RSSFriday seminar schedule 2011
ON this page you will find the schedule for the series of presentations for the Friday afternoon seminars held at the University of Sydney, sponsored by the Dept of Linguistics during first semester 2011.
Seminars are held from 4pm till 5.30pm in New Law building of the Camperdown campus, in Room 020 for 2011. Everyone is welcome to attend.
After each of the seminars are given, a link to recordings of the presentations (either the powerpoint slides themselves, or both audio+slides of the talk) will be added below each of the relevant abstracts.
Other pages on the site can be accessed via the top menu bar. These include an “About” page, and access to the Blog (“All Posts“) where you are invited to add your comments or register and post, as well as a page where we make available a collection of pdf-ised powerpoint presentations (“Presentation Collection“) which were made at times and places other than the friday seminars…
The blog posts can also be accessed via the sidebar by clicking on the titles of any of the most recent posts.
******************************
Week 1: March 4
Author: ChRIS CLÉiRIGh, unemployed, unaffiliated
Presenter: Peter R R White
TITLE: TOKENS OF THE SENSER’S SENSING: Pictures, Protolanguage, Phylogenesis & Pedagogy
ABSTRACT:
This paper is organised into four major sections. First, we’ll look at an ideational function of including pictures of people in children’s books. Second, we’ll consider tokens of sensing as bodily expressions of protolanguage. (What is meant by ‘tokens of sensing’ will become clear as the paper unfolds.) Third, we’ll demonstrate how this discussion provides an insight into the evolutionary origins of protolanguage. And, we’ll end by identifying a rôle played by the signifying body in ontogenesis, and by extension, the analogous pedagogical rôle played by the depiction of people in children’s picturebooks.
REFERENCES
CLÉiRIGh Ch The Life Of Meaning [draft]
EDELMAN GM 1992 Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On The Matter Of The Mind New York: Basic
HALLIDAY MAK 1992 How Do You Mean? in DAVIES M & RAVELLI L 1992 (eds) Advances In Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory And Practice London & New York: Pinter
HALLIDAY MAK & MATTHIESSEN CMIM 1999 Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach To Cognition London: Continuum
HALLIDAY MAK & MATTHIESSEN CMIM 2004 An Introduction To Functional Grammar London: Arnold
**** The powerpoint slides for Chris and Peter’s presentation can be downloaded here. Unfortunately the visuals were not recorded by Lectopia on the day, but we do have an audio recording of the event which will also need to be downloaded separately but can be played at the same time if desired [the .avi file we have recorded the visuals but not the audio apparently].
[This paper was “refused” by the ISFC38 “Negotiating difference” Program Committee.]
[This paper has now been accepted for ASFLA 2011, there being no imbeciles on the review panel.]
Week 2: March 11
Presenter: Susan Hood, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney. [Sue.hood@uts.edu.au]
TITLE: ‘I was there’: Recontextualising story genres into academic writing.
ABSTRACT:
The introductory segments of theses, research reports and research articles function to legitimise the subsequent account. This ‘research warrant’ (Hood 2010) constitutes a macro-genre made up of a series of component genres. In the sciences and typically too in the social sciences the component genres are those of report and description. These factual genres function through particular patternings of appraisal resources to persuade the reader of the worthiness of the project. In the humanities, however, we also find story genres re-contextualised into this legitimating role. In this presentation I explore the kinds of stories that are co-opted into the research warrant and the implications for who gets to make what kinds of legitimating claims. The paper draws on SFL theory of genre (as in Martin & Rose 2008) and of appraisal (Martin & White 2005) in analysis of published research articles, and connects with Legitimation Code Theory from sociology of knowledge (Maton 2009).
REFERENCES
Hood, S. 2010. Appraising research: evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J.R. & P.R.R. White 2005. The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J.R. & D. Rose 2008 Genre relations: mapping culture. London: Equinox,
Maton, K. 2009. Cumulative and segmented learning: exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30:1,43 — 57.
[This paper was first presented at the European SFLCW, July 2010 in Slovenia.]
[there is no recording of this presentation]
Week 3: March 18
Presenter: Guang Shi, Associate Professor, Hainan University
TITLE: “An Analysis of Attitude in Chinese Courtroom Discourse”
ABSTRACT:
This paper analyzes attitude expressions in the audio recording transcripts of eight court trials within the framework of appraisal systems in Systemic Functional Linguistics. It is found that: 1. Judgement (attitude towards people and their behaviours) is the most important way for the subjects in the courtroom to express attitude, appreciation (evaluation of things) comes next, affect (feeling) is least frequently used; 2. Most of the attitude expressions are negative, which shows that negative attitude towards people and things is the basic thinking disposition of the subjects in the courtroom; 3. The specific features of the three sub-systems are as follows: 1) The subjects in the courtroom express their attitude towards people mainly according to social sanction, of which “legality” is a prominent subcategory; 2) Judgement-Invoking Appreciations outnumber the sum total of ‘reaction’, ‘composition’, and ‘valuation’, which are the three types of Non Judgement-Invoking Appreciations; 3) Due to its potential negative influence on the speakers, affect is not frequently resorted to in the courtroom. The above findings support the idea that attitude system can be genre dependant, and can shed light on our understanding of the characteristics of attitude expressions and their interpersonal functions in Chinese courtroom discourse.
Key words: courtroom discourse; appraisal systems; attitude; interpersonal function
Bio-note
Guang Shi received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from Nanjing Normal University in 2008 and is an Associate Professor of Linguistics at Hainan University. Now he is working at the University of Sydney as a visiting scholar, and at Zhejiang University as a post-doctoral research fellow. His research interests are Forensic Linguistics, CDA, and Systemic-Functional Linguistics.
*** We have a .pdf version of Guang Shi’s powerpoint presentation available for download here. Audio-visual recordings were slightly haywire at this stage, so unfortunately we are unable to provide the video of the talk
Week 4: March 25
Presenter: Rosemary Huisman
TITLE: “Transitivity, Temporalities, Narrative: construing experience of different worlds.”
ABSTRACT:
“The semantics of natural language is itself a theory of daily experience.” (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999: 26). As a corollary, it is unsurprising that the phylogenesis of the Transitivity system of ideational meaning is congruent with the human umwelt, the human experience of the environment. But since the mid-nineteenth century, science and technology have considerably extended that human understanding, described in Peircean semiotics as the extended umwelt. The stories of narrative, this paper suggests, are one means through which natural language can be used to describe an umwelt both within and beyond the environment of its phylogenesis.
In particular, to show their compatibility, the model of “nested integrative levels of nature”, postulated by the physicist J.T. Fraser, is juxtaposed with the process choices of Transitivity theorised in SFL. Each of Fraser’s levels is associated with a particular temporality and type of causation, and it is this which introduces the relevance of “narrative”. The study of narrative, at the most general and interdisciplinary level,* has been understood to centre on “time”, in stories of events understood in chronological sequence, even if not told in that sequence. But time, singular, is now replaced by temporalities, plural. Each story tells of a different world, with its characteristic temporality, and is understood sequentially by its characteristic meaning of coherence. The “texture” of any one narrative results from the “weaving together” of the “threads” of different possible stories (as will be illustrated with textual extracts for discussion).
(* In SFL, the term “narrative” has been used in a sense developed from the socio-linguistic work of William Labov on spontaneous oral narratives: as a genre of story, identified by its generic structure.)
BASIC REFERENCES:
Fraser, J. T., Time and Time Again, Reports from a Boundary of the Universe. Brill: Leiden & Boston (2007).
Halliday, M. A. K., rev’d Matthiessen, C. M.I.M., An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold (2004).
Halliday, M. A. K & Matthiessen, C. M.I.M., Construing Experience through Meaning. London & New York: Continuum (1999).
RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS:
Huisman, Rosemary, “Temporalities and ideational meaning: the construal of experience through narrative,” in Thresholds and Potentialities of Systemic Functional Linguistics as a Descriptive Theory, ed Elizabeth Swain. Trieste: Edizioni Università Trieste (2010), 318-333.
________________“Telling Time: The Temporalities of Thomas Pynchon’s Postmodern Narrative,” Semiotics 2009. Legas: New York (2010), 243-252.
________________ “Narrative sociotemporality and complementary gender roles in Anglo-Saxon society: the relevance of wifmann and wæpnedmann to a plot summary of the Old English poem Beowulf,” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 4 (2008): 125-137.
**** an audio-visual file of Rosemary’s presentation may be downloaded here
Week 5: April 1
Presenter: Professor Jim Martin, Sydney University
TITLE: “Metalinguistic divergence: centrifugal dimensionality in SFL”
ABSTRACT:
One of the central metalinguistic challenges for theories of language is axis – the design of the complementarity of system and structure. In this regard we might compare for example Firth’s privileging of structures as the syntagmatic environment for systems and Halliday’s privileging of systems from which syntagms are derived. And where syntagmatic relations are derived from systemic ones, questions arise about how the two axes are related, argumentatively, as complementarities, in mutual definition of one another and the often unacknowledged price of ‘paradogmatism’ as far as the analysis of structure is concerned.
In this paper I’ll review the different approaches to axial argumentation developed by the Sydney and Cardiff ‘Schools’, including the relation of this argumentation to two central issues: stratification and grammatical metaphor. My basic argument will be that divergence has now reached the point where mutual un/intelligibility is such that SFL is dealing with two different metalanguages, rather than registers of a single theory, and that dialogue has consequently to be re-interpreted as inter-disciplinary. This case study raises important considerations about what will hold SFL together as a federation of theories in coming decades, in particular taking into account the apparent intractability of modelling instantiation and individuation as system/structure cycles.
[this is a version of Jim’s plenary given in Vancouver 2010 at the annual SFL international conference]
**** An audio-visual file of Professor Martin’s presentation may be downloaded here
[apologies for the weak audio on this file – the organisers were late to the presentation and so were not able to affix the lapel mike to the speaker, nor interrupt him to advise standing close to the desk mike. we suggest turning up your volume control as high as possible]
Week 6: April 8
Presenter: Peter R. R. White, University of New South Wales
TITLE: “Evaluative valeur, instantiation theory, global media,
intercultural conjunction, linguistic relativity.”
ABSTRACT:
Two related and interesting phenomena: (1) An apparently growing number of
journalistic institutions around the world are providing versions of their
publications in multiple languages – e.g. Le Monde International, The China
Daily, Der Spiegel, Asahi Shimbun, and so on. (2) At the same time machine
(computerised) translation technologies, freely accessible on the internet
(e.g. Google translate, systranet.com, Babel Fish), have developed to the
point where they can at least sometimes provide readers with a reasonable
idea of the “gist” of the original text.
The texts arising from these developments raise interesting questions and
provide intriguing data for those interested in translation theory,
contrastive linguistics and language typologies, corpus linguistics,
inter-cultural communication, globalisation, inter-textual relations,
notions of text as language “instance”, and journalistic text production
practices, to list just a few.
These texts are noteworthy because, in the case of the human translations,
the intention is, presumably, to produce texts which reflect the values,
perspectives and understandings of the originating source texts and the
linguistic systems they instantiate rather than to produce entirely
“naturalized” or “domesticated” texts in the target language, as is
elsewhere the objective in journalistic translation (e.g. in the
translations undertaken by the international news agencies). Interest in
the second instance (i.e. with respect to the machine translations) arises
on account of the statistical, corpus-linguistics technologies they employ
and the fact that, as a consequence, the translations they produce are an
artefact of the beliefs about translational equivalence embodied in the
databases of previous translations upon which they rely.
This paper will focus largely on the translations in the context of
explicitly evaluative meanings and explore what is at stake theoretically
and analytically in the following types of questions:
• Do the human translated texts display linguistic properties in
connection with evaluative meanings which support the proposition that they
are more source language and culture oriented, and hence less target
language and culture oriented than is the case in other journalistic
translations? If they can be shown to operate with this orientation, can
this phenomenon be interpreted as countering forces of cultural
homogenisation via globalisation?
• How might the machine translation systems be compared against each other
in terms of their handling of explicitly evaluative meanings, and how might
they in turn be compared with the human translators’ handling of evaluative
meanings? What notions about the nature of translation are available which
might assist us in addressing such a question, including notions about
texts as instantiations of language systems, notions about texts as
reflecting and construing particular contexts of situation, and notions of
how to identify and describe similarities and differences between
correlated texts?
• Is it possible by studying such translations of evaluative meanings (by
both humans and machines), to gain insights into similarities and
differences between languages in terms of the systems of evaluative valeur
available to speakers of those languages?
**** An audio-visual file of Peter White’s presentation may be downloaded here.
Week 7: April 15
Presenters: Dr Annabelle Lukin, Centre for Language in Social Life, Macquarie University; & Professor Adriana Pagano, Laboratory for Translation Experimentation, Universidade Federale de Minas Gerais, Brazil
TITLE: “Context and double articulation: towards a theory of good translation in verbal art”
ABSTRACT:
In ‘Towards a theory of good translation’, Halliday argues ‘It is notoriously difficult to say why, or even whether, something is a good translation…The central organizing concept is presumably that of ‘equivalence’; but equivalence with respect to what?’ (Halliday, 2001: 15). Nearly 50 years ago, Catford addressed this question in his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Catford argued that:
‘Presumably, the greater the number of situational features common to the contextual meanings of both SL and TL text, the ‘better’ the translation. The aim in total translation must therefore be to select TL equivalents not with ‘the same meaning’ as the SL items, but with the greatest possible overlap of situational range’. (Catford, 1965: 49).
At the time, Catford noted that there was ‘as yet, no general theory of situation-substance, no general semetics…from which to draw descriptive terms for the distinctive features of contextual meanings of grammatical or lexical items in particular languages (ibid: 50)’. Catford’s book, published in 1965, must have been written just as Halliday was elaborating concepts for the study of ‘context of situation’. Halliday et al 1964 records the terms ‘field of discourse’, ‘mode of discourse’ and ‘style of discourse’, principles in a general theory of the situation, although described at the time as ‘aspects of the situation’, and as providing the basis for the classification of registers (see Halliday et al, 2007 [1964] p 19). By his 1977 paper, ‘Text as Semantic Choice in Social Context’, ‘style of discourse’ had become tenor, and the three values of ‘field’, ‘tenor’ and ‘mode’ constituted the ‘semiotic structure’ of the situation. Halliday argued in the paper that the notion of situation in relation to written texts was complex, with that of the fictional narrative ‘about as complex as it is possible for it to be’ (Halliday, 2002: 1977: 54, 58).
This complexity is explored in Hasan 1996, where, with respect to the inner context of a literary text, Hasan argues for two orders of field, tenor and mode. Taking field, for instance, she considers the first level to be the meanings that we can paraphrase, while the second order field concerns meanings which we deduce from ‘the particular ways in which the first order field is constituted’ (ibid. p51). This is a process of ‘double articulation’, (or ‘symbolic articulation’, e.g. Hasan, 1985) and relates to the expression of the deepest meanings of the text. Hasan’s claim holds for the expression of tenor values, and for the dimensions of mode; like field, these meanings are subject to double articulation. Literary texts are the environment, then, in which we see the potential of values in field, tenor and mode as a kind of ‘raw material’ in the creation of art; yet as ‘values’ they are already semiotic. I am extending Mukarovsky’s analogy here: ‘Stone, metal and pigment enter art as mere natural phenomenon which gains semiotic nature only in art; they begin to “mean” something. Language is its very essence is already a sign’ (Mukarovsky, 1977: 9).
In this paper I consider Catford’s definition of translation equivalence as ‘the greatest possible overlap of situational range’ in relation to the work that ‘field’, ‘tenor’ and ‘mode’ can do in the interpretation of the second order meanings of a literary work, and the evaluation of literary translations. The text I draw on is ‘Bliss’, a famous, somewhat controversial, and widely translated story from a celebrated 20th century short story writer, Katherine Mansfield. Ideally, attendees would read the text prior to the seminar: it is available at http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Blis.shtml
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964: Reprinted in full 2007). The users and uses of language. In J. Webster (Ed.), Language and society. Volume 10 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday (pp 5-37). London and New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977: Reprinted in full 2002). Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In J. J. Webster (ed.) Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London and New York: Continuum. pp23–81.
Hasan, R. (1985). Linguistics, language and verbal art. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press.
Mansfield, K. (1922). Bliss and other stories. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mansfield, K. (1959). Felicidad (Esther d. Adreis, Trans.). Barcelona: Libros Plaza.
Mansfield, K. (1998). Felicidad Perfecta (L. Graves & E. Lambea, Trans.). Barcelona: Alianza Editorial.
Mansfield, K. (2000). Relatos Breves (Éxtasis) (J. Guerra, Trans.). Madrid: Cátedra.
Mukarovsky, J. (1977). The Word and Verbal Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.
*** Clicking on this link will open an audio-visual file of Annabelle Lukin’s presentation.
Week 8: April 22
EASTER: NO SEMINAR
Week 9: April 29
EASTER BREAK: NO SEMINAR
Week 10: May 6
Presenter: Devo Y. Devrim, Sydney University
TITLE: “Grammatical metaphor and its development though training and scaffolding”
ABSTRACT:
This paper discusses the theoretical foundations and findings of an experimental research study conducted within the SLATE (Scaffolding Literacy in Academic and Tertiary Environments) project. Drawing on the fundamental notions of SFL and the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy, the study was designed to help undergraduate linguistics students improve their assignments through online scaffolding provision. The language coaches who worked in the SLATE project were trained to provide online support to students based on metafunctions and strata. Following the coaches’ general training in the project, a small group was trained to provide scaffolding on grammatical metaphor in relation to information structure of students’ assignments. The paper particularly reports the ways in which language coaches framed their online support, categories of the support, and the strategies they used. Furthermore, the paper also investigates how students responded to scaffolding and whether the scaffolding resulted in uptake or not. Specifically, the questions “what did the language coaches do?” and “what did the students do?” are explored in this presentation. Of course, the exploration of these questions depends on what we exactly mean by grammatical metaphor, how it has been modeled within the SFL theory and how it can be applied in academic literacy.
*** An audio-visual file of Devo Devrim’s presentation may be downloaded by clicking here.
Week 11: May 13
Presenter: Natasha Artemeva, Associate Professor, Carleton University
TITLE: “Rhetorical Genre Studies and the development of a unified social theory of genre learning and use”
ABSTRACT:
This presentation reviews the development of the North American New Rhetoric genre theory (Miller, 1984) (also known as Rhetorical Genre Studies [RGS]). It presents recent trends in rhetorical genre research that have led to the attempts to integrate RGS with Activity Theory (Leont’ev; Engeström; Russell) and social theories of practice (Lave & Wenger, Wenger) and discusses how these theories may be productively brought together into a unified social theory of genre learning and use (Artemeva, 2008, 2009). Applications of the unified theory to rhetorical genre research are illustrated by examples drawn from a longitudinal study of engineering students learning to become communicators within their profession. Possible directions for future research are discussed.
BIO:
Natasha Artemeva is Associate Professor in the School of Linguistics and Language Studies, at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. She is co-editor (with Aviva Freedman) of Rhetorical Genre Studies and beyond (2006, Inkshed Publications). Her doctoral dissertation won the 2007 Conference of College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Outstanding Dissertation Award in Technical Communication (USA) and was selected a finalist in the 2007 CCCC James Berlin Memorial Outstanding Dissertation Award (USA) competition. She is currently collaborating with Dr. J. Fox (Carleton University) and Dr. A. Paré (McGill University, Canada) on a SSHRC-funded study of genres of teaching mathematics. Her research interests lie in the area of Rhetorical Genre Studies, social theories of learning and practice, and disciplinary and professional discourse.
*** Clicking on this link will open a link to an audio-visual file of Natasha Artemeva’s presentation
Week 12: May 20
Presenter: Yaegan Doran, Sydney University
TITLE: “Non-linguistic semiotic resources, technical meanings and genre: fantastical facets of the physics.”
ABSTRACT:
The discipline of physics uses multiple semiotic resources, predominantly language, mathematical symbolism and images, to describe and explain the universe around us. The multisemiotic nature of physics is crucial to the meanings it conveys. To date, however, very little work has been done to understand how the non-linguistic semiotic resources are used to construe the knowledge associated with physics. This seminar will present a first step into understanding how these resources are used and will be divided into two parts: First, using mathematical symbolism as an exemplar, it will be argued that field specific technical meanings can be encoded into non-linguistic semiotic resources in order to utilise their specific meaning making patterns. This will lead to the introduction and discussion of the concept of hypertechnicality, where entities from non-linguistic systems can transcend the text and become part of the assumed knowledge of the field. To illustrate this, examples from mathematics, images, gesture and non-mathematical chemical equations will be given.
The second part of the seminar will continue to use examples of mathematics in physics to show how primarily linguistic genres, such as Explanations and Reports, can and often do use non-linguistic resources to achieve their purposes. Further to this, a presentation of a previously undescribed genre, the Derivation, will show that within highly technical disciplines such as physics, genres can occur (and are expected to be understood and replicated by students) that do not substantially rely on language. Taken together, the two sections of the seminar will form an argument for the need for a greater understanding of how scientific disciplines teach their knowledge multisemiotically.
**** An audio-visual file of Yaegan Doran’s presentation may be downloaded by clicking on this link
Week 13: May 27
Presenter: Fábio Bezerra, Sydney University
TITLE: “Coupling and commitment: an SFL-MDA investigation of ideational meanings and gender representation in the film Sex and the City”
ABSTRACT:
Currently, as a cotutelle PhD candidate at USYD, I am carrying out an SFL-MDA investigation of gender representation in the film ‘Sex and the City,’ focusing on the ideational meanings construed through verbal language and moving images. In this paper, besides presenting preliminary results of the verbal (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999, 2004; Martin, 1992) and visual analyses (Baldry & Thibault, 2005; Bateman, 2007, 2009; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006; van Leeuwen, 1991, 1996), I will discuss some of the findings in relation to the intermodal complementarity between these two semiotic modes in the construal of specific gender identities (Butler, 1987, 1990, 1993, 2004; Benwell & Stokoe, 2006), focusing on commitment and coupling (Martin, 2008a, 2008b, 2010).
As part of this, I will address the ways I have adapted Painter & Martin’s (in press) framework for the analysis of verbal language and still images, based on the affordances of the moving images in contrast with the still images. Additionally, I will also position myself in relation to previous studies of film from an SFL perspective, especially Bateman (2007, 2009) and Tseng (2009), foregrounding the complementarities and differences in our approaches.
Preliminary results show that the images commit not only similar ideational meaning to that construed by the verbal language but also additional meaning, for example, by depicting men as participants in more specialized fields (Martin, 1992) – e.g. the business world –, whereas women are mostly represented as being active in less specialized fields – e.g. shopping and the search for love. Also, the coupling of meanings instantiated by the images and the verbal language seems to suggest that (young) women’s main pursuit in life is fashion labels and heteronormative love. A number of other gender related issues arising from the analysis of commitment and coupling will also be addressed.
REFERENCES
Baldry, A.; Thibault, P. J. (2005). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook with associated on-line course. London and Oakville: Equinox.
Bateman, J. (2007). Towards a grande paradigmatique of film: Christian Metz reloaded. Semiotica 167(1/4), 13–64.
Bateman, J. (2009). Film and representation: Making filmic meaning. In W. Wildgen and B. van Heusden (eds.), Metarepresentation, cultural evolution and art, Bern: Lang.
Benwell, B.; Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Butler, J. (1987). Subjects of desire: Hegelian reflections in twentieth-century France. Columbia University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London/New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London/New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K.; Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London and New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K.; Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3. ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Kress, G.; van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd ed. London/NY: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (2008a). Tenderness: realization and instantiation in a Botswanan town. In N. Norgaard (ed.), Systemic functional linguistics in use, Odense: Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication, vol. 29, 30–62.
Martin, J. R. (2008b). Innocence: realization, instantiation and individuation in a Botswanan town, in N. Knight and A. Mahboob (eds.), Questioning Linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 27–54.
Martin, J. R. (2010). Semantic variation: Modelling realisation, instantiation and individuation in social semiosis. In M. Bednarek and J. R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 1-34. London and New York: Continuum.
Painter, C; Martin, J. R. (in press). Intermodal complementarity: Modelling affordances across image and verbiage in children’s picture books.
Tseng, C. (2009). Cohesion in film and the construction of filmic thematic configuration: A functional perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany.
van Leeuwen, T. (1991). Conjunctive structure in documentary film and television. Continuum 5 (1), 76–114.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Moving English: The visual language of film. In S. Goodman and D. Graddol (eds.), Redesigning English: New texts, new identities, 81–105. London:
**** Fábio Bezerra’s presentation may be viewed and heard by clicking on this link.
Week 14: June 3
Presenter: Trish Weekes, University of New England, Armidale
TITLE:“ ‘Composition’ in HSC Music texts – key linguistic features of high-achieving student texts in the Music Course 1 Aural exam”
ABSTRACT:
There is a growing body of research in educational linguistics in a range of subject areas, from primary years through to the senior years of high school. However, Music is a subject that has not yet received detailed attention from linguists. This paper reports on the first stage of a research project involving senior secondary school Music. The project aims to examine the effects of linguistically explicit teaching on student achievement in Music Course 1 assessment tasks. In the first stage of the project, exemplar writing samples from the NSW Board of Studies website have been analysed using the resources of Systemic Functional Linguistics. In this session, three aspects of high achieving HSC Music Aural texts will be identified and discussed:
• “Composition of text” – Genre, staging and the building of technical taxonomies
• “Appreciation: Composition” – how the texts build prosodies of positive Appreciation of the music
• “Multimodal Composition” – use of traditional music notation and graphic notation (melodic contours, pictures and graphs) and their relationships to text and meaning.
*** An audio-visual recording of Trish Weekes’ presentation may be viewed by clicking on this link
Recent Comments