33.2039, Review: Danish; English; Spanish; Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition: Brisk, Schleppegrell (2021)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-2039. Thu Jun 16 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.2039, Review: Danish; English; Spanish; Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition: Brisk, Schleppegrell (2021)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Billy Dickson
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Goldfinch, Nils Hjortnaes,
        Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson, Amalia Robinson, Matthew Fort
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Hosted by Indiana University

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Amalia Robinson <amalia at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:46:40
From: Laura Dubcovsky [lauradubcovsky at gmail.com]
Subject: Language in Action

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36743417


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-1922.html

EDITOR: María Estela  Brisk
EDITOR: Mary  Schleppegrell
TITLE: Language in Action
SUBTITLE: SFL Theory across Contexts
PUBLISHER: Equinox Publishing Ltd
YEAR: 2021

REVIEWER: Laura Dubcovsky, University of California, Davis

SUMMARY

“Language in Action: SFL Theory across Contexts,” edited by Brisk and
Schleppegrell, explores different aspects of education and translation,
informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The volume combines
relevant SFL theoretical notions, such as register, metafunctions, and
components of the appraisal system, together with practical implications on
explicit teaching, genre pedagogy, and collaborative construction of meaning.
Parts One and Two are devoted to education and address academic language at
different grade levels and disciplines (Chapters 1-8), while Part Three
focuses on translation, considering different contexts and languages (Chapters
9-10). The introduction includes general explanations of key SFL notions,
specific orientations for each section, and a guiding table about “Key SFL
themes by chapter” that facilitates the reading throughout the book (Table
0.1, p. 7). 
 
The first part, “Studies in elementary and secondary education,” includes four
chapters. In the first one, Brisk describes, “Theory inspired best practices:
Elementary teachers appropriate SFL theory to inform their practice.” The
author traces the development of two grade school teachers who participated in
a ten-year collaborative project intended to improve writing instruction and
student performance. During the professional training, Brisk implements SFL
genre-based theory (Rose & Martin, 2012) and unfolds linguistic features that
have a positive impact on the instruction. She also follows Rothery’s
“teaching and learning cycle” (1996), describing the four stages that support
student writing: negotiation of field or developing content knowledge,
deconstruction of text, joint construction of text, and independent
construction meaning of text. Brisk unravels the professional path that brings
about teachers’ changes and educational growth, while highlighting some of the
SFL aspects that commonly require more time, support, and practice to be
apprehended (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Moreover, she emphasizes the strong
collaboration needed within the school institution (principals, teachers, and
administrators), and between schools and universities (practitioners,
professors, and researchers), as well as their commitment to teach language,
through language and about language, while respecting both teachers’ knowledge
and readiness and students’ needs and multilingual resources. 

The second chapter, “The role of meaningful sentence-level metalanguage:
Insights from children’s thinking with functional grammar,” by Schleppegrell
and Symons, reports on SFL metalanguage benefits for teachers’ instruction and
children’s metacognitive development. As part of the broader “Language &
Meaning” project of twenty-three classrooms (grades 2-5) across six elementary
urban schools (Moore et al., 2018), the authors analyze fourth grade students,
mostly Arabic speakers, learning English as an additional language.
Schleppegrell and Symons illustrate metalanguage instructional advantages in
classroom episodes, where the teacher explains SFL experiential meanings of
processes, participants, circumstances, and connectors (transitivity system).
The interaction shows how students with varied reading proficiencies learn to
distinguish actors and actions in a scientific process, gain understanding of
the overall textual meaning, identify minimal constituents at the sentence
level, and increment disciplinary vocabulary. The authors also indicate how
SFL metalanguage benefits students’ cognitive growth, by providing new ways of
talking and reflecting about texts, especially those which are challenging and
unfamiliar. The productive conversations enable English learners to make sense
and develop critical language awareness, while allowing them to uncover the
linguistic features of specific genres, across disciplines, and activating
multilingual repertoires (Symons, Palincsar, & Schleppegrell, 2017). 

In Chapter Three, “From buttocks to seminal muscles: SFL-based physical
education (PE),” Mulvad addresses the language of a school discipline that is
almost exclusively related to body movements. She details six lessons created
collaboratively between linguists and PE instructors to respond to the Danish
educational reform of 2014, which demanded a closer look at the language used
in every school content area. First, the author offers an overall organization
of PE classes, which typically comprises the stages of presentation, practice,
and production, known as the PPP Model (Anderson, 2017). Then, she introduces
SFL components of the register subsystem and analyzes how students move along
the three modes, field, and tenor continua (Christie & Macken-Horarik, 2011).
Finally, she draws on Derewianka’s “snail” model (1990) to illustrate the
students’ path from every day to abstract language (Figure 3.1, p. 61)
throughout the lesson cycle. Beyond the importance of students’ participation
and narrow collaboration, Mulvad points out the need for examining linguistic
features for successful PE classes. She describes how language evolves from
accompanying the “doing” of actions through everyday expressions, to
supporting the “construction” of new movements, to promoting “reflection” on
the gymnastic activity using more sophisticated and technical terms (Table
3.2, p. 63). The author claims that following the SFL semiotic perspective
enables one to uncover unique linguistic resources and to utilize powerful
tools to teach them explicitly, while offering plenty of opportunities not
only to perform the activity, but also to talk and write about it.

Chapter Four, “A geometry teacher’s actions for engaging students in
mathematizing from real-world contexts: A linguistic analysis,“ by González,
closes the section with a high school example. The author draws on a
multisemiotic framework to analyze two segments of a problem-based lesson
about dilation, a projective geometry topic. For the “launch” segment, she
draws on SFL taxonomic and expectancy relations among participants, processes,
and circumstances of the transitivity system (Eggins, 1994) and examines how
the teacher traces lexical strings to connect students’ everyday language with
mathematical understanding. The author also focuses on diagrams, as they are
frequently used in geometry lessons, and analyzes nuclear relations visually
shown along procedural sequences. For the “summary” segment, González reviews
SFL classification of conjunctions (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) and explores
how the teacher supports mathematical interpretations, discusses various
solutions, and underlines the central lesson topic. The author finds that the
instructional discourse contains mostly consequential conjunctions, such as
‘because,’ ‘if,’ ‘then,’ ‘when,’ and ‘so,’ which help build students’ reasoned
conjectures. Beyond the pedagogical strategies of connecting to students’
prior knowledge, scaffolding new concepts, and encouraging small group
collaboration, González advocates for a professional training that includes
not only improvement in content knowledge, but also higher awareness of
mathematical language, and that provides teachers with literacy tools to
unpack the complex mathematical verbal, symbolic, and visual layers to
understand and communicate mathematical ideas (O’Halloran, 2005). 

The second part of the book, “Studies in student and faculty development with
respect to academic writing at the university level,” comprises four chapters
and mainly addresses argumentative texts written at universities in different
countries and in different languages. The first two chapters are about Mexico
and focus on academic writing among Spanish speaking students. Chapter Five,
“Exploring new perspectives and degrees of delicacy in Appraisal studies: An
analysis of Engagement resources in academic discourse in Spanish,” by Valerdi
Zárate, combines linguistic and rhetorical frameworks to support the analysis.
The author draws on the SFL Appraisal model (Martin & White, 2005) and focuses
on Engagement components to examine students’ introductions to their MA
theses, particularly the linguistic mechanisms used to acknowledge or reject
sources, align or erode dialogue, and position themselves, considering other
voices and audiences (Figure 5.1, p. 125). The author also follows the
Argumentation Model (Toulmin, 2003) to examine rhetorical mandatory (claim,
data, and warrant), and optional (backings, rebuttals, and modal qualifiers)
elements that support students’ argumentative writing in Spanish to produce
heteroglossic texts (Figure 5.3, p. 127). Zárate concludes that the
comprehensive analysis of linguistic and rhetorical components may shed light
on students’ argumentative nuances at clausal and textual levels, as well as
provide instructors with innovative methods to teach argumentative writing,
from the overall flow of the text to minimal language components. Moreover,
the detailed examination may contribute to comparative studies concerned with
academic writing among multilingual students, refining the availability of
linguistic and rhetorical repertoires from where they can choose to position
themselves, signal authorial stances, and connect to audiences in different
languages.

The sixth chapter, “A functional study of Transitivity and Attitude in student
writing in Spanish across disciplines: Making connections,” by Ignatieva,
Rodríguez-Vergara, and Zamudio Jasso, examines geography, history, and
literature texts written by students attending the National Autonomous
University of Mexico (UNAM). The authors explore the interaction between SFL
ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, focusing on process types that
help students represent outer and inner worlds (Matthiessen, 2018),
attitudinal components that describe evaluative aspects of language (Martin &
White, 2005), and the relationship between Transitivity and Appraisal systems.
Ignatieva and her colleagues analyze not only the number and frequency of
tokens, but also meaningful relationships between ideational and interpersonal
resources and the contextual variables of the discipline, such as specific
purposes, topics, functions, and circumstances. For example, within the
Transitivity system, and despite a prevalent number of material and relational
processes across the three types of texts, the geography discourse privileges
relational processes that help identify participants and characterize their
attributes, while history incorporates abundant verbal processes, facilitating
reference to other authors and texts. Likewise, within the Appraisal system,
the number of tokens are appreciated according to meaningful preferences and
ways of presentation across the disciplines. For example, although attitudinal
tokens are very frequent in the three subject matters, history texts show the
highest number of Appreciation, while literature is prone to tokens of
Judgment. It also offers fewer instances of inscribed expressions than
geography texts, wherein the presence of evaluative language is more overtly
used. The authors claim that an integrated SFL analysis will improve not only
the understanding of ideational and interpersonal resources needed in
argumentative writing, but will also provide new methodologies for teaching
academic writing across the disciplines.

In Chapter Seven and within the Danish context of teaching preparation
programs, Meidell Sigsgaard and Jacobsen address the need for “Scaffolding the
wave: Supporting student teachers in professional academic writing through LCT
and SFL.” The authors describe common difficulties encountered by Danish
pre-service teachers who are asked to write reflections intertwining
pedagogical practices and observations with research-based studies and
authorial voices. Meidell Sigsgaard and Jacobsen analyze two exemplary texts,
centering on the notions of “semantic gravity” and “semantic waves,” supported
by the Legitimation Code Theory or LCT (Maton, 2014) and SFL semiotic approach
(Halliday & Matthiessen 2014), respectively. The high performing text exhibits
strong “semantic gravity,” given by a smooth flow between empirical evidence,
based on lesson observations, pedagogical materials, and student interactions,
and a theoretical corpus, supported by literature review, inserted quotes of
renowned authors, and interjected relevant concepts. In contrast, the low
performing text offers weak “semantic gravity” sustained by the writer’s
personal opinions, with few or no references to other studies, voices, or
well-proven data. Moreover, the first writer intercalates a variety of
Theme/Rheme patterns that include abstract participants, relational processes,
and well- substantiated circumstances, all of which favor the presence of
steady “semantic waves.” On the other hand, the second writer introduces only
concrete participants and material processes, which are strongly
context-dependent and therefore prone to create weaker “semantic waves” that
barely support the text. Finally, the authors draw on SFL attitudinal
classification of the Appraisal system (Martin & White, 2005) to examine how
tokens of appreciation used in the first text refer to previous studies and
authors, establishing a fruitful dialogue and promoting the creation of
heteroglossic texts, while the tokens of affect and judgment in the second
text only relate to personal observations and opinions, producing monoglossic
texts. Meidell Sigsgaard and Jacobsen conclude that the highlighted “semantic
gravity” and “semantic waves” constructs are useful tools to teach future
educators how to elaborate professional reflections that integrate personal
and experienced viewpoints seamlessly to create context-independent and
substantiated texts. 

Chapter Eight, “Scaffolding argument writing in history: The evolution of an
interdisciplinary collaboration,” by Pessoa, Mitchell, and Jacobson, closes
the section by describing a different educational context. They join their
expertise in linguistics and history to support Middle Eastern students
attending the University of Qatar. Drawing on SFL ideational, interpersonal,
and textual metafunctions, the authors resume the “3 x 3 model” of their
previous studies (Dreyfus, Humphrey, Mahboobm, & Martin, 2016) and apply SFL
school genres to improve argumentative history texts written in English as a
second language. Pessoa and her colleagues follow Coffin’s history stages of
background, thesis, supporting arguments, and reinforcement of the thesis
(2006) and highlight the benefits of teaching them explicitly. In addition,
they point to linguistic resources that may help English learners incorporate
primary and secondary sources, voices, and evidence in their writing to build
stronger argumentation. Likewise, they underline evaluative mechanisms that
may facilitate students in learning how to modalize objective information and
take up an assertive position to strengthen their texts. Finally, the authors
encourage strong collaboration between the disciplinary teachers to build more
inclusive curricula and improve students’ academic writing development.
Moreover, they insist that cooperation among colleagues benefits their
professional growth, as shown in the developmental path of the history
professor, who gradually moves from an exclusive passion for the content of
his expertise to recognizing and incorporating key linguistic features that
assist with the construction of stronger argumentative history texts.
Likewise, the linguistic professors also abandon a narrow view of theories and
generalizations to adjust their knowledge to more practical needs in the
history classroom, such as the creation of linguistic materials and resources,
as well as implementing a comprehensive set of rubrics that assess language
and content. 
 
The third part of the book, “Studies in translation,” consists of two chapters
that address distinctive aspects of translation but use the same semiotic
perspective. Chapter Nine investigates variations in the translations of a
classical Buddhist text written in literary Chinese. Yu and Wu focus on
“Translation as re-instantiation: An investigation of verbal projection.” The
authors compare the types of clauses and reporting processes of the original
text written in 1291 and the four modern English versions, drawing on the SFL
projection system (Matthiessen & Teruya, 2013). They also follow a
three-dimensional model (De Souza, 2013) that enables them to identify the
complex activity of translation with the notion of “re-instantiation.” As a
matter of fact, the translation or “re-instantiation” activity is realized in
three dimensions: “realization” that concerns the organization of language as
a system and reservoir, “instantiation” that refers to overall meanings
materialized through concrete texts, and “individuation” that establishes the
relationship between the reservoir of meanings in a culture and the repertoire
an individual can mobilize (Figure 9.1, p. 239). Yu and Wu explain how the
Chinese source text offers a more rigid and stricter syntagmatic order between
projecting and projected clauses, as well as a marked preference for verbal
processes used only for quoting and for reporting. On the other hand, the
English translations show more variability between paratactic (quoting) and
hypotactic (reporting) clauses, a flexible clausal order between the
participant (Sayer) and the verbal process (To Say), as well as a broad range
of projecting verbs that can function for quoting and reporting. The authors
conclude that incorporating SFL meaningful-based analysis to translation
studies sheds light not only on specific structural aspects of each language,
but also on the thorough understanding of temporal, spatial, and
socio-cultural circumstances, as well as of the translator’s individual
decisions. 

In the last chapter Manfredi suggests “Building and enhancing intercultural
communication in museum spaces through SFL and translation studies.” She
underlines the importance of studying translation within the museum setting,
as it occupies a central position in today’s multilingual societies,
intersecting matters of culture, language, accessibility, and inclusion. Among
the extended variety of museum texts, from leaflets to auto-guides and from
catalogs to visual displays (Ravelli, 2006), the author selects text panels
taken from three public museums in Bologna, Italy. She lists the most frequent
criteria used to evaluate the quality of museum translations, such as clarity,
accuracy, and reliability of the target language, and stresses the careful
attention needed for cultural references in source and target texts. Manfredi
follows the SFL semiotic approach to analyze the source text and the Italian
versions at clausal, textual, and lexico-grammatical levels. She traces
correspondences between the clause as message, the overall organization of the
textual metafunction, and its Thematic patterns, lexical density, and cohesion
realizations. The author also relates the clause as an exchange to
interactions of the interpersonal metafunction, crystallized by modality and
personal pronouns. Finally, she connects the clause as representation with the
ideational metafunction, realized through technical vocabulary and
transitivity components (Table 10.9, p. 276). Manfredi observes that
performing proper translations in today’s museum demands stronger linguistic,
cultural, and social training to meet the needs of multilingual societies,
promote inclusion, and facilitate access to a broader audience. Therefore, she
proposes the incorporation of the SFL perspective in translators’ training
programs, as the meaningful-based approach will help museum translators raise
their linguistic and cultural awareness and develop sensitivity to capture the
multilayered meanings that are openly and implicitly embedded in multimodal
expressions. 

EVALUATION

“Language in Action: SFL Theory across Contexts” is a collection of
well-rounded studies in the fields of education and translation. The chapters
present meaningful ways of analyzing the role and potential of language in the
two fields, as well as innovative applications, such as curriculum design and
teaching language across the disciplines, and nuances between classical,
modern, and multimodal texts, respectively. The three sections of the book
include interconnected chapters that highlight powerful SFL resources and
profound insights that will enrich researchers and practitioners. Moreover,
the chapters expand SFL possibilities through various languages (Spanish,
Danish, Chinese, Italian, English as a second language), countries (Mexico,
Denmark, Qatar, Italy), and contexts (educational settings, literature field,
and museums). Recurrent themes of professional collaboration, scaffolding,
explicit teaching, and disciplinary language evolve and repeat as leitmotifs
throughout the book. Some chapters project specific educational and
translation concerns, such as teachers’ language preparation (Chapters 1 and
7), and individualized content areas, such as mathematics (Chapter 4) or the
less explored language needed in the physical education class (Chapter 3) or
the inclusive language needed in museum texts (Chapter 10). Many authors
combine different SFL metafunctions to support more strongly the teaching of
argumentative writing and the development of metalinguistic awareness
(Chapters 6 and 2, respectively), while others complement the meaningful-based
perspective with other frameworks, such as rhetorical tools (Chapter 5) and
the Legitimation Code Theory (Chapter 7). Overall, the collected chapters
share common concerns for deepening the understanding of linguistic tools and
find useful applications across languages, disciplines, and cultures. Despite
some uneven distribution between the studies devoted to elementary and
secondary grade levels (Part I), major emphasis on argumentative writing (Part
II), and lack of references to studies on languages for specific purposes that
could seamlessly interweave SFL and professional language for educators and
translators (Chapters 1 and 7 and Part III), “Language in Action: SFL Theory
across Context” includes an exemplary corpus of SFL studies, illustrating
broad possibilities, stimulating reflective inquiries, and encouraging
collaborations between experts in different fields of knowledge. 

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (2017). A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal. ELT
Journal, 71(2), 218-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw055

De Souza, L. (2013). Interlingual re-instantiation: A new systemic functional
perspective on translation. Text & Talk, 33(4/5), 575-594.
doi:http://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0026

Christie, F., & Macken-Horarik, M. (2011). Disciplinarity and school subject
English. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity. Functional
linguistics and sociological perspectives (pp. 175-196). London: Continuum.

Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse. The language of time, cause and
evaluation. New York: Continuum 

Derewianka, B. (1990). Rocks in the head: Children and the language of
geology. In R. Carter (Ed.), Knowledge about language and the curriculum (pp.
197-215). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J. (2016). Gender pedagogy
in higher education. The SLATE project. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London:
Pinter.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional
grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday's introduction to
functional grammar. 4th edition. London: Routledge.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming
teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal systems
in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realistic sociology of
education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Matthiessen, C., & Teruya, K. (2013). Projection in English: The environment
of quoting Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 50-81. 

Matthiessen, C. (2018). Transitivity in systemic functional linguistics:
Achievements and challenges. In S. Scotta & L. Barbara (Eds.), Estudos de
transitividade em linguístca sistémico-funcional (pp. 14-108). Santa Maria:
PPGL Editores.

Moore, J., Schleppegrell, M., & Palincsar, A. (2018). Discovering disciplinary
linguistic knowledge with English learners and their teachers. Applying SFL
concepts through design-based research. TESOL quarterly, 52(4), 1022-1049.
doi:org/10.1002/tesq.472

O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual
images. London: continuum.

Ravelli, E. (2006). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. London: Routledge.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, Reading to learn: Genre,
knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield: Equinox

Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In
R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86-123). New York:
Longman.

Symons, C., Palincsar, A., & Schleppegrell, M. (2017). Fourth-grade emergent
bilinguals' uses of functional grammar analysis to talk about text. Learning
and Instruction, 52, 102-111. 

Toulmin, S. (2003). The use of argument (Updated edition). New York: Cambridge
University Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Laura Dubcovsky is a retired instructor and supervisor from the Teacher
Education Program in the School of Education at the University of California,
Davis. With a Master’s in Education and a Ph. D in Spanish linguistics/with
special emphasis on second language acquisition, her interests tap topics of
language and bilingual education. She has taught bilingual teachers to use and
practice communicative and academic Spanish needed in bilingual classrooms for
more than ten years. She is currently helping with professional development
courses for bilingual teachers, interpreting in parent/teachers’ conferences,
and translating for several institutions, such as the Davis Joint Unified
School District, the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento, YoloArts in Woodland,
Davis Art Center, STEAC, and in the Zapotec Digital Project of Ticha. <br
/>Laura is a long-standing reviewer for the Linguistic list Serve and the
California Association of School -University Partnerships (CASUP), and she
also reviews articles for the Elementary School Journal, Journal of Latinos
and Education, Hispania, and Lenguas en Contexto. She published “Functions of
the verb decir (‘to say’) in the incipient academic Spanish writing of
bilingual children in Functions of Language, 15(2), 257-280 (2008) and the
chapter, “Desde California. Acerca de la narración en ámbitos bilingües” in
¿Cómo aprendemos y cómo enseñamos la narración oral? (2015). Rosario, Homo
Sapiens: 127- 133.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-2039	
----------------------------------------------------------