes a humorous, emotionally involved Writer takes a removed, emotionally uninvolved
stance toward text stance toward the text

METAFUNCTION – MODES OF MEANING

High frequency of material processes
First person action verbs in active voice Third person action verbs in passive voice
Speaker and audience are cast in the role of Writer and reader are cast in the role of observers
participants
Fewer mental processes More mental processes
Fewer relational verb types, transparent relational More diverse relational verbs; transparent and non-
verbs only transparent relational verbs

STRATIFICATION – LEVELS OF MEANING

Less frequent use of grammatical metaphor More frequent use of grammatical metaphor
Single-level grammatical metaphor Double-level grammatical metaphor
Explicit unpacking of technical terms Explicit unpacking of a technical term
Use of visual unpacking No visual unpacking
Explicit packing of a technical term

TEXTUALITY – THE RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF REASONING

MACRO-STRUCTURE: THEMATIC LEVELS

Has implicit macro-theme and explicit hyper-theme Has explicit macro-theme and explicit hyper-theme to
to signal coming topic signal coming topic
Hyper-new to summarize at end of text Hyper-new to summarize is distant from text

MICRO-STRUCTURE: CONJUNCTIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CLAUSES

Most conjunctions are explicit and internal: They connect events in the physical world
Oral discourse markers show rhetorical structure Typographical conventions show rhetorical structure
Teacher explains through explicit statements of cause Writer explains through description of a process
and effect