Broadening the appliability of systemic functional linguistics

Winfred Wenhui Xuan; Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen; Jorge Arús-Hita

doi:10.1515/iral-2024-0286

Article Open Access

Broadening the appliability of systemic functional linguistics

Winfred Wenhui Xuan , Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen and Jorge Arús-Hita

Published/Copyright: December 13, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 63 Issue 1

1 Introduction: systemic functional linguistics and appliability

Applied linguistics and theoretical linguistics began to drift further apart in the 1960s. There were obviously many reasons for this, including the need to support the wide range of strands of applications at the time; for example, (machine) translation studies were included since the institutionalisation of translation studies as a distinct discipline did not begin until two to three decades later. But one major reason was the direction taken in the increasingly dominant conception of theoretical linguistics in the 1960s (e.g. Lyons 1968) – the Chomskyan programme. Other conceptions of theoretical linguistics tended to be pushed to the margins, and many have now essentially disappeared, like Tagmemic Linguistics. However, of the frameworks being developed at the time, one has survived and flourished, to the point where it is now a world-wide collaborative undertaking across the spectrum of linguistic activities, including both ones conceived of as “theoretical” and ones treated as “applied”: Systemic Functional Linguistics, SFL (e.g. Bartlett and O’Grady 2017; Thompson et al. 2019; Matthiessen and Teruya 2024).

Why should this be the case, the root cause can be traced back to the 1950s: the founder of SFL, M.A.K. Halliday, and a number of colleagues set out to develop a kind of linguistics that had a solid theoretic foundation, building on the work by J.R. Firth (his system-structure theory), but which could at the same time serve as a resource to address urgent problems arising in communities around the post-colonial world. The development of SFL transcended the increasing divide between “theoretical” and “applied” linguistics. At AILA 2002 in Singapore, Halliday (2007 [2002]) named this transcendent variety of linguistics appliable linguistics; Halliday (2008: 7) characterizes it as:

[…] the search for what I have called an “appliable” linguistics – a comprehensive and theoretically powerful model of language which, precisely because it was comprehensive and powerful, would be capable of being applied to the problems, both research problems and practical problems, that are being faced all the time by the many groups of people in our modern society who are in some way or other having to engage with language.

Since then, scholars have continued to use the term “appliable linguistics” and further enrich the understanding of SFL as appliable linguistics, thus helping bridge theory and application and supporting the community of students, scholars and practitioners involved in both, e.g. Mahboob and Knight (2010), Guowen et al. (2010), Matthiessen (2012, 2014], Trevisan and García (2019), Caldwell, Knox and Martin (2022), Jalilifar and Don (2024). And there is now a well-established centre at Shanghai Jiaotong University – the Martin Centre for Appliable Linguistics.^[1]

The early “applied” concerns included areas of activities that are still prominently present on the international agenda, like language and education (e.g. Halliday et al. 1964; McCabe 2021) and language policy and planning (e.g. Halliday et al. 2007 [1972], 2007 [1998]; Bingjun and Rui 2017). Since then, participants in SFL around the world have added contributions to new fields of activity, including ecolinguistics (e.g. Halliday et al. 2003 [1990]; Law and Matthiessen 2023), language in the workplace (e.g. Christie and Martin 1997; Forey and Lockwood 2010), language and the law (e.g. Zappavigna and Martin 2018), healthcare communication (e.g. Slade et al. 2015; Moore 2019) and clinical linguistics (e.g. Armstrong 2009; Ferguson et al. 2017). As we show further down, the present special issue of IRAL moves the frontier of activities of application further drawing on different properties of SFL as appliable linguistics.

We suggested above that appliable linguistics transcends the distinction between theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics. If we view formal theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics as thesis and antithesis positions, we can interpret appliable linguistics as a synthesis of the two, but one that is designed to transcend them through constant dialogue among members of communities of users and developers, as illustrated by Figure 1:

Figure 1:

Appliable linguistics as a dialogue between theoretical and applied linguistics.

Central to the role of SFL as appliable linguistics transcending the distinction between theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics as they have become institutionalised as separate disciplines since the 1960s is the conception of language as resource rather than as rule (cf. Halliday 2003 [1977]), as is clear from the contributions to this special issue. More specifically, language is conceptualised as a resource for making meaning in context – modelled as a meaning potential operating in a context of culture. This meaning potential is represented by means of the system network (e.g. Matthiessen 2018, 2023]), designed by Halliday (e.g. 1964]) precisely to bring out the organisation of language as a vast network of options in meaning (and so also in wording and in sounding or writing).

Language as meaning potential has proved to be fundamental to projects of application, as has the ecological approach of interpreting it in its semiotic environment, i.e. in its context of culture. In addition to this holistic theory of language in context, the commitment to the development of comprehensive descriptions of particular languages as resources for making meaning, as meaning potentials, has been crucial in activities of applications, including ones as traditionally distinct as computational modelling and language education. Thus while there have been many significant frameworks contributing to ideas about second/foreign language education (e.g. situational, notional, communicative, task-based), SFL quite uniquely offers a growing number of descriptions of particular languages – descriptions that are appliable because they are comprehensive, meaning-oriented and text-based (see e.g. Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen 2004; Mwinlaaru and Xuan 2016; Kashyap 2019; Martin, Quiroz and Wang 2023; Matthiessen and Teruya 2024). They include accounts of “major” languages (in the sense of Comrie 2018), e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Telugu, Arabic, Spanish, French and German, but also of small community languages, including Dagaare, Oko and Western Desert. The linguists contributing such descriptions form a world-wide community enriched by the continuing exchange of ideas and engage in quite varied contexts of application.

Such appliable descriptions of particular languages embody the interpretation of the meaning potential of a language as an aggregate of registers – of functional varieties or sub-meaning potentials that resonate with different situation types within context (“contexts of use”). And in this way, they support curricula and pedagogies that are register-, or genre-, based (e.g. Byrnes et al. 2010; McCabe 2021; cf. also Matthiessen 2006; Rose and Martin 2012), and they can be used in L2 education programmes that are adapted to a variety of learner needs and circumstances.

2 Appliability of systemic functional linguistics in educational contexts

The main concern of this SI is the appliability of SFL in educational contexts, which range from language acquisition and learning to teaching methodologies, bilingualism and multilingualism, feedback and assessment, language policy and planning, and technology-enhanced education, among other topics. It is beyond the scope of this editorial to delve into, or even touch upon, all these areas. Instead, we will focus on topics that are addressed by the contributions in the present SI, namely language teacher education, (academic) writing, the transmission of knowledge, methodological innovation, the role of language in teaching, scaffolding, and instructional material development.

2.1 Language teacher education

One of the areas that educational researchers have identified as deserving attention is that of language teacher education, as any implementation of teaching methodologies requires well-trained instructors. Research in this field covers a wide spectrum, from laying out frameworks for planning pre-service and in-service programmes (e.g. Roberts 1998), to studies on innovation and good teaching practice (e.g. Grenfell et al. 2003) and miscellaneous issues (e.g. Freeman and Richards 1996). It also includes handbooks for language teachers, such as Ball et al. (2016).

SFL is not oblivious to this fundamental area of educational linguistics. Teacher education has received special attention in the U.S. For instance, Gebhard (2010) looks at how L2 literacy researchers and teacher educators in the United States use Halliday’s SFL theory to support ESL and content teachers, while Accurso and Gebhard (2021) review the influences of SFL in U.S. teacher education from 2000 to 2019. One important finding by these authors is that, contrary to widespread belief, “SFL is not too complex for teachers, even those without prior training in linguistics, and for many teachers the theory has great explanatory and pedagogical power” (Accurso and Gebhard 2021: 416).

Another geographical area where teacher education has been repeatedly addressed from an SFL perspective is Australia, with contributions, for instance, by Troyan et al. (2021) and Chappell (2020). Overall, research on SFL-based teacher education tends to highlight the key affordances that this theory brings to teaching practices. Among these affordances, arguably the most frequently mentioned one is the development of a holistic view of language, not only in terms of lexicogrammar but also concerning the generic structure of texts. The use of such an approach in teacher training can be seen in Dost (2021) and Daniello et al. (2014), among others.

In the discussion of teacher education, an aspect which has gained increasing importance over time is innovation. This is also an area to which SFL can contribute. We could even say that SFL brings a lot of innovation to teacher training in itself (see below for a discussion on the use of system networks in language education). Maverick Zhang’s contribution to this SI proposes an innovative SFL-based approach to teacher education, as will be seen later.

2.2 Writing

2.2.1 Academic writing

We now turn to another topic often addressed in the educational linguistics literature, i.e. teaching how to understand and produce academic writing. Several books have been devoted to the examination of the main characteristics of this register, often with a pedagogical orientation. Among those, often-cited references are Oshima and Hogue (2007), Coffin et al. (2005), Bailey (2003), as well as the more recent Giltrow et al. (2021) and, of course, Swales and Feak’s (2012) highly acclaimed classic for graduate students. While the referenced works and much of the existing literature focus on English academic writing, this register has also received attention in other languages, e.g. Ignatieva et al. (2023), Natale (2012) and Parodi (2010) on Spanish. Several of the works cited so far have actually been undertaken within the SFL theoretical framework. Indeed, SFL is a significant contributor to academic writing research. This prominence is largely attributed to the application of genre-based theory and appraisal theory.

The body of SFL-based research on academic writing is too large to be covered in these lines. One of the main contributions of SFL to this area is foregrounding the need to raise students’ awareness of the specifics of the lexicogrammatical resources typically used in academic writing and how they relate to the contextual features (see, e.g. Nagao 2019, 2020]; Schleppegrell 2000; Moore and Schleppegrell 2020). A common denominator of the application of SFL to the teaching of academic writing, as well as other genres, is that it provides the tools for identifying grammatical and lexical elements which allow achieving a particular text’s purposes. The paper on Spanish academic writing by Ignatieva et al. in this SI is an example of the importance of the identification of the lexicogrammatical features for a better understanding and teaching of academic writing.

One of the most distinctive features of academic writing, and one of the hardest ones to master by students, is citing. Failing to cite properly may result in plagiarism, always a concern when teaching students how to write academically, especially with the advent of artificial intelligence. Several of the general references on academic writing mentioned above devote some space to the importance of citation in academic works, as well as the different methods of citing sources. They emphasize how proper citation not only gives credit to the original authors but also strengthens the credibility and scholarly value of the work see, for instance, the ‘creating a research space’ section in Swales and Feak (2012: 174–184). The teaching of citation is so important that it is not only addressed in general works on academic writing but is also the object of specific research (e.g. Zhang 2024; Yang and Sang 2023; Buckley 2015).

From an SFL perspective, the teaching of citation has often been approached as a way of teaching how to cope with authorial stance, an important interpersonal concept associated with appraisal theory. Stance refers to “the communicative and rhetorical functionality of … wordings by which speakers/writers take a stance towards the various points-of-view and value positions being referenced by the text and thereby align themselves vis-à-vis those who hold, or are represented as holding, these positions” (White 2003: 260). Examples of this approach to the study and teaching of citation through stance are Chang and Schleppegrell (2016, 2011] and, more recently, Zhang and Zhang (2023). Appraisal theory also serves as the starting point for Gardner’s paper in this SI on the teaching of citation.

2.2.2 System networks and L2 writing

The teaching of writing – not academic writing specifically but writing in general – is one of the most fertile areas of research within educational linguistics, from classic references such as Cumming (2001) or Hyland (2002) to more recent advances (e.g. O’Brien 2004; Paltridge 2004; Barkaoui 2007), including not only the actual teaching of writing but the assessment thereof (e.g. Cumming 2009; Hamp-Lyons 2002). Of course, when looking at the use of system networks not just in the teaching of writing but in language education at large, the existing research is circumscribed to SFL, within which system networks play a very important role. As Arús-Hita et al. (2024) put:

While SFL-informed approaches to language have been widely applied to the field of language education since the 1960s – genre-based pedagogy being very popular, effective, and successful (e.g. Gardner 2017; Rose and Martin 2012), the idea of the system embodying the meaning potential of language in context, represented as a system network, has arguably not been sufficiently foregrounded and could be promoted to make a much more significant contribution to L2 education, where despite pioneering efforts (importantly, Byrnes et al. 2010) the uptake of SFL has been less than in L1 education (2024]: 4).

While the authors acknowledge the wealth of research using system networks in the context of language teaching and learning, they take a step further by advocating for the explicit use of system networks in educational praxis. To this end, they suggest different possible areas of application of system networks in foreign language teaching (Arús-Hita et al. 2024: 4). The authors further argue that “system networks can make a very significant contribution to L2 education if they are given more attention, and their deployment is highlighted” (2024]: 1). The study is an attempt “to build a bridge between the existing literature on system networks, including the limited amount of work relating these to L2 education, and the exciting future that may be brought about by the integration of these networks into L2 teaching practices” (2024]: 36). They invite the L2 education community to use system networks in language teaching. The challenge is taken up in Xuan and Matthiessen’s paper in this SI, i.e. ‘System networks as a resource in L2 writing education’.

2.3 Transmission of knowledge

Another important educational topic addressed in this SI is the transmission of knowledge, in general, and of grammar, in particular. We have already spoken about the importance given in SFL to the explicit teaching of lexicogrammar for a better understanding of language. The transmission of knowledge – an important philosophical topic (see. e.g. John 2020) – and how to do it efficiently has been a major concern of educational linguistics for a long time (Hassen 2015; Maton and Muller 2007; Smeby 1998, inter alia). In SFL contexts, an important approach to the handling and transmission of knowledge is that of ‘mass and presence’, where mass’ refers to the complexity of meaning in knowledge practices, while ‘presence’ refers to context-dependency of meaning in these practices (Martin 2017). In other words, how to handle ‘field’ in the transmission of specialized knowledge (see Martin 2020, 2017]; Unsworth 2020). This area of research within SFL stems from dialogues with work done in Legitimation Code Theory (LCT, e.g. Maton 2013, 2016]), a theory of knowledge and knowers in the sociology of education. The collaboration between SFL and LCT in this matter promises to offer important insights into effective ways of coping with the transmission of knowledge from instructors to learners. An exploration of this is undertaken in Yu’s contribution to this SI, with a focus on the teaching of Chinese grammar.

2.4 The role of language in teaching

A relevant aspect in the transmission of knowledge in teaching contexts is obviously the role played by language in this transmission. The role played by language in education has been studied for a long time (e.g. Hymes 1980; Bruner 1982; Hornberger 2008; McCarthy and Carter 2014). Of course, a publication highly relevant to the scope of this SI is Language and Education, a whole volume in Continuum’s Collected Works of Halliday (2007). In this compilation of Halliday’s ideas and work on education, we can see the importance granted in SFL to the role of language in different teaching contexts, including early schooling, foreign and second language learning, multilingual learning settings and educational contexts at large. The different chapters include some of the views of language typically associated with SFL, such as, for instance the conception of language as a social semiotic system allowing individuals to mean. In educational contexts, this translates into helping kids, language learners, etc. to develop the resources that will allow them to be meaningful in different contexts. Language is for Halliday a tool for learning and a subject of study in itself; therefore, understanding the functions of language in educational settings can improve educational practices.

A particularly challenging scenario arises when the language used in teaching is not the learners’ mother tongue. For instance, there has been a heated debate about which language should be used in the foreign language teaching classroom – see Hall and Cook (2012) for a review. A case in point is that of English Medium Instruction (EMI) as in bilingual education contexts. The fact that the learners’ – when not the instructors’ – command of the language is often far from perfect increases the difficulty of the teaching process, making it more necessary to explore ways of maximizing the efficacy of language use. The role of language in these scenarios has been amply explored in recent times (e.g. Farrell 2020; Jiang et al. 2019; Lasagabaster et al. 2018; Tsou and Kao 2017), including research within the SFL framework, such as Whittaker et al. (2011). Pun and Jia’s contribution to this SI offers some of the latest advances on the matter.

2.5 Scaffolding

Another challenging issue at the time of teaching is managing the complexity of learning tasks. One way in which this complexity has been addressed over time is through the application of scaffolded instruction. As is well known, scaffolding is grounded in Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory, which emphasises the importance of social interaction and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky 2012; Vygotsky and Cole 1978). By taking into account learners’ needs and characteristics, scaffolding provides appropriate support and guidance that facilitates their progression toward independent learning and mastery of new skills and concepts.

Scaffolding also plays an important role in SFL-based educational models, often hand in hand with genre-based education and, within this, the Reading-to-Learn cycles (detailed in Martin 2009; Martin and Rose 2005). A useful resource to understand how scaffolding has been applied in SFL-based research, with specific examples of such application, is de Oliveira and Smith (2019). Gebhard (2010), in turn, describes “how L2 literacy researchers and teacher educators in the United States are using Halliday’s (1996, 2007] theory of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to support ESL and content teachers in scaffolding disciplinary knowledge and explicitly teaching how academic English constructs disciplinary ways of knowing, doing, and being in school” (2010: 798). The current SI includes one example of successful deployment of scaffolding in SFL-based instruction in the paper by Zhang (2024).

2.6 Instructional materials development

Another key area of research within educational linguistics covered in this SI is the design of teaching materials. References on this topic are extremely numerous and any attempt to provide a representative list is bound to fall short. Circumscribing the focus to language teaching, some works provide important insights into the development of materials, some notable ones being the books by Harwood (2010), McGrath (2016) and Tomlinson (2023, 2011]. One important aspect in the development of language teaching materials is the use of a theoretical or methodological background to avoid an uninformed approach which may compromise its effectiveness (see Arús-Hita and Bárcena 2024). A theoretical framework which has long provided important support in the design of teaching proposals is precisely SFL, with examples including Arús-Hita et al. (2024), Boccia et al. (2019) and Jones and Lock (2011). A particularly impressive case of the application of SFL – through a genre-based approach – to the design not only of specific teaching materials but also of a full four-year curriculum of German-language teaching at the university level is Byrnes et al. (2010).

Despite the existence of examples as the ones just cited, research and/or cases of application of SFL to the design of language teaching materials is not as abundant as in other important realms such as, for instance, language learning classroom interaction and lesson planning (see, e.g. the different contributions in Troyan et al. 2022). An area where much work is yet to be done is that of the design of foreign language teaching lessons using SFL as a theoretical background. This remains a rather unexplored area where efforts to delve into it can be expected to bring exciting insights. It is therefore good news that Arús-Hita’s paper in this SI puts forward an application of SFL to lesson design, as described below.

3 Contributions to this special issue

As a corollary to this editorial, we now offer a summary of the different contributions to the SI. In the first study of its kind, Yu analysed a representative International Chinese Language Education (hereafter ICLE) micro-lecture on Chinese grammar, examining the ideational mass and presence across various stages of grammar instruction. The research identified presenting scenarios PS, example extraction EE, and grammar explanation GE as key stages in Chinese grammar instruction, each characterised by a distinct ideational mass and presence. The study concluded that the careful balance of mass and presence is vital for effective Chinese grammar instruction via ICLE micro-lectures. This research extends the application of SFL and Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) into the context of Chinese as an international study. It combines the genre aspect of SFL and the mass and presence concept to explore how Chinese grammar lessons can be delivered more efficiently and professionally.

In their paper, Harman, Fu, and Chang explored the application of SFL in classroom-based research in a minoritised school in the North American context. As teacher educators advocating for SFL praxis, they encountered numerous challenges due to the lack of SFL training among most educators. They emphasised the importance of considering the context when applying SFL and extended the concept of SFL as a socially accountable praxis to such contexts. To address these challenges, they recommended integrating SFL into teacher training programmes and involving experienced teachers with SFL knowledge to guide inexperienced teachers in implementing this socially accountable praxis.

In his paper, Arús-Hita explores the practical application of SFL in foreign language teaching, specifically focusing on the use of system networks. He uses mental process from transitivity as an example to illustrate how this approach can aid students in comprehending the system of mental processes in their foreign language learning. He also demonstrates how this linguistic approach can assist foreign language teachers in designing effective learning resources and ensuring comprehensive coverage of a grammatical system. This method, he suggests, can minimise the likelihood of overlooking any crucial aspects of the grammatical system, thereby enhancing the overall learning experience.

The study by Maverick Zhang examines the use of SFL in language teacher education in a multilingual and multicultural university classroom in the south-eastern U.S. The research focuses on how embodied activities can facilitate pre-service language teachers in understanding key SFL concepts and analysing language use in context. The study highlights the importance of motivating language teachers to reflect on their linguistic experiences in their everyday lives during their learning processes. The findings suggest that embodied activities can help pre-service language teachers better master the theory they learn and better serve their classroom teaching. However, the study also acknowledges the challenges that such an approach may have. Overall, the research emphasises the significance of innovative and culturally sustaining approaches to teaching and using SFL, as well as the need for continued critical reflection and action in changing classroom contexts.

Zhang, Wang, and Song’s research explores the integration of drama in an EFL classroom at a Chinese university, employing SFL pedagogic activities, exchange structure analysis, and the concept of language shift. The study scrutinizes the teaching methods, interaction patterns between teachers and students, and the language choices made by both parties. It reveals that the Evaluate and Elaborate stages often merge with the Prepare stage of the subsequent cycle. The teacher assumes the roles of secondary actor and primary knower, utilizing L1 exclusively to enhance students’ multilingual capabilities. The research underscores the significance of adopting a flexible teaching strategy that leverages the linguistic resources of both teachers and students to navigate the complexities of content learning. The findings indicate that incorporating L1 in content-based foreign language learning programs can potentially broaden students’ multilingual meaning potential.

Xuan and Matthiessen’s paper introduces the concept of system networks from SFL into L2 writing. They demonstrate the usefulness of system networks in tracking learners’ writing development from the perspective of writing as meaning-making and identifying linguistic challenges in L2 writers’ writing development. The authors draw on Xuan’s (2015) study and data from a similar context but with different participants from different proficiency levels. The study concludes that system networks can improve writing curriculum design and material development in L2 teaching and learning. The concept of system networks can help researchers and educators better understand the complex interplay between different linguistic systems in L2 writing and provide insights into how to support L2 writers’ development. Overall, the paper highlights the potential of system networks to enhance L2 writing instruction and research.

Ignatieva et al. explore the appliability of the systems of appraisal and transitivity to Spanish academic writing. They analyse the interaction patterns between ideational and interpersonal meaning in college students’ Spanish academic writing from three disciplines: literature, history, and geography. The study uses texts from the CLAE corpus to examine the interaction patterns between appraisal and transitivity. The findings reveal that appreciation is commonly associated with relational processes, affect with mental processes, and judgment with verbal/material processes across all texts. These new insights provide a basis for combining transitivity and appraisal in the teaching of academic writing. The study highlights the importance of understanding the complex interplay between different linguistic systems in academic writing and provides insights into how to support students’ development in this area. Overall, the study contributes to the field of Spanish academic writing and provides a foundation for future research in this area.

Gardner’s paper extends the engagement system from appraisal into the teaching of citation in academic writing. The paper provides three sample lessons that demonstrate how to avoid plagiarism and how to cite sources step by step. The study highlights the enormous range of choices available in citation practices, including disciplines, genres, functions, author prominence, citation formats, and tense choices. Gardner argues that current research on citation practices tends to focus on specific examples in context, while the range of choices is far greater than what many EAP writing teachers may think. Therefore, the paper suggests integrating this approach into current EAP citation teaching and learning. The study provides a valuable contribution to the field of EAP writing and highlights the importance of understanding the complex interplay between different linguistic systems in academic writing.

Pun and Jia’s paper applies SFL thematic analysis and Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) theory to investigate science class teacher-student interaction in Hong Kong’s EMI educational context. The study video-taped the teaching of four science classes in Hong Kong’s secondary context and analysed the conversations that occurred in these classrooms. The findings reveal that teachers in Hong Kong’s secondary EMI science classes are typically authoritative and lack interaction. During the observed extended IRF exchange, the teacher’s feedback on students’ responses emphasises the significance of modified input from teachers. This modified input foregrounds semantic relations within the field of Biology, which helps to develop students’ content knowledge and language skills. The study highlights the importance of understanding the complex interplay between different linguistic systems in science education and provides insights into how to support students’ development in this area. Overall, the paper contributes to the field of EMI education and provides a foundation for future research in this area.

Correction note: Correction added after online publication on December 13, 2024: References have been updated by the author.

Corresponding author: Winfred Wenhui Xuan, School of Education and Languages, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, 30 Good Shepherd Street, Ho Man Tin, Kowloon, Hong Kong, E-mail: wxuan@hkmu.edu.hk

References

Accurso, Kathryn & Meg Gebhard. 2021. SFL praxis in US teacher education: A critical literature review. Language and Education 35(5). 402–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1781880.Search in Google Scholar

Armstrong, Elizabeth M. 2009. Clinical applications. In M. A. K. Halliday & Jonathan Webster (eds.), A companion to systemic functional linguistics, 143–153. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Arús-Hita, Jorge & Elena Bárcena. 2024. Toward an integrated framework for CLIL-based blended teaching. In Dolores Ramírez Verdugo (ed.), Interdisciplinary research and innovation in bilingual and second language teacher education, 173–189. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003350217-14Search in Google Scholar

Arús-Hita, Jorge, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Winfred Wenhui Xuan. 2024. Learning how to mean in a second language: Uses of system networks in L2 education. Journal of World Languages 10(1). 9–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0056.Search in Google Scholar

Bailey, Stephen. 2003. Academic writing: A practical guide for students. London: Routledge Falmer.Search in Google Scholar

Ball, Paul, Keith Kelly & John Clegg. 2016. Putting CLIL into practice: Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barkaoui, Khaled. 2007. Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from theory and research. TESL Reporter 40(1). 35–48.Search in Google Scholar

Bartlett, Tom & Gerard O’Grady (eds.). 2017. The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315413891Search in Google Scholar

Bingjun, Yang & Wang Rui. 2017. Language policy: A systemic functional approach. London, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315436937Search in Google Scholar

Boccia, Cristina, Samiah Hassan, María Emilia Moreschi, Grisel Salmaso, Alejandra Farías & Mercedes Romero Day. 2019. Teaching and learning EFL through genres. Buenos Aires: Teseo Press.10.55778/ts878602202Search in Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome. 1982. The language of education. Social Research 49. 835–853.Search in Google Scholar

Buckley, Carina. 2015. Conceptualising plagiarism: Using Lego to construct students’ understanding of authorship and citation. Teaching in Higher Education 20(3). 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1016418.Search in Google Scholar

Byrnes, Heidi, Hiram H. Maxim & John Norris. 2010. Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. [Special issue]. The Modern Language Journal 94(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01137.x.Search in Google Scholar

Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.253Search in Google Scholar

Caldwell, David, John S. Knox & James R. Martin (eds.). 2022. Appliable linguistics and social semiotics: Developing theory from practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.10.5040/9781350109322Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin & Mary J. Schleppegrell. 2011. Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10. 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin & Mary J. Schleppegrell. 2016. Explicit learning of authorial stance-taking by L2 doctoral students. Journal of Writing Research 8. 49–80. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.02.Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Phil. 2020. A functional model of language for language teacher education. In Darío Luis Banegas (ed.), Content knowledge in English language teacher education: International experiences, 29–48. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350084650.0008Search in Google Scholar

Christie, Frances & James R. Martin (eds.). 1997. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.Search in Google Scholar

Coffin, Caroline, Mary Jane Curry, Sharon Goodman, Ann Hewings, Theresa Lillis & Joan Swann. 2005. Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203994894Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard (ed.). 2018. The world’s major languages, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315644936Search in Google Scholar

Cumming, Alister. 2001. Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies 1(2). 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Cumming, Alister. 2009. Assessing academic writing in foreign and second languages. Language Teaching 42(1). 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444808005430.Search in Google Scholar

Daniello, Frank, Güliz Turgut & María Estela Brisk. 2014. Applying systemic functional linguistics to build educators’ knowledge of academic English for the teaching of writing. In Ahmar Mahboob & Leslie Barratt (eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education, 183–203. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4_11Search in Google Scholar

Dost, Güliz Turgut. 2021. Impact of a systemic functional linguistic informed course on teacher candidates’ knowledge about genre and language. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 17(1). 281–300. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.17.Search in Google Scholar

Farrell, Thomas. 2020. Professional development through reflective practice for English-medium instruction (EMI) teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23(3). 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1612840.Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, Alison, Elizabeth Spencer & Elizabeth Armstrong. 2017. Systemic functional linguistics and clinical linguistics. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 2017. The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 491–505. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Forey, Gail & Jane Lockwood (eds.). 2010. Globalization, communication and the workplace: Talking across the world. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, Donald & Jack C. Richards (eds.). 1996. Teacher learning in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, Sheena. 2017. Systemic functional linguistics and genre studies. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge book of systemic functional linguistics, 473–488. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Gebhard, Meg. 2010. Teacher education in changing times: A systemic functional linguistics (SFL) perspective. TESOL Quarterly 44(4). 797–803. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.237335.Search in Google Scholar

Giltrow, Janet, Richard Gooding & Daniel Burgoyne. 2021. Academic writing: An introduction. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Grenfell, Michael, Michael Kelly & Diana Jones. 2003. The European language teacher: Recent trends and future developments in teacher education. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Guowen, Huang, Chang Chenguang & Dai Fan (eds.). 2010. Functional linguistics as appliable linguistics. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hall, Graham & Guy Cook. 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 45(3). 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000067.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2007 [1998]. Where languages meet: The significance of the Hong Kong experience. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Language and education, Volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 254–263. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2007 [2002]. Applied linguistics as an evolving theme. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Language and education, Volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 1–9. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1996. Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In Ruqaiya Hasan & Geoff Williams (eds.), Literacy in society, 339–376. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2007. Language and education. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2008. Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 7–23. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., Angus McIntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2003 [1977]. Ideas about language. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), On language and linguistics, Volume 3 of collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 92–115. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2003 [1990]. New ways of meaning: A challenge to applied linguistics. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), On language and linguistics, Volume 3 of collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 139–174. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2007 [1972]. National language and language planning in a multilingual society. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Language and education, Volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 219–238. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, Liz. 2002. The scope of writing assessment. Assessing Writing 8(1). 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1075-2935(02)00029-6.Search in Google Scholar

Harwood, Nigel (ed.). 2010. English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hassen, Rukya. 2015. Discourse as medium of knowledge: Transmission of knowledge by transmission of discourse people live. Journal of Education and Practice 6(31). 119–128.Search in Google Scholar

Hornberger, Nancy H. (ed.). 2008. Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002. Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hymes, Dell. 1980. Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Ignatieva, Natalia, Daniel Rodríguez Vergara, Victoria Zamudio Jasso & Gullermo Jiménez Sánchez. 2023. ¿Cómo escriben los estudiantes universitarios en las humanidades? Un estudio sistémico-funcional de la escritura académica. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Search in Google Scholar

Jalilifar, Alireza & Alexanne Don. 2024. Appliable approaches to analysing texts in academic discourse. Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Li, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Stephen May. 2019. Implementing English-medium instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(2). 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231166.Search in Google Scholar

John, Greco. 2020. The transmission of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jones, Rodney & Graham Lock. 2011. Functional grammar in the ESL classroom: Noticing, exploring and practicing. London: Palgrave McMillan.10.1057/9780230297524Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar. 2019. Language typology. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schöntal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 767–792. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316337936.031Search in Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, David, Aintzane Doiz & Víctor Pavón. 2018. Undergraduates’ beliefs about the role of language and team teaching in EMI courses at university. Rassegna Italiana Di Linguistica Applicata 2(3). 111–127.Search in Google Scholar

Law, Locky & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2023. Revisiting Halliday’s (1990) “New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics”: What has changed and what still needs to be done? Linguistics and the Human Sciences 15(3). 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.23599.Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165570Search in Google Scholar

Mahboob, Ahmar & Naomi Knight (eds.). 2010. Appliable linguistics. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 2009. Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education 20(1). 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 2017. Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in secondary school science and humanities discourse. Onomazein 111–148. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.sfl.05.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 2020. Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in secondary school science and humanities discourse. In James R. Martin, Karl Maton & Y. J. Doran (eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and legitimation code theory, 114–147. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429280726-5Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2005. Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding democracy in the classroom. In Jonathan Webster, Christian Matthiessen & Ruqaiya Hasan (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, 252–280. London: Continuum.10.3138/9781845535803-011Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R., Beatriz Quiroz & Pin Wang (eds.). 2023. Systemic functional grammar: A text-based description of English, Spanish and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009284950Search in Google Scholar

Maton, Karl. 2013. Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education 24(1). 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005.Search in Google Scholar

Maton, Karl. 2016. Legitimation code theory: Building knowledge about knowledge-building. In Karl Maton, Susan Hood & Suellen Shay (eds.), Knowledge-building: Educational studies in legitimation code theory, 1–24. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315672342Search in Google Scholar

Maton, Karl & Johan Muller. 2007. A sociology for the transmission of knowledges. In Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, 14–33. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2006. Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Exploring the meaning-making resources of languages systemic-functionally. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.), Advanced instructed language learning: The complementary contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 31–57. London, New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2012. Systemic functional linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches. D.E.L.T.A. (Revista de Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada) 28. 437–471. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-44502012000300002.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014. Appliable discourse analysis. In Fang Yan & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Developing systemic functional linguistics: Theory and application, 135–205. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2018. The notion of a multilingual meaning potential: A systemic exploration. In Akila Sellami-Baklouti & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Perspectives from systemic functional linguistics, 90–120. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315299877-6Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2023. System in systemic functional linguistics: A system-based theory of language. Sheffield: Equinox.10.4324/9781003041238-6Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2024. Systemic functional linguistics: A complete guide. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315675718Search in Google Scholar

McCabe, Anne. 2021. A functional linguistic perspective on developing language. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429462504Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, Michael & Ronald Carter. 2014. Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315845050Search in Google Scholar

McGrath, Ian. 2016. Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748694822Search in Google Scholar

Moore, Alison Rotha. 2019. Language and medicine. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schöntal (eds.), 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 651–689. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316337936.027Search in Google Scholar

Moore, Jason & Mary Schleppegrell. 2020. A focus on disciplinary language: Bringing critical perspectives to reading and writing in science. Theory into Practice 59(1). 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1685337.Search in Google Scholar

Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Winfred Wenhui Xuan. 2016. A survey of studies in systemic functional language description and typology. Functional Linguistics 3:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0030-4.Search in Google Scholar

Nagao, Akiko. 2019. The SFL genre-based approach to writing in EFL contexts. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 4(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0069-3.Search in Google Scholar

Nagao, Akiko. 2020. Adopting an SFL approach to teaching L2 writing through the teaching learning cycle. English Language Teaching 13(6). 144–161. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n6p64.Search in Google Scholar

Natale, Lucía (ed.). 2012. En carrera: escritura y lectura de textos académicos y profesionales. Argentina: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento.Search in Google Scholar

de Oliveira, Luciana C. & Sharon L. Smith. 2019. Systemic functional linguistics in teacher education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.494Search in Google Scholar

O’Brien, Teresa. 2004. Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching 37(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444804002113.Search in Google Scholar

Oshima, Alice & Ann Hogue. 2007. Introduction to academic writing. London: Pearson/Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Paltridge, Brian. 2004. Academic writing. Language Teaching 37(2). 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444804002216.Search in Google Scholar

Parodi, Giovanni (ed.). 2010. Discourse genres in Spanish: academic and professional connections. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.40.05parSearch in Google Scholar

Roberts, Jon. 1998. Language teacher education. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Rose, David & James R. Martin. 2012. Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Schleppegrell, Mary. 2000. How SFL can inform writing instruction: The grammar of expository essays. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 40. 171–188.Search in Google Scholar

Slade, Diana, Marie Manidis, Jeannette McGregor, Hermine Scheeres, Eloise Chandler, Jane Stein-Parbury, Roger Dunstan, Maria Herke & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2015. Communication in hospital emergency departments. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-46021-4Search in Google Scholar

Smeby, Jens‐Christian. 1998. Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction between research and teaching at universities. Teaching in Higher Education 3(1). 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356215980030101.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak. 2012. Academic writing for graduate students, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.2173936Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds.). 2019. The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, Brian (ed.). 2011. Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009024778.034Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, Brian (ed.). 2023. Developing materials for language teaching. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Trevisan, Piergiorgio & Adolfo M. García. 2019. Systemic functional grammar as a tool for experimental stimulus design: New appliable horizons in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Language Sciences 75. 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101237.Search in Google Scholar

Troyan, Francis John, Ruth Harman & Xiaodong Zhang. 2021. Critical SFL praxis in teacher education: Insights from Australian SFL scholars. Language and Education 35(5). 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1807563.Search in Google Scholar

Troyan, Francis John, José David Herazo & Marianna Ryshina-Pankova. 2022. SFL pedagogies in language education: Special issue introduction. System 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102694.Search in Google Scholar

Tsou, Wenli & Shin-Mei Kao. 2017. Overview of EMI development. In Wenli Tsou & Shin-Mei Kao (eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in taiwan, 3–18. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-4645-2_1Search in Google Scholar

Unsworth, Len. 2020. Intermodal relations, mass and presence in school science explanation genres. In Michele Zappavigna & Shoshana Dreyfus (eds.), Discourses of hope and reconciliation: J.R. Martin’s contributions to systemic functional linguistics, 131–152. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350116092.ch-007Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 2012. Thought and language. (Revised and expanded edition). Cambridge, Mass: MIT press.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. & Michael Cole. 1978. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

White, Peter R. R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2). 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011.Search in Google Scholar

Whittaker, Rachel, Ana Llinares & Anne McCabe. 2011. Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research 15(3). 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401154.Search in Google Scholar

Xuan, Wenhui. 2015. A longitudinal study of Chinese high school students learning English based on systemic functional text analysis. Kowloon: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Ruiying Y. & Yiru R. Sang. 2023. Concept‐based language instruction and the teaching of citation in English academic writing. The Modern Language Journal 107(S1). 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12822.Search in Google Scholar

Zappavigna, Michele & James R. Martin. 2018. Discourse and diversionary justice: An analysis of youth justice conferencing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-63763-1Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lu & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2023. Improving EFL students’ stance-taking in academic writing with SFL-based instruction: A qualitative inquiry. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231164758.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Yin. 2024. Understanding-oriented pedagogy to strengthen plagiarism-free academic writing: Findings from studies in China. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-99-9844-9Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2024-12-13

Published in Print: 2025-03-26

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2024-0286

Creative Commons

BY 4.0