3.2 Towards an Integrated Semiotic and Sociocultur...
An integrated analytical framework stemmed from SFL and sociocultural theory is chosen in this study due to the complementary foci of their theories on the impact of language and context upon dynamic identity construction in context.As introduced in Chapter 1, both theories suggest a genetic or developmental perspective to understand the negotiation of social behaviours in the uses of language.This developmental perspective is important for the current study to explain disciplinary identities construction by looking at the semiotic unfolding meaning in performance and negotiation in classroom discourse and an increased sense of belonging through participation in groups over time.However, both theories have different but compatible inclinations for the functions of language, although they place emphasis on the context and provide analytical features to examine the context in social behaviours.
SFL focuses on how the understanding of language is generated as a socio-semiotic resource in text or discourse and as such make meanings in the interactants’ specific environment (cf.Halliday, 1978), whereas sociocultural theory differentiates physical factors from psychological factors according to the functions of language.According to Vygotsky (1978, 1981), language works as a both external and internal psychological tool.Externally, language is directed to an interactive object in the environment.Internally, language transforms and mediates the meaningful process of language use into the individual’s mental functions, which affects the enacting of behaviour.Physical factors such as an object of social activity are externally oriented to exert certain control over the environment and the subsequent individuals’ behaviour.This perspective helps the current study to conceptualise the impacts of interpersonal and intrapersonal interactions on identity construction.
In this study, a combined SFL and sociocultural theory analysis of language as socio-semiotic, psychological and physical resources will enable a comprehensive examination of how disciplinary identities are constructed in classroom interaction, group participation and individual imagination.It specifically focuses on SFL tools to analyse how disciplinary identities are individually and collectively manifested in the linguistic choices and interpersonal relationships in classroom discourse, while discursive analysis via Appraisal theory in SFL and a sociocultural framework provides the prerequisite condition to examine how disciplinary identities are constructed by community belonging through (un)shared experiences.Before giving a detailed outline of the selected analytical compositions from both models in the sections below, it is necessary to take a look at the proposed framework of disciplinary identities construction as presented in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 A framework of disciplinary identities construction through group membership affiliation
To cover the above-mentioned discussion so far, this framework emphasises the functions of context and language in shaping disciplinary identities.Context in this study is proposed as a reservoir network, including material sites, the uses of language, and ideologies.As Hasan (1999) points out that, ‘the concept of context must include all those features of the interactants’ material and social conditions of existence which are necessary and sufficient for the explication of what is said, whether directly or by implication’ (pp.239-240).By following SFL and sociocultural theory perspectives, therefore, context in this study is interpreted by looking at a continuity of resources as follows:
1) the material site of an institution;
2) the institutional culture;
3) the discourse context of a discipline infused with values;
4) the interpersonal relationships between group members, in terms of classroom discourse and other disciplinary practices;
5) individual participant’s personal background, values and attitudes brought into the community.
If we view this framework as a top-down hierarchy, context of institution (i.e., the contextual culture of the UNNC) and community of discipline (i.e., the contextual culture of the School of International Communications), explained in Section 2.4, not only function as the physical sites, but also afford the resources of social practices and values for identity construction.Their existence and the embedded conventions affect the acting and enacting of participation in context of situation (a SFL term, see Section 3.3), which is realised in texts and situational contexts (i.e., a the setting of classroom) intermediating the identification of an individual (i.e., participant in the classroom) as a member in a group.The lowest level of context, individual, consists of three categories, i.e., performance and negotiation in classroom discourse, proximity of possible selves in discipline, and engagement and alignment in groups.To examine the Chinese students’ disciplinary identities construction in the resources for generating the meaning of group membership affiliation, this study has stressed that disciplinary identities are classified in the embracing of selves, individual and group identities; therefore, the identification of these categories is interpreted in accordance with social, linguistic and psychological functioning of the discursive interaction.
In order to offer a better understanding of the context, the latter two categories will be first analysed to provide a prerequisite overview on the institutional culture, disciplinary culture and the individual Chinese student participants.Alignment and engagement enable a synoptic understanding of the Chinese students’ disciplinary experience and behaviour, while proximity of possible disciplinary selves gives an insight into how the mediation of possible selves facilitates the genesis of individual identity and group identity through the increased value-sharing and expectation in context.Secondly, the analysis of classroom discourse displays the identity construction in the ideational and interpersonal resources, which construes the disciplinary experiences of knowledge and classroom participation in similarities and differences.Group membership affiliation then is realised in accessing and mobilising these interactional and linguistic resources.
Two explanatory dimensions are further taken into account to discuss the dynamic process of group membership affiliation, that is, language development and individual development.The genesis of language development is represented in the instantiation of text and system, while the genesis of individual development is represented in the classification of individual and system.This hierarchy entails not only a need for a specific analytical application of the context to cover the dynamic disciplinary identities construction, but also a need for long-term methodology of qualitative research to give a detailed account of identities construction in the community of discipline.