Student Use of SFL Resources on Fantasy, Canonical, and Non-fiction Texts: Critical Literacy in the High School ELA Classroom

  • Amber M. SimmonsEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)


This chapter explores how Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) in an upper high school English Language Arts classroom (ELA) supported students in recognizing how language patterns in texts positions people to think and behave in particular ways. SFL resources also deepened students’ language awareness as well as their writing on high stakes tests. The chapter provides educators with an example of how to use the resources of SFL with students to recognize and analyze critical issues in narrative, drama, and nonfiction texts.


Systemic functional linguistics Critical discourse analysis Secondary English education Critical language awareness Language instruction Critical literacy 


  1. Aronowitz, S. (1998). Introduction. In P. Freire, Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civil courage (Patrick Clarke, Trans.) (pp. 1–20). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. S. (1963). The process of education. New York: Alfred Knopf and Company.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1968). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  4. Christie, F., & Macken-Horarik, M. (2007). Building verticality on subject English. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 156–183). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. College Board. (2008). AP English language and composition practice exam. Retrieved from Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  7. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association. Retrieved from Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  8. Cranny-Francis, A. (1996). Technology and/or weapon: The discipline of reading in the secondary English classroom. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 172–190). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Essex: Longman Group.Google Scholar
  10. Fairclough, N. (1992). Introduction. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 1–29). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. New York: Trans-Atlantic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. J Adolesc Adult Lit, 53(7), 597–597.Google Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Myra Bergan Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published in 1970).Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold (Original work published in 1985).Google Scholar
  15. Harman, R. (2008). Systemic functional linguistics and the teaching of literature in urban school classrooms. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Harman, R. (2013). Literacy intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harman, R., & Simmons, A. M. (2014). Systemic functional linguistics: Resource to promote critical literacy practices in K-12 classroom contexts. In L. C. de Oliveira & J. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts (pp. 75–91). Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
  18. Humphrey, S., Love, K., & Droga, L. (2011). Working grammar. Sydney: Pearson.Google Scholar
  19. Hymes, D. (1977). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. London: Tavistock Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ivanic, R., & Simpson, J. (1992). Who’s who in academic writing? In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 141–173). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Janks, H., & Ivanic, R. (1992). CLA and emancipatory discourse. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 305–331). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, and grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  23. Love, K. (2006). Appraisal in online discussions of literary texts. Text &Talk, 26(2), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macken-Horarik, M. (1998). Exploring the requirements of critical school literacy. In F. Christie & R. Mission (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 74–103). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text, 23(2), 285–312.Google Scholar
  26. Macken-Horarik, M. (2006). Knowledge through “know how”: Systemic functional grammatics and the symbolic reading. Engl Teach Pract Crit, 5(1), 102–121.Google Scholar
  27. Macken-Horarik, M. (2009). Navigational metalanguages for new territory in English: The potential of grammatics. Engl Teach Pract Crit, 8(3), 55–69.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, J. R. (2000). Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives (pp. 275–302). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  30. Mason, J. (2004). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Ostry, E. (2003). Accepting Mudbloods: The ambivalent social vision of J.K. Rowling’s fairy tales. In G. L. Anatol (Ed.), Reading harry potter: Critical essays (pp. 89–102). Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  32. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1994). Spine-chilling stories: A unit of work for junior secondary English. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.Google Scholar
  33. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature: The role of appraisal. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives (pp. 222–243). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  34. Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry potter and the Sorcerer’s stone. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  35. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2011). Supporting disciplinary learning through language analysis: Developing historical literacy. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 197–216). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  36. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(Suppl 1), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shadd-Cary, M.A. (1854, March 25). Why establish this paper? The Provincial Freeman, p. 1.Google Scholar
  38. Shakespeare, W. (2002). Othello. In T. R. Arp & G. Johnson (Eds.), Perrine’s literature: Structure, sound, and sense (8th ed., pp. 1361–1461). New York: Thomson.Google Scholar
  39. Simmons, A.M. (2012). A word in the hand: Supporting critical literacy through a discourse analysis of fantasy, canonical, and nonfiction texts. Dissertation, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  40. The New York Times. (2009). Text: Obama’s speech in Cairo. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  41. Wennerstrom, A. (2003). Discourse analysis in the language classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gwinnett County Public SchoolsSnellvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations