Applied Linguistics 28/4: 621634

Oxford University Press 2007

REVIEWS
Caroline Coffin: HISTORICAL DISCOURSE: THE LANGUAGE OF TIME, CAUSE, AND EVALUATION. Continuum, 2006.

Historical Discourse is a rich addition to the growing number of descriptive studies through systemic functional linguistics (SFL) on the language of schooling, in this case, of the subject history (cf. Cofn 2006; Schleppegrell and Oliveira 2006; Schleppegrell et al. 2004; Schleppegrell and Achugar 2003). The preface introduces Caroline Cofns research into the language of history in Australia and the UK, and describes her corpus of secondary school history writing, which she draws on to provide ndings and illustrations throughout the book. It also clearly delineates her purposes in writing Historical Discourse: to make explicit the linguistic resources drawn on in meaning making in history, and relate those to the requirements of secondary school history curricula, in order to provide a basis for literacy development. Chapter 1 highlights the need for understanding historical discourse, not only to enhance students chances of success in the school subject, but also to raise awareness of how historical knowledge is variously constructed through language. This awareness can help clarify notions of objectivity/subjectivity and lead to an understanding that the past is contested ground in which numerous interpretations compete (p. 9). For primary and secondary sources, as well as for student writing, Cofn argues for increased understanding of the genres of history writing, of the implications of history construed as story-telling or as argument, of grasping the role of linguistic resources for expressing time and causeeffect, and of knowing how evaluative positions are established and maintained through language choices. Chapter 2 justies the use of SFL as an analytical and pedagogical tool, highlighting its focus on explaining language through contextualized use. It explains important aspects of SFL theory, such as the complementary perspectives of system and instance. The notion of language as a system of options serves to clarify for both educators and students the signicance of different choices in making meaning across learning areas. Once the typical features of the discourse within a domain are described, specic instances of language can be compared, allowing for discussion of the implications of similarities and differences. Using genre theory, Cofn explains the typical structured, staged text types which result from the common goals and purposes of a type of cultural event, foregrounding the discussion of the genres of history in Chapters 34. Cofn then moves to an explanation of the register variables of eld (the social activity enacted), tenor (the relationships

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at King's College London on May 22, 2012

622

REVIEWS

established between participants) and mode (the channel of communication), which can facilitate an understanding of how changing register variables result in language variation as students move through the school curriculum (p. 29). Cofn nishes this key chapter by relating register to a key principle underlying SFL, that of the three metafunctions of language: the ideational (the representation/construal of experience), the interpersonal (the construal of relationships and opinions) and the textual (the construal of the rst two metafunctions into a cohesive whole) to lead to the point that the relationship between language and context is dialectical: the social context in terms of its eld (e.g. war), tenor (e.g. teacher to student) and mode (e.g. written as opposed to spoken) will affect language choices. But equally, by making certain language choices, writers and speakers can inuence their audience as well as shaping the degree to which their text sounds written or spoken (pp. 3940). Thus, an understanding of how the context of secondary school history exerts certain pressures on the nature of texts can help students make more effective choices in writing their own texts. Chapters 3 and 4 describe the genres of secondary school history, moving from the recording genres, associated in secondary school with the earlier years, to the explaining and arguing genres, which come into play in subsequent years. Chapter 3 focuses on the recording genres of autobiographical, biographical, and historical recount, and historical account. A focus on these genres allows one to build up the notion of historical use of time, time lines, and chronological sequencing of events. Chapter 4 moves on to explain the genres of factorial and consequential explanation, and the arguing genres of exposition, discussion, and challenge. The conclusion provides a summary of the increasing abstraction and move away from reliance on time as the main organizing factor of text, as students move through the genres. Cofn suggests: if teachers have precise labels for distinguishing genres, as well as a way of talking about the kinds of meanings that different genres foreground and the lexical and grammatical resources for expressing those meanings, then they are in a strong position to provide explicit guidance to students in their reading and writing of historical discourse (p. 92). Chapters 5 and 6 focus on two key representations in history writing: time and causeeffect. In Chapter 5, Cofn discusses notions of time in Western thinking: macro-concepts such as linear and cyclical time, and macroconstructs, such as the calendar, chronology, and narrative. Chapter 6 uses SFL in order to distinguish between two overall types of causation: the billiard-ball model, a relatively simple and mechanistic causeeffect chaining of events in the external world, and the more complex cause effect reasoning which relates events across social, political, and economic arenas. In both of these chapters, lexical and grammatical categories are described, and related to main semantic categories or functions of time and cause respectively. Their distribution throughout the genres is provided

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at King's College London on May 22, 2012

REVIEWS

623

as well. Cofn discusses the pedagogical implications of these two key aspects of historical knowledge construction, and traces the development of the need to handle increasingly complex notions of time and causeeffect in students own writing and in secondary school textbooks. Chapter 7 uses the SFL-based APPRAISAL framework in order to reveal subjectivity, bias and perspective in history writing. This framework sets up ways of analysing the language of texts for attitudes, including emotions, and also opinions on peoples behaviours and on processes and products; it also species linguistic resources for applying more or less focus and force to the expression of evaluation. It further maps the attribution of expressions, and analyses the way in which propositions are put forward as uncontentious or as open for negotiation. The ability to recognize and use these resources can help students in understanding the positioning of history writing, along with attempts to align readers, and also in colouring their own writing as appropriate to different types of writing tasks. Chapter 8 provides educational implications and applications, including the key notion that it is educationally useful for both teachers and students to make the changing patterns of genre, register and lexicogrammar an object of study (p. 169). Thus, Cofn makes clear here that her book is an analysis of secondary school history discourse, not a prescriptive outline of what should be taught. The book is a highly detailed analysis of the secondary school history writing corpus that the author has gathered with a dual purpose: to provide a picture not only of what history writing is like, but also to provide tools for examining written artefacts which those involved in secondary school history, including students, can learn to use. For those not familiar with SFL, Historical Discourse contains a clear, concise, yet comprehensive explanation and, throughout, Cofn provides useful summaries of information, and refers the reader back to relevant explanations where necessary. A glossary of terms is also included. Throughout the book, Cofn makes reference to secondary school history curricula in Australia, the UK, and the USA. The book does not provide pedagogical activities, although it does briey describe the TeachingLearning cycle, implemented in Australia, designed to develop effective strategies for bringing to students consciousness the way in which history writing is linguistically structured and shaped (p. 171), including methods of assessment. Nor is evidence provided in favour of a pedagogical approach based on this kind of work (however, see Cofn (2006) for an evaluation of the approach in secondary school history teaching in Australia). Still, the book contains a wealth of examples of secondary school history writing, along with detailed descriptions and comparisons amongst the different genres and text types, while highlighting the development of skills as students progress through their schooling. Because of SFLs focus on language as a social phenomenon, analysis of shifts in the language, register, and genres of school history as students move through secondary school can offer insights into how history is ideologically positioned, and also into the

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at King's College London on May 22, 2012

624

REVIEWS

nature of effective rhetorical strategies in history writing. Thus, this book will prove an invaluable resource to anyone involved in literacy development, and indeed it is a very timely resource in the European Union for those involved in content-based language instruction through history. Final version received June 2007 Reviewed by Anne McCabe Saint Louis University, Madrid
doi:10.1093/applin/amm045
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at King's College London on May 22, 2012

REFERENCES
Coffin, C. 2006. Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum, Journal of Curriculum Studies 38/4: 41329. Schleppegrell, M.J. and M. Achugar. 2003. Learning language and learning history: A functional linguistics approach, TESOL Journal 12/2: 217. Schleppegrell, M. J. and L.C. Oliveira. 2006. An integrated language and content approach for history teachers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5/4: 25468. Schleppegrell, M.J., M. Achugar, and T. Oteza. 2004. The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language, TESOL Quarterly 38/1: 6793.

Douglas Biber: UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY OF SPOKEN AND WRITTEN REGISTERS. John Benjamins, 2006.
This ambitious work provides the most comprehensive linguistic analysis to date of university language. Drawing on the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language corpus [T2K-SWAL] (Biber et al. 2004b), Biber describes and compares language use patterns across a broad range of spoken and written university registers, including educational as well as advising/ management registers. This investigation aims to be of particular use to educators concerned with improving the match of English for specic/ academic purposes instruction [ESP/EAP] to the actual language tasks required in university courses, but is also a must-read for anybody interested in the study of academic discourse. To ethnographers, however, the social dimension may seem underemphasized. Following the introductory chapter, Chapters 2 through 6 present detailed accounts of the distributions and functions of particular linguistic features. These are complemented in Chapter 7 by a multi-dimensional analysis of the overall patterns of university register variation. A summary of the principal ndings along with directions for future research concludes this work, and two appendices describe the analytical procedures for the linguistic analyses and methodological issues in quantitative vocabulary analyses.