Developing academic, or school-based, literacy poses a significant challenge for many students, because the language through which academic subjects are presented is markedly different from the social language that students use in everyday ordinary life. This article focuses on one aspect of academic language, the functions of nouns and nominal structures in constructing knowledge in different subject areas and the challenges they present for comprehension of academic texts. Using a functional linguistics framework and analyzing written texts from language arts, science, and history, at elementary and secondary levels, we illustrate the ways nominal expressions expand the amount of information in a clause, establish and maintain reference, and enable information to be distilled and further expanded. We also show how the semantic features of the nominal elements vary in different academic registers, as texts introduce grammatical “participants” of different types according to the purposes of the text. We suggest that the notion of linguistic register offers a means of transcending debates about academic language, enabling a pedagogy that can raise students' consciousness about specific grammatical resources and how those resources function to construct knowledge in the language of schooling.
References
1.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imaginationEmersonC.HolquistM.TransM.HolquistEd.. Austin: University of Texas Press.
2.
BazermanC. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
BeckR. B.BlackL.KriegerL. S.NaylorP. C.ShabakamD. I. (2003). Modern world history: Patterns of interaction. Evanston, IL: McDougall Littell.
4.
BernsteinB. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Vol. IV. Class, codes, and control. London: Routledge.
ChapmanL. (1983). Reading development and cohesion. London: Heinemann.
7.
ChristieF. (1998). Learning the literacies of primary and secondary schooling. In ChristieF.MissonR. (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 47–73). London: Routledge.
8.
ChristieF. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London: Continuum.
9.
CollinsJ. (1987). Using cohesion analysis to understand access to knowledge. In BloomeD. (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 67–98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10.
ComberB.CormackP. (1997). Looking beyond “skills” and “processes”: Literacy as social and cultural practices in classrooms. Reading, Literacy and Language, 51(3), 22–29.
11.
CooneyT.DispezioM.FootsB.MatamorosA.NyquistK.OstlundK. (2000). Science. New York: Scott Foresman.
12.
DelpitL. (1998). The politics of teaching literate discourse. In ZamelV.SpackR. (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 207–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13.
EgginsS. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Pinter.
14.
EgginsS.SladeD. (2004). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. (Original work published 1997).
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.
17.
GeeJ. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In SaulE. W. (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory into practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
18.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
19.
HallidayM. A. K. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In HorowitzR.SamuelsJ. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 55–82). San Diego, CA: Academic.
20.
HallidayM. A. K. (1993a). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin's “The Origin of the Species”. In HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 86–105). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
21.
HallidayM. A. K. (1993b). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
22.
HallidayM. A. K. (1993c). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
23.
HallidayM. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In MartinJ. R.VeelR. (Eds.), Reading science: Perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–235). London: Routledge.
24.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
26.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
27.
HammondJ. (1990). Is learning to read and write the same as learning to speak? In ChristieF. (Ed.), Literacy for a changing world (pp. 26–53). Hawthorn, Australia: Australia Council for Educational Research.
28.
HarveyS.GoudvisA. (1999). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
29.
HasanR. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In HasanR.WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). London: Longman.
30.
HasanR. (1999). The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy. Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 25–87.
31.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HunstonS. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In GhadessyM. (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57–73). London: Pinter.
33.
IrwinJ. (1986). Understanding and teaching cohesion comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
34.
KeeneE.ZimmermanS. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
35.
KnowlesM.MalmkjaerK. (1996). Language and control in children's literature. London: Routledge.
36.
KressG.van LeeuwenT. (1996). Reading images: A grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
37.
LemkeJ. (1985). Using language in the classroom. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
38.
LukeA. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In HasanR.WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). London: Longman.
39.
MartinJ. R. (1991). Nominalization in science and humanities: Distilling knowledge and scaffolding text. In VentolaE. (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 307–337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
40.
MartinJ. R. (1998). Linguistics and the consumer: The practice of theory. Linguistics and Education, 9, 411–448.
41.
MartinJ. (2002). Writing history: Construing time and value in discourses of the past. In SchleppegrellM. J.ColombiM. C. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 87–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42.
MartinJ. R.RoseD. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
43.
MichaelsS. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–442.
44.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45.
NorrisS.PhillipsL. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
PereraK. (1982). The language demands of school learning. In CarterR. (Ed.), Linguistics and the teacher (pp. 114–136). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
48.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG.SvartvikJ. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
49.
RavelliL. (1996). Making language accessible: Successful text writing for museum visitors. Linguistics and Education, 8, 367–388.
50.
RoseD. (1999). Culture, competence and schooling: Approaches to literacy teaching in indigenous school education. In ChristieF. (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 217–245). London: Continuum.
51.
RosenblattL. M. (2005). Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
52.
SchleppegrellM. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431–459.
53.
SchleppegrellM. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
54.
SchleppegrellM. J.AchugarM. (2003). Learning language and learning history: A functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 21–27.
55.
SchleppegrellM. J.AchugarM.OteíaT. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 58(1), 67–93.
56.
SnowC.BurnsM.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57.
TorrJ.HarmanJ. (1997). Literacy and the language of science in year 1 classrooms: Implications for children's learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20, 222–237.
58.
TovaniC. (2000). I read it, but I don't get it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
59.
UnsworthL. (1997). Some practicalities of a language-based theory of learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20(1), 36–52.
60.
UnsworthL. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 508–521.
61.
UnsworthL. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing dimensions of text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
62.
van LeeuwenT. (1996). The representation of social actors. In Caldas-CoulthardC. R.CoulthardM. (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London: Routledge.
63.
VeelR. (1997). Learning how to mean—Scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In ChristieF.MartinJ. R. (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.
64.
VeelR. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In ChristieF. (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 185–216). New York: Continuum.
65.
VeelR.CoffinC. (1996). Learning to think like an historian: The language of secondary school history. In HasanR.WilliamsG. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 191–231). London: Longman.
66.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67.
WatkinsM. (1997). Textual recipes: Language pedagogy and classroom discourse. Southern Review, 30, 287–301.
68.
WellingtonJ.OsborneJ. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
69.
WellsG. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based Theory of Learning”. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 41–90.
70.
WilhelmJ.BakerT.DubeJ. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong literacy, 6–12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
71.
WilliamsG. (2000). Children's literature, children and uses of language description. In UnsworthL. (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives (pp. 111–129). London: Cassell.
72.
WilliamsG. (2005). Grammatics in schools. In WebsterJ.MatthiessenC. M. I. M.HasanR. (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 281–310). London: Equinox.
