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 Bibers perspective to the text the writers 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 texts 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 the Middle East. American University of Cairo Press.

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Francis, G. 1990. Theme in the daily press. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics. 4 (1), 51-87. Fries, P. 1983. On the status of Theme: arguments from discourse. In J. Pet6fi and E. S6zer (eds.) Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Mamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. 116-152. Halliday, M. 1979. Difference between spoken and written language: Some implications for literacy teaching. In Page, G, Elkins, J. and O'Connor, B. (eds. ) Communication through reading: Proceedings of the 4th . 4ustralian Reading Conference, 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 University Press. Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. 1985/89. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press. Kaplan, R. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language learning, 16,1-20. Shouby, E. 1951. The influence of the Arabic Language on the psychology of the Arabs. Middle East Education, 5,2 84-3 02.