Construing chemistry knowledge through structural formulas
-
Zhigang Yu
Zhigang Yu received his PhD in linguistics from Tongji University and is currently an assistant professor at Beijing Institute of Technology. His research interests include multimodality and academic discourse analysis.
Abstract
This paper explores how structural formulas construe chemistry knowledge by examining their meaning-making. Based on types of structure and the register variable field in Systemic Functional Semiotics, it investigates the grammatical organization of structural formulas and the field-specific meanings they construe. The structural formulas examined in this study are the well-known Kekule formulas sourced from secondary school chemistry textbooks. The findings indicate that structural formulas are primarily organized around univariate and prosodic structures. In terms of field, the univariate structure realizes a breadth of compositional taxonomy, allowing for the representation of molecular compositions of varying complexities, and a spatial property of arrangements of atoms in space, making explicit a range of chemical knowledge of molecules, including molecular geometries, distribution of electron domains in a molecule, molecular properties and distinctions between isomers. In terms of prosodic structure, it construes a qualitative property of molecular polarity and a classificational taxonomy elucidating connections between atoms, enabling the representation of varying connectivity between different atoms in molecules. This study enriches the understanding of the meaning-making of structural formulas from a functional perspective.
Funding source: The Science and Technology Innovation Plan of Beijing Institute of Technology: “BIT Think Tank” Advancement Project
Award Identifier / Grant number: 2024CX13028; 2025CX13011; 2025CX13034; 2025CX13035
About the author
Zhigang Yu received his PhD in linguistics from Tongji University and is currently an assistant professor at Beijing Institute of Technology. His research interests include multimodality and academic discourse analysis.
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback, which has greatly improved the quality of this paper. I am also very grateful to Prof. J.R. Martin and Associate Prof. Dongbing (Mus) Zhang for their valuable suggestions during the revision of this paper. Finally, my special appreciation goes to Prof. Srikant Sarangi for his meticulous and patient editing of this paper.
References
Bateman, John. 2011. The decomposability of semiotic modes. In Kay O’Halloran & Bradley Smith (eds.), Multimodal studies: Exploring issues and domains, 17–38. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Theodore, LeMay Eugene, Bursten Bruce, Catherine Murphy & Patrick Woodward. 2012. Chemistry: The central science, 12th edn. New York: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Bruice, Paula. 2017. Organic chemistry, 8th edn. New Jersey: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Chan, Drew, Commons Chris, Commons Penny, Finlayson Emma, Hillier Kathryn, Hogendoorn Bob, Johns Raphael, Lennard Louise, Moylan Mick, O’Shea Pat, Porter Maria, Sanders Patrick, Sturgiss Jim & Waldron Paul. 2019. Pearson chemistry 12 New South Wales student book. Melbourne: Pearson Australia.Search in Google Scholar
Doran, Yegan. 2018. Intrinsic functionality of mathematics, metafunctions in systemic functional semiotics. Semiotica 225. 457–487. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0004.Search in Google Scholar
Doran, Yaegan. 2019. Academic formalisms: Toward a semiotic typology. In James Martin, Yaegan Doran & Figueredo Giacomo (eds.), Systemic functional language description: Making meaning matter, 331–358. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351184533-11Search in Google Scholar
Doran, Yaegan & James Martin. 2021. Field relations: Understanding scientific explanation. In Karl Maton, J. R. Martin & Yaegan Doran (eds.), Teaching science: Knowledge, language, pedagogy, 105–133. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781351129282-7Search in Google Scholar
Firth, John. 1957. Papers in linguistics, 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goodwin, William. 2008. Structural formulas and explanation in organic chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 10(2). 117–127.10.1007/s10698-007-9033-2Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In David Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: A festschrift for william haas, 57–79. London: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1981[1965]. Types of structure. In Michael A. K. Halliday & James R. Martin (eds.), Readings in systemic linguistics, 29–41. Bristol: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Search in Google Scholar
He, Yufei. 2021. Towards a stratified metafunctional model of animation. Semiotica 239. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2019-0078.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 1996/2006/2021. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203619728Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Yu. 2011. Scientific literacy in secondary school chemistry: A multimodal perspective. Singapore: National University of Singapore PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.59Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1996. Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Eduard Hovy & Donia Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues, 39–66. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_2Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2013. Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory – Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2017. Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in secondary school science and humanities discourse. Onomázein 22(Special Issue II). 111–148.10.7764/onomazein.sfl.05Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James. 2024. Intradisciplinarity: Can one theory do it all? Frontiers in Communication 8. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1310001.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Yaegan Doran. 2023. Structure markers: A subjacency duplex analysis. Language, Context and Text 5(1). 16–48. https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.22007.mar.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Len Unsworth. 2024. Reading images for knowledge-building: Analyzing infographics in school science. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003164586Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Robert Veel (eds.), 1998. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Ngo, Thu, Susan Hood, James R. Martin, Clare Painter, Bradley Smith & Michele Zappavigna. 2022. Modelling paralanguage using systemic functional semiotics: Theory and application. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350074934Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay. 2005. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
O’Toole, Michael. 1994. The language of displayed visual art. New Jersey: Associated University Presses.Search in Google Scholar
Painter, Clare, James R. Martin & Len Unsworth. 2013. Reading visual narratives: Image analysis in children’s picture books. Bristol: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Ramberg, Peter. 2003. Chemical structure, spatial arrangement: The early history of stereochemistry, 1874-1914. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Ravelli, Louise & Robert McMurtrie. 2016. Multimodality in the built environment: Spaital discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315880037Search in Google Scholar
Weininger, Stephen. 1998. Contemplating the finger: Visuality and the semiotics of chemistry. HYLE- An International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry 4(1). 3–27.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Zhigang. 2026. Multimodal knowledge building in secondary school chemistry textbooks. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele & Lorenzo Logi. 2024. Emoji and social media paralanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009179829Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
