Academic Literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate?

Two approaches to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) research and teaching which have arisen in recent years are systemic functional linguistics (SFL) approaches in Australia and elsewhere (e.g. Hood, 2006, Lee, 2010 and Woodward-Kron, 2009) and Academic Literacies approaches in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. Lillis and Scott, 2008, Thesen and Pletzen, 2006 and Turner, 2004). Although these approaches both draw from ethnographic and sociocultural traditions, they have tended to focus on different aspects of EAP. SFL as a theory of language has employed linguistic analysis to establish the nature of disciplinary discourses and ways of encouraging students to engage in these discourses; research and pedagogy have concentrated on texts, language in use and the language system. Academic Literacies as a research paradigm has maintained a strong commitment to ethnographic investigation and to critiquing dominant academic and institutional practices; methods have concentrated on identifying practices, student identities, and conflicts that individual language users experience in university writing.This article reflects on the two approaches by reviewing their two literatures, uncovering key questions that characterise each, and illuminating similarities and difference in epistemology and methodology. The article concludes by recognising the potential of dialogue and collaboration across the SFL and Academic Literacies research and teaching communities to address current imperatives facing EAP.

► Academic Literacies and SFL differ in their theoretical orientations and epistemologies. ► Academic Literacies is oriented to practices, and SFL to texts, in context. ► Combined, SFL and Academic Literacies cover many aspects of academic writing.