Note to JW: Fran had some inconsistent code which prevented me from producing a homogeneous style for paragraphs see eg page 2 end

Developing dimensions of an educational linguistics

Frances ChristieUniversity of Sydney

Len UnsworthUniversity of New England

1 IntroductionHalliday has always had a profound interest in the teaching of language in schools. In this, he is unique among major linguists, for he has never acknowledged a clearcut distinction between theoretical and applied themes in linguistic research1. He has in fact acknowledged that it has often been in working on matters of educational interest, as in the Nuffield/Schools Council Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching (1964-71) that he has actually extended and clarified his theoretical positions on language. One of the many strengths of SFL theory as Halliday and his colleagues have developed it, has been the way in which contributions in the theoretical sense have had consequences for developments in applied areas, while applied studies have equally tended to rebound on theoretical studies. Hence it is that while we would argue there is a sense in which an educational linguistics has emerged from SF research, such an educational theory is intimately linked to the broader linguistic theory of which it is a part. An educational linguistics is concerned with the study of language in teaching and learning. As such, it has interests in the nature of the linguistic system and its role in learning, as well as in what kinds of knowledge about language (“KAL”, to use Carter’s term) should be taught to children. This chapter will attempt to trace some of the major developments in the emergence of a theory of language in education as proposed by Halliday and his colleagues, dating from the 1960s when Halliday first became actively involved in educational work.

2 Some central themes in Language in Education theoryAn early contribution to the emergent theory of language in education came with the publication of The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching (Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens 1964), which, not coincidentally, appeared in the year that saw the inception of the Nuffield/Schools Council Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching (henceforth referred to as the “English Teaching Programme”). Looking back at that volume, one can see both how much the ideas expressed there provided a framework for the emergent Programme on English teaching, and how much it also laid an agenda for a great deal of other research into language teaching that pertains to this day.

It was here that Halliday et al (223-251) identified three types of language teaching: “prescriptive” (referring to practices that prescribed preferred expressions, such as I did, rather than I done); “descriptive” (referring to methods of describing language much as a linguist does) and “productive” (involving students in using the resource of their language in powerful ways). Of the three, Halliday et al (ibid) concluded, it was prescriptive teaching that predominated, while too little work was devoted in schools to descriptive or productive teaching. The absence of descriptive teaching meant that students were deprived of opportunities to develop knowledge about language, or explore and understand their language in useful ways. As for

1

productive teaching and learning, the authors argued, students needed to be taught to extend their understandings of how to use language for new and independent purposes. This, they suggested, would take them into exploring such matters as the grammatical differences between speech and writing, and it would also open up the study of language varieties, where this would involve issues of register and dialect.

One of Halliday’s earliest discussions of register appeared in this book (pp 87-98), and while it was noted that no detailed descriptions of register yet existed, three variables were identified: “field of discourse” (or social activity); “mode of discourse” ( the medium or mode of language activity); and “style of discourse” (referring to the relations among participants in language activity). The years since that time have seen a great deal of further work on register, much of it taken up in educational contexts, including for example, works by Benson and Greaves 1973, Hasan 1973, Halliday, 1977, Gregory and Carroll 1978, Halliday and Hasan 1985, Matthiessen 1993 and Martin 1992. Not all the theorists mentioned have agreed, and indeed lively debate about context and register has sometimes developed (e.g. Hasan 1995), though it is not our aim to document these here. Suffice to note that much as Halliday and his colleagues had argued, register theory did prove a most productive area of language research for educational purposes. This was a nice instance of the way in which theoretical and educational interests converged and fed upon each other. Linguistic theory needed to extend understandings of registers, while language educational theory and practice required such understandings to further curriculum work in schools.

Of the many publications that emerged from the English Teaching Programme, (see the discussion by Pearce, Thornton and Mackay, 1989) space will permit mention only of those arising from the major programs. These included Breakthrough to Literacy (Mackay and Schaub,1970) intended for teaching initial literacy to very young children, Language in Use (Doughty, Pearce and Thornton 1971), intended for the upper secondary years of schooling, and Language and Communication, 1, 2 and 3 (Forsyth and Woods 1977, 1980a, 1980b), written for the lower and middle forms of secondary schooling. These all set significant milestones in language and literacy education. Breakthrough to Literacy provided – and continues to provide - an imaginative model for teaching literacy, while the other programs provided a wealth of material both to do with description of the language and to do with promoting productive use of language, in the terms of Halliday et al (1964).

There were, nonetheless, several areas that would be developed more fully in the coming years, as the body of SF research expanded, and as the needs in language education theory also emerged. At least one of these areas has already been touched upon: namely register research, and around that considerable controversy emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. Apart from that, another area of research that was needed concerned development of an appropriate and more complete account of the functional grammar. When the English Teaching Programme was in progress the Introduction to Functional Grammar (IFG) had not appeared, though the direction in which SFL was moving was clear from numbers of papers by Halliday (e.g. Halliday, 1973; Halliday’s selected papers edited by Kress, 1976). After the appearance of the Introduction to Functional Grammar in 1985, there was a need for another generation of versions of the SF grammar, of a kind that could be used by teachers, both in developing their own understandings of grammar, and in providing resources that could be given students to work with in schools.

2

The teaching of grammar in the classroom has been one of the controversial issues that have engaged teachers and educationists since the 1960s, and about this, we shall also have a little more to say below2. Note here, however, that an interesting issue to do with grammar and its teaching that emerged from the 1960s and 1970s was one that Halliday et al (1964) had earlier identified: namely the grammatical differences between speech and writing. It was an issue that Halliday (1985) was to explore in detail some years after the conclusion of the English Teaching Programme and as part of a series of monographs commissioned for a Master’s degree in Language Education taught in distance mode at Deakin University. Given the central significance of literacy and its teaching in schools, the grammar of writing is of major concern to an educational linguistics, and it remains to this day of vital interest to those of us working in the field of educational linguistics.

Several other areas remained to be explored after the years of the English Teaching Programme, and many of them are still in development. These emerged because with the passage of time, so robust is SF educational theory, many other themes of interest were pursued as part of the wider enterprise of developing an SF theory of language in education. They included development of a language-based theory of learning; writing pedagogy; teaching of English to speakers of other languages; curriculum specific literacies and associated studies of scaffolding of classroom talk; pedagogic grammars; and reading pedagogy. Last but by no means least is the whole area of visual literacy, a development in particular of the 1990s.

In what follows we shall attempt to review developments in most of these areas, identifying matters that have emerged as likely to prove productive as future matters for research. We should note that the discussion concerns development in language education with respect to English only, both as a first and second language. We are aware that there are important developments in several parts of the world, involving adoption of functional perspectives in working on education in other languages, though it is beyond the scope of this chapter to deal with them.

3 A language based theory of learningThe genesis of such a theory lay in the work of the English Teaching Programme with the appearance of two volumes by Halliday : Explorations in the Functions of Language (1973) and Learning How to Mean. Explorations in the Development of Language (1975). Doughty and Thornton, editors of the series in which these two appeared, noted that work in the English Teaching Programme had exposed the need for more detailed linguistic research and discussion to inform the work of teachers, for, they wrote, many teachers recognised that “educational failure is primarily linguistic failure” (Doughty and Thornton, General Introduction to both Halliday 1973 and 1975: iii; their italics). The notion of educational failure as an instance of linguistic failure was at the time quite provocative, suggesting as it did, some connection to the thinking of Bernstein, whose ideas on social class and education were in the 1970s causing considerable interest, not to say controversy. Halliday has remained convinced of the value of Bernstein’s work, asserting that the latter was one sociologist who gave a serious place to language in his account of human experience.

The account of a language-based theory of learning that has emerged since the 1970s has been considerably enriched and extended, not only by Halliday’s more recent work (e.g. Halliday 1993, 2004), but also by that of Painter (1998, 2004) and Torr (1998), both of whom, like Halliday, documented aspects of the early language development of their own children. This research has in addition been extended by that of Derewianka (2003), Torr and Simpson (2003), and Christie (2002), all of

3

whom have studied aspects of the emergence of control of written language (including grammatical metaphor) as an important aspect of the language development of the years of schooling. The various studies show how the emergent control of written language enhances and extends the capacity to mean and to learn3.

Halliday’s initial work on early language development (1973, 1975) was remarkable both for its functional orientation and for its insistence that language is a semiotic system with which we mean . In these two senses Halliday’s account contrasted sharply with others of the 1960s and 1970s, many of which owed a great deal to paradigms taken from Chomsky’s linguistics. (e.g. see a set of papers edited by Reed 1971, though many more might be cited). The latter approaches were preoccupied with the emergence – “acquisition” as it was normally called – of language structure. Halliday’s approach turned the interest in structure on its head and began with the proposition that young children engage in acts of meaning from very early infancy. Their care givers intuitively understand and respond to their desire to “make meaning”, and so early in life many forms of interaction are created in which children steadily learn “how to mean”. Halliday’s account of language development (1975) identified three phases, where the first involved development of a protolanguage. In this phase the child (aged about nine months) produced utterances (or “signs”) that suggested the child was using his communicative system to achieve certain immediate needs. Hence a limited but significant set of functions was served, to do with gaining immediate comforts and satisfying basic needs. In this phase the utterances produced bore no relation to the “mother tongue’ the child would learn to produce, but they were instead his own creation. A second and transitional phase occurred when the child began to use some of the lexis of the mother tongue. However, what was more important was that the utterances produced were capable of being distinguished as those to do with learning about the world (those Halliday termed “mathetic”) or those to do with participation and interaction in the world (which Halliday termed “pragmatic”). These two broad “macrofunctions”, as Halliday termed them, provided the basis upon which the child later moved into a third phase in which the full metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal and textual) emerged. In Halliday’s account, language is a primary resource with which the young negotiate relationship and learn about their world.

Later studies by Torr (1998), Painter (1991, 1999) and Butt (2004) extended discussions into the growth of language and explored how the resource of language developed, providing children with a tool with which, among other matters, they could undertake school learning. The grammatical resources, for example, in Painter’s (1999: 333) child for building generalization and definition, for exploring causal relations, for building hypothetical meanings about events, for naming and categorizing entities and/or events, had emerged sufficiently to make entry to the “uncommonsense” knowledge of school learning a possibility. As Hasan (2001), Williams (1999, 2001) and Cloran (1999) were also to show, while language abilities do emerge in the young, their expression is mediated by the particular orientations to meaning that children have learned, and these are a feature of social class background. Children have different orientations to meaning with respect to experience, as Bernstein suggested, and not all are equally prepared for school learning. Such matters have important consequences for a language-based theory of learning, for they suggest that teachers and teacher educators need to think carefully about the kinds of language experiences they must design to make access to school knowledge possible for all. Gray (1985) working in particular with Aboriginal children, has developed models of teaching and learning to make such access possible.

4

After his arrival in Australia, in his capacity as consultant to the national Language Development Project, co-ordinated by the then Curriculum Development Centre, Halliday proposed that language development involves learning language (the basic resource of the mother tongue itself), learning through language (referring to the manner in which language is a tool for articulating sense of relationship and of experience, and hence for learning about one’s world), and learning about language (referring to conscious learning about such matters as phonology, the spelling system, grammar and registers, as part of the activities of school learning. (Language Development Project Occasional Paper No. 1, 1979) This was a useful model of language development for pedagogy, and widely adopted in the 1980s, though in practice more systematic attention was paid in curriculum discussion and theory to learning language and learning through language than to learning about language. The reason for this was that the prevailing model of language education in the English-speaking world of the 1970s and early 1980s was one that stressed the importance of learning language and learning through it; it rejected an interest in teaching of knowledge about language.4 Throughout the 1970s and 1980s SF theorists resisted this prevalent model of English language education, and in particular the early work on genre pedagogy proposed by Martin and Rothery (1986) was influential.

Looking back over its development, a Hallidayan language-based theory of learning proposes that language is a primary resource for learning. Unlike many other theories of learning of the 20th century, this theory does not strongly classify the boundaries between “form” and “content”, or “form” and “function”. Instead, SFL has conceptualised such a relation as a dialectic, whereby content (i.e. meaning) activates form (i.e. lexicogrammar), while form construes meaning. This in the last resort forms the very basis of the claims that the nature of language is metafunctional. This is in contrast to typical formal models whereby the relation between meaning and wording has been seen as uni-directional. The prevalence of these models has predisposed teachers and educationists alike to adopt the “conduit metaphor” (Reddy 1979) in their approaches to language education. SF theory , by contrast, argues that school knowledge is constructed in language, both spoken and written, while today it is often found in complex multimodalities on the Internet and CDROM. All teachers are teachers of language, for language is the principal tool children use to learn. The latter observation holds true even in the case of the various multimodal texts that teachers and students now use in schools.

Wells (1999) has suggested there is a very close relationship between many of Halliday’s observations about language and those of Vygotsky, whose work has found well deserved recognition in recent years. Both see language as a resource learned in interaction with others, and, once internalised, it becomes a tool for subsequent interactions with others, as well as for doing and learning. Both also see language as a major resource for learning culture. Vygotsky lived in a different period of history and he died very young. Given the climate of his time, his theories about learning are of particular interest because of the significance he gave to language. It is the achievement of Halliday and his colleagues that they have provided a theoretical account of language that can give additional substance to Vygotsky’s work. They have for example, (Halliday, 1975; Painter, 1999) using the functional grammar, demonstrated how children use language both to construct a sense of their world and to build relationship. Others (Gray, 1999; Hammond, 2001; Gibbons, 2002, 200; Williams, 2004) have demonstrated how teachers can guide children’s learning, assisting them to develop increasing confidence and independence as they learn, much as Vygotsky proposed in his accounts of children learning with mentors.

5

Looking to the future, more work is required to further elaborate the language-based theory of learning. Thus, for example, such studies as we have of young children’s language development by Halliday, (1975) Painter (1999), Torr (1998), Derewianka (2004) and Aidman (1999) are all studies of middleclass children from professional families. While Hasan, Williams and Cloran provide very significant information about issues to do with social class background, rather more might usefully be done to extend the theoretical picture, by developing studies of children drawn from different social class backgrounds, and pursuing them and their learning for sustained periods of time into their school years, Apart from this, Halliday’s work on grammatical metaphor has provided important evidence which others have extended in examining emergent writing development in late childhood to adolescence (e.g. Derewianka, 2004; Christie, 2002). However, the picture to do with language development, both oral and written from kindergarten till the last year of schooling when students are aged 17 or 18, is by no means yet complete, though work is proceeding. Christie and Derewianka, for example, are involved in a three year study involving collection of secondary students’ written texts across the broad areas of English, the social sciences and the natural sciences, selected because all students study these. These texts are being collected in schools chosen for the different social class compositions and ethnicities of their student groups, so that it is expected a picture will emerge of the nature of student performance, and hence of their written language development, in each school population from Year 7 (when students are aged about 12 years ) to Year 12 (when students are aged 17 or 18). In a somewhat different direction, Mohan and his colleagues, discussed below, are also working to develop a language based theory of learning with particular reference to students for whom English is a second language.

4 Writing pedagogyTurning more directly to SF work on writing pedagogy, there have been two principal areas in which this work has developed since the 1970s. They are firstly, in register and an associated notion of genre, and secondly in work on the grammatical features of speech and writing and associated work on grammatical metaphor. Above we noted that considerable research into register developed after the early work of Halliday and his colleagues, and that scholarly opinion has always differed about how best to characterize register. For pedagogical purposes the model that came to the fore was that associated with Martin and his colleagues, dating from the late 1970s and 1980s. In Martin’s account, register is recognised, though he also gives separate status to the notion of genre. (See Martin and Rose, this volume). Where register relates to context of situation (the term also used by Halliday and Hasan, and taken originally from Malinowski), genre relates to context of culture (also Malinowski’s term). In working on studies of children’s writing Martin and his colleague, Rothery (Martin 1985; Rothery 1984; Martin and Rothery 1986), argued that the same set of register values with respect to field, tenor and mode could be expressed in different genres. Thus for example, a school excursion to the zoo might be written up as a narrative or a recount and the field, tenor and mode values would be the same. The need then, as they and their colleagues saw it, was to develop complete accounts of different genres and their stages and of the grammatical choices with respect to field, tenor and mode in which these were realised.

Considerable interest in genre and register in the manner of Martin and his colleagues became well established in the 1980s, having an impact on curriculum developments in Australia5, but also having some impact on the Language in the

6

National Curriculum project in the UK (e.g. Carter 1990) and, in more recent years, in North America (e.g. see discussions in Grabe and Kaplan 1996; Hyon 1996; Johns 2002; and Schleppegrell 2004). Hyland (2002) has offered a recent review of writing research, including a discussion of the SF genre pedagogy.

Genre theory offered a model of teaching that stressed explicit identification and teaching of the stages of the target text or “genre”. (e.g. Christie et al, 1990a, 1990b, 1992). Following initial work by Martin and Rothery, descriptions of a range of genres found in the primary school (e.g Rothery, 1984) and later the secondary school (see Christie and Martin, 1997; Macken-Horarik, 2002; and Unsworth, 2000 for discussions.) were developed. Work with teachers further led to a genre-based pedagogy, involving a sequence of steps, though teachers were recommended to use these flexibly, depending on student needs. An example of the target genre (e.g. narrative, explanation, report, though others were identified) was introduced to students and its social purposes were discussed, as well as the fields of experience or knowledge normally constructed in using such a genre. This led to some analysis of the various stages of the text, which were given functional names, while some of the language features involved in construction of each stage would be identified for teaching (e.g. such matters as the choices in process type, conjunction, modality or topical themes could be taught, often very simply in the case of young learners ). Once some “ deconstruction” of the text had been accomplished, teachers would guides students firstly to write examples of the target genre as a joint or shared activity. This would lead in time to students independently researching and writing examples of the genre; at this stage aspects of the language features of the text would again be discussed in order to build a strong understanding of the nature of the texts. The whole teaching- learning sequence would last for a number of lessons. (See Martin 1999 for a detailed discussion of the genre based pedagogy.)

Genre pedagogy has always sparked considerable debate, primarily about the claims it has made for the values of (i) a recognition of different text types or genres and (ii) explicit teaching of the genres in schools. Freedman and Medway (1994) edited one representative set of papers, which, among other matters, offered a critique of SF genre pedagogy. For Freedman in particular there is no adequate evidence that overt teaching of knowledge about genres makes a difference to students’ progress as writers – a view always rejected by the genre theorists, and those who have practised this form of pedagogy in the schools. The debate about this and about the associated claims for teaching some knowledge of grammar in order to understand how genres are constructed has often been helpful in causing genre theorists to sharpen and develop their theories. Moreover, genre theorists can point to the benefits claimed by many teachers working with children in schools, both first and second language speakers of English. Many genre specialists can also now point to the extensive research that has been done into the genres associated with the different school subjects (e.g. see discussions in Christie and Martin 1997, Unsworth 2000: 245-274, and Macken-Horarik 2002) and the benefits of overt teaching of these.

A different criticism from that of Freedman made about genre pedagogy (e.g. Lee 1997) has been that despite claims to be seeking to develop critically responsive writers by using the pedagogy, those who practise it are really preparing students for largely unquestioning acceptance of conventional genres; in this sense, such teaching does no more than uphold the values of the status quo. For genre theorists this is an unsatisfactory criticism for at least two reasons. Firstly, the criticism is one made only by those who are themselves already adequately possessed of skills in control of academic text types, though they would not, presumably, see themselves as

7

unquestioning manipulators of some familiar academic genres. Secondly, if the genre pedagogy is employed properly it will involve students in analysis and discussion of the stages in genres and their social purposes, thus building a critical appreciation of the language choices made to create the genres. Independent and critical capacities surely depend on an understanding of these things. (See Macken-Horarik, 1998).

Genre-based studies and related studies of the SF grammar led to a great upsurge of books for pedagogy- both for the support of teachers and for use with children in schools. We draw attention to some of the most important here. Derewianka (1990) produced an early book for teachers introducing genre theory. Martin, Rothery and others worked on a series of genre-based books for students in the primary school with support books for teachers under the general title of Language a Resource for Meaning (Christie et al 1990a, 1990b, 1992). In the 1ate 1980s and early 1990s, Martin and Rothery also worked with a number of colleagues in a research project under the less than felicitous title Write it Right, which produced a number of resource books for teachers for teaching English, science, mathematics, history, art and geography. The outcomes of some of these studies are discussed in Christie and Martin 1997. Discussions of genre theory and debates that had emerged about these were found in Cope and Kalantzis (1993). Love et al (2002) produced an interactive CDROM for teacher education introducing notions of the functional grammar and genre pedagogy, under the title, Building Understandings in Literacy Teaching. Finally mention should be made of an Internet based data base on grammar at the University of Hong Kong, TeleNex, initiated by Tsui, (http:// www. telenex.hku.hk ) which uses functional grammar. The latter data base is less concerned with genre theory than it is with making the functional grammar available to the teachers of English as a second language who work in Hong Kong.6

To turn to the issues concerning speech and writing, this has been an important area of research for pedagogy Until recent years teachers had very little guidance or advice about how to characterize the grammatical differences between speech and writing. Halliday thus offered an elegant discussion in his volume, Spoken and Written Language (1985), and it proved of immediate value to those of us who work in teacher education. Characterizing speech as “dynamic” and writing as ”synoptic”, Halliday demonstrated that speech and writing differ grammatically because the two serve different human purposes. Writing evolved quite late in human history, and while there is no neat parallel between human (i.e., phylogenetic) evolution and human (i.e., individual) development, he nonetheless argued that it is no accident that children take up literate behaviours only once they have developed considerable proficiency in speech. Furthermore, given the challenge of mastering literacy, it is also the case that young children’s language regresses for a time after they commence their schooling. That is, they are capable of producing in writing rather less complex linguistic expressions than they can in speech. It takes some years of schooling before their literate language “catches up”. By late childhood grammatical metaphor will begin to emerge, having consequences for the patterns of written language children will be expected to read and write. The nature of the school curriculum changes as students move more and more into the advanced areas of the “uncommonsense” knowledge of secondary schooling. Mastery of such knowledge depends quite fundamentally on a mastery of the patterns of written language that increasingly uses abstraction, generalization and technical discourse, all of which are built using grammatical metaphor.7

Overall, the evidence (e.g. Aidman 1999; Derewianka 2003) certainly supports Halliday’s claims about the emergence of grammatical metaphor in late childhood.

8

However, there is also evidence (e.g. Christie and Soosai 2000) that not all children proceed with equal proficiency into control of grammatical metaphor and hence more generally into adequate control of written language for the secondary school. This is a matter requiring further investigation.

5 Learning to read and reading to learnIn the 1980s some scholars in children’s literature and reading development drew attention to the overwhelming absence of concern with the role of text in research and practice in reading pedagogy. Margaret Meek commented:

The reading experts, for all their understanding about ‘the reading process’, treat all text as the neutral substance on which the process works, as if the reader did the same thing with a poem, a timetable, a warning notice. (Meek, 1988:5)

In the following discussion we argue that reading educators working with SFL have been able to use a functional linguistic metalanguage to facilitate description of the patterns of language that characterise literary texts and texts of school curriculum areas and also to facilitate direct discussion with children of the role of text form in constructing the interpretive possibilities of such texts. This facilitative role of SFL underlies ongoing work in a variety of contexts of reading pedagogy research and practice, each of which we will briefly outline.

One important area of work has been with disadvantaged students experiencing difficulty with reading. Gray and his colleagues (1997;1998;1999) worked with such students, as well as their teachers and parents, to redress the traumatic effects of their reading failure in schools. This work focussed on students developing explicit knowledge of how the language choices in the texts construct meanings. The pedagogic framework was informed by SFL and was known as “High Order Book Orientation” (Gray and Cowey, 1997) The theoretical and practical aspects of this work were further developed in a project designed to improve the literacy of indigenous students in schools (Gray, Rose, & Cowey, 1998; Rose, Gray, & Cowey, 1999) and other similar work is continuing (Rose, in press).

Another set of related contexts in which SFL has had a significant impact is the study of the linguistic form of literary texts for children (Austin, 1993; Knowles & Malmkjaer, 1996; Stephens, 1994), the use of SFL descriptions of such texts to inform syllabus documents in reading education, and teachers’ work in developing children’s ‘deep’ reading of literary texts. In Australia, government school syllabi in English in Queensland and New South Wales have incorporated SFL bases for the teaching of grammar, and these documents have included guidelines for using SFL in classroom work with children’s literature8. Studies of primary school children learning functional grammar and using it to enhance their understanding of literary texts have been conducted by Williams (1998, 1999, and this volume). One study with six year old children suggested that functionally oriented grammatical description was indeed accessible to them and that studying language in this way was enjoyable (see Williams this volume). From the perspective of reading pedagogy it seemed that these children’s knowledge of functional grammar was associated with greater reading fluency and greater control of the orthographic conventions of speech marks than that of their peers (Williams, 1998). In a study with eleven year old children they were able to map for themselves the ways in which variation in the language constructed the family relations in Anthony Browne’s Piggybook (Browne, 1986) as

9

very different at the end of the story from what they were at the beginning (Williams, 1999). Williams concluded that giving children access to semiotic tools that enabled them to describe the textual patterning in literary narratives:

… may have some potential to develop a different reading pedagogy, remaking it to include the possibility of children delighting intelligently and critically in the nature of a text’s composition without excluding their enjoyment of the constructed story (Williams, 1999:161)

SFL research explicating the distinctive textual forms of school curriculum area reading materials represents a major contribution to educational linguistics. From the 1970s there has been significant interest in subject-specific literacy. This has led to strong advocacy of the importance of secondary school subject area specialists teaching students to read curriculum area texts. It has been long recognized that these texts are quite different from the reading materials students focussed on in primary schools and also quite different from the texts students experience in the English curriculum. However, an understanding of the characteristic linguistic construction of different curriculum area texts did not significantly inform reading pedagogy until Halliday’s descriptions the language of science (Halliday, 1993a, 1993b) and the work of Martin and his colleagues on texts in school science, history, geography and print media (Coffin, 1996, 1997; Eggins, Wignell, & Martin, 1993; Iedema, Feez, & White, 1994; Martin, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1993d, 1998, 2003; van Leeuwen & Humphrey, 1996; R. Veel, 1992, 1997, 1998; R. Veel & Coffin, 1996). Subsequent work by O’Halloran (1999, 2003a, 2003b, 2004) and work by Veel (1999) on the semiosis of mathematics provides a basis for further development of reading pedagogy in this area.

The pedagogic motivation for researching the distinctive linguistic forms of school subject areas was principally the development of students’ writing, as reflected in the publications of the Write It Right project referred to earlier. The writing pedagogy involved students firstly being provided with and deconstructing models of the types of texts they were to produce. In most cases these models came from school textbooks, so students’ capacity to construct meaning through reading was being enhanced by close attention to linguistic form. This focussed initially on distinguishing the various genres encountered in curriculum area materials. The Write It Right project focussed on secondary school subject areas and expanded the range of genres described in earlier work in primary schools by identifying additional distinctive genres and by developing more delicate accounts of genre, distinguishing sub-types within families of genres. A summary account of the extended range of genres found in school English, History and Science is provided in Unsworth (2001)9.

The work on distinguishing the range of genres in textbooks also involved explicating the distinctive grammatical patterns which realized the variation in register across the various genres. From the perspective of reading pedagogy this further specified the characteristic ways in which language constructs meanings in the different subject areas. Space will not permit a summary of this work, beyond noting some key aspects. These dealt with the linguistic construction of technicality in school science (Martin, 1993b, 1993c, 1993d) and abstraction in school history texts (Coffin, 1996; Eggins et al, 1993; Martin, 1993a). Part of this work showed that more complex genres whose purpose is to explain and interpret the field are more lexically dense, making greater use of grammatical metaphor and internal conjunction (Veel and Coffin, 1996). For the most part these resources of written medium are functional in constructing the specialised knowledge of these discipline areas, however they also

10

construct particular interpretive biases within the form of the texts. Explication of the use of linguistic resources in such “colouring” of the meaning of texts has provided a resource for the development of students’ critical reading (Coffin, 1996; Humphrey, 1996)10.

Turning to issues of reading pedagogy, models for classroom teaching of literacy designed to include knowledge about functional grammar and genre, tended in the 1980s and 1990s, as previously noted, to emphasise writing development, and the reading and comprehension/deconstruction of texts was primarily seen as exploring models for writing. Further work on curriculum area learning has given a focus to reading to learn in its own right as well as in relation to writing. Curriculum area literacy and learning frameworks provide guidelines for classroom practice articulating interrelationships among the dimensions of knowledge, pedagogy and literacy (Love, Pigdon, Baker, & Hamston, 2002; Macken-Horarik, 1996, 1998; Unsworth, 2001). Curriculum area reading for students learning English as a second language has also been a focus for work by teachers and teacher educators using SFL in reading pedagogy (Polias, 1998; Schleppegrell, 2004; Schleppegrell, Achugar, & Oteíza, 2004). While explicit teaching about language has been a feature of apprenticing students to the discourse forms of discipline knowledge, SFL-influenced curriculum literacy models have also emphasised students developing a critical stance in relation to those texts, as has been made very clear in descriptions of text analysis resources (Coffin, 2003; Martin, 1989, 1991, 1995, 2000c) and the development and classroom implementation of learning activities (Janks & Ivanic, 1992; Macken & Rothery, 1991; Miller, 1995; Miller & Howie, 2000; Unsworth, 1999a; Wallace, 1992; Wignell, 1998).

An impressive measure of the generative nature of SFL has been its influence in the formulation of functional semiotic theories of other modalities such as images (1990; 1996; 2001), and of emerging accounts of the co-operation of multiple modalities in a range of texts (Baldry & Thibault, 2004, in press). These developments have been very significant for reading education. In the last decade or so it has been recognized that a logocentric approach to theorizing reading and reading pedagogy is insufficient in view of the increasing prominence of images in a very wide range of texts in both paper and electronic media. Reading images and reading image/text interaction is acknowledged as integral to conceptualising the reading process and reading pedagogy. Seminal work by Kress and van Leeuwen (1990; 1996; 2001) in theorizing images in social semiotic terms consistent with, and extrapolated from, systemic functional theory of language as social semiotic has brought a new dimension to the symbiotic relationship between theoretical and ‘applied’ educational linguistic/semiotic research. The work of Kress and van Leeuwen (1990; 1996; 2001) has been taken up in work with children’s literature and in curriculum area reading.

Complementing SFL analyses with the visual grammatical descriptions afforded by Kress and van Leeuwen’s work, Williams explicated ways in which meanings are built up by the patterning of visual and linguistic elements in picturebooks (Williams, 1998, 1999). Subsequently, Lewis made significant use of Kress and van Leeuwen’s work in his volume on reading contemporary picturebooks (Lewis, 2001). Further work drawing on the common metafunctional bases of SFL and Kress and van Leeuwen’s visual grammar has investigated image/text relations in picture books and illustrated novels on CD ROMs (Jewitt, 2002; Unsworth, 2003b). Functional semiotic descriptions of images and language are beginning to influence

11

approaches to classroom work with literary texts (Callow, 1999; Callow & Zammit, 2002; Rothery, 1994; Unsworth, 2001).

Investigation of the role of images in curriculum literacy has focussed mainly on science and geography texts (Lemke, 1998, 2002; van Leeuwen & Humphrey, 1996; R. Veel, 1998), although O’Halloran has established a strong trajectory of research into the multi-semiotic nature of the discourse of school mathematics (O'Halloran, 1999, 2003a, 2003b). Some work in geography discussed the subject specific nature of the semiotic choices in images and indicated how knowledge about this visual ‘constructedness’ might resource critical literacy development. This was also a feature of studies of science texts, but these studies included exploration of the complementary and composite contributions of images and language to the construction of meaning. Although the tandem application of SFL and Kress and van Leeuwen’s grammar of visual design has enhanced curriculum literacy pedagogy (Unsworth, 1997, 1999b, 2001, in press), it has also emphasised the importance from both theoretical and applied perspectives of developing the potential of functional semiotic theory in extending the theorizing of intermodal relations.

Recent studies illustrate the potential for generating new functional semiotic descriptions of intermodality. Royce (1998) outlined a proposal to describe visual-verbal intersemiotic relations in a newpaper advertisement. Lemke (1998) and O'Halloran (1999) worked with scientific and mathematical texts respectively to show how interrelationships between graphical figures and symbols and written language could be described using the systemic functional linguistic descriptions of logical relations – “elaboration”, “extension” and “enhancement” (Halliday, 1994). Martin (2002) showed how the interpersonal role of images in multimodal paper-format texts could be described using his account of evaluative linguistic resources (Martin, 2000a, 2000b) in conjunction with the systemic linguistic concept of interpersonal Theme. Macken-Horarik studied contemporary news stories, addressing the need for critical discourse analysts to have access to theoretical frameworks facilitating analyses of the synergies between visual and verbal representations of news makers and their effects on public discourse surrounding them. She also studied student artwork and accompanying text panels drawing principally on appraisal analysis to propose a richer account of evaluation in both image and language than is currently available in analyses of separate modes (Macken-Horarik, 2004).

Studies of this kind are advancing our understanding of intermodality and provoking critical review and development of theory dealing discretely with images and language. For example, a project in progress dealing with intermodality in children’s literature in conventional and electronic formats, required preliminary re-direction to theorize beyond a grammar of visual design to address the meaning-making resources of inter-image relations (Unsworth, Martin, Painter, & Gill, in progress). Developing descriptions of the ways in which meanings are made at the intersection of language and images remains a very significant challenge. Further challenges are inherent in combining more modalities as is necessary in dealing with many contemporary electronic texts. Lemke (2002) has illustrated the construction of cohesive relations in screen-based texts achieved by mouse movements, and the role of hypertext options in constructing interpretive possibilities in multimodal CD ROM narratives has also received some preliminary attention (Unsworth, 2003a). The functional perspective which has inspired and maintained the development of an educational linguistics will support its expansion to address these challenges in the context of an educational semiotics informing the development of contemporary and future pedagogies of multiliteracies.

12

6 Teaching functional grammarSince the 1970s the teaching of grammar in schools has often been a hotly debated issue in language education, while the contributions of linguistics to language teaching models have often also been questioned. At least in the English-speaking world, grammar teaching – normally equated with teaching outdated models of traditional grammar (see Christie, 2004b) – was largely discredited among English teachers. It was against this background of hostility to grammar teaching that some of the first work on genre pedagogy discussed above emerged. Register and genre theory, it was hoped, would provide a basis for introducing functional models of grammar to teachers and to school children. Such a hope was not always fulfilled, because many teachers, while well disposed to teach genres, were often reluctant to entertain teaching about grammar. Developing a technical language about language among communities of teachers who have lost the facility for handling such a phenomenon is at times quite hard, though the available evidence suggests that children have no trouble developing an understanding of functional grammar when it is well taught. For example, using the functional grammar, Williams, (1998, 2004) who worked with teachers and very young children, has demonstrated that the young can successfully learn how to identify certain elements of transitivity structure. They develop a strong sense for process types, participants and circumstances, and they greatly enjoy tracing these transitivity patterns in stories. Williams argues that close work on texts using such functional notions develops an enhanced capacity to read. (See Williams, this volume)

While we need considerably more research on development of pedagogic grammars for schools, it is notable that over the last 15 to 20 years we have seen appear a large number of SF grammars. Not all of these (e.g. Bloor and Bloor, 1995; Eggins, 1994; Thompson, 1996; Lock, 1996; Butt et al , 2000 ; Gerot and Wignell,1994 ; Droga and Humphrey, 2002), are intended for schools, yet many of them are now used in programs in applied linguistics and in teacher education, and they have helped create a climate in which teachers have available good models of the functional grammar to inform their understanding. 3Derewianka (1998) has offered a grammar for primary teachers which uses functional perspectives while employing largely traditional terms. Christie and Soosai (2000, 2001) have written two school books designed for the upper primary to junior secondary years, also employing functional perspectives, while using mainly traditional terms to introduce the teaching of grammar and discourse. Droga and Humphrey (2003) have produced an introductory functional grammar for primary teachers.

Many issues remain to be explored to do with teaching grammar in schools. Williams’ research suggests, among other matters, that starting with functional notions is a useful way to commence young children in studying about language, because the functional categories so easily accord with children’s own intuitions about language. Yet we need much more research about how best to sequence subsequent developments in teaching grammar across the years of the primary and secondary schools. We also need research about the best points developmentally to introduce constituent structure as an aspect of coming to terms with an understanding of the functional categories.

7 Teaching English to speakers of other languagesThe English Teaching Programme focussed on teaching English as a mother tongue. Since that time, however, interest in teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) has become a major research area of international interest, while numbers of

13

countries have developed programs for the professional preparation of teachers of TESOL. Research in the SF tradition has made major contributions, some of which have already been alluded to. In practice, a great deal of the research and curriculum materials that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, devoted to genre pedagogy and to subject specific literacies , was used extensively in the design and implementation of both mother tongue and TESOL programs. Genre pedagogy made an early impact on programs for TESOL in schools in Australia (e.g. Hammond, 1986, 1987; Derewianka and Hammond, 2001) while it was also taken up in programs for teaching ESL to adults (e.g Hammond, 1989, 1990; Burns, 1990; Hammond et al, 1992.). Jones et al 1987 offered an excellent discussion of tertiary students’ language development- yet another contribution of SFL to language education.

Among the very useful initiatives for TESOL, emerging from the work on adult literacy programs in Australia, was the attention paid both to development of principles for curriculum design using genre pedagogy and, relatedly, development of principles for evaluation and assessment. Feez (2002) provides a very comprehensive discussion of the adult literacy programs developed for Australia, under the title the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). Earlier stages (e.g. “structural” and “communicative”) occurred in the development of AMEP, though by the 1980s it was decided that there was a need for a discourse-oriented approach to national ESL curriculum design for the adult audience. SF theory and genre pedagogy offered a useful model.

The model of genre pedagogy originally developed by Rothery (see Martin, 1999) was adopted and explored in considerable detail. Feez (1998) developed an account of the design of ELT programs for the audience of AMEP teachers, focusing on ways to use the SF theory and principles of genre pedagogy to teach adults. The model had several strengths. Firstly, it offered explicit advice about target genres for teaching and a metalanguage for talking about them. Secondly, it offered a strong sense of a desirable curriculum sequence for teaching the genres. Thirdly, it offered explicit guidelines for assessment. With her colleague, Joyce, Feez also produced teacher textbooks giving detailed accounts of genres for teaching purposes ( Feez and Joyce, 1998; de Silva Joyce, 2000)

In other parts of the world, the SF influence on TESOL has been felt, but a little differently. Mohan and his colleagues (e.g. Mohan 1986; Mohan, Leung and Davison, 2001; Liang and Mohan, 2003; Mohan and Huang, 2002; Mohan and Slater, 2004; in press) have for some years worked in TESOL, and in bilingualism more generally. Using SF principles, Mohan writes in particular about “content-based approaches” and “knowledge structures” in teaching ESL. The term “content-based approaches” is chosen deliberately, for though it refers to “field” in the SF sense, Mohan argues that it is a more appropriate term for the North American community involved in TESOL work. Schleppegrell et al (2004), also writing for the North American audience, use the term “content-based instruction” as well. Both Mohan and Schleppegrell (2004) argue strongly for (i) a sense of knowledge as constructed in social process, and (ii) the need for a functionally relevant model of discourse for exploring the knowledge structures of schooling. Mohan’s and Schleppegrell’s work overlaps the work of others working in English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Here mention should be made of related work by Paltridge (2001, 2002, 2004) and his most recent discussion of different approaches to genre (in press), though many others work in matters to do with EAP (e.g. Jones et al, 1989; Jones, 2004; Drury, 1991; Drury and Webb, 1991; Ventola, 1996; Ravelli, 2004; Hood, 2004a, 2004b).

14

Given the considerable significance that now attaches to the teaching of English as a second and foreign language in the modern world, there is reason to believe that SF approaches to the design and implementation of TESOL programs will expand. Important areas needing further research will include development of enhanced principles for the design of ESL programs across the years of schooling, development of principles for formative assessment of student performance in ESL classrooms (Mohan and his colleague Leung are working on this) and more work on identification of subject specific literacies for tertiary level ESL students, to mention a few.

8 Classroom talkSF educational linguists have long had interests in classroom talk in a variety of ways. Some, for example, have sought to establish aspects of teacher-student interaction as in the accounts of genre pedagogy offered in a variety of sources, and alluded to earlier with respect to teaching writing (e.g. Martin 1999). Such a pedagogy, as we noted, sought to identify ways in which teachers might introduce both genre types for writing and fields for writing about. Appropriate teacher-guided talk was essential to the genre pedagogy that emerged.

Hasan (1989, 2001) Cloran (1999) and Williams (2001) undertook studies of mother-child talk. Williams focussed on such talk with young children around picture books, and he followed the children into their first year of schooling, analysing the patterns of classroom talk in which teachers sought to engage the children. Following Hasan, Williams identified principles for distinguishing different social backgrounds by reference to the relative professional autonomy of the families from which the children came: low autonomy professionals (LAPs) and high autonomy professionals (HAPs). Taking Bernstein’s ideas on code as their point of departure, these scholars examined their data; they found robust evidence of what they called “semantic variation”, that is to say, systematic variation in the habitual choices of meaning configuration11. They were able to demonstrate how HAP children are generally better prepared for the talk of schooling than are LAP children.

By the end of his life, Bernstein had considerably developed his ideas on the operation of “pedagogic discourse” (e.g. Bernstein 1990, 2000). Fundamental to the operation of a pedagogic discourse as Bernstein developed it, was the notion that such a discourse took the discourses of contexts beyond the pedagogic one, and “relocated” them for the purposes of pedagogic activity. In Bernstein’s terms, schools are prime sites for such “relocation”, as the knowledge, largely still generated in tertiary institutions, is introduced into schools for the purposes of teaching the young. Hasan (2001: 75) has argued that much more work needs to be done on establishing how pedagogic discourse is structured.

Christie (2002) uses Bernstein’s work on the operation of pedagogic discourse to develop an account of classroom discourse analysis which draws on genre theory. Arguing that classroom sequences constitute “curriculum genres”, and even, in some cases, “curriculum macrogenres”, she has sought to demonstrate how the pedagogic discourse is constructed linguistically. As Bernstein developed his work, he argued that a pedagogic discourse is itself constructed in two discourses - the “instructional” and the “regulative”. The former refers to “the discourse which creates specialised skills and their relationship to each other”, while the latter refers to “the moral discourse which creates order, relations and identity” (Bernstein 2000: 32). The instructional discourse is, according to Bernstein always “embedded” in the regulative discourse, so that it is the latter that determines the pacing and sequencing of

15

pedagogic activity, as well as the evaluation of that activity. Using the SF grammar and notions of register, Christie argues one can trace the linguistic choices in which the two discourses- or “registers”- are realised. The regulative register is always involved in the initiation of pedagogic discourse, while in subsequent stages, it is the instructional register that comes to the fore, as students are apprenticed into the specialist languages and understandings of the various areas of “uncommonsense” knowledge of schooling. Christie (2002b, 2004a) uses the discussion to argue the importance of the authority of the teacher in mediating and interpreting the instructional knowledge.

Studies of classroom talk have also recently taken up interests in scaffolding, an idea first introduced by Bruner (1986) in interpreting Vygotsky. Hammond (2002) has provided a recent discussion of scaffolding, using both the work of psychologists Vygotsky and Bruner and SF work in the tradition of Halliday. Gibbons (2002, 2004) uses SF principles and Vygotskyan notions to provide advice to teachers for teaching ESL in mainstream classrooms. Schleppegrell (2004) also argues the relationship of Vygotsky’s ideas and SF principles of language.

9 ConclusionIn this chapter we have identified a number of significant themes in the emergence of an educational linguistics in the tradition of SF linguistic theory, though we have not exhausted the possibilities. Since the 1960s when Halliday and his colleagues first commenced their studies, the field has been richly expanded, and there is good reason to believe that it will continue to develop and expand. Language educational theory and practice owe Halliday a great deal. We look forward with confidence and optimism to new developments in the future.

ReferencesAidman, M. 1999. “Biliteracy development through early and mid-primary years. A

longitudinal case study of bilingual writing”. Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.

Austin, H. H. 1993. "Verbal Art in Children's Literature: An Application of Linguistic Theory to the Classroom." English in Australia 103: 63-75.

Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. (2004). “Multimodal corpus linguistics”. In G. Thompson & S. Hunston (Eds.), System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London and New York: Equinox.

Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. (in press). Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. London and New York: Equinox.

Benson, J.D. & Greaves, W.S (1973) The Language People Really Use. Agincourt: The Book Society of Canada.

Bernstein, B (2000) (Rev. ed.) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Lanhan, Boulder, NY and Oxford: Rowman and Littlkefield.

Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control. Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language, Vol. I. London, Henley and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. IV. London and NY: Routledge.

Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. (1995) The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan Approach. London, NY, Sydney and Auckland: Arnold.

16

Browne, A. (1986). Piggybook. London: Julia MacRae.Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, Mass. and London:

Harvard University Press. Burns, A, (1990) “Genre-based approaches to writing and beginning adult ESL

learners”. In Prospect: A Journal of Australian TESOL, 5, 3.Butt, D. (2004) “How our meanings change: school contexts and semantic evolution”,

217-240. In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds.) The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals, London and NY: Continuum.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S. and Yallop, C. (2000) (2nd ed.) Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer’s Guide. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research: Sydney.

Callow, J. and K. Zammit (2002). "Visual Literacy: From Picture Books to Electronic Texts." In M. Monteith (ed.) Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT, 188-201. Buckingham: Open University Press

Callow, J., Ed. (1999). Image Matters: Visual Texts in the Classroom. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.

Carter, R. (Ed.) (1990) Knowledge about Language and the Curriculum. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Christie, F. & Soosai, A. (2000) Final report on study of teaching knowledge about language in the junior secondary English literacy program. University of Melbourne.

Christie, F. (2002a) “The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English” 45-66. In M. Schleppegrell and C. Colombi (Eds.) Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages : Meaning with Power , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christie, F. (2002b) Classroom Discourse Analysis. A Functional Perspective. London and NY: Continuum.

Christie, F. (2004a) “Authority and its role in the pedagogic relationship of schooling”, 173-201. In L. Young and C. Harrison Eds.) Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse. Studies in Social Change, London and NY: Continuum

Christie, F. (2004b) “Revisiting some old themes: the role of grammar in the teaching of English”. In J. A. Foley (ed. Language Education and Discourse: Functional Approaches., 145-173. London and NY: Continuum Press.

Christie, F. and Martin, J R (1997) Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School. London and NY: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Soosai, A. (2001) Language and Meaning 2. Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Christie, F. and Soosai, A. 2000) Language and Meaning 1. Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Christie, F., Gray, P., Gray, B., Macken, M., Martin, J.R. and Rothery, J. 1990a, 1990b, 1992) Language a Resource for Meaning: Procedures, Books 1-4 and Teachers Manual; Reports Books 104 and Teachers’ Manual; Explanations Books 1-4 and Teachers’ Manual. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cloran, C. (1999) “Contexts for learning”. In F. Christie (ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness. Linguistic and Social Processes., 31-65. London and NY: Cassell.

17

Coffin, C. (1996). Exploring Literacy in School History. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Coffin, C. (1997). "Constructing and Giving Value to the Past: An Investigation into Secondary School History." In F. Christie and J. R. Martin (eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, 196-230 London: Cassell.

Coffin, C. (2003). "Reconstruals of the Past - Settlement or Invasion? The Role of Judgment Analysis." In J. R. Martin and R. Wodak (eds.), Re/Reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Time and Value, . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Cope, B and Kalantzis, M. (eds.) (1993) The Powers of Literacy. A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. (Series: Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education, Series Editor, A. Luke) London: Taylor and Francis.

1 This theme is also addressed in some detail by Butt, this volume (editors). 2 See also Williams on ????? (editors).3 See Painter, Torr and Derewianka, this volume (editors).4 It was largely because of the difficulties created by an absence of commitment to teaching of knowledge about language that the British moved to create firstly the Kingman Committee (1988) and later the Cox Committee (1989) to develop a model for teaching English. Their efforts led to the adoption of the National English Curriculum in England. A National English Curriculum was also developed in Australia in the early 1990s, and this was a development also stimulated by the need to develop a better model for teaching knowledge about language.5 For a view of some current work in this domain, see Martin and Rose, this volume (editors).6 Several scholars have contributed to its development, including Derewianka, Lock, Plum, Nesbitt and Feez.7 Se Kapagoda this volume on the relations of language and knowledge construal (editors).8 The New South Wales syllabi are those for English in the primary school (English k-6) published by the New South Wales Board of Studies in 1994 and revised in 1998. The Queensland syllabus is for English in the primary and junior secondary school (English in Years 1 to 10: Queensland Syllabus Materials) published by the Queensland Government Printing Service for Education Queensland in 1994. Specific guidelines for the use of SFL with literary texts appeared in 1995 in English 1-10 Syllabus: A Guide to Analysing Texts, published to accompany the Queensland syllabus document.9

? For the genres of geography see Humphrey (1996) and for print media Iedema (1994).10

? For extended discussion of the distinctive features of history texts see Martin & Wodak, 2003; for further work on reading science see Martin & Veel, 1998.3

11 See Williams, this volume, on semantic variation (editors).

18

De Silva, J. and Feez, S. (2000) Creative Writing Skills. Literary and Media Text Types. Melbourne: Phoenix Education.

Derewianka, B. ( 1998) A Grammar Companion for Primary Teachers. Sydney: Primary English Teachers’ Association.

Derewianka, B. (1990) Exploring How Texts Work. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.

Derewianka, B. (2003) ‘Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence’. In AM Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers and L. Ravelli (Eds.),185-220.

Derewianka, B. (in press) “Changing approaches to the conceptualisation and teaching of grammar”. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds.) Kluwer International mHandbook of Education: English Language Teaching, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Derewianka, B. and Hammond, J. (2001) “Genre”. In R. Carter and D, Nunan (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. 186-193. Cambridge: University Press.

Doughty, P., Pearce, J. and Thornton, G. (1971) Language in Use. London and Melbourne: Schools Council Programme in Linguistics and Language Teaching and Arnold.

Droga, L. and Humphrey, S. (2002) Getting Started with Functional Grammar. Berry, NSW: Target Texts.

Droga, L. and Humphrey, S. (2003) Grammar and Meaning. An Introduction for Primary Teachers, Target Texts, Berry NSW.

Drury, H. (1991) “ The use of systemic linguistics to describe student summaries at university level”. In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and Systemic Linguistics. Approaches and Uses, 431-456. Berlin And NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Drury, H. and Webb, C. (1991) Teaching academic writing at the tertiary level”. In Prospect, 71, 7-21.

Eggins, S. (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.Eggins, S., P. Wignell, and J.R. Martin. (1993). "The Discourse of History:

Distancing the Recoverable Past." In M. Ghadessy (ed.) Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, 75-109. London: Pinter.

Feez, S. and Joyce, J. (1998) Writing Skills. Narrative and Non-Fiction Text Types. Melbourne, Phoenix Education.

Feez, S. with H. Joyce(1998) Text-based Syllabus Design. Sydney, National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.

Forsyth, I. and Wood, K. (1977, 1980a, 1980b) Language and Communication, 1, 2 and 3. London: Longmans.

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994) Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2003) “Mediating language learning: teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom’, 247-273. In TESOL Quarterly, 37,2.

Gibbons, P.(2004) “ Changing the rules, changing the game: a sociocultural perspective on second language learning in the classroom”. In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds.) The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals, 196-216. London and NY: Continuum.

Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R.B. (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. (Applied Linguistics and Language Study Series. Series Ed. C.N. Candlin) London and NY: Longmans.

19

Gray, B. (1985) “Helping children to become language learners in the classroom”. In M. Christie (Ed.) Aboriginal Perspectives on Experience and Learning: the Role of language in Aboriginal Education, 48-75. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Gray, B (1998) “Accessing the discourses of schooling. English language and literacy development with Aboriginal children in mainstream schools”. Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.

Gray, B. and W. Cowey (1997). High Order Book Orientation: The Lion and the Mouse. Canberrra: Goanna Print.

Gray, B., D. Rose, and W. Cowey. (1998). Scaffolding Reading and Writing for Indigenous Children in School. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training: Indigenous Education Branch and the University of Canberra.

Gregory, M. and Carroll, S. (1978) Language and Situation. Language Varieties and their Social Contexts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Language and Society Series. Series Ed J. Spencer).

Halliday. M.A.K. (1976) (ed. Gunther Kress) Halliday: System and Function in Language. Selected Papers. London: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K (1977) “Text as semantic choice in social context”. In T.A. van Dijk and J.S. Petofi (eds.) Grammars and Descriptions. W. de Gruyter: Berlin.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). "Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English." In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (eds.), 69-85. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, 69-85. London: Falmer.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). "The Analysis of Scientific Texts in English and Chinese." In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (eds.), 124-132. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. (Explorations in Language Study) London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A. K. (1975) Learning How to Mean. Explorations in the Development of Language. (Explorations in Language Study) London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K (1985) Spoken and Written Language. Geelong Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993) ‘Towards a language-based theory of learning’. In Linguistics and Education, 5, 2, 93-116.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2004) “On grammar as the driving force from primary to higher-order consciousness”. In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds.) The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals, 15-44. London and NY: Continuum.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R (1985) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Geelong Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K.., McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1964) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans.

Hammond, J. (1987) “An overview of the genre-based approach to the teaching of writing in Australia”. In Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,2.

Hammond, J. (1989) “The National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research Literacy Project”, 23-30, In Prospect: a Journal of Australian TESOL, 5

20

Hammond, J. (ed.) (2002) Scaffolding Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy Education. Sydney: Primary English Teachers’ Association.

Hammond, J., Burns, A, Joyce, H., Brosnan, D. and Gerot, L. (1992) English for Social Purposes. : A Handbook for Teachers of Adult Literacy. Sydney, National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Hasan, R. (1973) “Code, register and social dialect”. In B. Bernstein (ed.) Class, Codes and Control, Volume 2: Applied Studies towards a Sociology of Language, 253-292. London and Boston” Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hasan, R. (1989) “ Semantic variation and sociolinguistics”. In Australian Journal of Linguistics. 9. 221-75.

Hasan, R. (1995) “The conception of context in text”. ,In P.H. Fries and M. Gregory (eds.) Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives, 183- 283 Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Hasan, R. (2001) “ The ontogenesis of decontextualised language: some achievements of classification and framing. In A. Morais, I, Neves, B. Davies And H, Daniels (eds.) Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy. The Contributions of Basil Bernstein to Research, 47-80. NY, Washington, Frankfurt, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna and Oxford: Peter Lang.

Hasan, R. (2004) “ The world in words: semiotic mediation, tenor and ideology”. In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds.) The Development of Language: Functional

Perspectives on Species and Individuals, 158-181. London and NY:Continuum.Hasan, R. and Martin, J.R. (1989) Language Development: Learning Language,

Learning Culture. Meaning and Choice in Language. Studies for Michael Halliday. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hood, S. (2004a) “Appraising research: taking a stance in academic writing”. Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.

Hood, S. (2004b “ Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: a focus on the introductions to research reports” , 24-44. In L.J. Ravelli, and R.A. Ellis (eds.) Academic Writing in Context: Social-Functional Perspectives on Theory and Practice. London: Continuum.

Humphrey, S. (1996). Exploring Literacy in School Geography. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Hyland, K. (2002) Teaching and Researching Writing. (Applied Linguistics in Action Series, Editors: C.N. Candlin and D.R. Hall). London: London.

Hyon, S. (1996) “ Genre in three traditions: implications for ESL” , 693-722. In TESOL Quarterly, 30,4.

Iedema, R., S. Feez, and P. White. (1994). Media Literacy. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education, Metropolitan East Region Disadvantaged Schools Component.

Janks, H. and R. Ivanic (1992). "Critical Language Awareness and Emancipatory Discourse." In N. Fairclough (ed.) Critical Language Awareness, 305-331. London: Longman.

Jewitt, C. (2002). "The Move from Page to Screen: The Multimodal Reshaping of School English." Visual Communication 1(2): 171-196.

Johns, A.M. (Ed.) (2002) Genre in the Classroom. Multiple Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Jones, J. (2004) “Learning to write in the disciplines: the application of systemic functional linguistic theory to the teaching and research of student writing.”. In

21

L.J. Ravelli, and R.A. Ellis (eds.) Academic Writing in Context: Social-Functional Perspectives on Theory and Practice, 254-274. London: Continuum.

Jones, J., Gollin, S., Drury, H. and Economou, D. (1989) “ Systemic-functional linguistics and its application to the TESOL curriculum”, 257-328. In R. Hasan and J.R. Martin (eds.)

Knowles, M. and K. Malmkjaer (1996). Language and Control in Children's Literature. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (1990). Reading Images. Geelong, Deakin University Press.

Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (1996). Reading Images: A Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.

Lee, A. (1996) Gender, Literacy, Curriculum: Re-writing School Geography. (Series: Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education, Series Editor, A. Luke) London: Taylor and Francis.

Lemke, J. (1998). "Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text." In J. R. Martin and R. Veel (eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, 87-113. London: Routledge.

Lemke, J. (2002). "Travels in Hypermodality." Visual Communication 1(3): 299-325.Lewis, D. (2001). Reading Contemporary Picturebooks. London: Routledge Falmer.Liang, X., and Mohan, B (2003) “Dilemmas of cooperative learning and academic

proficiency in two language”, 35-51. In Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 1.

Lock, G. (1996) Functional English Grammar. An Introduction for Second Language Teachers. Cambridge: University Pres. (Cambridge Language Education Series. Series Editor, J.C. Richards)

Love, K., Pigdon, K., Baker, G. & Hamston, J. (2002). (Rev.Ed) BUILT- Building Understandings in Literacy and Teaching, CD ROM. The University of Melbourne.

Mackay, D. & Schaub, P. (1970) Breakthrough to Literacy. London: LongmansMacken, M. and J. Rothery (1991). Developing Critical Literacy: A Model for

Literacy in Subject Area Learning. Sydney, Metropolitan East Region Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). "Literacy and Learning across the Curriculum: Towards a Model of Register for Secondary School Teachers." In R. Hasan and G. Williams (eds.). Literacy in Society, 232-278. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

Macken-Horarik, M. (1998). "Exploring the Requirements of Critical Literacy: A View from Two Classrooms." In F. Christie and R. Misson (eds.), 74-103. Literacy and Schooling, London: Routledge.

Macken-Horarik (2002) ‘ “Something to shoot for”: a systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science’. In A.M. Johns (ed.), Genre in the Classroom. Multiple Perspectives, 17-42. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Macken-Horarik, M. (2004). "Interacting with the Multimodal Text: Reflections on Image and Verbiage in Artexpress." Visual Communication 3(1): 5-26.

Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1991). "Critical Literacy: The Role of a Functional Model of Language." Australian Journal of Reading 14(2): 117-132.

22

Martin, J. R. (1993). "Life as a Noun: Arresting the Universe in Science and Humanities." In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (eds.), 221-267. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, . London: Falmer.

Martin, J. R. (1993). "Literacy in Science: Learning to Handle Text as Technology." In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (eds.), 166-202. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, . London: Falmer

Martin, J. R. (1993). "Technology, Bureaucracy and Schooling: Discourse Resources and Control." Dynamics 6(1): 84-130.

Martin, J. R. (1993). Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialized Text. In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (eds.), 203-220. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, . London: Falmer

Martin, J. R. (1995). "Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion and Public Discourse: Packing Semiotic Punch." Australian Journal of Linguistics 15(1): 33-67.

Martin, J. R. (1998). Discourses of Science: Recontextualisation, Genesis, Intertextuality and Hegemony. In J. R. Martin and R. Veel (eds.) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science,3-14. London and New York: Routledge.

Martin, J. R. (2000). "Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English." In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 142-175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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, 275-302. London: Cassell.

Martin, J. R. (2002). "Fair Trade: Negotiating Meaning in Multimodal Texts." In P. Coppock (ed.) The Semiotics of Writing: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on the Technology of Writing, 311-338. Begijnhof, Belgium: Brepols & Indiana University Press.

Martin, J. R. (2003). "Making History: Grammar for Interpretation." In J. R. Martin and R. Wodak (eds.) Re/Reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Time and Value, 19-60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. and R. Veel (eds.) (1998). Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R. and R. Wodak (eds.) (2003). Re/Reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Time and Value. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Martin, J.R. (1992) English Text. System and Structure. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Martin, J.R. (1999) “ Mentoring semogenesis: ‘Genre-based’ literacy pedagogy”. In F. Christie (Ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness. Linguistic and Social Processes, 123-155. London and NY: Continuum.

Martin, J.R. and Rothery, J. (1986) “ What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about “good writing. “ In B. Couture (Ed.) Functional Approaches to Writing. Research Perspectives., 241-265. London: Pinter.

Matthiessen, C. M.I.M. (1993) “Register in the round: diversity in a unified theory of register analysis”. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.) Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, 221-292. London: Pinter.

McKay, F. (1991). "The Gingerbreadman: An Inviting Second Helping?" In F. McKay (ed.) Public and Private Lessons,81-91. Carlton, Victoria: Australian Reading Association.

23

Meek, M. (1988). How Texts Teach What Readers Learn. Stroud: Thimble Press.Miller, B. (1995). Teaching Critical Literacy: Current Issues and Some Secondary

School Perspectives. 21st National Conference of the Australian Reading Assn., Confronting literacies, Darling Harbour, Sydney.

Miller, B. and M. Howie (2000). Critical Literacy Research Project: Using Slf to Apprentice the Students into the Senior High School Curriculum. The 27th International Systemic Functional Linguistics Congress, University of Melbourne.

Mohan, B and Slater, T. (2004) “The communicative language testing model and the assessment of discourse”. In J. A. Foley (ed. Language Education and Discourse, 255-269. London, Continuum Press.

Mohan, B. (1986) Language and Content. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.Mohan, B. (in press) ‘Knowledge structures in social practices’. In J. Cummins and C.

Davison (eds.) The Kluwer Handbook of English Language Teaching, London, Kluwer Academic publishers.

Mohan, B. and Huang, Zingzi (2002) “Assessing the integration of language and content in mandarin as a foreign language classroom”, 405-433. In Linguistics and Education, 13, 3.

Mohan, B., Leung, C. and Davison, C. (2001) English as a Second Language in the Mainstream Classroom. London, Pearson Education.

New South Wales Board of Studies. (1994). English K-6. Sydney: New South Wales Board of Studies.

New South Wales Board of Studies. (1998). English K-6. Sydney: New South Wales Board of Studies.

O’Halloran, K. (1998) ‘Classroom discourse in mathematics: a multisemiotic analysis,’ 359-388. In Linguistics and Education, 10, 3.

O’Halloran, K. (2004) ‘Discourses in secondary school mathematics a classrooms according to social class and gender’. In J. A. Foley (ed.) Language Education and Discourse: Functional Approaches., 191-225.London and NY: Continuum.

O'Halloran, K. (1999). "Interdependence, Interaction and Metaphor in Multisemiotic Texts." Social Semiotics 9(3): 317-338.

O'Halloran, K. (2003a). "Implications of Mathematics as a Multisemiotic Discourse." In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger and V. Cifarelli (eds.) Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing, 185-214. Brooklyn/Ottawa/Toronto: Legas Publishing.

O'Halloran, K. (2003b). "Intersemiosis in Mathematics and Science: Grammatical Metaphor and Semiotic Metaphor." In M. Taverniers, L. Ravelli and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.) Grammatical Metaphor, 337-366. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Painter, C. (1990) (2nd.ed.) Learning the Mother Tongue. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria

Painter, C. (1999) Learning Language in Early Childhood, Cassell, London and NY. Painter, C. (2004) “ The interpersonal first’ principle in child language development”.

In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds.) The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals, 137- 157. London and NY: Continuum.

Paltridge, B (2001) ). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

24

Paltridge, B. (2002) “ Genre, text type, and the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Classroom”. In A.M. Johns (Ed.) Genre in the Classroom. Multiple Perspectives, 73-90. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Paltridge, B. (in press) ‘Approaches to genre’. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (Eds.). Kluwer International Handbook of Education: English Language Teaching,

Vol.2 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Paltriidge, B. (2004) ‘The exegesis as a genre: an ethnographic examination, 84-103.

In L.J. Ravelli, and R.A. Ellis (eds.) Academic Writing in Context: Social-Functional Perspectives on Theory and Practice. London: Continuum.

Pearce, J., Thornton, G. and Mackay, D. (1989) ‘The Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching, University College London 1964-1987’., 329-368. R. Hasan and J.R. Martin (eds.)

Polias, J. (1998). Teaching ESL through Science. Adelaide: South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment.

Ravelli, L.A. (2004) “ Familiar territory, shifting grounds: aspects of organization in written texts’, 104-130. In L.J. Ravelli, and R.A. Ellis (eds.) Academic Writing in Context: Social-Functional Perspectives on Theory and Practice. London: Continuum.

Reddy, M.J. (1979) “ The conduit metaphor- a case of frame conflict in our language about language”. In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Philadelphia: Cambridge University Press.

Reed, C. (ed.) (1971) The Learning of Language. NY: Appleton Century Crofts.Rose, D. (2004). "Sequencing and Pacing of the Hidden Curriculum: How Indigenous

Learners Are Left out of the Chain." In J. Muller, A. Morais and B. Davies Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein., 91-107 London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Rose, D., B. Gray, and W. Cowey. (1999). "Scaffolding Reading and Writing for Indigenous Children in School." In P. Wignell (ed) Double Power: English Literacy and Indigenous Education. Canberra: National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia (NLLIA).

Rothery J. (1984) “ The development of genres: primary to junior secondary school”. In F. Christie (Ed.) Children Writing B.Ed. Study Guide, 67-114. Geelong Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring Narrative in Video: A Unit of Work for Junior Secondary English. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Royce, T. (1998). "Synergy on the Page: Exploring Intersemiotic Complementarity in Page-Based Multimodal Text." Japan Association Systemic Functional Linguistics Occasional Papers 1(1): 25-50.

Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistic Perspective. Mawah, New Jersey and London: Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M., M. Achugar and T. Oteíza (2004). "The Grammar of History: Enhancing Content-Based Instruction through a Functional Focus on Language."" TESOL Quarterly 38(1): 67-93.

Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M.,, Taverniers, M. and Ravelli, L. (Eds.)(2003) Grammatical Metaphor. Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series Ed. E.F. Konrad Koerner) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins,

Stephens, J. (1994). "Signifying Strategies and Closed Texts in Australian Children's Literature." Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 17(2): 131-146.

25

Thompson, G. (1996) Introducing Functional Grammar. London, NY, Sydney and Auckland: Arnold.

Torr, J. (1998) From Child Tongue to Mother Tongue: Language Development in the First Two and a Half Years. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics. Nottingham: Nottingham University.

Torr, J. and Simpson, A. (2003) “ The emergence of grammatical metaphor: literacy-oriented expressions in the everyday speech of young children”. In AM Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers and L. Ravelli (eds.)., 169-184.

Unsworth, L. (1997). "Scaffolding Reading of Science Explanations: Accessing the Grammatical and Visual Forms of Specialised Knowledge." Reading 31(3): 30-42.

Unsworth, L. (1999). "Developing Critical Understanding of the Specialised Language of School Science and History: A Functional Grammatical Perspective." Journal of adolescent and adult literacy 42(7): 508-527.

Unsworth, L. (1999). "Explaining School Science in Book and CD Rom Formats: Using Semiotic Analyses to Compare the Textual Construction of Knowledge." International Journal of Instructional Media 26(2): 159-179.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching Multiliteracies across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Unsworth, L. (2002) Teaching Multiliteracies across the Curriculum. Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Unsworth, L. (2002). "Reading Grammatically: Exploring the Constructedness of Literary Texts." L1 Educational Studies of Language and Literature 2(2): 212-140.

Unsworth, L. (2003). "Re-Framing Research and Practice Relating to Cd Rom Narratives in Classroom Literacy Learning: Addressing 'Radical Change' in Digital Age Literature for Children." Issues in Educational Research 13(2): 55-70.

Unsworth, L. (2003). Describing the Recontextualization in Electronic Format of Images in Illustrated Literary Narratives for Children: Exploring Possible Systemic Approaches. Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Association Conference, Adelaide.

Unsworth, L. (Ed.) (2000) Researching Language in Schools and Communities. Functional Linguistic Perspectives. London and Washington: Cassell.

Unsworth, L. (in press). "Comparing School Science Explanations in Books and Computer-Based Formats: The Role of Images, Image/Text Relations and Hyperlinks." International Journal of Instructional Media 31(3).

Unsworth, L. and G. Williams (1990). "Big Books or Big Basals?: The Significance of Text Form in Constructing Contexts for Early Literacy Development through Shared Reading." Australian Journal of Reading 13: 100-111.

Unsworth, L., J. R. Martin, and C. Painter. (in progress). "Image/Text Relations in Book and Computer-Based Versions of Literary Narratives for Children: Towards a Functional Intermodal Semiotic Description."

van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage.van Leeuwen, T. and S. Humphrey (1996). "On Learning to Look through a

Geographer's Eyes." In R. Hasan and G. Williams (eds.) Literacy in Society, 29-49. London: Addison Wesley Longman:.

26

Veel, R. (1992). "Engaging with Scientific Language: A Functional Approach to the Language of School Science." The Australian Science Teachers Journal 38(2): 31-35.

Veel, R. (1997). "Learning How to Mean - Scientifically Speaking: Apprenticeship into Scientific Discourse in the Secondary School." In F. Christie and J. R. Martin (eds.) Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, 161-95 . London: Cassell Academic:.

Veel, R. (1998). "The Greening of School Science: Ecogenesis in Secondary Classrooms." In J. R. Martin and R. Veel (eds.), Reading Science: Functional and Critical Perspectives on the Discourses of Science,114-151. London: Routledge.

Veel, R. (1999). "Language, Knowledge and Authority in School Mathematics." In F. Christie (ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social Processes, 185-216. London: Cassell Academic.

Veel, R. and C. Coffin (1996). "Learning to Think Like an Historian: The Language of Secondary School History." In R. Hasan and G. Williams (eds.) Literacy in Society, 191-231. London: Longman:.

Ventola, E. (1996) “Packing and unpacking information in academic texts”. In E. Ventola and A. Maurenen (eds.), Academic Writing: Intertextual and Textual Issues. , 153-194. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wallace, C. (1992). "Critical Literacy Awareness in the EFL Classroom." In N. Fairclough (ed.) Critical Language Awareness, 59-92 . London, Longman.

Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry. Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. ( Series Eds. R. Pea, J. Seely Brown and J. Hawkins, Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives), Cambridge: University Press..

Wignell, P. (1998). "A Woman's Place: A Discussion of the Place of Linguistic Analysis in the Upper Primary School." In M. Knobel and A. Healy (eds.) Critical Literacies in the Primary Classroom, 41-52. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association:.

Williams ,G.. (1999) “ The pedagogic device and the production of discourse: a case example in early literacy education”. In F. Christie (ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness. Linguistic and Social Processes, 88-122. London and NY: Continuum.

Williams, G. (1998) “ Children entering literate worlds”. In F. Christie and R.Misson (Eds.) Literacy and Schooling, 18-46. London and NY: Longmans.

Williams, G. (1987). "Space to Play: The Analyses of Narrative Structure in Classroom Work with Children's Literature." In M. Saxby and G. Winch (eds.), Give Them Wings: The Experience of Children's Literature, 355-368. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Williams, G. (1987). Rumpelstilstkin's Secret. Annual Conference of the Victorian Reading Association, Balllarat.

Williams, G. (1999). "Children Becoming Readers: Reading and Literacy." In P. Hunt (ed.) Understanding Children's Literature, 151-162. London: Routledge

Williams, G. (2001) “Literacy pedagogy prior to schooling: relations between social positioning and semantic variation”. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies and H. Daniels (Eds.) Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy. The Contribution of Basil Bernstein in Research, 17-46. NY and Washington: Peter Lang.

Williams, G. (2004) “ Ontogenesis and grammatics: functions of metalanguage in pedagogic discourse”. In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds.) The Development of

27

Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals, 241-267. London and NY: Continuum.

28

Austin, H. (1993). Verbal art in children's literature: An application of linguistic theory to the classroom. English in Australia, 103, 63-75.

Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. (2004). Multimodal corpus linguistics. In G. Thompson & S. Hunston (Eds.), System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London and New York: Equinox.

Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. (in press). Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. London and New York: Equinox.

Browne, A. (1986). Piggybook. London: Julia MacRae.Callow, J. (Ed.). (1999). Image matters: visual texts in the classroom. Sydney:

Primary English Teaching Association.Callow, J., & Zammit, K. (2002). Visual literacy: from picture books to electronic

texts. In M. Monteith (Ed.), Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT (pp. 188-201). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Coffin, C. (1996). Exploring literacy in school history. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: an investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 196-230). London: Cassell.

Coffin, C. (2003). Reconstruals of the past - settlement or invasion? The role of JUDGMENT analysis. In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Eggins, S., Wignell, P., & Martin, J. R. (1993). The discourse of history: distancing the recoverable past. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice (pp. 75-109). London: Pinter.

Gray, B., Rose, D., & Cowey, W. (1998). Scaffolding Reading and Writing for Indigenous Children in School. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training: Indigenous Education Branch and the University of Canberra.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 124-132). London: Falmer.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993b). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). London: Falmer Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2 ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Humphrey, S. (1996). Exploring literacy in school geography. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Iedema, R., Feez, S., & White, P. (1994). Media Literacy. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education, Metropolitan East Region Disadvantaged Schools Component.

Janks, H., & Ivanic, R. (1992). Critical language awareness and emancipatory discourse. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 305-331). London: Longman.

29

Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: the multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171-196.

Knowles, M., & Malmkjaer, K. (1996). Language and control in children's literature. London: Routledge.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading Images. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: A grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.

Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299-325.Lewis, D. (2001). Reading contemporary picturebooks. London: Routledge Falmer.Love, K., Pigdon, K., Baker, G., & Hamston, J. (2002). BUILT - Building

Understanding in Literacy and Teaching. CD ROM.: The University of Melbourne.

Macken, M., & Rothery, J. (1991). Developing critical literacy: A model for literacy in subject area learning. Sydney: Metropolitan East Region Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Literacy and learning across the curriculum: towards a model of register for secondary school teachers. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 232-278). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

Macken-Horarik, M. (1998). Exploring the requirements of critical literacy: a view from two classrooms. In F. Christie & R. Misson (Eds.), Literacy and Schooling (pp. 74-103). London: Routledge.

Macken-Horarik, M. (2004). interacting with the multimodal text: reflections on image and verbiage in ArtExpress. Visual Communication, 3(1), 5-26.

Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1991). Critical literacy: The role of a functional model of language. Australian Journal of Reading, 14(2), 117-132.

Martin, J. R. (1993a). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221-267). London: Falmer.

Martin, J. R. (1993b). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166-202). London: Falmer.

Martin, J. R. (1993c). Technicality and abstraction: Language for the creation of specialized text. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 203-220). London: Falmer.

Martin, J. R. (1993d). Technology, bureaucracy and schooling: Discourse resources and control. Dynamics, 6(1), 84-130.

Martin, J. R. (1995). Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 33-67.

Martin, J. R. (1998). Discourses of science: Recontextualisation, genesis, intertextuality and hegemony. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London and New York: Routledge.

30

Martin, J. R. (2000a, December). Appraising discourse: co-constructing genres. Paper presented at the Scaffolding Language and Learning in Educational Contexts, University of Technology Sydney.

Martin, J. R. (2000b). Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R. (2000c). 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.

Martin, J. R. (2002). Fair Trade: Negotiating meaning in multimodal texts. In P. Coppock (Ed.), The semiotics of writing: Transdisciplinary perspectives on the technology of writing. (pp. 311-338). Begijnhof, Belgium: Brepols & Indiana University Press.

Martin, J. R. (2003). Making history: Grammar for interpretation. In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp. 19-60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Meek, M. (1988). How texts teach what readers learn. Stroud: Thimble Press.Miller, B. (1995). Teaching critical literacy: Current issues and some secondary

school perspectives. Paper presented at the 21st National Conference of the Australian Reading Assn., Confronting literacies, Darling Harbour, Sydney.

Miller, B., & Howie, M. (2000, 9-14 July). Critical literacy research project: Using SLF to apprentice the students into the senior high school curriculum. Paper presented at the The 27th International Systemic Functional Linguistics Congress, University of Melbourne.

O'Halloran, K. (1999). Interdependence, Interaction and Metaphor in Multisemiotic Texts. Social Semiotics, 9(3), 317-338.

O'Halloran, K. (2003a). Implications of mathematics as a multisemiotic discourse. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 185-214). Brooklyn/Ottawa/Toronto: Legas Publishing.

O'Halloran, K. (2003b). Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. In A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical Metaphor (pp. 337-366). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Polias, J. (1998). Teaching ESL through science. Adelaide: South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment.

Rose, D. (in press). Sequencing and Pacing of the Hidden Curriculum: how Indigenous learners are left out of the chain. In J. Muller, A. Morais & B. Davies (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Rose, D., Gray, B., & Cowey, W. (1999). Scaffolding reading and writing for indigenous children in school. In P. Wignell (Ed.), Double Power: English literacy and indigenous education. Canberra: National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia (NLLIA).

Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring narrative in video: A unit of work for junior secondary English. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education.

31

Royce, T. (1998). Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in page-based multimodal text. Japan Association Systemic Functional Linguistics Occasional Papers, 1(1), 25-50.

Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mawah, New Jersey and London: Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language." TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67-93.

Stephens, J. (1994). Signifying strategies and closed texts in Australian children's literature. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 131-146.

Unsworth, L. (1997). Scaffolding reading of science explanations: Accessing the grammatical and visual forms of specialised knowledge. Reading, 31(3), 30-42.

Unsworth, L. (1999a). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 42(7), 508-527.

Unsworth, L. (1999b). Explaining school science in book and CD ROM formats: Using semiotic analyses to compare the textual construction of knowledge. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 159-179.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Unsworth, L. (2003a, 17-19 July). Describing the recontextualization in electronic format of images in illustrated literary narratives for children: exploring possible systemic approaches. Paper presented at the Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Association Conference, Adelaide.

Unsworth, L. (2003b). Re-framing research and practice relating to CD ROM narratives in classroom literacy learning: Addressing 'radical change' in digital age literature for children. Issues in Educational Research, 13(2), 55-70.

Unsworth, L. (in press). Comparing school science explanations in books and computer-based formats: The role of images, image/text relations and hyperlinks. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3).

Unsworth, L., Martin, J. R., Painter, C., & Gill, T. (in progress). Image/text relations in book and computer-based versions of literary narratives for children: Towards a functional intermodal semiotic description.

van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage.van Leeuwen, T., & Humphrey, S. (1996). On learning to look through a geographer's

eyes. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 29-49). London: Addison Wesley Longman.

Veel, R. (1992). Engaging with scientific language: A functional approach to the language of school science. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(2), 31-35.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean - scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and Institutions: social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161-195). London: Cassell Academic.

Veel, R. (1998). The greening of school science: ecogenesis in secondary classrooms. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: functional and critical perspectives on the discourses of science. London: Routledge.

32

Veel, R., & Coffin, C. (1996). Learning to think like an historian: The language of secondary school History. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 191-231). London: Longman.

Wallace, C. (1992). Critical literacy awareness in the EFL classroom. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 59-92). London: Longman.

Wignell, P. (1998). A woman's place: A discussion of the place of linguistic analysis in the upper primary school. In M. Knobel & A. Healy (Eds.), Critical literacies in the primary classroom (pp. 41-52). Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.

Williams, G. (1998). Children entering literate worlds. In F. Christie & R. Misson (Eds.), Literacy in schooling (pp. 18-46). London: Routledge.

Williams, G. (1999). Children Becoming Readers: Reading and Literacy. In P. Hunt (Ed.), Understanding Children's Literature (pp. 151-162). London: Routledge.

33