Spatial analysis

Lee and Mei’s use of space through their positioning and movement have been described in Chapter 3. As such, the discussion here will be brief, and serve primarily to summarise the key differences in their use of space, as shown in Table 6.2.

Mei’s preference to stand in the authoritative space contrasts with Lee’s use of space. Mei’s use of authoritative space conveys clarity of intent and formality as a teacher. In contrast, Lee tends to position himself in different spaces in the classroom during his lesson, rather than mainly in the authoritative space. Even when Lee spends time in the authoritative space, he has a proclivity to position himself off-centre. Altogether, Lee’s spatial selections convey a sense of informality. This casualness appears contradictory, at times, to the explicit display of power and

TABLE 6.2 Use of space comparisons

authority he exercises through choices made in the other semiotic resources, as will be discussed later.

In comparison, Lee uses more supervisory space than Mei. In particular, he usually paces around the students during their self-directed activities. In doing that, he makes himself available and accessible to them should they have any questions. However, this is also construed as control in terms of ensuring that they are on task as he invigilates the activity through his pacing.

Overall, Lee makes more movement in the class than Mei. This suggests a certain dynamism, liveliness, and energy in his lesson. Mei is more formal and conventional in her spatial pedagogy. She conveys a sense of formality through her positioning in the central authoritative space as well as in her low use of movement.

Linguistic analysis

The linguistic choices made by Lee and Mei are analysed using Systemic Functional Grammar and the summary of their choices and the meanings they expressed are presented in Table 6.3.

In Systemic Functional Grammar, linguistic choices in the mood system express interpersonal meanings, that is, to enact social relationships with language. In terms of the mood system, both Lee and Mei typically use more finite mood choices. The frequent use of modality represents a modulation of power through the use of low modality such as in words like ‘could’ and ‘might’ and an assertion of power through the use of high modality such as in words like ‘should’ and‘must’. Words that indicate power, such as ‘don’t’ and ‘need’ are used very frequently by Lee and to a lesser extent by Mei. The frequent use of high modality, coupled by the frequent use of imperatives represented in the non-finite selections, suggests more instances where Lee asserts his authority during the lesson.

Linguistic choices in the transitivity system express ideational meanings, that is to construct our experience of the world with language. Both Lee and Mei use mostly relational processes in the classroom. Halliday (1994(1985]: 119) explains that ‘relational processes are a process of being ... a relation is being set up between two separate entities’. Relational clauses are also a regular feature in pedagogic discourse as they contribute to the scaffolding of understanding and knowledge construction. The category of relational process is represented in the sub-classification of Relational-Attributive and Relational-Identifying.

Martin et al. (1997: 106) explain that ‘the fundamental difference between attributive and identifying is the difference between class membership (attributive) and symbolization (identifying)’. Lee uses more relational-identifying clauses whereas Mei uses more relational-attributive clauses. For instance, Lee tends to formulate Relational-Identifying clauses such as ‘That is one of the points’ and ‘This is not in the context of our discussion’. These are examples of Lee’s preference towards relating two different levels of abstraction — token and value, symbolically. Mei uses more Relational-Attributive clauses in comparison to Lee. For instance, Mei tends to use Relational-Attributive clauses such as ‘We have three points’ and ‘They are too self-centred’. These are examples of Mei’s preference towards relating ‘carrier and attribute, of the same level of abstraction, but differing] in generality as member to class, subtype to type’ (Martin et al., 1997: 106). In the first comparison, the choice made by Mei using the Relational-Attributive process of‘We have three points’ creates a sense of solidarity and shared ownership of learning with the students. This contrasts with Lee’s more references of‘That is one of the points’ and ‘This is not in the context of our discussion’. In the second comparison, a more direct comparison is made between ‘they’ and ‘self-centred’ through the Relational-Attributive process. This contrasts with an equivalent recast into the Relational-Identifying process of‘They are self-centred people’.

The ‘clauses of feeling, thinking and perceiving’ are described by Halliday (1994(1985]: 114) as the mental process.These clauses are sub-classified as Mental-Affective, Mental-Cognition, and Mental-Perception. Given the nature of teaching and learning, it is unsurprising that these processes are featured prominently in Lee’s and Mei’s lessons. Lee also uses more mental cognitive processes as opposed to Mei’s usage of mental-affective processes. Lee tends to represent entities through the cognitive processes, whereas Mei evokes greater affect in her linguistic choices. The high amount of these processes is a result of Lee’s tendency to use the words ‘think’ and ‘look’, respectively. Significantly, Mental-Affective is the only type of mental process that Mei has which is almost twice as much as Lee. This is a result of Mei’s more regular use of the word‘feel’. For example in her question,‘Do you feel it will worsen?’, as opposed to Lee’s ‘Do you think this problem can be resolved?’, the use of the Mental-Affective invokes an emotional element into the question and encourages the students to engage with the issue, not just cognitively but also emotionally. The connection with issues on a personal and emotional level, as well as on the intellectual level, is tacitly encouraged through the use of the Mental-Affective process.

Behavioural and Existential processes are used very rarely by both teachers. Mei seems to have slightly more of these processes than Lee. Behavioural processes ‘construe human behavior’ (Martin et al., 1997: 109). Arguably, the presence of behavioural processes such as in Mei’s questions of‘Why are you smiling’ and later ‘Why are you laughing’, conveys an affective dimension to the professional nature of teacher—students’ interaction.

In summary, Lee uses more relational-identifying clauses whereas Mei uses more relational-attributive clauses. Lee also uses more mental-cognitive processes as opposed to Mei’s usage of mental-affective processes. Lee tends to represent entities through the cognitive processes. Lee also uses more imperatives and high modality to indicate his power and authority. In contrast, Mei prefers adjuncts and low modality to build solidarity with the students. It is also observed that Mei has more occurrences of students’ laughter during her lesson. This suggests a bond between the students and her as well as their enjoyment of the lesson.