See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275645209

The Functions of Language in Children's Classroom Discourse

Article · February 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 8,323

1 author:

Ramsey Ferrer
Philippine State College of Aeronautics
14 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramsey Ferrer on 01 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2015

Analysis of Language Functions in Children’s Classroom Discourse

Yasmin Mari Ambrosio1, Cedra Binalet2, Ramsey Ferrer3, & Jin Yang4
1De La Salle-Santiago Zobel
2Ifugao State University
3De La Salle-College of St. Benilde
4De La Salle University-Manila

ramsey_ferrer@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract: Previous studies in the functions and development of language in

classroom discourse (Cazden, 2001; Fulk-Row, 1996; Hall, 1998; Willis, 1981; Zhang,
2008) have explained further its importance as it relates to classroom talk that occurs
between teachers and students. However, the premise that the mere opportunity for
social interaction and discourse will not necessary lead to learning experiences, unless
serious attention is paid to the purposes that the discourse serves in particular activities
and the types of interactions to which it contributes to, has not been investigated yet in
the Philippine context. Informed by the proposed framework of Kumupulainen & Wray
(1997) on analyzing children’s classroom discourse, this study aims to identify the
various functions of language among children’s discourse and how these language
functions are used to negotiate meaning in a social classroom interaction. Findings on
the video recorded and transcribed children’s classroom discourse reveal that there are
categorized and uncategorized language functions that come into play. Accordingly,
categorized language functions (e.g. interrogative, responsive, organization, to name a
few) show that children use informative language (most predominantly) in a social
interaction while the uncategorized language functions (e.g. code-switching; polite
expressions; expression of sarcasm; repetition/emphasis; self-correction, to name a few)
co-occur with their own intentions that may contribute to the existing language
functions in children’s discourse. In conclusion, results show that children’s classroom
discourse when paid attention leads to learning experiences through the use of various
language functions that determine children’s purpose in the negotiation of meaning in
their talk.

Keywords: Language functions; children’s talk; classroom; discourse; Philippines

1. INTRODUCTION classroom. This present scenario is in contrast with

van Lier’s (1996:5) claim that “interaction is the most
Alvin Toffler once said “The illiterate of the important element in the curriculum” which is
21st century will not be those who cannot read and supported by Ellis’ (2000) assertion that “learning
write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and arises not through interaction, but in interaction”
relearn.” This concept of literacy at present (cited in Walsh, 2011, p. 51). Furthermore, language
introduces us to a more practical perception of mediates the interactions happening in the
learning, which is by ‘doing’ (Larsen – Freeman, 2010 classroom. As such, it becomes a “social construct”
cited in Walsh, 2011, p. 49). This notion perceives where meaning is conveyed through “contextualized
learning as a process, an activity, something we take discourse between communicators” (Kumupulainen
part in, and requires performance. However, at & Wray, 1997, p. 2).
present, learning in the classroom is significantly Children spend a substantial amount of time
measured by the written outputs of the students learning in the classroom. Since classroom is a social
compared to how they really process learning in the context, there is an assumption that various
interactions take place and students are expected to
105
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

participate “individually and publicly” (Cazden, 1988, studying learning” (cited in Welsh, 2011, p. 50).
p. 3). Furthermore, Welsh (2011) highlights that Furthermore, Cazden (1988) suggests that the study
learning as a social process is “transactional” in of classroom discourse is the study of communication
nature (p. 63). Therefore, learning occurs through system. He asserts that spoken language is the
interaction with others, who are more experienced medium by which much teaching takes place and
and in a position to guide and support the actions of students demonstrate how much they have learned
beginners just like what happens in the classroom. In by sharing their experiences and responding to
this process, learners use language as a “symbolic questions. Also, Cazden (1988) highlights that most
tool” (Welsh, 2011) to clarify and make meaning of of the classrooms comprises of students with diverse
the knowledge they are presented with during linguistic backgrounds. As such, conversations
discussions (p. 63). Language is used to ask occurring in the classroom may provide a good
questions; spoken interactions are used both to opportunity to investigate on how well learners use
transmit and clarify new information and then to language to convey meanings and relate successfully
reflect and rationalize what has been learned. Hence, to their peers and teachers (New & Cochran, 2007)
classroom discourse appears as a significant This paper aims to respond to the premise
mediator between and among teachers and students made by Kumupulainen & Wray (1997) that the mere
(Draper & Anderson, 1991; Mercer, 1995; Lyle, 1996; opportunity for social interaction and discourse will
Wells, 1994; Wood, 1992 cited in Kumpulainen & not necessary lead to learning experiences, unless
Wray, 1997). According to Kumupulainen & serious attention is paid to the purposes the
Wray (1997), discourse is best described as based on discourse serves in particular activities and the types
contexts or situations. This description suggests that of interactions to which it contributes to. Thus, this
classrooms have stable discourse genres because the paper aims to identify the various functions of
discussion often revolves on a controlled topic that language among children’s discourse in the classroom
has established a “common knowledge” between using the proposed framework of Kumupulainen &
teachers and pupils (Edwards & Mercer, 1987 cited Wray (1997). Specifically, this study intends to
in Kumupulainen & Wray, 1997). This structure answer the following questions:
revolving in classroom discourse seems to be effective 1. What are the functions of children’s
in learning because pupils are directed towards discourse in the classroom?
formalizing what they know and adding new 2. What is the most preponderant function of
concepts that will make them wonder. In line with language in children’s classroom discourse?
this, students adjust their discourse depending on
the activities that are implemented in the classroom 1.1 Review of Related Studies
and make sure they are appropriate and contextually Looking at the idea that much learning
– related to the topics being discussed. Teachers of takes place through interaction, this study is
traditional schools often execute discourse – related grounded on the rationale that children benefit from
activities using the Initiation – Response – Feedback interacting with peers. According to Britton (1982),
(IRF) approach wherein teacher directly initiates they learn from each other and with each other (cited
discussion by asking questions and students are in Tolentino, 2004, p. 29). Such instances are
expected to respond by answering the questions commonly observed on literacy events. Literacy
(Cazden, 1986, 1988; Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & events are periods in the classroom where children
Coulthard, 1975 cited in Kumupulainen & Wray, discuss, collaborate, or talk about things while they
1997). This strategy may be considered as the heart are reading books and/or writing something (Heath,
of establishing discourse in any context simply 1982 cited in Tolentino, 2004). Hence, through
because a question is complemented by an answer or children’s classroom discourse, they use language to
a response. In this way, teachers may gauge whether construct meaning and be able to accomplish the task
students are learning or are coping with the at hand which leads the researchers to explore on the
discussions. However, focusing on the IRF strategy significant variables of the study.
alone may pose limitations on the various
opportunities that students may experience to 1.1.1 Children’s Classroom Discourse
maximize their potentials especially in honing them A variety of approaches, perspectives,
to be responsible of their learning and are flexible to purposes and procedures now exist in the field of
cope with the demands of the continuously changing second language (L2) and foreign language (FL)
society. classroom interaction research (Willis, 1981) in.
Trying to emphasize on learning by ‘doing,’ Previous studies in the functions and development of
may give researchers the opportunity to study, language in classroom discourse (Cazden, 2001; Fulk-
analyze and evaluate the children’s discourse in the Row, 1996; Hall, 1998; Willis, 1981; Zhang, 2008)
classroom. This instance is in agreement with what have explained further its importance as it relates to
Ellis (2000) and Pekarek Doehler (2010) purports classroom talk that occurs between teachers and
that “studying interaction is the same thing as students. The classroom discourse further facilitates
106
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2015

student learning. For example, in her study, Zhang participation in and interaction with the world. The
(2008) concluded that the quality of student learning mathetic macrofunction includes the heuristic
is closely associated with the quality of classroom function (used to enquire about the world), the
discourse. Moreover, the interactive activities that informative function (used to inform) and the
teachers prepare are important, since student personal function (used to refer to personal issues).
participation and successful task may be facilitated The pragmatic macrofunction includes the regulatory
during these exchanges (Hall, 1998). Therefore a function (used to ask other people to perform actions)
classroom must be a place where discussion and and the instrumental function (used to ask others to
collaboration are encouraged even if the classroom perform an action for one’s own benefit).
discourse has traditional or non-traditional lessons. Finally, different work on classroom
To explain further, Wells (1999 as cited in Zhang, interaction focused on patterns of discourse through
2008) stated that traditional lessons refer to the coding teacher utterances (e.g., Bellack, 1966;
using of a three-part sequence: teacher initiation, Flanders, 1970; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) as cited
student response, and teacher evaluation or follow- in Willis, 1981. They revealed that classroom talk
up (IRE, IRF). Non-traditional lessons, on the other was structured and hence could be categorized and
hand, means the sequence of talk in classrooms does analyzed. While researchers working with language
not fit an IRE structure on account of a changed and classroom discourse do not have the same view
educational goal (Cazden, 2001:31). on different frameworks, they agree that
Cazden (2001) emphasized one condition understanding classroom language use can be seen
essential to education: to communicate, to and practiced through verbal exchanges and spoken
understand and to be understood. In order to keep discourse.
this condition constant, according to Cazden, the size
of group, medium of instruction, participants, 1.1.2 Functions of Language in the Classroom
variation in discourse structure are necessary. According to Halliday (1973), a functional
Cazden (2001) examines features of approach to language means investigating how
classroom discourse that teachers and researchers language is used and finding out the purposes that
might want to examine or change like turn-taking language serves us best and how we achieve these
practices: teacher nomination, student self-selection, purposes using the four macro skills namely:
as well as such practices as requiring students to call speaking and listening, reading and writing (p. 7). In
on peers of the opposite gender, passing a "talking classrooms characterized by teacher research, the
stick," or affirming overlapping speech. use of transcripts on small – group dialogues and
The method used in Robbin’s (2007) study, children’s reasoning in problem – solving tasks help
with its two-levels of analysis – using Rogoff ’s three teachers understand how students construct
foci and aspects of Vygotsky’s ideas – provides a meaning by sharing their knowledge (Gallas, 1995
useful way for considering how young children’s ideas cited in New & Cochran, 2007). Blank (1974)
about the world develop, and reveals that their explored on the cognitive functions of language in pre
thinking is often complex and powerful. In the early – school children. The study highlights the areas on
stages of each of the conversations it was quite clear three cognitive functions of language namely: as tool
that the children were using direct remembering, for concept formation, communication, and problem
recalling the concepts and ideas from shared family solving. Blank (1974) explained that language as a
understandings, as well as their previous means to achieve concept formation does not
experiences. Robbins (2007) argued, however, that guarantee an accurate learning of the concept.
with the addition of drawing into the research Moreover, it is synthesized that very young children
activity, for some children, their thinking moved are not really capable of understanding several
more toward mediated remembering. words to facilitate their understanding of the concept
On the other hand, an alternative way of (Piaget, 1960 cited in Blank, 1974, p. 231), but
looking at learners’ speech act performance in verbalizing or using language to facilitate learning is
context is through the application of Halliday’s (1975 advantageous on the part of the child because there
as cited in Llinares & Pastrana, 2012) functional seems to be an association of the label and the
taxonomy of child language, a model which is illustration (Kuenne, 1946 in Blank, 1974, p. 231).
particularly useful in the analysis of communicative McNeil (1966 cited in Blank, 1974) tested
functions in context. Halliday (1975) identified communication among young children with the
different phases. In the first phase, the child used his assumption that communication emphasizes
communicative system to satisfy certain immediate comprehension rather than language production. In
needs. In the second phase, the child’s utterances the study, results show that children under age of
were related to the world surrounding the child and four experienced a significant difficulty compared to
these were found to convey two macrofunctions: the children who were four years old and older given that
mathetic macrofunction, used to learn about the the referents were highly familiar to them and labels
world, and the pragmatic macrofunction, related with were included. Verbal and nonverbal cues were also
107
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

used to find out whether the power of language and labeling or identifying pictures they see in the
affects the child’s functioning. text and. Furthermore, it was observed that there
In Luria’s (1960, 1961) study, he asked a were incidents wherein children’s topic appear
child to find certain objects using verbal and unrelated to the text itself because of the following
nonverbal cues. He concluded that the child’s success manifestations: seeking to address certain behaviors
of locating the objects is greater when nonverbal cues during the interaction, share ideas, suggestions,
were provided compared to verbal cues. However, plans and giving reminders that proper care should
nonverbal cues alone do not facilitate this high be given to the materials as they use it. Finally, the
success rate. The child’s ability to discriminate children minimally talked about the conventions of
objects visually has led them to associate the the text specifically inferred from the discourse of the
nonverbal cues and the task. In fact, Vygotsky (1962) participants that they should read the words in the
points out that “words, at first, are conventional text to know what the book might be about,
substitutes for the gesture…the only correct demonstrating knowledge on the spelling of words as
translation…of any early words, is the pointing well as locating the parts of a book (front and back)
gesture” (cited in Blank, 1972, p. 237). However, or the story (first and last parts).
Blank (1974) advices that children will innately On the other hand, the writing literacy
discover that the use of nonverbal cues to event revealed three topics being talked about when
communicate is limited because it is restricted with children are engaged into writing to accomplish tasks
the presence of visual representations which (e.g. book writing, making a list, or illustrating
strengthens the transmission of instruction using concepts). The data extracted the following results:
nonverbal cues. Hence, the child will innately 50.3% talk about content, 39.8% talk about
discover that he needs to verbalize language to conventions of a text, and 9.9% talk beyond text. It is
communicate when he realize that he cannot use clear that the results tell us that participants tend to
nonverbal cues to be understood. Finally, when talk about what they are writing and how they are
children use language for problem solving, they are writing it. Indicators such as talking about the
practicing to achieve mastery of the verbal system elements of the story and their personal experiences
(Blank, 1974, p. 240). Researchers Schlesinger (1971) to write the story is greatly manifested by the
and Bloom (1970) suggests that the cognitive ability participants yielding to a much higher percentage on
of the child has a great impact on how he perceives talking mostly about content.
things. This is evident on Bloom’s analysis of the The functions of language were also
speech production of three infants wherein he stated identified in this study with the premise that
that basic grammatical structures among very young children acquire meaning when they engage with
learners are “developmentally progressive” in nature others in relation to reading and writing literacy
and that it highly depends on children’s experiences events. Using Halliday’s (1978) functions of
that are highly structured to be used in problem language, Tolentino (2004) identified the occurrence
solving (cited in Blank, 1974). of the functions in two separate literacy events (i.e.
In a dissertation conducted by Tolentino reading and writing). During the reading literacy
(2004), she investigated on the children’s talk in the event, all seven functions of language (Halliday,
classroom paying close attention on what emergent 1978) such as Informative, Interactional,
readers and writers talk about, the roles and Instrumental, Regulatory, Personal and Heuristic
participations they portray and the functions of occurred. However, the informative function
language when emergent readers and writers are appeared as most preponderant function because
engaged in talk. The study was grounded on both children usually get information from various sources
premises that children construct meaning through (e.g. parents, caregivers, teachers, books, media)
language (Halliday, 1989 cited in Tolentino, 2004) which adds up to their schema and may be used as
and social interaction (Vygotsky, 1986 cited in contribution when necessary during engagements
Tolention, p. 5). Relevant discussions related to our with others. Furthermore, the informative function
study are the topics being talked about and the also serves as a clarification among the participants
functions of language when the participants are in terms of facts that they encounter during reading
engaged in talk. Results on what the pre – events.
kindergarten talk about during reading events reveal
that majority or 73.5% talk about the content of the Similarly, all functions of language occurred
text, 23.1 talk about topics beyond the text (off – in the writing literacy events highlighting the
topic) and only 3.4% talk about the conventions of the proximal emergence of interactional and
text. The data highlights that majority of the instrumental functions of language. This is because
participants were talking about the illustrations or the participants interact with their peers when they
pictures of a print source as they read together. Such share ideas; collaborate on how they will accomplish
indicators include sharing of feelings and/or personal their task and use language to maintain
experiences about the animals mentioned in the text conversation. Instrumental appeared as one of the
108
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2015

preponderant functions because of its relation to Table 1: The Functional Analysis of Children’s
satisfying one’s need. According to Tolentino (2004), Classroom Talk (FACCT)
sharing of information satisfies a participant’s need.
Specifically, indicators under this function are FUNCTION CODE DESCRIPTION
expressing a point of view, sharing one’s work with Informative (I) Providing information, from
others, utilizing strategies to accomplish tasks, previous ideas, pre –
utilizing print resources, consulting peers and existing knowledge, by
manipulating information
consulting a teacher.
resources, or from the
situational context
Hence, it is observed that when children Interrogative (Q) Asking questions in order to
participate in classroom discourse, their ability to get information or social
construct meaning varies on the topic which they are approval
engaged in. However, such participation enables Responsive ® Answering questions
them to use various language strategies to clarify Organisational (OR) Organizing and controlling
understanding, share information or personal behavior
Judgemental (J) Expressing agreement or
experiences which yield to the identification of
disagreement
purposes or functions of language. Argumentational (ARG) Reasoning in language
1.1.3.Theoretical Framework Compositional (C) Creating written or spoken
The theoretical underpinning of this present text not earlier mentioned,
study is largely based on the socio-cultural, revising or dictating
communicative perspective in which children’s Reproductional (RP) Reproducing previously
utterances are socially constructed and learned in encountered language either
discourse. Socio-cultural theory describes children’s by reading or repeating
Experiential (E) Expressing personal
learning as a social process and the origination of
experiences
children’s intelligence in society or culture (Vygotzky, Expositional (EXPO) Language accompanying the
1978). Primarily, this theory postulates that social demonstration of a
interaction plays a fundamental role in the phenomenon
development of children’s cognition. Hypothetical (HY) Putting forward a
Classroom discourse, in particular, is hypothesis
considered a diverse setting that encourages External (ET) Thinking aloud in
children’s collaboration, problem solving and thinking accompaniment of a task
Imaginative (IM) Introducing or expressing
knowledge building (Fourlas, 1988; Fourlas &
imaginative situations
Wray,1990; Kumpulainen, 1994a, 1994b, in press; Heuristic (HE) Expressing discovery
Rogers, 1996 as cited in Kumupulainen & Wray, Affectional (AF) Expression of personal
1997). Therefore, socio-cultural setting in a discourse feelings
interaction largely affects socio-cognition vis-à-vis Intentional (IN) Signaling intention to
the development of children’s learning and maturity. participate in discourse
Anchored on the socio-cognitive theory, this
study adopts the proposed framework of 2. METHODOLOGY
Kumpulainen and Wray (1997). Theoretically This study used the descriptive research
grounded by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Weber design, a type of non – experimental design.
(1990) on the content analysis, this framework is Descriptive research is most appropriate to use
formulated in order to account for analyzing because the study focuses on identifying and
language functions and their significance to describing the functions of language in children’s
children’s classroom discourse. Children’s utterance classroom discourse (Kumupulainen & Wray, 1997).
which is the unit of analysis is taken into The subjects of the study were the grade 2 students.
consideration to further investigate the most The class is composed of 17 boys and 15 girls with a
preponderant function of language that determines Mean age of 7.03. The languages these students use
its communicative values to classroom discourse. at home vary. There were 14 pupils who speak both
The framework consists of 16 functional categories as English and Filipino at home; 11 speak English only;
shown below: 6 speak Filipino; and 1 speaks English, Filipino and
French simultaneously. All students in the class
speaks well versed English throughout each school
day except during Filipino classes. The data were
collected through video recording of prompted
children’s classroom discourse. The researchers
implemented activities that were aligned with the
characteristics of Literacy Event as described by
Heath (1980) and Anderson, Teale, and Estrada
109
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

(1980) in the study of Tolentino (2004). Specifically, Organisational (OR) 39 14

the activities implemented were to draw an ethnic Judgemental (J) 17 6
group based on the descriptions that were discussed Argumentational (ARG) 2 1
Compositional (C) 2 1
in class and to draw and explain the best things that
Reproductional (RP) 6 2
happened in their grade two year. While the children Experiential (E) 24 8
were on task, the researchers made use of digital Expositional (EXPO) 2 1
devices such as a tablet and a digital camera to Hypothetical (HY) 0 0
record the children’s discourse that transpired in External thinking (ET) 6 2
each group. Lastly, the data gathered were viewed, Imaginative (IM) 2 1
selected and were reduced to 14 from 15 videos due Heuristic (HE) 0 0
to file corruption. Finally, the recordings were Affectional (AF) 36 13
Intentional (IN) 11 4
transcribed following the transcription conventions
Uncategorize (UN) 27 9
proposed by Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson (1974 in Total NA 285 100
Coates, 1998).
After conducting the video recording, the
researchers chose some talk samples that were
As shown in Table 2, it summarizes the
utilized in the study. The researchers based the frequency and distribution of language
students’ activities on the literacy event as defined functions in children’s classroom talk. The
and described in Tolentino (2004)’s paper. results revealed that the children’s spoken
The chosen talk samples were transcribed discourse are distributed in almost all the
following the transcription conventions proposed by different functional categories of language
Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson (1974 in Coates, 1998). (Informative, Interrogative, Responsive,
Furthermore, the data were analyzed considering one Organisational, Judgemental, Argumentational,
utterance as basic unit of count. Utterance unit is
Compositional, Reproductional, Experiential,
suitable in this study because the study focuses on
the construction of knowledge in the classroom
Expositional, External thinking, Imaginative,
wherein constructivists emphasizes on the quality, Affectional, and Intentional) except two
rather than the quantity of talk. In addition, the language functions (Hypothetical and
utterances were analyzed, coded and categorized Heuristic). Also, it is evident in the result that
under its most appropriate function from the 16 children tend to use Informative in their
functions of language (Kumupulainen & Wray, 1997). conversations. One possible reason for this is
Also, the utterances were tallied and converted to that children express and communicate ideas
percentages. Finally, the breakdown of the based on previous knowledge learned from
occurrence of the functions of language was
home, school and community. It can be pointed
presented in graphical representations in the results
part of this paper.
out that most classroom talk creates more
opportunity and flexibility for students to
The first stage of analysis involved viewing develop communicative and speaking skills
and listening to the children’s talk. The second stage through sharing information. On the other
involved a process of transcribing in which all the hand, Hypothetical and Heuristic functional
researchers take turn in coding, rereading, and categories are not evident in children’s
revisiting the video to account for its reliability. A classroom talk probably because the focus of the
transcription system is used to enable the activities are on drawing and narrating
researchers to analyze the conceptual content of the
(discussing) their best experience in grade 2
utterances that indicate the functions of language in
children’s talk. The third stage involved coding of the
base on literacy events. Making inferences and
language functions in children’s discourse based on discovering something new cannot be drawn
the functions and descriptions summarized by from the said activity.
Kumpulainen and Wray (1997) in Table 1.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2. The Functional Analysis of Children’s

Classroom Talk (FACCT)
FUNCTION CODE Frequency Percentage
(F) (%)
Informative (I) 59 21
Interrogative (Q) 27 9
Responsive ( R) 25 8

110
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2015

Table 3. Uncategorized Language Functions expressions, repetitions, etc.). Both the

Utterances investigated functions and the ‘uncategorized’
Expression Booom, arghhrrrr, hahahah functions of language are delineated under the
You see just ahh
Hey! two parts of this discussion. The first part
Filler Ahhhhhmmmmm discusses the different language functions that
Code-switching Para you do two each significantly reveal qualitative relations to
SI Pauline naman si earlier studies while the second part elaborates
Pauline naman
Please? Im gonna tell it to the ‘uncategorized’ functions that the
teacher na researchers deemed may contribute to the
Nagdrawing ka na nga eh growing sophistication of language functions in
Ako, im just going to draw children’s discourse. In addition, the most
the music
Polite Expression Excuse me please preponderant language functions is divulged in
Excuse me excuse me part 1 which can be considered implicative in
Introductory phrase This is our …this is our… identifying what the children frequently talk
Repetition/Emphasis We chose art because we all about and in understanding why they talk
[we all] had fun making the
[the] artworks that has the about it at most. They are the informative,
names on it organizational, affectional, interrogative, and
Self-correction The best thing that responsive. Likewise, other functions are
happened in school for us discussed in no particular order such as the
Turn-taking Billie it’s your turn
Expression of sarcsm So… experiential, judgmental, external thinking,
reproductional, argumentational, compositional,
The result of this present study signifies imaginative, and expositional. On the other
the different language functions that occur in hand, uncategorized language functions are
children’s classroom discourse. As the data perseveringly explicated in order to account for
reveal, these functions of language transpire other features that may have been utilized in
vis-à-vis their communicative intentions in children’s classroom discourse. Finally, the
which children are able to demonstrate within underlying interpretations of other language
the context of work time. Although these roles functions are presented in no particular order.
of children’s language are apparent in the
current situation, there are still other functions 3.1 Language Functions in Children’s
that co-occur with their own intentions which Classroom Discourse
the researchers have also given emphasis on This study has examined the
that may contribute to the existing language communicative functions of language within the
functions in children’s discourse. One possible context of children’s classroom discourse. One of
explanation of this emergence is that the use of the highlights in this study reveals significant
different language functions may have relations to Tolentino’s study (2004) which
something to do with a number of factors preponderantly shows that children’s talk is
(Tolentino, 2004) such as the nature of the described as informative in nature (Halliday,
activity; the nature of materials present within 1989). Primarily, children use language in order
the context; the participants’ intent; the roles to share facts; verify information; introduce a
they play as they interact with others; and their concept; as well as expand and extend the
degree of confidence in what they know about knowledge of others (Tolentino, 2004). The prior
this language. The analyses of data have led the knowledge of the children which is generated in
researchers to elucidate a few many ways that the current situation plays an important role in
emerged in which children are using particular the realization of this function. As analyzed in
functions. Concomitantly, some aspects of this study, children share facts as far as how
language functions that co-occurred in this they have comprehensively understood the
study are labelled ‘uncategorized’ which the input fed to them. This is highly evident to the
researchers gave explanation later in order to part in which they are able to allocate certain
determine their reliability to the immediate language appropriations towards the object
situation. These uncategorized items are given being described in a task (e.g. describing Aetas).
specifications for which they are either It is worth emphasizing however that the
contextually related or unrelated (e.g. fillers, ability of the children to share such information
111
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

may have been confirmed by the other Children use affectional function of
participants in order to ensure that they have language in order to express their personal
common understanding at present. This feeling. This use of language transpires in the
occurrence even extends to children’s opening of study conducted by Kumupulainen and Wray
a new idea that may be related to the topic or (1997), but minimally occurs in Tolentino’s
may just be an expanded thought of other (2004) identified function. However, this
participants. Interestingly, this language present study has revealed a significant
phenomenon theoretically grounds the findings association between affectional function and
of the present study which yield the importance personal function of language as it is expressed
of knowledge and exchange of information in by the children. It can be argued in this study
modern classroom discourse as emphasized by that the children’s use of personal function is
Kumupulainen and Wray (1997). In this sense, largely affected by affectional language. This
knowledge and information are socially means that children use this language in order
constructed when children use language in an to share experiences that have impact on their
interaction (Halliday, 1989 in Tolentino, 2004) lives. Such experiences may have made them
which may be constrained by different factors satisfied that they are able to share with other
such as language environment and resources children.
(Kumupulainen & Wray, 1997). In the light of A similar occurrence between the
this constraint, it can be argued that a learning interrogative and responsive functions of
environment that is rich with various resources language has yielded interesting accounts for
is found to be adequate in the children’s which they serve their purpose. In the study of
exchange of knowledge and information Tolentino (2004), she argues that emergent
through interaction. readers and writers tend to provide more
Using the organizational function of information than pose questions. However, this
language, children are able to manage and study reveals that children give equal
control their peer's or their own behavior. This opportunities for each other to give questions
is evident when children strategize or device and answers in an interaction. This language
some ways to monitor their own activities occurrence simply puts forward the importance
through verbal expressions and possibly of turn-taking in a speech event as espoused by
through their own cognitive functioning. This Yule (2006). Moreover, children are aware of
language phenomenon coincides with the two their own chances of speaking through give and
functions of Tolentino’s study (2004). First is the take language procedures.
instrumental language, and second is the
regulatory function. Organizational function 3.2 Uncategorized Language Functions
seems to be associated with instrumental Surprisingly, this paper has revealed
language that children use in expressing their other language functions that co-occur with
point of view as they share their work with their own intentions that may contribute to the
others; and develop and utilize strategies and existing language functions in children’s
labelling, sounding out letters, drawing the discourse. These are (1) codeswitching; (2) polite
target object (e.g. mountain, lavas, Aetas), expressions; (3) expression of sarcasm; (4)
consulting peers and their teachers (Tolentino, repetition/emphasis; (5) self-correction; (6)
2004). Apparently, the regulatory function introductory statement; (7) expression (8) turn-
shares the same role of organizational language taking; (9) filler. Although these functions
that children use in controlling the behavior of minimally occur in this present study and do
others; ensuring order; imposing rules; and not fall under the categorization of language
giving instructions as they engage in drawing functions of Halliday (1972) and Kumupulainen
exploration part. This association of language and Wray (1997), it can be argued that they
functions clearly indicates that young children play a significant role in children’s classroom
are capable of using language in drawing discourse.
activities through self-regulatory (Tolentino,
1997) which demonstrates their own
responsibilities and of others.

112
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2015

4. CONCLUSIONS DeCarlo, M. (1994). Communicative Functions of

From the above discussion, it can be Speech in Monolingual Kindergarten. Working
concluded that the quality of children’s learning Papers in Educational Linguistics, (10) 1, 22 – 31.
is closely associated with the quality of
Faruji, L. (2011). Discourse analysis of questions in
classroom discourse. Thus, teachers should teacher talk. Theory and Practice in Language
include more activities that prompt child – to – Studies, 1 (12), 1820 – 1826.
child discussions because children will gain
more exposure to various contexts of discourse Fulk-Row. (1996). Guiding language participation in
thereby providing more opportunities for them classroom discourse: Strategies for
to strategize on sustaining the conversation and children with language difficulties. Paper
construct meaning out of it. In addition, they presented at the National Council for
will have more opportunities to experience Teachers of English – Research Assembly,
February 24 1996.
different roles depending on the context of the
discourse.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health
Also, it is worth mentioning that this Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research
study paved way for the identification of some and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
utterances of children which do not belong to
the 16 language functions which were Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to
suggested by Kumupulainen & Wray (1997). student utterances: The construction of
The new language functions are the following: different opportunities for learning in the
Onomatopoeic expressions, Code – switching, IRF. Linguistics and Education, 9, 287-311.
Polite expressions, Expressions, Expression of
Kumupulainen, K. & Wray, D. (1997). Functional
sarcasm, Repetition for Emphasis, Turn -
analysis of children’s classroom talk: A framework for
taking, and Self – correction. A table with the understanding children’s discourse in educational
sample utterances under this uncategorized contexts. A paper presented at the 1997 American
category is included in the appendices. Educational Research Association Conference,
With the emergence of these additional Chicago.
functions of language, we suggest that future
researchers may consider looking at the L.S. Vygotsky: Mind in Society: Development of
indicators which yielded to the occurrence of Higher Psychological Processes, p. 86
these new functions of language in children’s
Llinares, A & Pastrana, A. (2013). CLIL students’
classroom discourse.
communicative functions across activities
and educational levels. Journal of
Pragmatics, 59, 81-92.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Meyer, R. (1993). Functions of written language in a
first – grade classroom. Retrieved from
6. REFERENCES http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365981.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An New, R. & Cochran, M. (2007). Early childhood
agentive perspective. Annual Review of education: An internal encyclopedia. Greenwood
Psychology, 52, 1-26. Publishing Group, Inc., (1).

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The Robbins, J. (2007). Young children thinking and
language of teaching and learning. Heinemann, USA. talking: Using Sociocultural theory for multi-
layered analysis. Learning and Socio-
Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian
Language of Teaching and Learning, Portsmouth, Perspectives International Workshop 2007,
(2nd ed.), NH: Heinemann. 1(1), 45-65.

Coates, J. (1998). (Ed.). Language and gender: A Stubbs, M. (1974). A Review of functions of language
reader. MA: Blackwell Publishers. in the classroom by Courtney Cazden; Vera P. John:
Dell Hymes. Language in Society, Cambridge
University Press, (3) 1.

113
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Tolentino, E. (2004). “I don’t know if I can read the

pictures”: The role of talk in emergent literacy.
Proquest Information and Learning Company.

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse:

Language in action. Routledge Introductions to
Applied Linguistics, New York.

Willis, J. (1981). Spoken discourse in the E.L.T

classroom:
A system of analysis and a description. (
Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/458/

Zhang, Y. (2008). Classroom discourse and student

learning. Asian Social Science, 4 (9), 1-4.

114

View publication stats