Advertisement

‘We Can Speak to the World’: Applying Meta-linguistic Knowledge for Specialized and Reflexive Literacies

  • Sally HumphreyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)

Abstract

This chapter reports on the work of one teacher and her students in an urban multicultural high school as they applied their growing knowledge of language to access and deconstruct discourses of power across rhetorical contexts. Informed by Australian models of Critical SFL praxis (Martin JR, Rose D, Genre relations: mapping culture. London, Equinox, 2008; Macken-Horarik M, Literacy and learning across the curriculum: towards a model of register from secondary school teachers. In R Hasan, G Williams (eds) Literacy in society. London, Longman, pp 232–278, 1996a; Macken-Horarik M, Construing the invisible: specialised literacy practices in Junior Secondary English. Dissertation, University of Sydney, 1996b), as well as by international research in literacy education and sociology (Bernstein B, Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique. London, Taylor & Francis, 1996; Maton K, Knowledge and Knowers: towards a realist sociology of education. London, Routledge, 2014; Rose D, Martin JR, Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield, Equinox, 2012; Schleppegrell M, The language of schooling: a functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004; Schleppegrell M, The role of meta-language in supporting academic language development. Language Learning 63(1):153–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x., 2013), the chapter focuses on the crucial role of meta-language in expanding the critical social literacies of socio-economically and linguistically marginalized adolescent students.

Keywords

Critical social literacies Systemic functional linguistics Genre pedagogy Discourse semantics Appraisal 

References

  1. Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Oteíza, 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
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). National Assessment Program Literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN). Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2015). Australian curriculum: English v. 8.0. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.Google Scholar
  4. Avila, J., & Zacher Pandya, J. (2012). This issue. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2012.636321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. In class, codes and control (Vol. 4). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Brisk, M. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Byrnes, H. (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Callaghan, M., & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre based approach. Sydney: Metropolitan East DSP.Google Scholar
  10. Caro, D., McDonald, J., & Willms, J. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558–590.Google Scholar
  11. Christie, F. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching critical social literacy: Report of the project of national significance on the preservice preparation of teachers of English literacy. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training.Google Scholar
  12. Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Language Learning, 62(Supplement 1).Google Scholar
  13. Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum Discourse Series.Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No child left behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Silva Joyce, H., & Feez, S. (2012). Text-based language and literacy education: Programming and methodology. Sydney: Phoenix Education.Google Scholar
  17. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. doi: 10.2307/40264512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, N. (1997). Justus interruptus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Freebody, P. (2010). Socially responsible literacy education: Toward an ‘organic relation’ to our place and time. In F. Christie & A. Simpson (Eds.), Literacy and social responsibility: Multiple perspectives (pp. 40–55). London: Equinox Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Gebhard, M., Demers, J., & Castillo-Rosenthal, Z. (2008). Teachers as critical text analysts: L2 literacies and teachers’ work in the context of high-stakes school reform. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 274–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. doi: 10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammond, J., & Miller, J. (Eds.). (2015). Classrooms of possibility: Supporting at-risk EAL students. Marrickville Metro: Primary English Teaching Association Australia.Google Scholar
  23. 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. Iddings (Eds.), Genre studies and language in education (pp. 75–91). London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Hasan, R. (2009). Semantic variation: Meaning in society and sociolinguistics. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan (Vol. 2). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  26. Hull, G. A., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2010). Literate arts in a global world: Reframing social networking as cosmopolitan practice. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(2), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphrey, S. (2010). Enacting rhetoric in the civic domain. English in Australia, 45(3), 9.Google Scholar
  28. Humphrey, S. (2013). Empowering adolescents for activist literacies. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 9(1), 114–135.Google Scholar
  29. Humphrey, S. (2015). A 4×4 literacy toolkit for empowering English language learners for high stakes academic literacies. In K. F. Malu & M. B. Schaefer (Eds.), Research on teaching and learning with the literacies of young adolescents (Vol. 10, pp. 49–73). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing (IUP).Google Scholar
  30. Humphrey, S., & Macnaught, L. (2016). Functional language instruction and the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4). doi: 10.1002/tesq.247.
  31. Humphrey, S., & Robinson, S. (2012). Using a 4×4 framework for whole school literacy development. In J. Knox (Ed.), Papers from the 39th International Systemic Functional Congress, Sydney, 2012 (pp. 81–86). The Organizing Committee of the 39th International Systemic Functional Congress.Google Scholar
  32. Iedema, R. (1997). The language of administration: Organizing human activity in formal institutions. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 73–100). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  33. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, P., & Chen, H. (2012). Teacher’s knowledge about language: Issues of pedagogy and expertise. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy., 35(2), 147–168.Google Scholar
  35. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Debating functional literacy. http://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-6/kalantzis-and-cope-debating-functional-literacy. Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
  36. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies, 5(4), 338–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Love, K., & Humphrey, S. (2012). A multi-level language toolkit for the Australian curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 175–193.Google Scholar
  39. Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2012.636324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Macken-Horarik, M. (1996a). 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
  41. Macken-Horarik, M. (1996b). Construing the invisible: Specialised literacy practices in junior secondary English. Dissertation, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  42. Macken-Horarik, M. (2014). Making productive use of four models of school English: A case study revisited. English in Australia, 49(3), 7–19.Google Scholar
  43. Macken-Horarik, M., & Morgan, W. (2011). Towards a metalanguage adequate to linguistic achievement in post-structuralism and English: Reflections on voicing in the writing of secondary students. Linguistics and Education, 22(2), 133–149. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2010.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: Genre-based literacy pedagogy revisited. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123–155). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  46. Martin, J. R. (2002). A universe of meaning – How many practices? Response to Grabe. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 269–278). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Martin, J. R. (2013). Embedded literacy: Knowledge as meaning. Linguistics and Education, 24, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  49. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. McCormack, R. (2004) Common units: Politics and rhetoric [online]. Ngoonjook, No. 25 Jul 2004: 25–33. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=969729651119986;res=IELIND> ISSN: 1039–8236. [cited 01 Mar 16].
  53. Millard, E. (2006). Transformative pedagogy: Teachers creating a literacy of fusion. In K. Pahl & J. Rowsell (Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice (pp. 234–253). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  54. Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Painter, C. (2000). Preparing for school: Developing a semantic style for educational knowledge. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 66–87). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  56. Partington, A. (2003). The linguistics of political argument. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
  58. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1995). Exploring literacy in school English (write it right resources for literacy and learning). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.Google Scholar
  59. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of meta-language in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(1), 153–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teese, R., & Lamb, S. (2009). Low achievement and social background: Patterns, processes and interventions. Melbourne: Centre for Post-Compulsory Education and Life-long Learning.Google Scholar
  62. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). Pisa 2012: How Australia measures up. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  63. Yasmeen, S. (2012). Sydney riots: Muslim responses to provocation must be more considered. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/sydney-riots-muslim-responses-to-provocation-must-be-more-considered-9607. Accessed 12 Jan 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations