S~,rm,. Vol. 22. No. 3, pp.

309-318, 1994
Copyright 8 1994 Ekvier Science Lrd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. AU rights reserved
0346-25 IX/94 %7.W + 0.00
0346-251X(94)00021-2

IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS IN INTEGRATED LANGUAGE

LEARNING

JOHN BURGESS

Centre for English Language Studies in Education,

School of Education, University of Manchester

Schema theory and discourse analysis lead the writer to believe that three commonly used
“ideational frameworks”-flow charts, grids and tree diagrams-are the best models we
have of how the mind organizes ideas in information sets, and that language learning
benefits from a consistent exploitation of these frameworks.

This paper shows how each of the three ideational frameworks can be used as the
central device in an integrated model of language learning, where form is learned
through the practice of skills. The internal logic of each framework is defined, showing
its relationship with types of transactional discourse. The frameworks are located in a
spectrum of modes of expression of ideational information. It is then demonstrated how
a framework can act as the central device in two respects: (a) between the different modes
of expression, in a progression designed to facilitate the learners’ manipulation of the
language and to lead them to an understanding of it; and (b) between receptive and
productive skills activities, in a progression from top-down content-focus to bottom-up
form-focus. In the course of this, it is explained how the framework provides structured
exposure to, and practice of, the formal features of the target language.

INTRODUCTION

It has been the received wisdom for over ten years that language learning activities are effective
if they are ‘integrated’ (Byrne, 1981; McEldowney, 1982; McKay, 1980; Read, 1985; Widdowson,
1990). To achieve this, major aspects of language use are interwoven with each other in ways which
reflect real-world cormnunication. So the acquisition and practice of language form (grammar and
lexis, pronunciation, spelling etc.) may be incorporated into activities which primarily practise
the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Further, these skills can best be integrated
in a model where practice of the receptive skills of listening and reading leads into practice of
the productive ones of speaking and writing. Such integration can be achieved through the use
of a body of information: the learners read, or listen to, a discourse expressing the body of
information and later reproduce at least some of its content in spoken and/or written language
(Fig. 1); in the process, they learn new linguistic forms
310 JOHN BURGESS

Listening
and/or ++++ Speaking ii++ Writing
Reading
Fig. I. An integrated model of skills practice

This will normally entail the learner’s manipulation of what Halliday (1975) referred to as the
‘ideational’ dimension of the discourse
relating to the content of what is said. [It is] with this component [that] the speaker expresses his
experience of the external world, and of the internal world of his own consciousness (op.cit.: 17)

The consistent use of recognizable frameworks, or schematic structures, to control the ideational
content will facilitate the manipulation.

IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS

In schemata, or knowledge structures (Carrel1 et al., 1989; Carrel1 and Eisterhold, 1983; Graney,
1992; Rumelhart, 1981), we have models of how the mind deals with ideational information.
Schemata have the function of allowing participants in communication to build newly-acquired
information into what is already known. They incorporate the internal relationships between
ideational components within any body of information that is being built up or extended.

Certain schemata can be usefully expressed as ideational frameworks-grids, flow charts and tree
diagrams. These can be used to contain and organize the ideational content that language learners
are dealing with; in other words, they can function as the medium through which the language
is processed, the link between the receptive skills of reading or listening and the productive skills
of speaking and writing. They are recommended by Graney (1992), Guri-Rozenblit (1989) and
Holliday (1976) as devices (“text graphs” or “maps”) for aiding the practice of reading, and by
Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1988) for grammar. Let us develop the integrative logic of the argument
further.

It is no accident that flow charts, grids and tree diagrams are used very commonly and widely in
the fields of education, professional communication and the media. They are accessible models
of three distinct but basic modes of thinking, patterns of linkage between ideas in bodies of
information. These models have been found to be important in the ideational dimension of
discourse analysis (Burgess, 1987), in that they reveal patterns of rhetoric that link statements
together into holistic suprasentential units.

Flow charts embody temporal or causal sequences. “Flow thinking” (Burgess, 1987) is managing
a series of ideas that interrelate in terms of such sequences. Thus the events in a narrative, the steps
of a process, or the steps in a set of procedural instructions are linked together in a sequential chain
that is readily represented in a flow chart (Fig. 2)
 IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS IN INTEGRATED LANGUAGE LEARNlNG 311

Shut off the water supply.

$
Open the tap fully.
A
Loosen the head with a spanner.
L
etc,
Fig. 2a. A simple linear flow chart.

’ The milk is transported

to the dairy.
c J.
It may be pasteurised. It may be sterilised.
& &
It is bottled.
I
Fig. 2b. A bifurcating linear flow chart.

-1
He saw an advert for a job. - - If -)-he i&d iot se&k- ,
, the job,
__--T-e--- I
& 4
-a
He applied for it, 1-he would not be
I
I
I the director.
& _-a------- I

He got it.
&
etc.
Fig. 2c. A lateral-branch flow chart.
t
The gas flame heats ’ It enters the fire
l
the air. through the air duct.
& t
t 4
The air leaves the fire
It falls.
through the convector.
4 t
A I
It rises into the room. i It cools.

Fig. 2d. A cyclic flow chart.

712 JOHN BURGESS

Discourse carries surface signals that reflect the deeper-level flow-thinking. Let us look briefly
at the surface features of a discourse expressing the body of information in Fig. 2a. In sequential
language, the dynamic verbs are highly significant (McEldowney. 1982). If the mind is, as it were,
moving forwards along the flow of ideational sequence. we find relatively straightforward forms,
e.g. Shut off the blater supply md open the tqfidly. On the other hand, we might find this expressed
as a warning: 0111~Olsen the tap ~hrn yu huk’e .shut oj’the \rwter supply. In this case, the form
have shut CJ~marks a mental look back through the flow of ideas to a step that precedes the opening
of the tap. Similarly, in English noun phrase behaviour we notice patterns such as the use of the
article CIto introduce a new singular entity, followed by the use of the co refer subsequently to
the same entity. These principles, along with others, are observable in all discourse expressing
flow-thinking.

Grids (or “matrices” as Graney, 1992, calls them) represent the attribution of characteristics to
phenomena. “Attribution thinking” (Burgess, 1987) is managing clusters of ideas that interrelate
across two axes: (i) the axis of phenomena, such as certain water-taps, or people one knows; and
(ii) the axis of criteria-some relatively objective such as shape, size etc., others more subjective
such as friendliness, humorousness etc. The interrelation is as follows: a characteristic occurs at
the point where a phenomenon meets a criterion. So in Fig. 3, where the phenomenon “tap 2” meets
the criterion “material”, we have a characteristic: “brass”.

name Il~caticm shape material ccmdi tinn

------I
we
in the chromed about
Tap 1 straight okay
cellar brass 10 years

Tap 2
on the
back wall
S-shaped
I
brass
about.
50 years ------I
worn,
corroded

Fig. 3. An example of a grid.

A discourse expressing some of the ideas contained in the grid in Fig. 3 might be as follows:

Well. I’ve looked at those taps. The one in the cellar seems okay. I reckon it can’t be much more than
ten years old-it’s one of those straight ones, you know, brass with chrome on. But that brass one
on the back wall needs replacing-it’s all worn and corroded. (etc.)

There is no given sequence here; the speaker/writer presents points of information according to
their own agenda. As is typical in the descriptive kind of language that most overtly expresses
attribution thinking, the discourse has a high incidence of adjectival, prepositional and nominal
phrases expressing the characteristics, and noun phrases or pronouns expressing the phenomena;
and the links are made by forms of the stative verb BE or related verbs, e.g. SEEM (McEldowney,
1982). Where a speaker/writer makes a comparison between two or more phenomena (e.g. it’s
much older than the other one) one might imagine that a reference is being made across columns
or rows of the mental grid.

Tree diagrams represent the highly abstract classification of ideas into hierarchies. “Hierarchy
thinking” (Burgess, 1987) is relating ideas to each other in order of generality.
 IDEATlONAL FRAMEWORKS IN INTEGRATED LANGUAGE LEARNING 313

taps
-...___/i_
/ \
single mixer
_/\-...__
/ \
standard sllpa
tap
/ \
can cause does not cause
water-hammer wa t erhammer
Fig. 4. An example of a tree diagram.

A discourse expressing the information contained in Fig. 4 might typically be as follows:

There are two basic types of taps: single and mixer. The supatap is one kind of single tap that has an
advantage over the standard single variety in that it does not cause water hammer.

This discourse makes mental moves downward, as it were, through the hierarchy, though it is also
possible for upward moves to occur (e.g. The panther is a member of the cat family). The
significant linguistic items in hierarchy discourse are There are two types of. . and so on. Overt
statements of hierarchy involving such phrases are typical of academic or other formal language
settings, where hierarchy thinking is an important skill.

Graney (1992), like Carrel1 et al. (1989), adds a fourth ‘type of mapping’ which he calls the
‘sunburst’. This is essentially a radial form of a tree diagram. The advantage of the radial pattern
is that it gives space to extend the tree in more directions than does the vertical tree. This in turn
allows one to incorporate into the schema (or ‘mind map’) other sorts of ideational organization,
such as flows and grids (as does Buzan, 1974). But for the purposes of achieving the formal and
functional predictability which are so important for learners of a second or foreign language, it
is worth keeping these different types of schemata distinct.

To elaborate this point a little further, we notice that even where a discourse covers different bodies
of information (as most real-world discourses do), it is always possible to sift out elements of the
different sets and incorporate them into relevant frameworks. For instance, in reading, or listening
to, an account of an accident, we would expect to receive narrative information about a sequence
of events and descriptive information about conditions and possibly participants’ responses or
feelings. The former could be sorted into a flow chart and the latter into grids. From the point of
view of the language learner, it is fruitful to undertake this sorting, since linguistic expressions
of certain structural properties will then be associated with like expressions, e.g. stem+& verbs
in narrative, and BE + complement expressions in description (McEldowney, 1982).

IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS AS EXPRESSIONS OF INFORMATION

Ideational frameworks are one way of expressing bodies of information that can also be expressed
in at least one other way, i.e. discourse. Ideational frameworks are an abstract code; discourse is
314 JOHN BURGESS

more abstract still. On the other hand, there are more concrete expressions of information; the
relationships are expressed in the grid in Fig. 5, which presents the spectrum of common
expressions of information, corresponding with transactional functions of linguistic discourse, based
on those defined by McEldowney (1982).
*
linguistic ideational
graphic diagram picture real ia
discourse f ramewark
axtremely abstract qua5 i- very extremely absolutely
abstract; but having concrete: concrete: concrete: concrete:
code visible physical represents records visible,
strut turc strut ture reality reality tangible
instruction, procedural
narratiun, flclw line- route drawing, demo, ,
sequenced chart graph map pit ture anac torrent
description strip
non- HapI pit ture, actual
‘bar-
sequenced grid plan, photograph, abject
dewiption IgraPh iSKtiMIa1 8J&l# person I
.diagran relief map place
I I r
non-
,trce !pie- -
sequenced
diagrarr chart
description
I I I I I I
Fig. 5. Expressions of information.

USING IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS IN LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Referring back to our model of skills-integration (Fig. l), learners experience language through
listening to it or reading it. This is information expressed in the most abstract form-discourse.
To arrive at an understanding of it, they need to be able ultimately to translate it into the most
concrete form that is appropriate to the type of information (see Fig. 5). In the process, they need
to manipulate the language so as to be confident with it at the point where they need to produce
it in speech and/or writing. This manipulation can be facilitated by the use of the appropriate
ideational framework, followed where possible by the use of a more concrete visual expression
of the body of information the learners are dealing with. Thus, we can modify Fig. 1 slightly:

Listening
Ideational j
and/or 4 <Visual) -+ Speaking + Writing
framework
Reading

Fig. 6. Integrated learnmg activities.

So, if the body of information is a story, with the usual narrative plot, and descriptions of people,
places etc., the learners’ procedure might be as follows:
 IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS IN INTEGRATED LANGUAGE LEARNING 315

1. Read, or listen to, the story, and transfer the narrative information into a flow diagram.
2. Use the notes in the flow diagram to practise telling the narrative orally.
3. Read or listen again (if necessary), and transfer the descriptive information into a grid or grids.
4. Use the notes in the ideational frameworks to retell the story orally.
5. Order and label a jumbled picture-strip relating the same story.
6. Retell the story orally, using the picture-strip.
7. Retell the story in writing, using the picture-strip.

Of course, if the material read or listened to involved, say, a description of the trends in the export
performance of a country, it would be appropriate to use a grid as the ideational framework and
a line-graph as the visual.

GUIDING SKILLS PRACTICE AND CONTROLLING FORM

In the above procedure, the learners would have practised a range of skills: listening and/or reading
a discourse while notemaking with an ideational framework and graphic or visual material, and
speaking and writing from the notes. Used in this setting, the ideational framework has a dual pivotal
function: (i) it synthesizes and organizes the body or bodies of information found in reading and/or
listening, so that the information can be used to practise speaking and writing; and (ii) it also acts
as an analytical filter to allow the learners to focus on the forms of the language they need when
speaking and writing the information.

It is worth noting how the frameworks facilitate this focus on form. In a flow diagram or a grid
each box holds one piece of information, and in a tree diagram each line represents a piece of
information connecting two concepts. In discourse, the information from each box of the flow
diagram or grid may be presented as one sentence; similarly with the piece of information
represented by a line in a tree diagram. The formal nature of each sentence is closely and reliably
bound up with the overall structure of the framework, as suggested earlier. Thus, in discourse that
can be synthesized into a flow diagram we find dynamic verbs to be highly significant in certain
predictable sentence structures in accordance with the discourse purpose (narration, instruction,
etc.). In discourse related to grids, nominal, adjectival and prepositional phrases are significant
in predictable sentence structures that are typical of the context of non-sequenced description. And
in discourse whose meanings may be synthesized in tree diagrams, a limited range of expressions
like There are. . . with nominal phrases are predictable.

AN EXAMPLE LESSON

Let us now look at a more detailed example of how the practice of skills and the focus on form
might work. The learners are going to listen to a dialogue about houses in a particular area (Birchley)
where one of the speakers (Alan) is looking for a house to buy. The dialogue contains general
references to the sorts of houses that are to be found in the area, and specific descriptions of two
houses that he has looked at.

The first task the learners carry out as they listen to part of the dialogue is to find out what the
conversation is about. When they have decided it is about houses, this word is put at the top of
316 JOHN BURGESS

the board/OHT/worksheet. They they are told to listen to find out “houses in [?I,” which produces
the complete phrase houses in Birchley. They are then asked to listen and find out how many types
of houses there are in Birchley, and so on in stages to build the tree diagram downwards, so that
one ends up with the following:

houses in Birchley
_/\_
/ \
detached semi-detached
-~~_ \
/ \ \
two-storey bungalows two-storey
houses houses

Fig. 7. Example lesson tree diagram.

The act of building the tree diagram has drawn the learners’ attention to certain pieces of
information in the streams of speech they have been hearing in the dialogue, and has encouraged
them to filter out other information. This is good training for listening to the target language in
the real-world. (The same tasks, carried out as they were reading a text on the same topic, would
be equally good training for reading the target language.) And, as a result of the listening phase,
the learners can now see in the framework the relationships between the pieces of information
that they have been listening for.

The teacher now models the discourse that the learners will be able to speak and write. Referring
to the tree diagram, the teacher says:

There are two sorts of houses in Birchley: detached houses and semi-detached ones. Some of the
detached ones are two-storey houses, and some of them are bungalows. The semi-detached ones are
two-storey houses.

The teacher’s overt reference to the tree diagram while speaking demonstrates the link between
the ideational organization as displayed in the tree diagram and the forms of the language that
expresses the ideas. The learners then practise saying the same discourse, again referring to the
tree diagram, which reinforces the link between forms and ideational structure. It is at this point
that the learners are practising the syntax, the grammar (e.g. plural forms) and the pronunciation
that are appropriate to the type of discourse they are experiencing in the target language.

So far, the learners have been manipulating the language, as it were, without necessarily fully
understanding the meanings they have been dealing with. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend
the tree diagram with visuals: that is, the learners add pictures of detached two-storey houses and
bungalows, and two-storey semi-detached houses, to the bottom of the tree diagram. Then they
can practise saying the controlled discourse again, this time with fuller understanding of what they
are saying. It is a matter ofjudgement to withhold the meanings, as expressed in the visuals, until
this stage, and the judgement is based on the following argument. The visuals, being very
concrete, communicate the meanings extremely efficiently; so efficiently in fact that they could
distract the learners’ attention from the language. The use of the tree diagram gives an opportunity
 IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORKS IN INTEGRATED LANGUAGE LEARNING 317

to hold the learners’ attention on the language while they are dealing with an essential aspect of
their meanings-the rhetorical relationships between them.

To continue the lesson, the learners carry out further guided and listening tasks to build up the
following grid containing information about the two houses that Alan has looked at:

Two houses in Birchley

where type structure bedrooms gardens garage

Arndale semi- front

brick 3 integral
Road detached & back

Fern detached stone in the

2 front
Avenue bungalow garden

Fig. 8. Example lesson grid.

This provides what is necessary for speaking the following:

Alan has looked at two houses in Birchley. One of them is in Arndale Road. It is semi-detached. It
is brick. It has three bedrooms. It has a front garden and a back garden. It has an integral garage (etc.).

The use of the table focuses the learners’ attention on the special features of attributive descriptive
language, as discussed earlier. We might say that each box of the grid produces one sentence, and
the meanings can be reinforced by the use of appropriate visual material as with the tree diagram.
The learners complete the work by writing about the houses in Birchley, based on both the sets
of notes-the tree diagram and the grid.

If the lesson involved sequenced language-say a set of instructions-the first item of language
to put in each box of the flow diagram would be the imperative verb. Other parts of the sentences
could be added in stages, in such a way as to discern objects from adverbials etc. The sequential
structure of the flow chart would help the learners sort out any complexities of sequence that might
exist in the discourse they are reading or listening to. For example, the discourse they are reading
might include the sentence Add 200 grams ofparboiled diced potatoes to the onions. This could
be resolved as follows:

200 rzrams of potatoes.

the potatoes.

/%-&+ them.

.L

]Add them to the onions.

Fig. 9. Extract from an example flow chart.

318 JOHN BURGESS

As we noted earlier (in Figs 2a-2d) flow diagrams can be more complex than this simple linear
pattern. For instance, alternative treatments of milk in the process of its production (rhe milk may
be pasteurized or sterilized) can be represented by a bifurcation in the flow diagram (as in Fig.
2b above). The physical structure of the bifurcation supports the learners’ understanding of the
function of optionality expressed in the form may be + stem+ed. Again, conditional forms (e.g.
Jf it was not pasteurized, bacteria would develop in it) can be dealt with in a similar way, with
lateral branches from the main flow (see Fig. 2c above). This lateral structure supports the
learners’ recognition of the forms and functions of phrases like was + stem+ed and would + stem
in this context. Thus, the ideational frameworks can be modified to absorb all sorts of linguistic
patterns fulfilling all kinds of functions.

CONCLUSION

Ideational frameworks act as a medium for the practice of skills, filtering information from
received spoken or written language and providing it for the production of more spoken or
written language. They also function as a control device for the clear management of language
form, so as to integrate the learning and practice of form into the practice of skills.

REFERENCES

BURGESS, J. (1987) Preparing Overseas Students for the Oral Content of Further Education Courses.
Unpublished M.Phil. thesis. Department of Education, University of Manchester.
BUZAN, T. (1974) Use Your Head. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
BYRNE, D. (1981) Integrating skills. In Johnson, K. and Morrow, K. (eds), Communicarion in the
Classroom, pp. 108-I 14. London: Longman.
CARRELL, P. L. and EISTERHOLD, J. C. (1983) Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 17,553-573.
CARRELL, P. L., PHARIS, B. G. and LIBERTO, J. C. (1989) Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading.
TESOL Quarterly, 23,647-678.
CELCE-MURCIA, M. and HILLES, S. (1988) Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grummar. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
GRANEY, J. M. (1992) A framework for using text graphing. System, 20, 161-167.
GURI-ROZENBLIT, S. (1989) Effects of a tree diagram on students’ comprehension of main ideas in an
expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 24,236247.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1975) Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London:
Longman.
HOLLIDAY, W. G. (1976) Teaching verbal chains using flow diagrams and texts. Audio-Visuml
Communication Review, 24,63-78.
McELDOWNEY, P. L. (1982) English in Context: Teacher’s Book. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson.
MCKAY, S. (1980) Towards an integrated syllabus. In Croft, K. (ed.), Readings in English as a Second
Language:for Teachers and Teacher Trainees (second ed.), pp. 72-84. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
READ, C. (1985) Integrating the skills. In Matthews, A., Spratt, M. and Dangerfield, L. (eds), At the
Chalkface, pp. 72-74. London: Edward Arnold.
RUMELHART, D. E. (1980) Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In Rand, J., Spiro, B. C. B. and
Brewer, W. E. (eds), Theoretical Zssues in Reading Comprehension, pp. 33-58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1990) Aspects ofLanguage Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.