Advertisement

Bringing It All Together: Critical Take(s) on Systemic Functional Linguistics

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

Abstract

This chapter discusses the strengths and challenges of implementing the critical takes on SFL articulated in this volume. The major strengths across the studies relate to their shared focus on a systematic SFL metalanguage, critical orientation to teaching and researching and use of a robust pedagogical design that supports multilingual students and teachers in investigating and critiquing how semiotic choices realize knowledge for specific audiences, purposes and contexts. A common and significant challenge is the lack of institutional and systematic support for longitudinal implementations of SFL-based instruction and research. Implications include the need for administrators and policy makers to be invited into the discussion about critical SFL-informed disciplinary approaches; and for more studies to be conducted on dialogic SFL-informed classroom instruction across the curriculum and across institutions.

Keywords

Systemic functional linguistics Critical discourse analysis Language instruction Critical literacy 

References

  1. Adoniou, M. (2013). Drawing to support writing development in English language learners. Language and Education, 27, 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajayi, L. (2012). 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
  3. 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
  4. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 1, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya, R., Gupta, S., Jewitt, C., Newfield, D., Reed, Y., & Stein, P. (2007). The policy–practice nexus in English classrooms in Delhi, Johannesburg, and London: Teachers and the textual cycle. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 465–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brisk, M. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cammarata, L. (2016). Foreign language education and the development of inquiry-driven language programs. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 123–146). New York/London: Routledge : Imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  8. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking CDA. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Christie, F. (2005). Language education in the primary years. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative. n.d.. http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
  11. de Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2008). ESL is good teaching ‘plus’: Preparing standard curriculum teachers for all learners. In M. E. Brisk (Ed.), Language, culture, and Community in Teacher Education (pp. 127–148). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Early, M., & Marshall, S. (2008). Adolescent ESL students’ interpretation and appreciation of literary texts: A case study of multimodality. Canadian Modern Language Review/la Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 64, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Early, M., Kendrick, M., & Potts, D. (2015). Multimodality: Out from the margins of English language teaching [special issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 447–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. New York: Trans-Atlantic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. 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 21 st century (pp. 237–250). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging : Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Guanawan, 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
  18. Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). 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
  19. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reform in the United States. Special Edition of Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourse. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lanskhear, C. (1998). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  23. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourse in the ESL classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  24. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunderson, L. (2007). English-only instruction and immigrant students in secondary schools. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Hafner, C. A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 655–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halliday, M. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s The inheritors. In S. Chatman (Ed.), Literary style: A symposium (pp. 362–400). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Harman, R. (2007). Critical teacher education: Discursive dance of an urban middle school teacher. Language and Education, 21(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Hasan, R. (1971). Rime and reason in literature. In S. Chatman (Ed.), Literary style: A symposium (pp. 299–326). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hasan, R. (1985). Linguistics, language, and verbal art. Deakin: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Hasan, R. (2011). Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  36. Humphrey, S. (2010). Modelling social affiliation and genre in the civic domain. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Directions in appliable linguistics (pp. 76–91). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  37. Humphrey, S., Martin, J., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). A 3x3 toolkit for academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Directions in Appliable linguistics (pp. 185–199). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  38. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  39. Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  41. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., & Reid, E. (2005). English in urban classrooms: A multimodal perspective on teaching and learning. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lotherington, H., Holland, M., Sotoudeh, S., & Zentena, M. (2008). Project-based community language learning: Three narratives of multilingual story-telling in early childhood education. Canadian Modern Language Review/la Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 65, 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2011). A grammatics “good enough” for school English in the 21st century. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34, 9–23.Google Scholar
  44. Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24, 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44, 412–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potts, D., & Moran, M. J. (2013). Mediating multilingual children’s language resources. Language and Education, 27, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. South Yorkshire: Equinox.Google Scholar
  51. Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schleppegrell, M. J., & Fang, Z. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Toolan, M. (1988). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27, 442–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Zygouris-Coe, V. (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