Academic language: is this really (functionally) necessary?

Abstract

In this article we critically evaluate the case made by proponents of academic language (AL) that AL is functionally necessary for schooling due to specific functional advantages of AL. We consider three examples of AL introduced by AL proponents in order to show (1) that AL proponents have been too quick to accept the ALH, (2) that functional advantages of AL can be accomplished with non-AL varieties and 3) that AL may, in fact, be dysfunctional within the domain of schooling. We briefly describe the language ideological processes by which AL has been naturalized as appropriate to the domain of education while the functional potential of non-AL forms in schooling is obviated (noted by Halliday 2004). We then consider the work of M. A. K. Halliday, the researcher most commonly cited as providing justification for the ALH (esp. Halliday 2004), elaborating his critique of AL while also showing how this critique has been ignored by AL proponents citing his work. In closing we point to some implications of these findings for creating more equitable educational practices regarding academic language.

Keywords:

• Academic discourse
• academic language
• language ideology
• minority language
• functional linguistics
• sociocultural theory

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figure 2. Example of non-AL from a blog about lowriders (from Snow [2010]).

Figure 1. Example of AL from an online Tutorvista physics textbook (from Snow [2010]).

Notes

1 We use “language-minoritized” in order to emphasize that such identities are contextually determined, that is to say, a “language minority” group only exists relative to some mainstream or majority language. As a category, language-minoritization cuts across race, class, and ethnicity. Examples of language-minoritized groups in the U.S. are Spanish-speaking immigrants, speakers of African-American English, and speakers of working-class dialects.

2 Haneda (2014) provides a useful distinction between the functionalist vs. cognitivist arguments for AL. Although we believe our argument applies to the stronger cognitivist version of the ALH, in this paper we focus on the functionalist argument.

3 Importantly, studies used to identify AL features have overwhelmingly focused on written academic texts with little regard for the language that is spoken in the classroom. Indeed, considering this, one wonders why not call it academic writing or literacy (and even still, one wonders about differences in academic writing in History vs. academic writing in Science; not to mention academic writing in Newtonian Physics vs. academic writing in quantum Physics – a question we consider below along with Halliday 2004). Although not central to the development of AL as discussed here, there has been interesting and important work done on spoken academic language (e.g., Biber 2006; Bamford and Bondi 2005; Bunch, 2006, 2013, this issue; Lemke 1990).

4 Of course, the comparison is a bit unfair given the conditions of production of these two texts. The text of the lolo blog was likely produced by one person in a fairly short amount of time, while the TutorVista text was likely produced by a team of authors paid to carefully produce the text. Even still, the lolo text compares quite favorably with regard to the supposed functional advantages of AL.

5 Academic and professional writing experts have long documented the problematic nature of nominalizations (e.g., Williams and Bizup 2014), with some even calling them “word zombies” (Evans 2017).

6 There are other important critiques of SFL such as Jones (2013) article contending that SFL casts minority languages as necessarily deficient and the concern raised by Bazerman (1988) that SFL does not adequately incorporate socio-historical and political aspects into its theory of language. But here we offer Halliday’s critique as a kind of immanent critique of AL proponents who draw upon SFL.