Analysing Scientific Discourse from A Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective

A Framework for Exploring Knowledge Building in Biology

Jing Hao

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351241038
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book describes the discourse of biology from a systemic functional linguistic perspective. It offers a detailed description of resources based on text analysis. The description reveals co-textual patterns of language features, their expressions through grammatical resources, as well as their functions in the disciplinary context. The book also applies the description to analyse student texts in undergraduate biology, revealing characteristics of language and knowledge development. Although the discussion in this book focuses on the discourse of biology, both the language description and the descriptive principle can be used to inform the examination of knowledge in academic discourse in general, making this key reading for students and researchers in systemic functional linguistics, discourse analysis, English for academic purposes, applied linguistics, and science education.

Section II
Describing Ideational Discourse Semantics

This section describes ideational discourse semantics. A range of resources is described, including entities for naming taxonomies of people, places, things and activities in Chapter 3; dimensions of entities for naming the relationship between entities in Chapter 4; figures for configuring entities and other elements, and connecting figures into sequences in Chapter 5. The descriptions enable us to explore their mapping to resources at the strata below and above. Chapter 6 examines the stratal tension (i.e. grammatical metaphor) in the metaphorical mapping between sequences (and figures involved) and lexicogrammar. Finally, Chapter 7 takes a step towards recognising a more abstract level of meaning-making, identifying patterns of sequence construing types of activities in the register variable field.

3
Entity

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we start to explore the language for construing scientific knowledge by looking at the resources construing taxonomies. It examines specifically how things, people, places and activities in biology are named through a discourse semantic resource known as entities. We begin with a glimpse of two short excerpts, one from the introduction to a first-year laboratory report and the other from the introduction to a third-year research report. We can see that the entities used in the texts are rather different. In these and the following examples in this chapter, entities are annotated with underlines.

• (3.1) Calibration of a pipette allows the relationship between theoretical volumes and those actually obtained to be determined. (…) In this experiment, a Finnpipette ranged 200–1000uL and a Bio-Rad P200 pipette were calibrated by using three methods—weight-of-water, spectrophotometry and radioactivity. (…)
• (3.2) A complex interaction exists between insects and the health and diversity of fungal communities. These interactions may be beneficial to both insects and fungi, for example, symbiotic relationships between termites and cellulase-producing gut fungi (Slater, 1992). (…) We propose a model (…) This model was tested, using dung fungal spores and examining their passage through the gut of the Australian plague locust, Chortichocetes terminifera. (…)

Text 1 contains a number of entities referring to utilitarian tools, such as pipette and Finnpipette, as well as methods, such as weight-of-water and spectrophotometry. If we follow the entity categorisation in Martin and Rose (2007), a nominalisation experiment and a ‘generic’ term volume may be taken as instances of ‘abstraction’. We can get a sense from Text 1 that the reported experiment employs more than one method and involves certain tangible tools for measurement. In Text 4, there are few entities of experimental tools, but many biological phenomena are mentioned, such as insects and fungi. Certain biological phenomena have scientific names, such as Chortichocetes terminifera. We also find some nominalisations, which are likely to be technical terms, such as symbiotic relationships. Based on the brief glimpse, it is not difficult to suggest that Text 1 is more ‘concrete’, with some ‘abstractions’, and Text 4 is more ‘technical’ or involving more ‘theoretical/technical abstraction’ (Halliday, 1998). However, the questions concerning us are: what do we mean by ‘concrete’, ‘technical’ and ‘abstract’? What are the language features of entities in Text 1 or Text 2 that make them ‘concrete’, ‘technical’ or ‘abstract’? With respect to their grammatical realisation, should entities be identified by syntagm—i.e. their realisation as nominal groups or by functional structure—e.g. Thing within nominal groups? As far as field is concerned, are we able to conclude that Text 4 construes a ‘technical field’ just because the entities are mostly ‘technical’?

It is these questions that motivate the exploration of discourse semantic entities in this chapter. In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to establish a discourse semantic system that is clearly stratified with respect to the grammar of nominal groups and that can take on its share of descriptive responsibility for construing taxonomies in field. In order to do so, we will explore entities from the tri-stratal perspective introduced in Chapter 3, which considers strata across field, discourse semantics and lexicogrammar.

3.2 Motivation From ‘Above’: A Field Perspective

Chapter 2 has introduced that a field can be described from a static perspective by considering taxonomic relations among items, including classification and composition (Doran & Martin, 2020). Classification views relations between items in terms of types and sub-types. Composition relates items as parts and whole.

A field distinguishes itself from other fields by its unique ways of building taxonomies. In Martin’s (1992) field distinction, different kinds of taxonomy include ‘natural’ objects in domestic fields, utilitarian tools in specialized fields, subjects or participants in administrative fields and technical things in exploration fields concerned with academic knowledge including science. Complementing these categories is Hood’s (2010) distinction of the field of the object of study and the field of research in the disciplinary field. Drawing on both perspectives, disciplinary knowledge construed in undergraduate biology can involve multiple fields at stake. As described by Janovy (2004), apprenticeship into biology involves a wide range of activities such as conducting laboratory experiments by following laboratory manuals, employing tools and apparatus, recording data, interpreting data and reporting findings. Latour and Woolgar’s (1979) influential ethnographic study of laboratory life reveals the complexity of producing scientific knowledge through everyday activities of scientific work.

Drawing on these concerns of field from ‘above’, I explore kinds of discourse semantic entities used to both create and make visible the diversity of taxonomies involved in undergraduate biology texts. In the next step, we consider from ‘below’ in terms of grammatical resources that can be used to realise discourse semantic entities.

3.3 Motivation From ‘Below’: A Grammatical Perspective

Because of the natural relation between lexicogrammar and discourse semantics, of most direct relevance to ideational discourse semantic entities are experiential lexicogrammatical systems. Nominal group grammar at the group rank is a productive place to begin, owing to the congruent mapping of entities onto nominal groups.

Entities are nominal elements entering into lexical cohesion in the discourse (Martin, 1992). By entering into lexical cohesion, an entity can be related to other entities between ‘stretches of discourse of indefinite extent’ (Martin, 2018). The discourse relationship between entities can be of various kinds, including repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and meronymy (Martin & Rose, 2007). This book refers to all these discourse relations as ‘co-elaborations’. That is to say, each entity in the co-elaboration restates the meaning of the other. Grammatical structures including (Classifierⁿ)^Thing (regular sea urchin), Focus^Thing (a kind of sea urchin) and possessive Deictic^Thing (the rainforest’s canopy) can all be used to realise an entity.

Moving on to the clause rank, we can explore how entities may be realised through different Participants and Circumstances. This exploration needs to assume readers’ SFL knowledge of TRANSITIVITY (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). We start from a distinctive feature among process types, that of conscious participants. Behavioural and mental processes distinguish themselves from the others in that they involve at least one conscious participant—Behaver or Senser. In scientific texts these conscious entities, e.g. biologists, are often implied in the use of receptive clauses, rather than explicitly realised:

• (3.3) No motile zoospore-like structures were observed [Process] (by me/us [Senser]).
• (3.4) Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms were seen [Process] (by me/us [Senser]).
• (3.5) Members of the Neocallimastigomycota are well known [Process] for inhabiting the rumen of ruminant grazers (by us/biologists [Senser]).

The Phenomenon in mental processes of this kind typically realises a no...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• SECTION I Motivation and Background
• SECTION II Describing Ideational Discourse Semantics
• SECTION III Knowledge-Building in Undergraduate Biology
• SECTION IV Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendix A Data Texts and Their Subject Areas
• Appendix B Sample Texts and Genre Analysis
• Appendix C List of Symbols and Abbreviations
• Appendix D Annotations
• Index