Advertisement

Transforming Normative Discourses of Schooling: Critical Systemic Functional Linguistics Praxis

  • Ruth HarmanEmail author
Chapter
  • 750 Downloads
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)

Abstract

One of Halliday’s original purposes in developing Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) was to address and redress equity questions such as how and why certain groups of people are discriminated against because of their language use. This chapter provides an overview of SFL theory and why and how it has been used in recent years in the United States and elsewhere to support the academic, linguistic and cultural repertoires of multilingual and multicultural students and teachers. It further outlines key concepts drawn on by the mostly U.S. contributors throughout this volume, highlighting the similarities and differences of contributors’ approaches to critical SFL. Finally, it provides an overview of each of the three sections in the volume: (1) Reflection Literacy and Critical Language Awareness; (2) Register Variation and Equity; and (3) Multimodal Designing as they relate to SFL.

Keywords

Critical SFL Praxis Multilingual learners Social equity 

References

  1. Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. D. (2012). Developing disciplinary literacy in a multilingual history classroom. Linguistics and Education, 23(3), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M. O., & Oteiza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8–24.Google Scholar
  3. Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. (2008). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1/2), 295–323.Google Scholar
  4. Ajayi, L. (2011). Video “reading” and multimodality: A study of ESL/literacy Pupils’ interpretation of “Cinderella” from their socio-historical perspective. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 44(1), 60–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allexsaht-Snider, M., Buxton, C., & Harman, R. (2013). Research and praxis on challenging anti-immigration discourses in school and community contexts. Norteamérica, 8(2), 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avalos, M. A., Medina, E., & Secada, W. (2015). Planning for instruction: Increasing multilingual learners’ access to algebraic word problems and visual graphics. In A. Bright, H. Hansen-Thomas, & L. C. de Oliveira (Eds.), The common core state standards in mathematics and English language learners: High school (pp. 5–28). Alexandria: TESOL Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brisk, M. (2012). Young bilingual writers’ control of grammatical person in different genres. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 445–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brisk, M. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for k-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brisk, M., & DeRosa, M. (2014). Young writers’ attempts at making meaning through complex sentence structures while writing a variety of genres. In L. De Oliveira & J. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in classrooms and contexts (pp. 8–24). Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
  10. Brisk, M., & Zisselberger, M. (2011). We’ve let them in on a secret: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners (pp. 111–126). Mahwah: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, C. (1985). Systemic linguistics: Theory and applications. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  12. Byrnes, H. (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Code meshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 3, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christie, F. (2007). Ongoing dialogue: Functional linguistic and Bernsteinian sociological perspectives on education. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy (pp. 3–13). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Christie, F., & Unsworth, L. (2000). Developing socially responsible language research. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities (pp. 1–26). London/Washington, DC: Cassell.Google Scholar
  16. Colombi, M. C. (2009). A systemic functional approach to teaching Spanish for heritage speakers in the United States. Linguistics and Education, 20, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crandall, J. A., Jaramillo, A., Olsen, L., & Peyton, J. K. (2001). Diverse teaching strategies for immigrant children. In R. W. Cole (Ed.), More strategies for educating everybody’s children (pp. 33–71). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  18. Daniello, F. (2014). Elementary grade teachers using systemic functional linguistics to inform genre-based writing instruction. In L. De Oliveira & J. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in classrooms and contexts. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. de Oliveira, L. C. (2011). Knowing and writing school history: The language of students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. de Oliveira, L., & Schleppegrell, M. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Djonov, E. N. (2007). Website hierarchy and the interaction between content organization, webpage and navigation design: A systemic functional hypermedia discourse analysis perspective. Information Design Journal, 15(2), 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  24. Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fang, Z. (2013). Learning to teach against the institutional grain: A professional development model for teacher empowerment. In X. Zhu & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century (pp. 237–250). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fenwick, L., Humphrey, S., Quinn, M., & Endicott, M. (2014). Developing deep understanding about language in undergraduate pre-service teacher education programs. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Firth, R. (Ed.). (1957). Man and culture: An evaluation of the work of Bronislav Malinowski. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingualism and translanguaging. In Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Garcia, K., & Falchi (2008) From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity matters: Research Review No. 1. Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  31. Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Unpacking academic literacy for ELLs in the context of high-stakes school reform: The potential of systemic functional linguistics. Language Arts, 85(5), 419–430.Google Scholar
  32. Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners (pp. 91–110). Mahwah: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  36. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  37. Halliday, M. (1996). Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 339–376). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  38. Halliday, M. (2002). On grammar and grammatics. In J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar: Volume 1: The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday (pp. 384–417). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  39. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotician perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Halliday, M., & Matthiesen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  41. Halliday, M., Mcintosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  42. Hamann, E., & Harklau, L. (2010). Education in the new Latino diaspora. In E. Murillo (Ed.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 157–169). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Harman, R. (2013). Literary intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harman, R. & Khote, N. (2017). Critical SFL Praxis with bilingual youth: Disciplinary instruction in a third space. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 2, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2017.1318663
  45. Harman, R., & Simmons, A. (2014). Critical systemic functional linguistics and literary narratives in subject English: Promoting language awareness and social action among K-12 students. In L. C. de Oliveira & J. G. Iddings (Eds.), Genre studies and language in education (pp. 75–91). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  47. Hasan, R. (2011). Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  48. Humphrey, S. (2010). Modelling social affiliation and genre in the civic domain. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Appliable linguistics (pp. 76–91). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  49. Humphrey, S., Martin, J., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). A 3×3 toolkit for academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Directions in appliable linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  50. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  51. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). Introduction. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 1–18). New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  53. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2016). Introducing multimodality. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Kanno, Y., & Harklau, L. (Eds.). (2012). Linguistic minority students go to college: Preparation, access, and persistence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lam, W. S. E., & Warriner, D. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lukin, A., Moore, A. R., Herke, M., Wegener, R., & Wu, C. (2011). Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Literacy and learning across the curriculum: Towards a model of register from secondary school teachers. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 232–278). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  60. Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2011). A grammatics ‘good enough’ for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realizing the potential. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34, 9–23.Google Scholar
  61. Martin, J. (2014). Evolving systemic functional linguistics: Beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics, 1(3), 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2196-419X-1-3.Google Scholar
  62. Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  63. Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiesen, & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 251–280). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  64. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Oakville: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Martin, J., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987) Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others) In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates, (pp. 58–82). Center for studies in literary education: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Matthiesen, C. (in press). Multilingual studies in systemic functional linguistics. In A. Baklouti (Ed.), Perspectives on systemic functional linguistics. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  68. Matthiessen, C., Kazuhiro, T., & Wu, C. (2008). Multilingual studies as a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies. In J. Webster (Ed.), Meaning in context (pp. 146–221). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  69. Moll, L. C. (2001). The diversity of schooling: A cultural-historical approach. In M. Reyes & Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  70. Molle, D., Sato, E., Boals, T., & Hedgspeth, C. A. (Eds.). (2015). Multilingual learners and academic literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Myhill, D., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (2011). Making meaning with grammar: A repertoire of possibilities. English in Australia, 47(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  73. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. O’Halloran, K. (Ed.). (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  75. O’Halloran, K. L. (2007). Mathematical and scientific forms of knowledge: A systemic functional multimodal grammatical approach. In F. Christie & J. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy, functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 205–236). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  76. O’Halloran, C. (2014). Supporting ELLs’ argumentative writing development. Written Communication, 31, 304–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Paugh, P., & Moran, M. (2013). Growing language awareness in the classroom garden. Language Arts, 90(4), 253–267.Google Scholar
  79. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Potts, D., & Moran, M. J. (2013). Mediating multilingual children’s language resources. Language and Education, 27(5), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ramirez, J. A. (2014). Genre-based principles in a content-based English as a second language classroom. In L. de Oliveira & J. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in classrooms and contexts (pp. 55–74). Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
  82. Ravitch, D. (2013). Why I cannot stand the common core standards. Found 27 May 2014 at URL: http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/
  83. Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. South Yorkshire: Equinox.Google Scholar
  84. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1994). Spine-chilling stories: A unit of work for junior secondary English. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.Google Scholar
  85. Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry potter and the sorcerer’s stone. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  86. Schleppegrell, M. (2002). Challenges of the science register for ESL students: Errors and meaning making. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 119–142). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  87. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  88. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2006). The challenges of academic language in school subjects. Retrieved Jan 2008, from http://www.umich.edu/~govrel/adoles_lit/ schleppegrell.pdf.
  89. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning: Introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of meta-language in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(1), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. Ruqaiya Hasan. (Book Review) Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(2), 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 1–20). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  93. Schleppegrell, M., & Go, A. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts, 84(6), 529–538.Google Scholar
  94. Schulze, J. (2011). Writing to persuade: A systemic functional view. GIST Educational Research and Teaching Journal, 5, 127–157.Google Scholar
  95. Shin, D., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal design and second language composition: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 373–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shin, D., Gebhard, M., & Seger, W. (2010). Weblogs and academic literacy development: Expanding audience and linguistic repertoires. In S. Rilling & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Authenticity in the classroom and beyond (pp. 99–111). Alexandria: TESOL.Google Scholar
  97. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  98. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Williams, G. (2000). Children’s literature, children and uses of language description. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  100. Zygouris-Coe, V. I. (2012). Disciplinary literacy and the common core state standards. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Language and Literacy DepartmentUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations