Linguistics – GenresPosted on September 20, 2011 by John Aiton

This is a useful table for thinking about the genre of a text (very basically what it aims to do and in what

format) and the different stages or sections of a writing in English that is typical for these genres.

For example, the IELTS writing part 2 question types fall under the category on the left of “Arguments”. One of

the sub-categories is ‘expostion’ = arguning for a point of view. If you are doing this, then your writing will

typically start with a thesis (introduction), then present arguments (paragraphs with central topics), then have

a reiteration (conclusion) at the end. If the argument type is a ‘discussion’ where you disucss two (or more)

points of view, then you will start with the issue (introduction), go over the different sides (central paragraphs)

and then present a resolution (conclusion).

JR Martin – Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, 2011

This next chart shows how the aim of student’s social interaction can be eventually divided into genres. So the

Ielts Part 2 or TOEFL Part 2 is social interaction – evaluating – arguing.

Aiton English"to love learning is to have knowledge"

– Confucius

For more detail, keep reading a report by Daniel O’Sullivan

A functional model of language: modelling context

In order to model language in context, genre-based pedagogy draws on the extensive toolbox of systemic

functional grammar (Halliday 1994) and genre theory (Martin & Rose 2007, 2008). The main concepts of this

social theory of language are:

· Language is a resource for making meaning;

· The resource of language consists of a set of inter-related systems;

· Language users draw on these resources every time they use language;

· Language users create texts to make meaning;

· Texts are shaped by the social context in which they are created and used;

· The social context is shaped by people using language

· (Feez 1998: 5)

In systemic functional linguistics (SFL), language is seen as a social semiotic and as such, the social and

linguistic aspects of language are treated as complementary dimensions of the one phenomenon (in a

relationship of realisation with one another). In SFL, genre co-ordinates a complex interplay of complementary

types of meaning (ideational, interpersonal and textual) across language strata (register, discourse semantics,

lexicogrammar and phonology/graphology) and across modalities of communication (language, image, music

etc.) (Martin & Rose 2008: 258).

The conceptual framework on which functional grammar is based is functional in its interpretation of texts, of

the system, and the elements of linguistic structure (Halliday 1994: XIII). An insightful perspective on

language, the functional model describes all the elements of language in context in terms of what they do and

how they relate to other language elements in terms of function and system (Feez 1998: 8). Following Halliday

(1994) and Martin & Rose (2007, 2008), a stratified theory of text in context makes the connection between

context and language explicit, systematically explaining how language works in any given context. These layers

of strata of social context and language are related through concepts of realisation and metaredundancy

(Martin 2007: 27), which allows patterns at different levels to be re-interpreted at the next level and so on. It is

important to note that realisation is not one directional, each of the layers construes and is construed by the

other at all levels. Halliday’s (1994) development of extensive clause level descriptions of language has been

extended by Martin’s (1992) and with Rose (2003/7 & 2008) text level descriptions of language. This paper

draws from Martin & Rose’s extension of Halliday’s systemic functional grammar privileging grammar to

systemic functional linguistics privileging genre. As space precludes a detailed discussion here, only a brief

outline of the functions and systems in this theory is given. For greater detail the reader is referred to Halliday

1994, Rothery 1996, Martin 1993, 1999, 2008, Feez 2002, Martin & Rose 2007, 2008, Rose 2006, 2009 etc.

Following Martin & Rose’s extension (2007, 2008), patterns of social organisation in a culture (genre) are

realised as patterns of social interaction in each context of situation (register), which in turn are realised as

patterns of language (discourse) in each text (Martin & Rose 2008: 10). At the level of context, genre is

realised by a combination of the register variables field, tenor and mode, each reflecting the functions of

language within the social context. Stratifying genre and register in this way has allowed a multi-functional

perspective on genre, cutting across register variables. Field, tenor and mode can be thought of as resources for

generalising across genres and can be differentiated from the perspective of ideational, interpersonal and

textual meanings (Martin & Rose 2007: 16). At the level of language, the three metafunctions of language

reflecting the social purpose of language are identified; ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings, which

are realised as patterns of discourse, grammar and phonology/graphology.

Figure 1: Language in social contexts (Martin & Rose 2011: 271)

In terms of the social aspects of language, the functional model stratifies context into two layers; the context of

culture and the context of situation. At the stratum of the context of culture, recognisable patterns of structure

and language within texts have evolved to achieve particular social purposes. These patterns recur in texts

which have similar social purposes and are identified as genres. Genres are defined as a ‘staged, goal-oriented

social processes’ (Martin & Rose 2008 p6); staged because it usually takes more than one step to achieve our

goals; goal-oriented because we feel frustrated if we don’t accomplish the final steps and social because writers

shape their texts for readers of particular kinds. Social semioticians from the ‘Sydney School’ have identified

numerous genres that function in society, such as recounts, narratives, procedures, reports, explanations and

expositions.

At the stratum of the context of situation, the immediate social context in which language occurs is a

combination of three variables: field, tenor and mode.

· Field is concerned with the discourse patterns that realise the activity which is going on, consisting of

sequences of activities that are oriented to some global institutionalised purpose (Martin & Rose 2008:

13).

· Tenor is concerned with the nature of social interactions among interlocutors with dimensions of status

and solidarity (Martin & Rose 2008: 12).

· Mode deals with the channelling of information and the texture of information flow (Martin & Rose 2008:

14)

Together, these three dimensions of context constitute the register of a text and are woven together to realise

the genre. Labelled as contextual variables, field, tenor and mode vary systematically in combinations that

reflect the patterns of meanings found in a text.

The patterns of language in the model are analysed in terms of metafunctions and stratification. At the

stratum of lexicogrammar, three social functions of language, called metafunctions are identified. The first

represents our experience to each other (ideational); the second enacts our social relationships (interpersonal);

and the third organises these into coherent and meaningful texts (textual) (Halliday 1994). This tri-nocular

view of the metafunctions of language in social activity allows us look at any text from any of these three

perspectives, identifying different functions realised by different patterns of meanings (Martin & Rose 2007:

7). In addition to these three metafunctions, language is also stratified into discourse semantics,

lexicogrammar and phonology/graphology. This is shown in figure 2 with the simplified labels for the strata of

discourse and grammar. Following Martin & Rose (2007) the discourse semantics stratum contains six sets of

discourse systems, ideation, conjunction, negotiation, appraisal, identification and periodicity. These

discourse systems serve the three metafunctions of language, as illustrated in figure 3;

“As ideation and conjunction are concerned with people, things, processes and relations, their functions are

ideational. Because they are concerned with interacting and evaluating feelings, the functions of Negotiation

and Appraisal are interpersonal. Periodicity and identification are concerned with organising discourse so it is

meaningful within a context, so their function is textual.” (Martin & Rose 2011: 240)

The lexicogrammar is the stratum in which the ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings are realised. At

this level, morphemes are made into words, which are structured by grammatical patterns into phrases or

groups and finally into clauses (Feez 1998: 7). Finally, once meanings are words and structures, they can be

expressed through phonology or graphology in the expression layer of the language model (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Meaning as grammar and discourse (Martin & Rose 2011: 207)

Figure 3: Discourse systems and functions of language (Martin & Rose 2011: 237)

Following Martin & Rose (2007, 2008), the metafunctions of language and the register variables reflect one

another in a relationship of realisation. More specifically, the ideational metafunction represents the world

logically through experiential and logical meanings and realises the contextual variable of field. The

interpersonal metafunction enacts social relationships through interpersonal meanings and realises the

contextual variable of tenor. The textual metafunction organises language into spoken or written text through

textual meanings and realises the contextual variable of mode. As discourse unfolds, these three metafunctions

are woven together in order that the three social functions of language are successfully achieved. Relations

between the register variables and language functions are shown in figure 4 below:

Figure 4: Register and metafunction (after Martin & Rose 2008: 11)

REGISTER METAFUNCTION

Field ‘the social action that is taking place’ Ideational ‘construing’

Tenor ‘kinds of role relationships’ Interpersonal ‘enacting’

Mode ‘what part language is playing’ Textual ‘organising’

Table X:

This theory has been applied to educational contexts in an attempt to make visible to students the ways

language and texts are organised to make meaning, so that they may have access to those texts. In other words,

the theory is a theory of empowerment. In order to do this, a metalanguage is developed that allows for the

identification of the social purposes, staging and some typical lexicogrammatical features of these genres (Rose

2006: 1). For the teacher, lesson planning becomes a two-way process: selecting texts to fit the lesson and

shaping the lesson to fit the texts (Martin & Rose 2011: 155). The following section reviews the application of

the theory to pedagogical contexts.

Genre-based Pedagogy and the Teaching Learning Cycle

Genre-based pedagogy has been developed with the aim to enable all learners at all levels of education to read

and write successfully (see e.g. Martin 1992, 2000, 2009, Martin & Rose 2007, 2011). As all learners need to

accomplish tasks within their respective disciplines and subject areas, it is important that teachers have the

tools with which they can support all learners equally. Drawing from the complete functional model of

language and context, a metalanguage allowing the identification of genres that function within a culture and

their social purposes as well as the staging and typical lexicogrammatical features of these genres (Rose 2006:

1) has been developed, in which all the theoretical aspects of language as outlined above can be used for

pedagogy and curriculum design. Genre-based pedagogy aims to make the entire language learning task

specific, and this means building up knowledge about language in a shared metalanguage (Martin & Rose

2011: 9). This resulting metalanguage allows both teachers and students to share understandings of, among

other things, the ways in which texts are reflections of the social context. In genre-based pedagogy, the

sequence in which knowledge about language is introduced is not determined by the organisation of the

theory, but by the ease with which learners can master it, and its usefulness in teaching (Martin & Rose 2011:

208).

The Teaching learning cycle

Once genre, register and language patterns can be identified through a shared metalanguage, these aspects of

language use in context must be taught back to learners through a teaching learning cycle. In order for

students to gain independent control of particular genres, the genre-based approach includes a cycle of

teaching and learning activities which students and teachers work through together. As illustrated in figure 5,

this curriculum model consists of a three stage cycle which is designed to enact ‘guidance through interaction

in the context of shared experience’ (Martin 1999: 126). The cycle moves through three main stages which take

learners from analysing successful genres (Deconstruction) to creating their own texts, first with expert

teacher support (Joint Construction) and then individually or in groups (Independent Construction). This aims

to promote a gradual transfer of learning from a socially mediated process to an internalized or intra-

psychological process (Gray 2007: 36 in Dreyfus et al 2011: 2).

Figure 5: Teaching learning cycle (Rothery 1994 in Martin & Rose 2011: 59)

The first stage of the cycle consists of the deconstruction of texts serving as a successful model of the genre

under analysis. Here the teacher leads an exploration of the social purpose of the genre, the relevant stages and

particular language features. The second stage involves preparing another example of the genre, which is

constructed by both the teacher and students. In this stage, the teacher can model important aspects of

writing in a particular genre, allowing learners to control the writing process wherever possible and scaffolding

when necessary. The third phase consists of independent construction. In this model, setting up the social

context of the genre and building field knowledge are applied in each stage. Additionally, the goal of the model

is explicitly oriented to both control of and critical orientation to the discourse under consideration (Martin

1999: 130). This reflects the SFL idea that genres consist of meanings and thus that meanings construe genre

(Martin & Rose 2011: 59). As indicated by the arrows in the diagram, any part can be repeated at any stage.

The notion of ‘guidance through interaction in the context of shared experience’ is reflected in the model.

Shared experience is promoted through establishing clear generic goals, building field and setting context;

interaction is built into the teaching and learning in the field building activities and joint construction stage

and the teacher is ‘regularly placed in an authoritative position as far as guidance is concerned’ (Martin &

Rose 2005: 2). This originates in the key assumptions about language development in a functional model; that

learning language is a social activity, that learning occurs more effectively if teachers are explicit about what is

expected of students and that student learning must be scaffolded in order to reach and move the zone of

proximal development, resulting in learner improvement. The narrowing of the achievement gap between

students, through repeated guided interaction, has been demonstrated again and again in genre pedagogy

(Martin & Rose 2011: 17).

Methodology: Genre

In terms of methodology, the genre-based pedagogy starts at the level of genre with the identification of the

ways in which meaningful whole texts are structured in order to achieve their social purposes. Genres are

modelled as patterns of language patterns – genres consist of meanings and meanings construe the genre. By

starting with systematic understandings of the relations between genre and text as illustrated in figure 7,

language features in the different genres are identified and made clear to the student. As the text unfolds, these

language features are explicitly reviewed and named wherever possible. Once meanings in the context of each

text can be recognised and understood, the linguistic structures and the manner in which these construct

meanings can be further reviewed. The resulting metalanguage identifying first genre and social purpose,

followed by the generic staging allows both teachers and students to share in understanding the ways in which

texts are structured to achieve their social purpose. Figure 8 presents a summary of the social purpose and

staging of some key genres, all of which are included in greater detail in Martin & Rose 2008.

Figure 7: Genre realised through language – language construing genre (Martin & Rose 2011: 272)

Figure 8: Genres and stages (Martin & Rose 2011: 112)

The generic structure is a useful way to demonstrate the importance of knowledge about language, since it

makes connections between teachers and learners understanding of the beginning, middle and ends of a text

(Martin 1999: 132). Alternatively, genres can be identified in terms of the types of knowledge they represent

and organised by their key social purposes. In the ‘Write it right’ research project, a topological map of the key

genres in school was developed to illustrate connections between social purpose, contrasts in language features

and names of genres. (see figure 9 below).

Figure 9: A Map of genres in school (Martin & Rose 2011: 110)

By starting with common sense notions of social purposes, systematic differences in texts can be identified and

intuitive knowledge of genres can be raised to consciousness. This gives students and teachers the opportunity

to develop a metalanguage for genres, allowing teachers to teach reading and writing explicitly. In doing so,

every student has a right to engage with curriculum texts at the same level as the top students (Martin & Rose

2011: 114). Both of these tables give some insight into the amount of knowledge about language in context

which a genre-based approach can offer learners. From a pedagogical perspective, this allows materials to be

chosen and sequenced according to social purpose.

Methodology: Register analysis

Additionally to a genre analysis, language changes in texts can be identified in terms of systematic variations

in register. As students encounter changing varieties of language, a range of skills can be developed relating to

language use in real contexts (Feez 1998: 75). Teachers and students can map variations in field, tenor and

mode and place them along continuums. Diagrams illustrating these continuums are taken from Feez 1998.

Field

Language can change according to the topic or activity as well as in terms of technicality. Topics or activities

can change from everyday language to more specialised and technicalised terms.

Commonsense/everyday specialised/technicalised

Tenor

Language can reflect and be mapped in terms of the power, contact and emotional involvement. This reflects

the relative power or status of the people interacting, the amount of personal contact between the people

interacting and the kind of emotional involvement between the people interacting.

Power: unequal equal

Contact: frequent occasional

Emotional involvement: high low

Mode

Language can be mapped in terms of the channel and in terms of how close the language is to the social

process. The channel can vary from the availability of immediate feedback, i.e. in face to face communication,

to instances where feedback is least possible, i.e. book/novel. Language can also be plotted along the

continuum as it moves from action to reflection i.e. from language which reflects activity to language distant

from the activity in time and space.

Channel: immediate feedback no feedback

e.g. face-to-face phone email radio book

Action Reflection

e.g. live sports commentary newspaper report writing about the role of sport in society

Content, Course and Curriculum Design

In terms of language development and content, the genre-based approach can employ the functional model to

design language content to be covered in a course. As illustrated in figure 10, the map of language can be

represented as a matrix with several dimensions which shows how language is being used in terms of its genre

within a given context (Feez 1998). This can be used to

· Identify key features of a text type

· Analyses and identify model texts

· Analyses and assess student texts and identify learner need

· Select syllabus elements

· Plan developmental pathways across one or more dimension

· Sequence syllabus elements

This allows teachers to plan pathways along any dimension, allowing focus to be placed on any aspect of the

language in context.

Figure 10: Elements of a text-based syllabus (Feez 1998: 73-74)

Genre

(context of culture)

· Genres and their social purposes

· The staging of genres

· Skills and strategies relating to the purposes for which language is used in the culture

Register

(context of

situation)

Field (what)

· Topics

· Social activ ities (includes

settings, situations, language

events)

· Skills and strategies to do with

the representation of reality

e.g. recognising gist,

identify ing topic shifts

Tenor (who)

· The relative status of those

involved

· The ty pe and frequency of contact

between people involved in the

text

· Interpersonal skills and strategies

to do with roles and relationships

e.g. politeness, increasing or

decreasing interpersonal

distance or emotion

Mode (how)

· Distances in time between the

language of the text and the social

activ ity e.g. concrete language

accompany ing action, abstract

language for reflection

· Distance in space and time between

interactants

· Skills and strategies for using the

channel of communication e.g.

face-to-face, telephone etc.

Discourse

(text)

· Strings of words which are

related e.g. sy nony ms,

antony ms, collocations,

part/whole sets

· Conjunctions which contribute

to text cohesion and link

clauses

· Attitude spread across the text by

lexical items e.g. appraisal,

graduation, etc.

· Speech functions (statements,

questions, commands)

· Exchange structures (adjacency

pairs and moves)

· Reference chains to keep track of

participants across a text e.g. links

made by definite articles and

pronouns

· Substitution and ellipsis to

streamline language

· Information flow using theme

patterns to organise meanings

across whole texts

Gram m ar

(clauses)

(phrases, groups)

(words,

morphemes)

The parts of the clause e.g.

participants, processes, circumstances

The structure of the declarative,

interrogative and imperative clauses e.g.

finite, subject, finite/subject agreement

The ordering of the parts of the clause

(theme)

· The structure of groups e.g. noun group, verb group including tense, number polarity etc, adverb group etc.

· The structure of prepositional phrases

· Non-technical and technical words

· Neutral and attitudinal words

· Concrete and abstract words including nominalisation

· Word-building (word stems, prefixes, suffixes etc.)

Expression · Aural, pronunciation and paralinguistic skills and strategies for effective expression if the text is spoken i.e. pitch,

intonation, stress, rhy thm, gesture etc.

· Decoding, handwriting/ty ping and presentation skills and strategies for effective expression if the text is written i.e.

phonic and word recognition skills, legibility , spelling, punctuation, lay out etc.

Learning activity cycle & spiral curriculum of learning cycles

Figure 11: Five general elements of a learning activity (Martin & Rose 2011: 10)

Genre-based pedagogy aims to make the entire language learning task specific and there is a strong focus on

preparing each student to achieve each task successfully. Teaching means preparing students for each learning

task and then handing over control to the learner for them to do it themselves, where providing effective

preparation means understanding the nature of the task (Martin & Rose 2011: 12). As illustrated in figure11,

this is achieved through a five step approach; First, the teacher prepares and focuses students on the task,

which is followed by the learners’ task which in turn is evaluated and then elaborated. The task is the central

element with focus and evaluate forming the nucleus of the learning activity. Preparations and elaborations

may also contain tasks for the students such as listening to the teacher’s preparations or participating in

discussions in the elaboration phase. Accordingly, preparation should build on existing understandings

between teachers and students and elaboration should build on understandings gained from the success of the

central learning task (Martin & Rose 2011: 10).

This sequence of phases in a learning activity can also be modelled as a cycle (see figure 12), with the

elaboration phase forming the basis for preparing the next task.

Figure 12: Learning activity cycle (Martin & Rose 2011: 10)

This general structure can be applied to analyse and prepare learning activities at many levels. It can be used

to structure a whole lesson, a particular learning activity and even in the teacher-learner exchanges within a

lesson. Each element can be expanded to include micro-tasks, each of which may be prepared, focused,

evaluated and elaborated. As each learning activity builds on previous cycles, teaching sequences can be

represented in a spiral curriculum (see figure 13).

Figure 13: The spiral curriculum of learning cycles (Martin & Rose 2011: 11)

As learning progresses incrementally from one task to the next, the design of this sequence supports all

learners. This sequence can be repeated, with support, until each learner’s level of independent competence is

higher. While tasks may be challenging for some and beyond the level of independent skills of others, students

are supported and raised up to the level of their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky’s ZPD). Even if some

students may still be below the desired level, the task can be repeated until all learners are closer to the

intended level. Guidance through interaction enables learners to do tasks that may be well beyond their

independent competence and guided repetition of high level tasks enables learners to develop skills more

effectively than individual practice of lower level tasks (Martin & Rose 2011: 268). Upon successful task

evaluation, a further learning task just beyond the new learner competence level can be implemented. At this

stage, the learners may now be ready for an assessed independent task.

Reading to Learn: Extension and Refinement for teaching both reading and writing

In work by Rose and his colleagues (see e.g. Rose 2006, 2009, Martin & Rose 2005, 2011), the pedagogy and

teaching learning cycle have been extended and refined in order to teach both reading and writing. This has

involved careful attention to the design of global and local patterns of interaction between teacher and

students (Martin & Rose 2005: 6). After all, teachers need tools to re-design their classroom discourse to

engage and support their weakest students, while continuing to extend their most successful students (Martin

& Rose 2011: 121). The methodology developed to achieve this is known as Learning to Read: Reading to Learn,

in which the writing pedagogy is extended to integrate reading and writing with teaching at all levels. Reading

to learn has produced a substantial amount of knowledge about pedagogy, and been able to develop

connections between theory and classroom practice. The focus is on preparing students to read texts and using

what is learnt in order to produce their own texts;

‘The point of preparing for reading is to enable all students to read challenging texts. The strategy of preparing for reading enables the whole class to

work with texts that challenge the top readers, with the teacher’s guidance. Repeated preparation, joint reading and elaborating discussion eventually

enables weaker readers to independently read the texts the class is working with, and ultimately others texts at the same level’ (Martin & Rose 2011:

132).

As shown in figure 14, the program includes nine sets of learning activities providing three degrees of

scaffolding support at the scale of texts, paragraphs, sentences, word groups and words (Martin & Rose 2011:

269).

Figure 14: Learning activities in Reading to learn (Martin & Rose 2011: 269)

As in the teaching learning cycle, learners need to first recognise a text’s genre and field as well as be able to

interpret the meanings as they unfold through the text. Students’ understanding of these overall meanings in a

text allows students to recognise the more detailed meanings within each sentence, identifying and reading the

wording themselves. Once students have identified a particular wording, students are prepared for an

elaboration of its meaning. In this way students ‘are given access to the total complexity of language patterns

in the text, but in manageable steps’ (Martin & Rose 2005: 7). As illustrated in figure 15, this results in a

sequence of reading activities. Through moving from the starting point of genre, downwards through register

towards discourse semantics, lexicogrammar and finally, sounds and letter patterns, students can acquire the

necessary skills to achieve success in the task at hand.

Figure 15: Sequence of Reading activities (Martin & Rose 2011: 186)

Detailed Reading: Identifying meaning in texts: The scaffolding interaction cycle

Found in the detailed reading stage of Reading to Learn, the scaffolding interaction cycle contains a three

move cycle of Prepare, Identify and Elaborate, mirroring the nuclear elements of the learning task; Prepare,

Task and Elaborate. Illustrated in figure 16, this cycle enables teachers to plan discussions on language features

in texts, to identify which language features to focus on at each step, how teachers will prepare students to

identify them and how they will elaborate on them (Martin & Rose 2005: 7).

Figure 16: Detailed Reading Interaction Cycle (Martin & Rose 2005:

The scaffolding interaction cycle is designed to enable all students to always respond successfully (Martin &

Rose 2005: 8). First, scaffolding is carefully designed to prepare all learners to respond successfully. Second,

when students identify the wording(s), feedback is always affirming. Finally, the follow up move will always

elaborate shared knowledge about the text. It is here in the elaboration stage/phase/move that metalanguage

can be introduced, built up and reinforced. After the detailed reading stage, students are better equipped to

read a text accurately and can then be prepared to use the language features and patterns in the construction

of their own texts.

Raising metacognitive awareness in listening

REFERENCE LIST:

Bernstein, B. (1)

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic control and Identity: Theory, Research, critique (Revised ed.).

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield

Buck, G. (1)

Buck, G. (1992). Listening Comprehension: Construct Validity and Trait Characteristics. Language Learning

42(3), 313-357.

Burns, Anne (1)

Burns, A. (1990). Genre-based Approaches to Writing and Beginning Adult ESL Learners. Prospect, 5(3), 62-

70.

Carrier, K. (1)

Carrier, K. (1999). The social environment of language listening: Does status play a role in comprehension? The

Modern Language Journal, 83, 65-79.

Chamot, A. U.; O’Malley, J. M. (1)

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model for

linguistically diverse classrooms The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259-273.

Donato, R. (1)

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding on second language learning. In J. P. Llantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),

Vygotskian approaches to second language learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Dreyfus, S.; McNaught, L.; Humphrey, S. (1)

Dreyfus, S., McNaught, L., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Understanding joint construction in the tertiary context.

Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 135-160. Retrieved from

http://uts.academia.edu/LucyMacnaught/Papers/629372/Understanding_joint_construction_in_the_tertiary_context

Droga, L; Humphrey, S. (1)

Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and Meaning: An Introduction for Primary Teachers. Berry:

Target Texts.

Feez, Susan (2)

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based Syllabus Design: AMES Macquarie University.

Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and Innovation in second language education. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genres in the

classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-69). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Gibbons, J Hammond; P (1)

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in

articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.

Goh, C (1)

Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for Second Lanaguage Listening Development: Theory Practice and

Research Implications RELC Journal, 39, 188-216.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2)

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Hammond, Jennifer (1)

Hammond, J. (1990). Teacher Expertise and Learner Responsibility in Literacy Development. Prospect, 5(3),

39-51.

Hoven, D. (1)

Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening and viewing comprehension in multimedia envirnoments. Language

Learning and Technology, 3(1), 88-103.

Humphrey, S.; Martin, J. R.; Dreyfus, S.; Mahboob, A. (1)

Humphrey, S., Martin, J. R., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 3X3: Setting Up a Linguistic Toolkit for

Teaching Academic Writing Appliable Linguistics (pp. 185-199). London: Continuum.

Hunt, I (1)

Hunt, I. (1991). Negotiation in joint Construction: Teaching Literacy in Early Childhood. Unpublished 4th Year

Honours, University of Sydney.

Hyland, K. (1)

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre Pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16, 148-164.

Long, M. (1)

Long, M. (1985). Input and second langauge acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in

second language acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Martin, J. (3)

Martin, J. (1993). Genre and Literacy – modeling context in educational Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 13, 141-172.

Martin, J. (2000). Design and Practice: Enacting Functional Linguistics Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

20, 116-126.

Martin, J. (2009). Genre and Language Learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education,

20(1), 10-21.

Martin, J.; Rose, D. (1)

Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London:

Continuum.

Martin, J. R. (1)

Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring Semogenesis: ‘genre-based’ literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy

and the shaping of conciousness: linguistic and social processes (pp. 123-155). London

New York: Cassell.

Martin, J. R.; Maton, K.; Matruglio, E. (1)

Martin, J. R., Maton, K., & Matruglio, E. (2011). Historical cosmologies: Epistemology and axiology in

Australian secondary school history. [Draft ]. Revistas Signos.

Martin, J. R.; Rose, D. (1)

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.

Martin, Jim (1)

Martin, J. (2006). Metadiscourse: Designing interaction in genre-based literacy programmes In R. Whittaker,

M. O’Donnell & A. McCabe (Eds.), Langauge and literacy: functional approaches (pp. 95-122). London:

Continuum.

Mendelsohn, J. (2)

Mendelsohn, J. (1994). Learning to Listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language learner. San

Diego: Dominie Press.

Mendelsohn, J. (1998). Teaching Listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-101.

Mendelsohn, J.; Rubin, J. (1)

Mendelsohn, J., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1995). A guide for the teaching of second language listening San Diego:

Dominie Press.

Osada, N. (1)

Osada, N. (2004). Listening Comprehension Research: A brief review of the past thirty years. Dialogue, 3, 53-

66. Retrieved from http://www.talk-waseda.net/dialogue/no03_2004/2004dialogue03_k4.pdf

Richards, J. (2)

Richards, J. (1983). Listening comprehension: approach, design procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 219-240.

Richards, J. (2010). Current Trends in teaching listening and speaking. ELT, (17), 17-19. Retrieved from

www.jezykangielski.org/teacher3.pdf

Richards, J.; Rodgers, T. (1)

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Rose, D. (2)

Rose, D. (2006). Reading Genre: a new wave of analysis. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(1-14).

Rose, D. (2009). Writing as Linguistic Mastery: The Development of Genre-Based Literacy Pedagogy. In B. R,

D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 151-). London:

SAGE.

Rothery, J. (1)

Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.),

Literacy in Society (pp. 86-123). London: Longman.

Rubin, J. (1)

Rubin, J. (1994). A Review of Second Language Listening Comprehension Research. The Modern Language

Journal, 78(2), 199-221.

Vandergrift, L. (1)

Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to Learn or Learning to listen. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-

25.

White, P. R. (1)

White, P. R. (forthcoming). Journalistic Discourse Analysis: drafts for textbook.

Yallop, David Butt; Rhonda Fahey; Susan Feez; Sue Spinks; Colin (1)

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (1994). Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide

(2nd ed.).

REFERENCE LIST:

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic control and Identity: Theory, Research, critique (Revised ed.).

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield

Burns, A. (1990). Genre-based Approaches to Writing and Beginning Adult ESL Learners. Prospect, 5(3), 62-

70.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding on second language learning. In J. P. Llantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),

Vygotskian approaches to second language learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Dreyfus, S., McNaught, L., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Understanding joint construction in the tertiary context.

Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 135-160. Retrieved from

http://uts.academia.edu/LucyMacnaught/Papers/629372/Understanding_joint_construction_in_the_tertiary_context

Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and Meaning: An Introduction for Primary Teachers. Berry:

Target Texts.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based Syllabus Design: AMES Macquarie University.

Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and Innovation in second language education. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genres in the

classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-69). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in

articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.

Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for Second Lanaguage Listening Development: Theory Practice and

Research Implications RELC Journal, 39, 188-216.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Hammond, J. (1990). Teacher Expertise and Learner Responsibility in Literacy Development. Prospect, 5(3),

39-51.

Humphrey, S., Martin, J. R., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 3X3: Setting Up a Linguistic Toolkit for

Teaching Academic Writing Appliable Linguistics (pp. 185-199). London: Continuum.

Hunt, I. (1991). Negotiation in joint Construction: Teaching Literacy in Early Childhood. Unpublished 4th Year

Honours, University of Sydney.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre Pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16, 148-164.

Tweet 0

Martin, J. (1993). Genre and Literacy – modeling context in educational Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 13, 141-172.

Martin, J. (2000). Design and Practice: Enacting Functional Linguistics Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

20, 116-126.

Martin, J. (2009). Genre and Language Learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education,

20(1), 10-21.

Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London:

Continuum.

Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring Semogenesis: ‘genre-based’ literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy

and the shaping of conciousness: linguistic and social processes (pp. 123-155). London

New York: Cassell.

Martin, J. R., Maton, K., & Matruglio, E. (2011). Historical cosmologies: Epistemology and axiology in

Australian secondary school history. [Draft ]. Revistas Signos.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.

Martin, J. (2006). Metadiscourse: Designing interaction in genre-based literacy programmes In R. Whittaker,

M. O’Donnell & A. McCabe (Eds.), Langauge and literacy: functional approaches (pp. 95-122). London:

Continuum.

Rose, D. (2006). Reading Genre: a new wave of analysis. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(1-14).

Rose, D. (2009). Writing as Linguistic Mastery: The Development of Genre-Based Literacy Pedagogy. In B. R,

D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 151-). London:

SAGE.

Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.),

Literacy in Society (pp. 86-123). London: Longman.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (1994). Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide

(2nd ed.).

This entry was posted in writing. Bookmark the permalink.

Aiton EnglishProudly powered by WordPress.