Exchange Structure: Refinements to the model through a study of multiparty discourse of 4 to 5 year-old children
This paper proposes a number of refinements to the original theory of Exchange Structure as first conceived. It first offers a summary of the early ideas and considers challenges made by others. The study responds to these challenges through new analysis of multiparty discourse. The paper discusses revisions to the model based on these challenges drawing on the iterative analysis conducted and considers other points relevant to multiparty discourse. The data is drawn from transcribed video recordings of small groups of 4 to 5 year-old children’s peer-led dialogic interactions as they engage in role-play. In addition to the development of Exchange Structure theory, this new analysis sheds light on the nature of negotiation within multiparty discourse and the dynamics of negotiation by young children in this playful context.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.A metafunctional model of the exchange
- 3.Methodology
- 4.Challenges and refinements to the model
- 4.1The problem of relations between action negotiating exchanges and knowledge exchanges
- 4.2The problem of delimiting exchanges
- 4.3The problem of what units carry the various forms of negotiation: Exchanges and transactions
- 4.4The problem of what units carry the various forms of negotiation: Moves and acts
- 4.5The problem of how to analyse when an action is the responsibility of more than one of the interactants
- 5.Summary
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (22)
References
Berry, Margaret. 1981a. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Malcolm Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in Discourse Analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berry, Margaret. 1981b. Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network 21. 23–32.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berry, Margaret. 2016a. On describing contexts of situation. In Wendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds.), Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan, 184–205. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berry, Margaret. 2017. Challenging moves and supporting moves in discourse. In Stella Neumann, Rebekah Wegener, Jennifer Fest, Paula Niemietz & Nicola Hützen (eds.), Challenging Boundaries in Linguistics: Systemic Functional Perspectives, 255–280. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berry, Margaret. 2021. Inequalities in status: how do they show in discourse and what can be done about them? Lingua. 2611. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eggins, Suzanne & Diane Slade. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17(3). 241–292. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause, 2nd edn. London: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martin, J. R., Michele Zappavigna & Paul Dwyer. 2009. Negotiating shame: exchange and genre structure in youth justice conferencing. In Mahboob Ahmar & Caroline Lipovsky (eds.), Studies in Applied Linguistics and Language Learning, 41–72. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mukherjee, Sarah Jane. 2016a. Children’s meaning making in classroom role-play at 4–5 years: A Systemic Functional Linguistic investigation. Milton Keynes: Open University PhD thesis.
Mukherjee, Sarah Jane. 2016b. Recordings collected in connection with Mukherjee (2016a).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Donnell, Michael. 1990. A dynamic model of exchange, Word 411. 293–327. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rose, David. 2014. Analysing pedagogic discourse: an approach from genre and register. Functional Linguistics 1(11). 1–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John McH. & Malcolm R. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ventola, Eija. 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Pinter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zappavigna, Michele & J. R. Martin. 2018. Discourse and Diversionary Justice: An Analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Zhang, Dongbing, Jiajia Wang & Chengfang Song
2024.
Scaffolding instruction in an EFL drama lesson: a systemic functional analysis.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.