Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T17:11:47.058Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of linguistic complexity: A functional continuum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

Elizabeth O'Dowd
Elizabeth O'Dowd*
Affiliation:
Saint Michael's College, Vermont, USAeodowd@smcvt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), which mandates standards-based accountability for the academic progress of all students, much attention has been given to integrating language and content instruction for English learners (ELs) in K-12 classrooms in the US. Although TESOL and other state-approved language proficiency standards acknowledge that academic English requires progressive linguistic complexity to tackle progressively complex content, they give no indicators for this progression beyond some generalizations about increased sentential variety. An enlightening characterization of linguistic complexity comes from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), specifying how grammatical choices actually construct meaning, making a strong case for explicit, proactive instruction, and calling for a systematic analysis of the language our English learners need to master. This paper describes an ongoing project to answer this call by charting a developmental continuum of complexity for school-age English learners. Its preliminary analysis is based on some 90 compositions, collected over the course of a year from more than 30 students in a New England middle school classroom.

Type
Plenary Speech
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 329 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. New South Wales, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.Google Scholar
Droga, L. & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. New South Wales, Australia: Target Texts.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly 25.4, 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66.2, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersten, R., Baker, S., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P. & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Excellence.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, M., Cranley, M. E. & Cammilleri, A. (2007). WIDA Consortium: English language proficiency standards & resource guide. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edn). London: Arnold Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41.4, 543–562. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johns, A. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching 41.2, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolln, M. & Gray, L. (2010). Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects (6th edn). New York: Pearson Longman Press.Google Scholar
Lanham, R. (1979). Revising prose. New York: Scribner Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2007). Construing knowledge: a functional linguistic perspective. In Christie, F. & Martin, J. (eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum, 34–64.Google Scholar
Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, A. (2009). Reviewing South Australian ESL programs and practices: Implications for teachers and learners at senior secondary levels. TESOL in context: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages 19.2, 18–33.Google Scholar
Queensland Studies Authority (the State of Queensland) (2007). Scope and sequence guide: Grammar years 1–9. www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qcar_ss_english_grammar.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (2003). Grammar for writing: Academic language and the ELD standards. (Final report for University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute grant #01–02G-D, ‘Grammatical and discourse features of the target genres in California's English language development (ELD) standards’). Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Institute.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M., & Go, A. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts 84.6, 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TESOL (1997). ESL standards for Pre-K-12. Arlington, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
TESOL (2006). PreK-12 English language proficiency standards. Arlington, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Vermont Department of Education (2008). Writing benchmarks. http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_curriculum/literacy/writing/benchmarks.html#benchmarks.Google Scholar
Vermont Department of Education (2010a). Publications and resources: Vermont's framework of standards and learning opportunities. http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pubs/framework.html.Google Scholar
Vermont Department of Education (2010b). Programs and services: Curriculum assessment: Literacy: Grade level expectations (GLEs) resources. http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_curriculum/literacy/gle.html.Google Scholar