Part A

The letter, in terms of genre, is a letter of complaint which is a subgenre of business

letter. As far as generic structure is concerned we would expect the text to follow the

development of 1) aim of letter, 2) identification of complaint, 3) elaboration of

complaint, 4) demand for action to achieve optimal coherence, however the structure

falls broadly within the stages of elaboration of complaint > identification of

complaint>demand for action with no explicit aim of letter apparent. Furthermore the

stages themselves often have little thematic unity which further makes their definition

problematic.

We cannot separate language from "culturally construed" social situations (context).

According to Halliday (1985/89), there are three elements of social situation: field,

tenor and mode. The three elements are closely related, interrelated and

interdependent. They are all represented in this text. The field refers to the social

action, or to what is taking place or happening among participants of the discourse.

The tenor refers to the participants, or who is/are taking part in the discourse, their

statuses and roles. The mode refers to "what part the language is playing" (Halliday,

1985/89: 12). In addition, there are other sub-elements involved in the social context.

For example, under tenor there is the "social distance", which is related to the status

and roles of participants. This can be minimal or maximal, depending on the degree of

familiarity among participants. There is also the sub-element "process sharing". A

second sub-element under mode is the language role, whether it is "constitutive" or

"ancillary".

The field apparent from the letter, ie. those elements relating to subject matter and

context of use, is best defined as an everyday situation with very little specialised

lexis. The angle of representation of the text is not high as there are relatively few

contradictions and little or no cultural interference. As this is a letter, the tenor of the

discourse, as far as participants is concerned, is not as explicit as it would be in a

spoken text. The participants are consumer and service provider therefore the

implication is that the register would be formal which it is generally not. As for

purpose, the tenor does little to make this explicit as we shall come to later. The social

connectedness, as the participant roles would suggest, is distant and, again, the

register does not support this. The mode is static, relatively non-interactive and is

asynchronous in time and space

The field of everyday situation with low specialised lexis is supported by the

familiarity of the process of international travel described in the letter. The lexis, as

relates to subject matter, is congruent with the selected field; "flight", "luggage",

"luggage claim office", "sticker", "flight number". This lexis is handled well in

context and the stage of the letter related to the identification of the complaint is

thematically consistent if lacking coherence. Moving to angle of representation, the

attitude of the service consumer is explicit through the adverbial and adjectival

intensifiers, "mega" long flight", "really" tired", "really" need to get hold of it". The

appropriateness of the angle of representation can be verified if we consider on what

basis the service provider may counter the accusations. An appeal has been submitted

to luggage claim but no further action appears to have been taken.

Looking at tenor in more detail, the explicitness of the writer's role as service

consumer is clear through the repeated use of first person pronoun and declarative

clauses where the subject occurs before all the verbs in the clause; "I must prepare my

talk", "I am staying with the English family". Most of these clauses exist also as

super-ordinates with subordination occurring infrequently, "I came to England

because I must visit my supervisor and I also must present a conference" showing that

super-ordinates are connected through conjunctions rather than a subordinating

device. The tenor does little to reveal the purpose of the letter. This is exacerbated by

the lack of coherence in the generic structure of the letter where the aim of the letter is

not made explicit until the end of the first paragraph.

The non-interactive mode common in written letters is often characterised by

extensive use of the passive voice which the writer has entirely omitted from the

letter. The constant use of active voice, particularly perfective, "I have not heard from

him" where passive may be used, "I have not been given any explanation" has the

effect of making the register more informal and thus potentially less effective as it

does not conform to expectation of how the discourse structure of a formal letter

should be arranged.

Part B

The text is largely ineffective mainly due to the difficulty the reader would have in

constructing a consistent message from the writer's chosen generic structure.

According to Halliday (1985), language simultaneously conveys three kinds of

meanings: ideational or experiential, interpersonal and textual. The following

quotation illustrates the relationship among these meanings or metafunctions:

the fundamental components of meaning in language are functional components. All

languages are organised around two main kinds of meaning, the "ideational" or

reflective, and the "interpersonal" or active. These components, called "manifestations

in the terminology of the present theory, are the manifestations in the linguistic

system of the two very general purposes which underlie all uses of language: (i) to

understand the environment (ideational), and (ii) to act on the others in it

(interpersonal). Combined with these is a third metafunctional component, the

"textual", which breathes relevance into the other two" (Halliday, 1985: xiii).

The text fails in some aspects of ideation, i.e. both in the logical metafunction and the

experiential metafunction. The generic structure introduces the letter with an

elaboration of the complaint before the complaint is actually identified; "I was one of

the passengers who took the flight". This has the effect of obfuscating the purpose of

the letter. Furthermore, some of the supporting evidence to the identification of the

complaint is best described as irrelevant, "The foods were not very nice" which

suggests a deficit in the ideational metafunction as regards logic. The identification of

the complaint itself is reasonably well elaborated with descriptive forms used

effectively to described the suitcase. In addition, the demand for action is handled

well in terms of rhetorical usage, "I would deeply appreciate if..", however lack of

text coherence further causes problems as, although the demand is semantically

appropriate the subject of the demand is contained at the end of paragraph two,

"When are you gonna look for it?". Staying with generic structure, there is also no

sign of the aim of the letter as would generally be expected.

Cohesion is not varied and thus the reiteration pattern is too explicit. The referential

elements related to the suitcase in paragraph two are limited to "it", so, "It is a grey

Samsonite", "It is not an old suitcase", "When are you gonna look for it?" The

impression of over-iteration is combined with a lack of subordination throughout the

text. This is best illustrated by the almost complete absence of subordinating devices

where those devices could be used to give increased "flow" to the text. According to

Biber (1988: 107), subordination seems "to be associated with expression of

information under real-time production constraints, when there is little opportunity to

elaborate through precise lexical choice. " Halliday (1979), cited by Biber (1988),

views subordination as associated with the constraints characteristic of speech. If this

is true, then this indicates that non-native speakers of English (EFL writers in our

context ) use extensive subordination either because they do not distinguish between

speech and writing modes, or because they have problems with precise lexical choice,

and hence they find it easier to use subordination. However, certain types of

subordination such as conditional and causative clauses mark an argumentative

dimension of discourse. They are used in discourse to justify actions and beliefs. They

"can be considered as markers of affect or stance" (Biber, 1988: 107), despite the fact

that they are looked at as "associated with a relatively loose presentation of

information". To apply Biber’s perspective to the text the writer’s omission of

subordination may contribute to the effect of distinct lack of affective or stance-

clarifying elements.

The deficit in the logical metafunction is apparent from the lack of thematic

progression in the text, particularly in the first paragraph. A Theme is functionally

defined by Halliday as "the element which serves as the point of departure of the

message" which is "indicated by position in the clause" (p. 37). This definition

of Theme appears to differ from what Halliday at other times describes as "what

the clause is going to be about", or sometimes as "that with which the clause is

concerned" (Halliday, 1985/1994: 37). It is important to note that Halliday

distinguishes between the meaning, or function, of Theme, and its identification.

With respect to the identification of Theme, Halliday (1985/1994) says that "the

Theme can be identified as that element which comes in first position in the

123 clause" (p. 38). This means that a Theme can be realised by one of the following

grammatical constituents: a subject, verb, complement or adjunct. In this respect the

letter of analysis can be said to fail in the context of thematic structure, if we take

thematic structure to be a salient characteristic of the text’s coherence. The first

paragraph of the letter alone introduces four discrete themes: air travel; a visit to

England; travel conditions; and loss of luggage, in that order. Clearly, the rapid

introduction of disparate themes both allows the letter no thematic progression but

also obscures the main theme in placing it last in the paragraph.

Part C

In suggesting ways in which the text in question could be improved I will follow the

textual and meta-textual elements referred to in part B.

Generic structure and Thematic Coherence

Restructuring of the letter content according to the generally accepted structure of

Aim of letter>Identification of complaint>Elaboration of complaint>Demand for

action would both increase overall ideational coherence as well as meet the reader's

expectation of genre conventions. The latter would markedly improve readability on

the part of the reader-participant. With this structure in mind, the topic sentences

should be arranged thus:

1)"I was one of the passengers who took the flight from Narita..."

2) "My suitcase did not come out after the flight"

3) "There are a few books and a copy of my thesis.."

4) "It is (sic) grey Samsonite whose size is.."

5) "So, I would deeply appreciate if.."

To add to the overall coherence the aim of the letter is an essential requirements, and

this should be included as the topic sentence of the first paragraph.

Turning to thematic coherence, of great importance in written discourse is both what

and how something is said or presented in text to make and express meanings. In

written texts which are intended to be argumentative, for instance, continuity of

Theme is expected (Fries, 1983; Francis, 1990). Hence, as the EFL texts under

scrutiny are meant to be argumentative, the Themes which refer to the main topic of

the letter are expected to recur continuously and to be repeated throughout the whole.

This is partly the case, however the theme of poor quality of flight facilities is

irrelevant to the overall theme and should be omitted from the text.

The interpersonal metafunction is another thematic element that should be given more

development in the letter. The interpersonal meaning is related to what the

speaker/writer does to the listener/reader via discourse. It "is that of exchanging role

in rhetorical interaction: statements, questions, offers, and commands, together with

accompanying modalities" (Halliday, 1985: 53). Within the interpersonal

metafunctions, there are the modal adjuncts which express probability (probably,

certainly ... etc. ), usuality (sometimes, never ... etc. ), opinion (in my opinion, I

think .. etc., validativeness (broadly or strictly speaking, on the whole ... etc. ),

predictiveness (amazingly, as expected.. .e tc.) etc. (Halliday, 1985: 50).

Broadly speaking, given the genre of the letter and its intended purpose we would

expect interpersonal adjuncts related to opinion and possibly probability to be

represented in the text. An analysis of the text only shows one attempt at opinion

giving evident, "I guess you must understand this problem, isn't it?". This declarative

clause attempts to express the meaning, "It is perfectly obvious that you need to do

something to resolve the situation" but is almost entirely obscured due to poor lexical

choice, pragmatic misuse and grammatical inaccuracy.

The next metafunction represented in the content of discourse is the ideational

kind of meaning. The ideational metafunction of a clause is represented by

processes, participants and circumstantial adjuncts. Although Halliday asserts that all

the three metafunctional elements, if existing in a clause, can work thematically, he

holds the view that to work thematically,such elements follow a typical order of.

textual, followed by interpersonal, followed by ideational. In other words, in order for

the textual and interpersonal elements to function thematically, they should precede

the ideational element in the clause. And for Halliday, when the ideational element

comes as the point of departure of the clause, then it is the only element that functions

thematically and whatever textual or interpersonal element follows becomes part of

the Rheme.

In suggesting improvements to this text it is clear that, according to Halliday's theory,

many of the clauses in the letter are missing textual or interpersonal elements, and as a

result, often focus entirely on the ideational; "I came to England because.."; "There

are a few books..". This has the overall effect of lack of coherence due to isolated

ideas which are not linked to the overall theme of the letter through inclusion of

interpersonal or textual elements. Such interpersonal adjuncts like; "As you may be

aware, I was one of the passengers.."; "Much to my frustration, my suitcase did not

come out..." would lend more coherence to the text and serve the purpose of

highlighting the ideational elements.

Unusually, the the final topic sentence of the letter, that expressing "demand for

action" is effective on the textual and interpersonal elements; "I would deeply

appreciate", "you could give me" but has little or no ideational element in expressing

exactly what it is that the writer is requesting the reader to do apart from giving a

"prompt reply". With this particular sentence it would seem that the writer is more

concerned with accuracy of form than relation of meaning.

Moving to register, comprising field, tenor and mode. Register is concerned with the

social status of the reader of the text as well as the background knowledge shared

between the writer and reader. Grabe and Kaplan discuss two parameters which

influence text and its structure: the first parameter is related to whether the text is

intended for oneself, a single reader or a small or large group of readers; the second

parameter is related to the question of whether the reader is known or unknown. Both

parameters influence text interaction. Biber (1988) argues that the extent of

interaction and involvement in written texts may be determined by the degree of

closeness between the writer and his/her audience. Further, he believes that more

hedging expressions and elaborate responses are required when the audience is

unfamiliar to the writer. In this text, the conventions would dictate that closeness is

minimal, however many of the lexical phrases are indicative of a closeness more

common in writing to a friend or close acquaintance; "When are you gonna..?"; "I

guess you must understand.." as well as the closing, "Best". These elements need to be

consistent with a formal register

Overall, one point of discussion which is likely highly relevant are differences or

between the rhetoric and culture of L1 and what impact this has on what L2 learners

produce. Shouby (1951) was among the first who studied the Arabic language and its

influence on the psychology of Arabs. Shouby claims that features such as

overemphasis, overassertion and exaggeration characterise Arabic. He adds that the

use of the devices by Arab writers of English results "in general vagueness of

thought" (Shouby, 1951: 291), which may cause a native reader of English to face

difficulty in understanding a text written by an Arab learner of English. Shouby's

claims were supported by other researchers such as Allen (1970) who argued that the

Arab writer's style is circular, not cumulative, very obvious from the text in question.

In his view, the Arab writer comes "to the same point two or three times from

different angles, so that a native English reader has the curious feeling that nothing is

happening" (Allen, 1970: 94). Allen, who taught Arab students in Cairo, recognises

that the Arab writer's rhetoric is an established pattern, and what an Arab writer does

is normal and acceptable for Arab readers.

However, the most influential research into contrastive rhetoric and discourse is

probably that of Kaplan (1966), who in his famous article, "Cultural thought patterns

in intercultural education", advanced contrastive rhetoric as a new field of inquiry.

Kaplan studied about 600 L2 student essays in ESL writing classrooms. As a result of

his analyses, Kaplan produced diagrams of different rhetorical patterns used by

student writers. These diagrams, which have been widely published, showed Kaplan's

personal interpretations of the thinking processes of writers from different cultures

when producing a text. With respect to Arabic, Kaplan (1966) claims that written

texts in Arabic language are characterised by the use of parallel constructions. He

defines synonymous parallelism as "the balancing of the thought and phrasing of the

first part of a statement or idea by the second part" (p. 7). He ascribes this parallelism

to the frequent use of co-ordinations. In the same study, Kaplan argues that Arab

students' written texts in English suffer from deficiencies and weaknesses pertinent to

overuse of co-ordination and lack of sub-ordination which is an indication of maturity

of style in English.

References

Allen, H. 1970. A monotonous monologue. In Larudes, F. (ed. ) TEFL in theMiddle East. American University of Cairo Press.

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Francis, G. 1990. Theme in the daily press. Occasional Papers in SystemicLinguistics. 4 (1), 51-87.

Fries, P. 1983. On the status of Theme: arguments from discourse. In J. Pet6fiand E. S6zer (eds.) Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Mamburg: HelmutBuske Verlag. 116-152.

Halliday, M. 1979. Difference between spoken and written language: Someimplications for literacy teaching. In Page, G, Elkins, J. and O'Connor, B. (eds. )Communication through reading: Proceedings of the 4th . 4ustralian ReadingConference, 2, Adelaide, S. A.: Australian Reading Association. 37-52.

Halliday, M. 1985/1994. Introduction tofunctional grammar. Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. 1989. Spoken and written discourse. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. 1985/89. Language, context and text: Aspects oflanguage in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, R. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Languagelearning, 16,1-20.

Shouby, E. 1951. The influence of the Arabic Language on the psychology ofthe Arabs. Middle East Education, 5,2 84-3 02.