Chapter published in:
Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy
Edited by Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno and Hae In Park
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 49] 2018
► pp. 267–289

Chapter 12. A systemic functional linguistic approach to usage-based research and instruction

The case of nominalization in L2 academic writing

| Carleton University
| University of Louvain

The present chapter illustrates how Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) can inform a usage-inspired approach to researching and teaching L2 writing in a postsecondary context. We first outline an SFL perspective to multilingual academic literacy development and then illustrate this perspective by means of longitudinal, corpus data on nominalization use in the English academic writing of francophone university students over four years. By means of quantitative indicators (nominalization frequencies, erroneous forms, measures of L2 proficiency scores and syntactic complexity) and qualitative analyses (of the discourse functions that nominalization serve), we argue that French-speaking writers’ use of nominalization in English indexes both language-specific and language-interdependent aspects of multilingual academic literacy development. We conclude with implications for further SFL-informed research and instruction that aims to promote multilingual academic literacy development by raising crosslinguistic awareness of the forms and functions of nominalization in academic discourse.

Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.12gen
References

References

Allan, D.
(2004) Oxford placement tests 1: Test pack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, K.
(2011) The scientific revolution and its repercussions on the translation of technical discourse. The Translator, 17(2), 189–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S.
(2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S., Leech, G.
(2002) Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, P.
(2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2009) Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 50–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, A.
(2006) A systemic functional grammar of French. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Caffarel, A., Martin, J., & Matthiessen, C.
(2004) Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colombi, C.
(2006) Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in Latino students in Spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147–163). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J.
(2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Available from http://​journals​.hil​.unb​.ca​/index​.php​/CJAL​/index
Devrim, D. Y.
(2015) Grammatical metaphor: What do we mean? What exactly are we searching? Functional Linguistics, 2(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
Gentil, G.
(2011) A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language Writing. 20(1), 6–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(in press). Multilingualism as a writing resource. In J. Liontas Ed. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (Vol. Teaching Writing co-edited by D. Belcher & A. Hirvela). New York, NY: Wiley. Crossref
Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L.
(2014) “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization:” English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
(2007) Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 319–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1989) Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J.
(1993) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburg University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I .M.
(2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Južnic, T. M.
(2012) A contrastive study of nominalization in the systemic functional framework. Languages in Contrast, 12(2), 251–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liardét, C.
(2013) An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s development of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 161–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 109–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littré, D.
(2015) A Cognitive, longitudinal study of the use of the English present progressive by intermediate and advanced French-speaking learners. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
Lyster, R.
(2015) Using form-focused tasks to integrate language across the immersion curriculum. System, 54, 4–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D.
(2008) Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I .M.
(2009) Meaning in the making: Meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Language Learning, 59(Supplement 1), 206–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A.
(2005, January 1) Coh-Metrix version 1.4. Retrieved February 12, 2014, from http://​cohmetrix​.memphis​.edu
Meunier, F.
(2015a) Introduction to the LONGDALE project. In E. Castello, K. Ackerley, & F. Coccetta (Eds.), Studies in learner corpus linguistics: Research and applications for foreign language teaching and assessment (pp. 123–126). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015b) Developmental patterns in learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 379–400). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Littré, D.
(2013) Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual ‘corpus cum experimental data’ approach. Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 61–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 82–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M.
(2012) The LEAD dictionary-cum-writing aid: an integrated dictionary and corpus tool. In S. Granger, S. Paquot & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 163–185). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P.
(2009) Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. http://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/wmatrix/
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R.
(2012) Learning to write, reading to learn. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Rundell, M., & Granger, S.
(2007) From corpora to confidence. English Teaching Professional, 50, 15–18.Google Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H.
(2013) Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge construction in L2 composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 179–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J.
(2004) The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Street, B.
(1984) Literacy in theory and practice. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Terblanche, L.
(2009) A comparative study of nominalisation in L1 and L2 writing and speech. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(1), 39–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E.
(2010) Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yasuda, S.
(2015) Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 105–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Meunier, Fanny, Isa Hendrikx, Amélie Bulon, Kristel Van Goethem & Hubert Naets
2020. MulTINCo: multilingual traditional immersion and native corpus. Better-documented multiliteracy practices for more refined SLA studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.