Student’s text

Giving Children Homework

There are a lot of discussion as to whether children should be given homework or not. Is it enough for children having (to have)
time to study at school or needing (to need) additional time in home for study after school time?

Some people claim that children do enough work in school already. They also argue that children have their hobbies which they
want to do after school (after going to their schools); such as, sport and music. A further point they make is that a lot of
homeworks (homework) are (is) pointless and does not help the children learn at all.

However, there are also strong arguments against this point of view. Parents and teachers argue that it is important to find out
whether children can work on their work without the support from the teacher. They say that the event is a good time for children
to sit down and think about what they have learnt at school.

Furthermore, they claim that the school day is too short to get anything done. It makes sense to send home tasks like independent
reading or further writing task which do not need teacher support (the teacher’ s support).

I think homework is a good idea. But, it should only (be) given at weekend when children have more time.

This commentary essay will explore the analyses of a discussion text written by a second
grader in a Senior High School as seen from five aspects; general information of the text (social
function, generic structure and linguistic features of the text), metafunction system (textual
metafunction utilizing theme system, experiential metafunction using transitivity system, and
interpersonal metafunction through Mood and Modality), grammatical metaphors, spoken and
written language, as well as the analysis of teaching and learning process.

A. General Information of the Text

This part will focus on the general information of the text involving social function,
generic structures and linguistic features of discussion text.

Regarding the function of the text; to provide arguments for and against toward an issue
of ‘giving children homework’, this text is categorized as a discussion text. It is in line with
Gerot and Wignel (1994), Thai (2009), and Emilia (2011) that the social function of discussion
text is to present an issue as seen from two or more perspectives. Furthermore, Derewianka &
Jones (2012) categorize a discussion text as an argumentative genre since this text is structured
around logical reasoning in giving support on certain perspectives rather than stating the
occurrence of events.
 Turning to generic structure of the text, the writer is able to fulfill the generic structure of
discussion text as mentioned by Gerot and Wignel (1994) that discussion text consists of three
parts; an issue conveying the preview of the topic ( the issue of giving homework to children),
arguments for ( statements of supporting teachers to give children homework) and arguments
against ( statements of opposing the phenomenon of giving homework to children), as well as
conclusion or recommendation (homework should be given at weekend time).

Regarding linguistic features of the text, the writer has fulfilled the linguistic features of a
discussion text as stated by Gerot and Wignel (1994) involving the use of generic human
participant as in (teachers, parents, children), the use of connectives; especially contrastive
connectors (however, but) to show the cons of certain perspective. Besides, the writer also uses
present tense as in an example; some people claim that children do enough work in school
already which is in consonance with one linguistic feature of discussion text (Thai, 2009; Emilia,
2011).

Moreover, the fulfillment of lexicogrammatical feature of discussion text is also shown

by the use of mental verb (think) as mentioned by Thai (2009), the rhetorical question to open
discussion ( Emilia, 2011) as shown in; is it enough for children to have time for studying at
school or to need additional time in home for studying after school time?, and the use of complex
sentence ( Gerot & Wignel, 1994) as in an example, parents and teachers argue that it is
important to find out whether children can work on their work without the support from the
teacher.

To conclude, the writer is able to fulfill the social function, generic organization as well
as linguistic features of a discussion text.

B. Textual Metafunction

This part will discuss the analysis of textual metafunction through Theme system
involving types of Theme and Thematic Progression.

Regarding types of themes, the writer uses 21topical themes, 2 interpersonal themes, and
13 textual themes. The use of dominant topical themes (some people, they, parents and teachers)
is in line with Eggins (2004) that every clause must contain one and only one topical theme.
Besides, the use of two interpersonal themes (is, and I think) indicates that the writer attempts to
signal the kind of interaction taking place and the perspective of those interacting (Emilia, 2014).
Exactly, the theme (is) as unfused finite in the first stage of this text shows that the writer gives
the foreground of what issue will be discussed (Paltridge, 1997) which is also in line with the
function of the stage of statements of issue; to start the point of discussion in the text ( Knapp &
Watkins, 2005, Thai, 2009)

In addition, the use of (I think) as interpersonal theme ( showing the writer’s personal
opinion toward the topic; giving children homework) is in keeping with Paltridge (1997) and
William (1993) as cited in Emilia (2014) that interpersonal theme is often used to indicate
personal writer’s or speaker’s judgment or opinion on certain issue.

Moreover, textual themes are also found in this text functioning to provide temporal links
between an event to another one ( Martin, Matthiessen, & Painter, 1997); as an example;
however, there are also strong arguments against this point of view. These theme are also
categorized as the tools to build a cohesive text ( Hasan & Halliday, 1976; Gerot & Wignel,
1994; Eggins, 2004). In addition, it is in consonance with Thai (2009) and Emilia (2014) that
conjunction; especially contrastive connector (however, but) is one of lexico-grammatical
features of discussion text.

Turning to theme progression, the writer only uses four thematic patterns in form of
reiteration as seen from the figure below.

There are a lot of discussion as to whether children should be given homework or not.

Is it enough for children to have time for studying at school or to need additional time in home for studying after school time?

REITERATION

Some people claim that children do enough work in school already.

They also argue that children have their hobbies which they want to do after school; such as, sport and music.

A further point they make is that a lot of homework is pointless and does not help the children learn at all.

However, there are also strong arguments against this point of view.

REITERATION

Parents and teachers argue that it is important to find out whether children can work on their work without the support from the
teacher.

They say that the event is a good time for children to sit down and think about what they have learnt at school.
Furthermore, they claim that the school day is too short to get anything done.

It makes sense to send home tasks like independent reading or further writing task which do not need teacher support.

REITERATION

I think homework is a good idea

.But it should only be given at weekend when children have more time.

The use of reiteration as theme system is relevant to Eggins (2004) and Emilia (2014)
that the use of the same participants provides the clear focus in a text. However, the lack of
thematic progression as shown above causes the ideas written in the text are not linked to each
other as Eggins (2004) states that thematic progression contributes to build the cohesiveness and
the coherence of the text.

In other words, the ideas presented in the text are not well organized in terms of
cohesiveness and coherence since the writer only uses four thematic patterns in form of
reiteration from twelve sentences made.

Another thing found in this text is the use of a type of Longer Unit Themes; embedded
clauses involving Wh- clause and non-finite clause as seen in these examples,

Wh- clause

They also argue that children have their hobbies which they want to do after school;
such as, sport and music

Non Finite Clause

Is it enough for children to have time for studying at school or to need additional time in
home for studying after school time?

Both examples of longer unit used in the text are in keeping with Droga & Humprey
(2003) as cited in Emilia (2014) that the pattern of longer unit Theme is often found in
argumentative text; including discussion text. Besides, it is also in consonance with Thai (2009)
that complex sentence is included to a language feature of discussion text.
 As conclusion in this part, the writer lacks of the ability to make the text cohesive and
coherent in developing ideas. The discussion of this phenomenon will be presented later in point
G (the analysis of teaching and learning process).

C. Experiential Metafunction

Experientially, this text consists of five types of processes; material, mental, verbal,
existential, and relational processes. Of course, it appears several types of participants as well as
circumstances found. Before discussing them in details, here is the table showing the result of
transitivity analysis.

The number of clauses= 33

Material Mental Verbal behavioral Existential Relational

17 3 5 - 2 6

From the table shown above, the material processes dominantly used in this text as an
example (the children do enough work in school) describe what has occurred, which to some
extent, are in keeping with the function of the text; to build the information of the issue discussed
(Emilia, 2014). Besides, the use of six relational processes consisting attributive relational
processes as an example; children have their hobbies and identifying modes as in; (a further
point they make is that a lot of homework are pointless……..) is relevant to social function of this
stage (Thai, 2009 and Emilia, 2011) since relational processes are functioned to identify
something (the issue of giving homework to children).

Moreover, the use of mental processes as in (I think homework is a good idea) shows the
writer’s personal opinion on the issue which is also in line with the function of the last stage of
this text; to give certain recommendation toward the issue discussed (Thai, 2009). Besides, the
writer also uses verbal processes as in (parents and teachers argue that ……) showing her
capacity in representing other people’s ideas and thought ( William, 1993 as cited in Emilia,
2014). Of course, it is in line with the function of second stage of discussion text (series of
arguments) functioning to reveal arguments from any perspectives (Thai, 2009). However, the
writer does not put any references as the sources used to get the information. The further
explanation of the absence of references will be discussed in part of teaching and learning
process.

Moreover, existential processes used in the text as found in the stage of issue (there are a
lot of discussions (pros and cons) as to whether children should be given homework or not)
indicate something exists (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). These are in relevant to the function
of the first stage in discussion text; to provide the outline of the issue indicating the existence of
more than one point of view towards a certain issue (Thai, 2009; Knapp and Watkins, 2005).

In other words, five types of processes; material, mental, relational, verbal, and
existential processes support the social function, generic structure as well as linguistic features of
discussion text as mentioned by Gerot and Wignel (1994), and Thai (2009). However, the writer
does not put the references where she took the arguments especially as shown in verbal
processes. This phenomenon will be explained later in the phase of teaching and learning
process.

As far as the participants are concerned, the writer dominantly uses ‘actor’ as the
participants in this text as in (children do enough work in school) indicating who is the doer of
the action (Eggins, 2004). Besides, other types of participant role in this part are; ‘senser’ as in (I
think homework should be given at weekend). It is in line with the function of the last schematic
structure of this text ( conclusion or recommendation) as mentioned by Knapp & Watkins (2005)
that the writer sums up the arguments of both sides as well as involves his/ her personal
recommendation towards the issue.

The participant of ‘sayer’ is also found in (some people claim that children……)
indicating that the writer reports what are on other people’s mind toward the issue discussed. Of
course, it is in keeping with Knapp & Watkins (2005) that discussion text demands the writer to
show at least two points of views under consideration on an issue discussed. Other participants
are also found; like, ‘carrier’ as in (children have their hobbies), identified/ token as in (a
further point they make is that a lot of homework are pointless……..), ‘existent’ as in (there are
also strong arguments) as well as Goals as agentless passive forms as an example (it should be
given at weekend). Moreover, the various roles of participants as shown in this text are
considered good since they can integrate the various function of language in one expression
(Halliday, 2002b).
 Regarding the circumstance as a part analyzed in transitivity, the writer uses
circumstance of place (at school, in home), and circumstance of time as shown by adverbial
clauses; for example, it should be given at weekend when they have more time. Those
circumstances are used to give additional information of a clause as mentioned by Gerot and
Wignell (1994), Droga & Humprey (2003), and Emilia (2014). It is also strengthened by Knapp
& Watkins (2005) that temporal connectives help to build logical relations as well as to link the
points.

As the inference in this stage, the writer is able to fulfill the schematic structure and
linguistic features of the text as shown by the types of processes, participants and circumstances
used in this text.

D. Interpersonal Metafunction

This phase focuses on Mood and Modality system of the text.

Interpersonally, the writer starts opening the discussion by using interrogative mood in
the first generic structure of this text as shown by (is it enough for children to have time for
studying at school or to need additional time in home for studying after school time?). This type
of mood indicates question as the speech function of this text ( Halliday, 1994a; Emilia,
2014).Moreover, it is in consonance with a language feature of discussion as mentioned by
Emilia (2011) that rhetorical question in the first stage of this text is used as the departure point
of discussion.

Furthermore, all other clauses in this part use declarative Mood as shown by the use of
‘statement’ as speech function in this text; for example, (children do enough work in school). Of
course, it is in keeping with Eggins (2002) and Emilia (2014) who state that declarative Mood
requires statement as the speech function. Besides, the use of commodity in this text
‘information’ as shown by the statements is needed to fulfill the social function of the text; to
present a certain issue from more than one perspectives ( Knapp & Watkins, 2005; Thai, 2009;
Emilia, 2011).

As Mood block, the position of Finite Preceding Subject also emphasizes that the writer
uses a question as the speech function in the stage of statement of issue (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2004). Besides, the position of Subject preceding Finite also strengthens the statements used in
most clauses used as speech function (Eggins, 2004). Besides, two types of adjuncts are found in
this stage; conjunctive adjunct and circumstantial adjunct. The use of conjunctive adjunct
(however, but) as contrastive conjunction is in keeping with a linguistic feature of discussion text
as mentioned by Gerot and Wignel (1994) and Emilia (2011). Besides, the existence of
circumstantial adjunct (at school, in home) is also in keeping with a language feature of this text
(the use of adverbial of place) as stated by Gerot & Wignell (1994) and Thai (2009). Another
type of adjunct found is mood adjunct (I think) showing the writer’s personal opinion toward the
issue of giving children homework. Of course, it is in line with Knapp & Watkins (2005)and
Thai(2009) that mental verb (think) is included in lexicogrammatical features of discussion text.

However, there is a common mistake dealing with a value of knowledge of interpersonal

grammar; the use of non-finite clause (Emilia, 2014). It is shown in

Is it enough for children having time to study at school or needing additional time in home for
study after school time?

It should be,

Is it enough for children to have time for studying or to need additional time in home for
studying after school time?

It means that the writer should have used to- infinitival form rather than –ing participle ( Borjars
and Burridge (2010).

Turning to Modality, the writer dominantly uses modulated sentences in this text. They
are shown by the use of some expressions indicating judgment (for example, it is important to
find out……), the use of projecting verbal clauses (parents and teachers claim that….) and the
use of modal verbs for example; children can work on their own (modality of ability), it should
only be given at weekend (judgment of obligation). All those modality types indicate the writer’s
avoidance of taking responsibility of the obligation (Jones & Lock, 2011; Emilia, 2014). It is in
line with the linguistic feature of discussion as mentioned by Emilia (2011) that a writer needs to
be careful in expressing statements.

Modality of the text is also shown by the use of modal verb (can) indicating median
subjective orientation of probability and (should) indicating median subjective orientation of
obligation. It is in consonance with the lexicogrammatical characteristic of this text that modal
verbs are often used in making discussion text (Knapp & Watkins, 2005; Thai, 2009).

Besides, the writer also uses four unmodulated sentences in this text (for example, there
are a lot of discussions….) to show the message as the fact in high certainty (Eggins, 2004). It is
also in consonance with social function of the text; to present issues of certain topic from
distinctive perspectives (Gerot and Wignel, 1994).

As mentioned in previous part (experiential metafunction), the involvement of other

people’s arguments as well as the indication of the message as the fact is not supported by the
references as the source of where the writer got the information.

To conclude, interpersonally, the writer is able to set up and sustain the interaction as
shown by the proper types of Mood and modality used in this text.

E. Grammatical Metaphor

Moving to grammatical metaphor as a point discussed in this essay, the writer uses
ideational metaphors in the type of experiential metaphor, and interpersonal metaphors. Before
discussing the first metaphor in details, here are examples as shown below.

Children do enough work.

There are a lot of discussion…..

Children can work on their own without the support from the teacher.

It makes sense to send home task; like independent reading or further writing.

As examples shown above, the writer uses experiential metaphor as shown by

nominalization (Halliday, 1994a). Moreover, Nominalization as seen from turning verbs into
noun phrases (Chafe, 1985) as cited in Schcleeppegrell (2004) helps the writer to express the
abstract concepts (Gibbons, 2009). Besides, Fang and Schcleeppegrell (2008) and Emilia (2014)
also emphasize that the use of nominalization is beneficial to construct statements since the
information presented in being process makes generalization or judgment of the issue discussed.
In addition, Gerot and Wignel (1994) reveal that nominalization packages the information more
tightly and abstractly. Besides, it is also strengthened by Derewianka & Jones (2012) that
nominalization is used to create more compact text.

In addition, the writer also uses interpersonal metaphors as shown below..

I think homework is a good idea.

Parents and teachers argue that …….

From the examples above, Halliday (1994a) categorizes those expressions as

metaphorical variants of ‘probably’. Moreover, it is also explained by Thompson (1996) as cited
in Emilia (2014) that interpersonal metaphors are important to be used when a writer intends to
reveal his/ her wish in argumentative genre. Therefore, these metaphors as shown by the mental
verbs are in consonance with the linguistic feature of discussion text (Thai, 2009).

Regarding grammatical metaphors found in the text, it is inferred that the writer is able to
organize the text rhetorically as shown by the use of nominalization ( Eggins, 2004; Wignel &
Martin, 1993; Emilia, 2014). Besides, the use grammatical metaphors in this text contributes to
make the text more dense (Eggins, 2004). It is in line with Derewianka & Jones (2012) that
students in secondary schools start to learn how to compact the information in constructing world
of logic and abstraction; one of them is by using nominalization.

F. Spoken and Written language

This part will explore the analysis of this written text as seen from the characteristics of
spoken and written language.

In this text, the writer starts to open discussion by using rhetorical question as in;

“Is it enough for children having time to study at school or needing additional time in home for
study after school time?”

Seen from the example above, the use of ‘question’ as if it took place in here and now
situation fulfills the characteristic of spoken language (Derewianka and Jones, 2012). However,
the use of that question in this written text is still acceptable since it is in consonance with one
lexicogramatical feature of discussion text as mentioned by Emilia (2014) that rhetorical
question in the first stage of discussion text is used as the departure point to open the discussion
in that text.

Moreover, this text fulfills the criteria as written text regarding some aspects. First, the
use of embedded clauses to compress the information as in; children have their hobbies which
they want to do after school creates the lexical density which is included in the characteristic of
writing (Christie & Derewianka, 2008). Second, the use of nominalization as grammatical
metaphor used as an example (Children do enough work) also shows that this written text uses
written language ( Halliday, 1985b; Emilia, 2014). Third, the complexity in this text as shown by
the use of paratactic (for instances, but, however) and hypotactic (For example, that clause in
some people claim that children do enough work in school already) is included in a feature of
written language (Halliday, 1985b).

Besides, checking the existence of characteristic of spoken language in this text is also
conducted aims at figuring out whether this text uses written language or spoken one. As the
result, there is no feature of spoken language as mentioned by Borjars & Burridge (2010) and
Derewianka and Jones (2012) found in this text; for example, some expression fillers (umm. err),
discourse particles (yeah, anyway, no), the dominance of personal pronoun (I , you) and direct
dialogue ( the use of question mark and colon).

From the existence of characteristics of written language and the absence of spoken
language features (except, rhetorical question in preview stage as a linguistic feature of
discussion text), it is inferred that the written text used by the writer fulfills the criteria as written
language.

G. The analysis of teaching and learning process

Dealing with four core points analyzed in previous parts (general information,
metafunctions, grammatical metaphors, and written and spoken language), this part will
relate the result of those analyses into teaching and learning process.

In general information of the text, the student is able to fulfill the social function of
the text as seen by the generic structure used; statement of the issue, series arguments
(arguments for and against), and concluding statement (Knapp and Watkins, 2005; Thai,
2009; Emilia, 2011). Besides, the writer is also able to show the linguistic features of this text
as stated by Gerot & Wignel (1994) and Thai (2009); the use of modality, emotive language,
generic participant, mental verbs, action verbs, and complex sentences). Those indicate that
the teacher has informed the concept of discussion text; both generic structure and
lexicogrammatical features to the writer in the stage of Background Knowledge of Field
(Gibbons, 2002; Derewianka and Jones, 2012)

Turning to metafunctions, the student has been able to show three types of
metafunctions; interpersonal metafunction, experiential metafunction, and textual
metafunction.

Interpersonally, the writer is able to express the information in form of statements as

declarative mood (Eggins, 2004) and a question as interrogative mood (Halliday, 1994a).
Besides, the use of proper modulated sentences is in keeping with the linguistic feature of
discussion text that the writer tends to be careful in expressing statements (Emilia, 2011).

Experientially, the dominance of using material, mental, and relational processes in

this text is in line with the linguistic feature of discussion text (Gerot & Wignell (1994). In
addition, the use of circumstances (location and time) is in consonance with Thai (2009) and
Emilia (2011) that adverbials of time and place are included in linguistic features of a
discussion text. Those thing indicate that the student has probably been introduced by some
modelling texts (in Modelling of the Text stage as mentioned by Gibbons, 2002; Emilia,
2011) as the following step after getting background of knowledge of the text type.

Textually, the writer uses some cohesive devices (repetition, reference, conjunction)
as shown by Themes used (topical themes and textual themes). It is in consonance with
Hasan & Halliday (1976) that cohesive devices function to make the text logically connected.
However, from twelve sentences made, the writer only uses four patterns of theme
progression in form of reiteration. Of course, the lack of thematic progression causes the
ideas of the text are not linked to each other (Halliday, 1994a).

In other words, the writer has not clearly understood how to link ideas in a text. This
phenomenon shows that the student needs more practice on how to sequence ideas. It is in
line with Gracia (2009) that students should be given space and time to do writing practice.
Moreover, it is also stated that teachers have an important role in helping students build
connectedness and in the construction of information made (Christie & Martin, 1997).This
can be conducted in the step of Joint construction of the text and independent construction of
the text as suggested by Gibbons (2002); Emilia (2005).

Besides, the absence of reference as mentioned in previous part should have been
concerned by the teacher since it is stated by Christie & Martin (1997) that references in
discussion text must be noted. It means that the teacher should have checked the student’s
work carefully dealing with the absence of references because it is categorized as the form of
plagiarism. To anticipate it, the teacher should inform students that putting the reference
where they get the factual information is an important thing to do in a writing process. This
process can be conducted also in BKoF ( by informing this thing in details) as well as in MoT
step (by giving the model text that puts the reference).

Furthermore, checking students’ work can be conducted during the process of giving
the feedback, so that, the teacher will see the problems encountered by students directly. It is
in line with Derewinka (2004) and Emilia (2005) that teachers are demanded to give
feedback to what students have achieved in constructing the text. The prominence of giving
feedback is also in consonance with the theory of output hypothesis as proposed by Swain
(1985) that the feedback is crucial to be given to students aiming at avoiding students stay in
incorrect hypothesis in using a language.

To infer, the student need explicit knowledge of the text through explicit teaching
(Gibbons, 2002) as well as more writing practices (Garcia, 2002). Besides, the teacher’s
control as an example; by giving feedback) to check the process of students’ writing also
needs to be taken into account since it contributes to have a clear reflection about the
teaching process conducted as well as to avoid plagiarism in doing the work.
REFERENCES

1. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School Discourse. London: Continuum.

2. Christie, F., & Martin, J.R. (1997). Genre and Institution. London: Continuum.
3. Derewianka. (2004). Exploring How Texts Works. Australia: Primary English
Teaching Association.
4. Derewianka, B & Jones, P. (2012). Teaching language in Context. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
5. Eggins, Suzane. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (second
edition). London: Continuum..
6. Emilia, Emi. (2011). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris:
Petunjuk untuk Guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press
7. Emilia, Emi. (2014). Introducing Functional Grammar. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.
8. Emilia, E. (2005). A critical Genre- Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing
in a Tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. Doctorate Dissertation Department of
Language, Literacy, and Arts Education Faculty of Education the University of
Melbourne. Unpublished Dissertation.
9. Garcia, O. (2009). Billingual Education in 21th century. A global perspective. West
Sussex: Blackwell publishing
10. Gerot, Linda & Wignell, Peter. (2002). MAKING SENSE OF FUNCTIONAL
GRAMMAR. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.
11. Gibbons, Pauline. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning; Teaching
Second Languag Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, USA:
Heinemann.
12. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994a). An introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd Edition).
London, Edward Arnold
13. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985b). Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin
University Press.
14. Halliday, M.A.K. (2002b). On Grammar. London: Continuum.
15. Halliday, M.A.K & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional
Grammar (3rd edition). London: Arnold.
16. Hasan and Haliday (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman
17. Knapp, Peter & Watkins, Megan (2005). Genre, TEXT, Grammar. Sydney: UNSW
Press book.
18. Martin, J.R, Matthiessen, C.M.I.M, Painter, Claire (1997). Working with Functional
Grammar. New York: St Martin’s Press
19. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, Frames and Writing in research settings. Amsterdam:
John Benyamins Publishing Company.
20. Schleppegrell, Mary.J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A functional Linguistics
Perspective. London: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES PULISHER.

21. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M Gass & C. Madden (Eds),
Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
22. Thai, Minh Duc (2009). Text- based Language Teaching. St Cecil Hills:
MAZMANIA PRESS.