Open Access Repository

Linguistic complexity in English textbooks : a functional grammar perspective

To, TV 2015 , 'Linguistic complexity in English textbooks : a functional grammar perspective', PhD thesis, University of Tasmania.

PDF (Whole thesis)
Whole_To_thesis...pdf | Download (9MB)
Available under University of Tasmania Standard License.

| Preview


Linguistic complexity is an important concept in language and literacy education.
Despite its significant contributions to the understanding of language sciences,
there are no general measures towards it, as different linguistic theories lead to
different perspectives on the linguistic complexity. Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL) is a theory of language that views language as a social semiotic and a meaning
making resource. In other words, it looks at how people use language to construe
and create meaning to fulfil their communicative purposes in social contexts.
Despite the complexity of language in social contexts, SFL provides powerful
principles to understand and manage complexity.
Adopting SFL as the main theoretical and methodological framework, this study
investigated linguistic complexity in English textbooks used in teaching English as a
foreign language (TEFL) with special reference to the Vietnamese context. The
purpose of this study was to examine how the level of linguistic complexity shifted
across four textbook levels and within science and non-science fields in a book
series. The study also examined the relationships among linguistic features
characterising complexity as well as how complexity differed according to stages of
text types. The study applied Halliday’s linguistic features, namely lexical density,
grammatical intricacy, nominalisation, grammatical metaphor, and thematic
structure to analyse 24 reading extracts in the selected textbooks on a quantitative
analysis basis. Genre analysis of complexity regarding hierarchies of periodicity was
conducted with four full texts.
Results of the quantitative data analysis show that overall the language of textbook
texts became more complex when the levels advanced in the chosen book series.
Specifically, at a higher level of textbook, a greater number of nominalisations and
grammatical metaphors were employed, contributing to lexically dense written
texts. However, the highest level of textbook did not display the topmost
complexity among the four levels. Concerning grammatical intricacy, on average, texts at higher levels were slightly more intricate. Also, various theme types were
used in the selected texts across levels. In addition, the differences between
descriptive statistics of linguistic features employed in the science related texts and
those in the non-science ones were not significant within the same book.
With regard to the complexity according to genre analysis, the analysis of four full
texts reveals that both explanatory texts demonstrated higher scores of lexical
density, nominalisation, grammatical metaphor, and lower intricacy in the
explanation stages in comparison with the phenomenon stages. Two information
reports displayed higher density values in the description stages, but lower intricacy
compared with the general statement stages. Frequencies of nominalisation and
grammatical metaphor were slightly higher in the description stage than in the
general statement stage in the elementary text, but the figures were lower in the
description stage in the intermediate text. Additionally, grammatical metaphors,
which construct the textual prominence, were employed most in New in the four
chosen texts.
These findings not only give more insights into the nature of language, but also
provide useful implications for English language teaching and learning, teacher
education and training, textbook choice and writing, as well as curriculum design.

Item Type: Thesis - PhD
Authors/Creators:To, TV
Keywords: Linguistic complexity, functional grammar, lexical density, grammatical intricacy, nominalisation, grammatical metaphor, thematic structure, hierachies of periodicity
Copyright Holders: The Author
Copyright Information:

Copyright 2015 the author

Item Statistics: View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page Item Control Page