Ideational Meanings of Teachers' Utterances in Reading and Writing Classes
This study is aimed at describing the ideational meanings of teachers’ utterances in Reading and Writing classes. It reveals what processes, participants and circumstances are found in the teachers’ utterances. The data were taken from the Reading and Writing classes conducted at a university in Semarang city. The data were collected by video recording the teaching and learning processes in Reading and Writing classes, then they were analyzed by segmenting the utterances into clauses; identifying the process, participants, and circumstances; classifying the processes, participants and circumstances based on their type; and interpreting the data. The results showed that the processes mostly found in the teachers’ utterances in Reading class are relational ones with carrier and attribute as participants, the second are mental processes with senser and phenomenon as the participants, while in those of Writing class are material with actor and goal as participants and the second are relational with carrier and attribute as participants. Relational processes are dominant in Reading class because the teacher explained many terms or vocabularies found in the text to make the students really understand them. That material processes are dominant in Writing class is caused by the fact that in Writing class the teacher often asks the students to do some actions like writing or doing something.
 Watskins, P. (2004). Writing. English Teaching professional Issue, 30, 40-41.
 Lewitt, P.J. (1990). How to Cook a Tasty Essay. English Teaching Forum. Vol. 26, 17 – 23.
 Richards, J.C., & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Bull, G & Anstey, M (2010 a), Evolving Pedagogies; Reading and Writing in a Multimodal World, Education Services Australia, Melbourne.
 Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. (1994). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (fourth edition). London: Routledge.
 Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: a Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication, London: Routledge.
 Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum.
 Gerot, Linda and Wignell, Peter. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Gerd Stabler.
 Butt, D., Fahey, R., Spinks, S., &Yallops, C. (2001). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (Second edition). Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.
 Derewianka, Beverly. (1990). Exploring How Texts Work. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association
 Hammond, Jennifer and Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. In Carter, R. And Nunan, D. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Language. (pp.186-193). Cambridge University Press.
 Hyland, Ken. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
 Alaei. Mahya, Ahangin. Saedah. 2016. A Study of Ideational Metafunction in Jo-seph Conrad’s Hearth of Darkness: A Critical Discourse Analysis. English Lan-guage Teaching Journal. Vol. 9 No. 4 2016. Canadian Center of Science and Edu-cation.
 Gusnawaty, Yastiana. Yuli, Yassi. Abdul Hakim. 2017. Ideational Meaning of Butonese Folklore: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Study. Rupkhata Journal on Interdisiplinary Studies in Humanities. Vol. IX No. 1.2017.
Copyright (c) 2018 International Journal of Language Teaching and Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to International Journal of Language Teaching and Education (IJoLTe) and Magister Program of English Education Department, Universitas Jambi as publisher of the journal.