1.1 History

What is history? The answer to this question has been discussed by numerous historians, philosophers, and history educators. Reference NokesNokes (2022) states that history is not ‘what happened’ but is rather a study of the past. Reference MunslowMunslow (2006) defines history as ‘a form of literature producing knowledge as much by its aesthetic or narrative structure as by any other criteria’, and he argues that the historical narrative itself is not the past, but only a version of history, written for a particular purpose at a particular time and place. This distinction between ‘the past’ and ‘the study of the past’ is also reflected in the discussion by Reference SouthgateSouthgate (2001, Reference Southgate2013), who defines history as ‘a manifestation of memory’ and ‘a way of ordering, recording and retaining that past’. What is emphasised in these ‘definitions’ of ‘history’ is not simply what happened, but rather the historiography of the past – that is, how we study it and interpret it. Seen in these terms history does not unveil an objective ‘truth’ of the past; rather, historians present the past based on ‘their own decisions about significance, interpretations, inclusions and omissions, and even speculations’ (Reference NokesNokes, 2022, p. 92). As Munslow emphasises,

If history is not about unveiling ‘truth’, then what is it that makes the study of history important? In her discussion, ‘Why bother with history?’, Reference SouthgateSouthgate (2013) suggests that because of the values transmitted by history ‘memories of the past that make up history constitute an absolutely crucial part of what we presently are’ (p. 40). The values we learn from history shape our identities as individuals and as members of a community and a nation. It is also important to recognise that values involved are determined by time and place, and always influenced by ideology. As Southgate argues, through writing history, historians have the power to ‘for better or worse, manipulate the past (our memories and forgettings)’ (p. 50).

Historians’ recognition of the ever-changing nature of historical interpretations of the past resonates with Bernstein’s (e.g. Reference Bernstein1999, Reference Bernstein2000) discussion about the organisation of knowledge in the humanities. He notes that the knowledge structure of the humanities, including history, has a horizontal structure; a structure of this kind develops by bringing in new theories and perspectives (Reference BernsteinBernstein, 1999, p. 162). In this respect knowledge structure in the humanities contrasts with hierarchical knowledge structure, such as that found in science; this alternative structure develops in relation to ‘coherent, explicit and systematic’ principles (p. 159) for generating ever more general understandings of an ever wider range of phenomena. From this perspective, developing new understandings and interpretations in the humanities is necessarily subject to sociocultural influences (e.g. Marxism, feminism, post-colonialism, etc.). History in turn plays an important role in shaping our society through its emerging interpretations.

The study and interpretation of history relies on the use of language (Reference MunslowMunslow, 2006; Reference SouthgateSouthgate, 2001). Halliday’s (e.g. Reference Halliday1975, Reference Halliday1978) conception of language as a meaning-making resource has strong affinities with how historians see the writing of history. Reference MunslowMunslow (2006) explains that history as knowledge is not ‘discovered’, but it is produced through language – as a text. According to Reference SouthgateSouthgate (2001), understanding historical description as ‘autonomous, independent of anything external to itself’ means that history writing relies on the ‘internal coherence’ of meaning, replacing a quest for ‘truth’ as an overriding historical objective (p. 78). The understanding of the inherent relationship between the study of history and language has made a strong impact on emerging understandings of history education.

1.2 History and Education

History is regularly recognised as an important subject area in schooling. Reference Downey and LongDowney and Long (2016) describe history as ‘the only discipline and school subject primarily concerned about how societies change’. Similarly, Reference Davies and DaviesDavies (2017) argues that knowledge of the past is necessary for students to understand their place in time. In addition, Reference NokesNokes (2022) emphasises the role of history in preparing young people for their civic engagement. With respect to history education, scholars argue that to be historically knowledgeable, one needs to be historically literate; the goal of history education is often seen as the teaching of ‘historical literacy’ (Reference Downey and LongDowney & Long, 2016; Reference NokesNokes, 2022; Reference Perfetti, Britt and GeorgiPerfetti, Britt & Georgi, 1995; Reference Shanahan and ShanahanShanahan & Shanahan, 2008, Reference Shanahan and Shanahan2012). Reference NokesNokes (2022) defines historical literacies as the strategies and skills that historians use to construct meaning from texts and other sources. Reference Downey and LongDowney and Long (2016) suggests that the goal of historical literacy is to enable students to read history texts critically, to write thoughtfully, and to engage in meaningful discussions about the past. With respect to how to teach historical literacy, emphasis has been put on cultivating historical thinking and reasoning and the awareness of unique language used in the discipline.

Reference NokesNokes (2022) suggests that teaching historical literacy involves developing students’ ability to ‘engage in historical processes’, that is, ‘to not simply possess knowledge but to know how to build it’ (p. 92). Reference Perfetti, Britt and GeorgiPerfetti et al. (1995) also stress the importance of reasoning in historical literacy. To develop this ability, Reference NokesNokes (2022) argues that students should be taught by following the way in which historians construct evidence and reasoning, including reading primary sources and authentic materials, constructing evidence, and independently developing new interpretations and reconstructions of the past. The emphasis on students’ ‘independent’ interpretations, to a great extent, reflects the idea of the ‘knower’ in the humanities (Reference MatonMaton, 2014). Building on Bernstein’s conceptualisation of knowledge structure, Reference MatonMaton (2014) suggests that in a horizontal knowledge structure there is a hierarchical knower structure, with respect to which the knower’s disposition plays an essential role in shaping the discipline. Nokes’ suggestion for developing students’ independent perspectives in historical literacy aligns with the goal of cultivating the thinking of a ‘knower’ of history. As he states, ‘although historians are expected to construct interpretations that are new to the world, students’ independently constructed interpretations might be new only to them or their classmates’ (Reference Nokes2022, p. 92).

History educators have also become increasingly aware of the relationship between history subject area and language (Reference Downey and LongDowney & Long, 2016; Reference Shanahan and ShanahanShanahan & Shanahan, 2008). This involves appreciation of the distinctive use of language in reading and writing. Reference WineburgWineburg (2005) states that history is a powerful form of literacy that has the potential to teach about text in ways that no other areas of the school curriculum can offer (p. 662). Reference Downey and LongDowney and Long (2016) argue that to be historically literate, students must become fluent in the academic language of history, which is not the same as ‘the language of the home or of the playground’, or ‘the language of mathematicians or scientists or poets, as each of us constructs meaning with words in different ways’ (p. 10). Reference Shanahan and ShanahanShanahan and Shanahan’s (2008) study reveals distinctive ways in which experts from different disciplines read and comprehend disciplinary texts. They argue that each discipline possesses ‘specialized genre, vocabulary, traditions of communication, and standards of quality and precision, and each requires specific kinds of reading and writing to an extent greater than has been recognized by teachers or teacher preparation programs’ (Reference Shanahan, Shanahan and MisichiaShanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011, p. 395). Their findings raise the awareness of language use in history. But from the perspective of functional linguistics, this raises important questions as far as language is concerned – that is, what exactly constitutes historical literacy? In other words, how are meanings made in the history texts? And how can students be provided with teaching that supports these uses of language? To answer these questions, it is necessary to look closely at how language is used in historical literacy and reveal how meaning-making resources construct historical knowledge and values.

1.3 Understanding History: SFL Initiatives

The volume offered here resonates strongly with the understandings both in historiography regarding the nature of language in shaping the historical ‘reality’ and in history education regarding historical literacy with its unique ways of using language. The chapters collected here explore the role played by history in shaping culture from a linguistic perspective, drawing specifically on a theory known as Systemic Functional Linguistics. This theory (hereafter SFL) tries to understand how we use language as a resource to build and maintain sociocultural contexts. From this linguistic perspective, this volume approaches the disciplinary knowledge of history with respect to its distinctive choices of language features. The notion of ‘choice’ is based on the understanding that among all the potential ways of making meaning, we choose one over another for a particular purpose. This perspective enables us to develop conscious understandings of how we use language choices to build historical ‘facts’ (i.e. what we know) and develop feelings and attitudes about these ‘facts’, both as individuals and as members of a community (i.e. who we are). SFL has had a long tradition of studying the disciplinary language of history, in both educational and political contexts. By way of introduction, we now provide a brief sketch of the decades of work developed in this tradition.

This body of SFL work on history began with a genre-based literacy programmes of the so-called Sydney School; for a consolidating overview, see Reference Rose and MartinRose and Martin (2012). The action research documented in this work began in the early 1980s with a focus on writing in primary school. Its mission involved broadening the range of writing undertaken by students and renovating the way writing was taught. By the late 1980s this project was extended to encompass writing in secondary school, beginning with physical geography (Reference Wignell, Martin and EgginsWignell, Martin & Eggins, 1989) and history (Reference Martin, Halliday and MartinEggins, Wignell & Martin, 1993). This initiative was further extended as part of the ‘Write it Right’ (WIR) project, 1991–1995 (Reference Veel, Whittaker, O’Donnell and McCabeVeel, 2006); this Disadvantaged School Program (DSP) intervention focused on the relationship between secondary school and workplace literacy (Reference Christie and MartinChristie & Martin, 1997). Accordingly, it explored reading and writing in secondary school subjects from the perspective of genre and in addition investigated the different kinds of knowledge these genres construed – in history, math, science, visual arts, English, and geography.Footnote ¹ Reference CoffinCoffin (1996, Reference Coffin2006) documents the work on secondary school history developed in this project and her own ensuing research (Reference Coffin, Christie and MartinCoffin 1997, Reference Coffin2000, Reference Coffin, Martin and Wodak2003).

Reference Martin and RoseMartin and Rose (2008) draw on this work as part of their survey of major genre families. They present an overview of history genres as a table (their Table 3.7 is reproduced as Table 1.1 below), beginning at the top with the personal recount genre speakers master at home before school in order to share experience with close friends and kin. This genre can play a significant role in history discourse foregrounding what is known as ‘oral history’. The table then moves down to genres which are organised around setting in time (rather than sequence in time). This brings autobiographical and biographical recounts into the picture as longer phases of experience are recounted. One step further and the experience of single participants is generalised to those of groups of participants in historical recounts. Moving down the table these chronicling genres make room for genres which explain historical phenomena. These genres feature a shift from temporal to causal connections. Among these, historical accounts unfold chronologically, but with prominence given to causal links between events. With factorial and consequential explanations, on the other hand, the matching relation between what happened and how the text unfolds breaks down – as multiple factors leading to some events are canvassed or, conversely, multiple consequences of an event are reviewed. Moving down again, these explanatory genres give way to argumentative ones which deal with interpretations of the past that are presented as in some sense contentious and in need of being argued for. In expositions arguments are marshalled in favour of a thesis; in challenges arguments are marshalled against a position; and in discussions two or more viewpoints are entertained before an issue is resolved.

Organised in this way, Table 1.1 arranges genres according to the challenges they pose for secondary school students, as they move from their comfort zone in spoken modes through the increasing demands of the uncommon-sense written discourses of history. Some of the challenges they face along the way are specified in the spiral curriculum pathway presented in Figure 1.1 (reproduced from Reference Martin and RoseMartin & Rose, 2008, Figure 3.9). This pathway flags the moves from sequencing events (‘and then’ relations) to moving between phases of activity (‘in 1914, by 1918’ type relations), from texts foregrounding temporal connection to those foregrounding causal ones, from texts unfolding chronologically to those organised rhetorically, from texts making causal connections between events in the world to those reasoning between phases of argumentation and from those dealing with one side of an argument to those managing more than one side. For a more detailed presentation of these linguistic hurdles, see Reference CoffinCoffin (2006) and Reference Martin and RoseMartin and Rose (2008).

Figure 1.1 Suggested pathway for apprenticeship into history genres

In the SFL model of language and social context informing this research, genre is treated as a higher level of abstraction which is realised through the register variables field, tenor, and mode. An outline of this model is presented in Figure 1.2. Therein field deals with what is going on or talked about, mode deals with the role language is playing in relation to other modalities of communication or activity, and tenor deals with social relations of power and solidarity. Moving into secondary school meant focusing more carefully on field, in order to explore the different types of knowledge characterising different subject areas; for history this research very quickly implicated mode.

Figure 1.2 Language, register (field, mode, and tenor), and genre

The reason for this additional focus on mode is first documented in Reference Martin and ChristieMartin (1989), where a distinction is drawn between technicality and abstraction as far as the creation of uncommon-sense knowledge is concerned. What Reference Martin and ChristieMartin (1989) draws attention to is preponderance of technical terms in science disciplines (e.g. biology, physics, chemistry, physical geography) when compared to the humanities (e.g. history, English, creative arts). In a humanities subject like history, on the other hand, it is likely to be the abstractness of the language rather than unfamiliar terms that challenges students. The mode of history discourse, in other words, is very far removed from that of the day-to-day conversation students are familiar with, even though there are relatively fewer technical terms they have to learn. In SFL, the semiotic engine for this abstract discourse is referred to as grammatical metaphor, a concept introduced in Reference Halliday, Fawcett, Halliday, Lamb and MakkaiHalliday (1984a), elaborated in Reference HallidayHalliday (1985, Reference Halliday, Martin and Veel1998) and Reference Martin, Halliday and MartinHalliday and Martin (1993), and further developed in Reference Simon-Vandenbergen, Taverniers and RavelliSimon-Vandenbergen, Taverniers, and Ravelli (2003) and Reference Taverniers, Bartlett and O’GradyTaverniers (2017).

Examples (1) to (4) exemplify the challenge of abstract historical discourse of this kind. In example (1) two activities (i.e. the Normans conquering England and the Normans building castles) are realised as nominal groups (i.e. their conquest by the Normans and the castle construction, respectively). This kind of realisation involves nominalisation, with activity realised by nouns (conquest and construction) rather than verbs (conquer and construct).

1. (1) England became aware of these structures in the early eleventh century, with their conquest by the Normans, who brought the castle construction with them.

In the spoken language students are more familiar with, these activities could have been realised by clauses, as in (2) – when they were conquered by the Normans and who knew how to build castles. The construal of these two activities in (1) is considered metaphorical, since something going on is presented as if it was a thing; their construal in (2) is considered congruent, because the semantics matches the grammar (i.e. something going on is realised as a clause).

1. (2) England became aware of these structures in the early eleventh century, when they were conquered by the Normans, who knew how to build castles.

Example (2) is adjusted slightly in example (3) to bring a cause-and-effect relation into the picture. It now explains why the English became aware of castles in the eleventh century.

1. (3) England became aware of these structures in the early eleventh century because they were conquered by the Normans who knew how to build castles.

In (4) the degree of abstraction is pushed a step further by realising the causal connection between activities inside a clause. There two nominalisations (the Norman conquest and English awareness of these structures in the early eleventh century) are connected verbally (resulted in). Explaining cause inside a clause is a characteristic feature of abstract humanities discourse, including history.

1. (4) The Norman conquest resulted in English awareness of these structures in the early eleventh century.

As examples such as these make clear, learning to read and write history is not just a matter of learning new genres. The abstract modes of construing the past these genres depend on have to be mastered too (Reference MartinMartin, 2013). For discussion of some of the implications of this for teaching and learning history genres and the abstract language they may involve, see the WIR materials at https://educationalsemiotics.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/write-it-right-history/. Mode shifts are discussed in relation to the concept of semantic waves and what is referred to as temporality in Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) (Reference MartinMatruglio, Maton & Martin, 2013). Dialogue between SFL and LCT (developed in Reference Martin, Christie and MartinChristie & Martin, 2007; Reference Christie and MatonChristie & Maton, 2011; Reference Martin, Maton and MatruglioMartin, Maton & Matruglio, 2010; Reference Maton, Martin and DoranMaton, Martin & Doran, 2021) ultimately led to the reconsideration of the concept of context independency presented in Reference Martin, Matruglio, Guowen, Zhu, Delu and XinzhangMartin and Matruglio (2013). Work on history discourse, in other words, pushed SFL modelling of context through new frontiers.

Alongside implicating mode, analysis of history discourse soon brought the register tenor variable into the picture – since recognising and aligning with or criticising the values used to interpret history are also crucial aspects of the mastery of history genres. WIR research into the discourse of creative arts, English, and the media was in fact the cradle for the development of the well-known appraisal framework for analysing evaluation (Reference Martin and WhiteMartin & White, 2005). Part of this work involved the recognition of media voices – with what were called reporter, correspondent, and commentator voices distinguished in terms of the way they draw on distinctive appraisal resources (Reference Iedema, Feez and WhiteIedema, Feez & White, 1994; Reference Martin and WhiteMartin & White, 2005; Reference White, Martin and VeelWhite, 1998). Reference CoffinCoffin (2006) adapted this work for history discourse, recognising recorder voice (no explicit judgement or appreciation), interpreter voice (restricted explicit judgement and appreciation), and adjudicator voice (unrestricted explicit judgement and appreciation). In general terms the more ‘objective’ recorder voice is associated with recording genres, the less ‘objective’ interpreter voice is associated with explaining genres and the more ‘subjective’ adjudicator voice is associated with arguing genres.

Compare (5) through (7) below. In (5) there is no explicit evaluation. We have an objective description of the function of the bailey in castle defence. In (6), on the other hand, we have an evaluation of the capacity of attackers as they cross a moat at the bottom of castle walls (vulnerable). Then in (7) we have a moral judgement of attackers who might choose to hurl dead bodies over a castle wall to infect defenders (quite cruel).

1. (5) recorder voice

   That’s where you would retreat to if the bailey had been taken …

1. (6) interpreter voice

   All these things slow you down, and while you’re slowed down, you’re vulnerable and you can be picked off.

1. (7) adjudicator voice

   Some of the attackers were quite cruel.

As explored in Reference Martin, Maton and MatruglioMartin et al. (2010), evaluation is the resource history discourse draws on to align readers in communities of shared values. And having the values a teacher or examiner expects is critical for success in secondary to tertiary history education. So alongside knowing what happened and explaining why it happened the way it did, history students have to interpret what happened in the ‘right’ way. For important developments of this work on evaluation in history discourse, see Reference MyskowMyskow (2016, Reference Myskow2017, Reference Myskow2018a, Reference Myskow2018b). In the same article, Martin and colleagues point out that there is more technicality in history than was attended to in earlier publications. In addition to the technical partitioning of history as eras (the First World War, the Depression, the Second World War, the Cold War, etc.), there are the ‘-isms’ that play a key role in modern history discourse and which tend to be implicitly charged with value (e.g. marxism as bad, nationalism as good). It is this charging that enables terms like democracy and communism to be opposed to one another, when from an ideational perspective democracy is about how government assumes power (via elections) and communism is about who owns the means of production (the state). Ideationally speaking the oppositions would be democracy vs autocracy and capitalism vs communism. But in many texts it is the positively and negatively charged values which come to the fore (Reference MartinMartin, 2013).

Abstraction and evaluation have an important role to play in history texts which don’t rely on chronology as their basic structuring principle – including the explaining and arguing genres reviewed above, and also descriptive reports such as (8) below. In texts of this kind, organisational scaffolding is provided by introductory and summative remarks, functioning in SFL terms as higher level Themes and News (Reference Martin and RoseMartin & Rose, 2007). In (8), for example, a higher-level Theme (a Hyper-theme) introduces readers to what the report will be about and a higher-level New (a Hyper-new) highlights the significance of its content. In history the higher-level periodicity typically features both abstraction (design, attacks, success below) and evaluation (prominent, effective, success below), while the filling in the rhetorical sandwich is both more concrete and more objective. Reference Macnaught, Maton, Martin and MatruglioMacnaught et al. (2013) outline a Sydney School approach to highlighting waves of texture of this kind for students (see also Reference HumphreyHumphrey (2017) on teaching academic literacy and Reference Christie and DerewiankaChristie & Derewianka (2008) on the development of academic literacy in primary and secondary school).

1. (8) Hyper-theme

   One prominent form of castle design in Britain, Ireland and France of the 11th century was the relatively cheap and easy to construct Motte and Bailey. These were effective at repelling smaller attacks.

   • Basically, a mound of earth taken from the ditch forms a small hill. Their keep was constructed out of wood or later of stone. A wall surrounds the keep from within the ditch’s realm. The bailey is an enclosed courtyard, usually surrounded with a palisade or wooden fence, and overlooked by the motte. Castles could have more than one bailey. The bailey would often contain a hall and living quarters for servants or farmers, and stables. It could also be connected to the motte with a drawbridge.

     • As a marker of their success, almost 1,000 motte-and-bailey castles were built in England, Wales, and Scotland.

       Hyper-new

The best known representation of the teaching/learning cycle scaffolding pedagogy in Sydney School genre-based literacy programmes (Reference Rose and MartinRose & Martin, 2012, p. 66) positions control of and a critical orientation to genre as its ultimate goals. This orientation naturally invited collaboration between SFL and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) – a dialogue canvassed in Reference Martin and WodakMartin and Wodak (2003) and reviewed in Reference Achugar, Flowerdew and RichardsonAchugar (2018). Reference Martin, Schleppegrell and ColombiMartin (2002a, Reference Martin and Candlin2002b, Reference Martin, Weiss and Wodak2003a, Reference Martin, Martin and Wodak2003b) pursues this dialogue in a series of papers focusing on the construal of the history of Indigenous peoples in Australia, including discussion of the way their own voices are represented (or not). It was this work that led Martin to coin the term Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) by way of encouraging work that focused not just on semiosis in the service of power but empowering challenges on behalf of or by disempowered ‘others’ (Reference MartinMartin, 2004; Reference BartlettBartlett, 2012, Reference Bartlett, Flowerdew and Richardson2018). Most of his examples focus on the reconciliation movement in Australia (e.g. an apology for the Stolen Generations, Land Rights, Indigenous deaths in custody), including analysis of multimodal texts.

The SFL/CDA orientation to history discourse was particularly influential for two key Latin American scholars, Achugar and Oteíza, who were mentored by Colombi and Schleppegrell during their training at UC Davis. Reference Schleppegrell and ColombiSchleppegrell and Colombi (2002) and Reference SchleppegrellSchleppegrell (2004) reflect the concern with academic literacy that inspired the work of these discourse analysts (see also Reference Schleppegrell, Christie and MatonSchleppegrell, 2011; Reference Schleppegrell and de OliveiraSchleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006; Reference Schleppegrell, Greer and TaylorSchleppegrell, Greer & Taylor, 2008; and Reference Achugar, Schleppegrell, Bowcher and LiangAchugar & Schleppegrell, 2016 for papers arising from Schleppegrell’s consulting work with the California History Project). The work led by Achugar and Oteíza further opened up the space of studying historical discourse from a multilingual and multicultural perspective.

1.4 A Multilingual/Multicultural Perspective

Beyond the English-speaking world, Achugar and Oteíza went on to publish extensively on history discourse in Spanish – with a focus on interpretations of the relatively recent past in Uruguay and Chile. Early papers include Reference OteízaOteíza (2003), Reference Schleppegrell and AchugarSchleppegrell and Achugar (2003), Reference Schleppegrell, Achugar and OteízaSchleppegrell, Achugar, and Oteíza (2004), and Reference Achugar and SchleppegrellAchugar and Schleppegrell (2005); this work is further is further developed and consolidated in Reference AchugarAchugar (2008, Reference Achugar2016) and Reference OteízaOteíza (2006, Reference Oteíza2023).Footnote ² Application and adaptation of engagement and attitude analysis for Spanish history discourse have been developed (Reference OteízaOteíza, 2021b; Reference Oteíza and PinuerOteíza & Pinuer, 2019).

Studies in the Latin American context have revealed important findings regarding the ways in which knowledge and value are established in the education context. For instance, in examining Uruguayan textbooks published between 1990 and 2009, Reference Achugar, Fernández and MoralesAchugar, Fernández, and Morales (2011) discuss the participants involved in the historical events by analysing transitivity. Their analysis reveals a tendency to avoid assigning agency in history texts discussing Uruguay’s dictatorship. In addition, they find that although textbooks present competing interpretations of the dictatorship, the sources of these positions are not identified; accordingly, their credibility cannot be properly assessed.

Oteíza’s analysis of Chilean history textbooks reveals that in recounts of historical events, there is an overlap between the symbolic representation of time and the chronological dimension of time. The symbolic representation typically draws on grammatical metaphors and lexical metaphors. As a result, not only is time in history construed ideationally, but it is also enacted interpersonally – invoking attitudes about historical periods. These attitudes are thus legitimised as historical memory, as ideational and interpersonal meanings cooperate to render the time dimension of historical knowledge (Reference Oteíza and PinuerOteíza & Pinuer, 2012). In addition to language, Reference OteízaOteíza (2018, Reference Oteíza2021a) approaches history textbooks from a multimodal perspective, showing how language interacts with images in the reconstrual and interpretation of the past.

The practical implications of this work for teaching history in Latin American schools has been fruitfully explored in secondary focused action research projects led by Reference MoyanoMoyano (2010, Reference Moyano2013), also Reference Moyano and GiudiceMoyano & Giudice (2016a, Reference Moyano and Giudice2016b). The focus of this work was the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976–1983). Reference Acevedo, Rose and WhittakerAcevedo, Rose, and Whittaker (2023) includes reports of several Latin America focused literacy studies informed by Reading to Learn (R2 L), alongside interventions from around the world (see also Reference MossMoss 2010 on a history textbook in Colombia).

While studying the language of history in languages other than English has been particularly prominent in the Spanish-speaking world, there are several emerging studies concerning historical language in Mandarin Chinese (e.g. Reference Hao, Caldwell, Martin and KnoxHao, 2022; Reference Hao and WangHao & Wang, 2022). They bring new perspectives on describing and analysing language features to our understandings of history discourse. This contribution is clearly reflected in several chapters included in this volume.

1.5 The Volume

This volume presents a collection of new SFL studies of the discourse of history involving emerging theoretical concepts, descriptions, and empirical findings. All chapters in this volume take text analysis as their point of departure, examining both how language patterns realise history registers and genres and how discourse semantic patterns are connected to lexicogrammatical resources to do so. The volume aims to make contributions in several significant ways.

First, the volume explores the discourse of history across three languages, including English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. It brings together these three world languages, dividing the book into three major sections. Chapters 2–5 report on theory and description developed in recent studies of English; Chapters 6–9 report on studies of Spanish; and Chapters 10–12 report on studies of Chinese. These studies of Spanish and Chinese draw on theoretical concepts and descriptions originating from work on English and provide innovative analytical methods that are useful for exploring languages other than English.

Second, the volume offers new linguistic understandings of historical knowledge. Building on previous SFL studies examining knowledge of history in terms of ideational discourse semantic resources, this volume offers a further in-depth exploration of history knowledge by considering choices of meaning at three meaning-making levels, including register (field, tenor, and mode), discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar. Hao and Martin (Chapter 2) focus on building knowledge in an ancient history classroom in Australia. Through examining the ways in which choices in register variable field are deployed in the unfolding of classroom, they reveal how ‘critical gaze’ is cultivated in learning history. Leiva (Chapter 6) reveals that in Spanish history textbooks, cause–effect relationship between historical activities can be construed in complex ways by drawing on a range of grammatical resources. By teasing out the multi-stratal meaning-making choices across field, discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar, she offers a linguistic understanding of causality in Spanish that can inform the explicit teaching of logical reasoning in the historical literacy. In addition to the construal of activity, Hao and Wang (Chapter 10) reveal the ways in which a Chinese history textbook describes and taxonomises the phenomena of a prosperous historical period. They reveal distinctive ways in which the discourse semantic and grammatical resources are at play, offering a multi-stratal understanding of description and taxonomisation through language.

Third, the volume presents work showing how historical values are used to construct communities of shared values. Hao and Martin (Chapter 3) focus on the concept of ‘democracy’ in an ancient history unit which embodies complex clusters of evaluation. They show that these evaluations are negotiated in the history classroom discourse to establish ‘bonds’, ultimately affiliating students as positively disposed member of a ‘democratic’ Australian society. Oteíza and Castro (Chapter 7) demonstrate how historical ‘evidence’ is used in history textbooks to negotiate the shared values about a minority group in Chile. They reveal a range of resources of evidentiality that can be more or less ‘metaphorical’ and ‘transparent’. Achugar (Chapter 8) reports on a study examining how the teaching of traumatic past through films can cultivate historical empathy, and she compares the interpersonal positionings in students’ responses with those in the film critics’ reviews. Zhang (Chapter 11) examines the representation of an ethnic group in a Chinese history textbook and reveals how the choices in field and in interpersonal discourse semantics contribute to cultivating the values of a unified multi-ethnic country today.

In addition to texts used in educational contexts, the volume also includes two studies of historian’s writing produced for a public audience. Doran (Chapter 4) examines a popular history text in which certain expressions and phrases about history are charged with complex values as the discourse unfolds, aligning with some readers but not others. The study offers a useful way of identifying meaning choices in the register variable tenor. Wang (Chapter 12) shows how the morality of characters is cultivated in the first ancient Chinese historical record, offering understandings of the cultural values in China which have been passed down from the past to the present.

Finally, this volume provides further understandings of historical genres. The knowledge genres identified by Reference CoffinCoffin (2006) and Reference Martin and RoseMartin and Rose (2008) in the English-speaking culture are also identifiable in the Chinese- and Spanish-speaking world, including historical accounts (Leiva, Chapter 6), historical recounts (Zhang, Chapter 11), and biographical recounts (Wang, Chapter 12). In addition to the activity-oriented genres, Hao and Wang (Chapter 10) reveal that report genres are equally significant in establishing history knowledge and value. Achugar (Chapter 8) explores the use of response genres in teaching historical empathy. And in Martin’s study of pedagogic discourse in teaching history (Chapter 5), he focuses on curriculum genres, revealing how the knowledge genres of history are embodied in teaching practice. Moving beyond subject history, Vidal Lizama (Chapter 9) shows how historical recounts are used in art history, cultivating the sensibilities of artists rather than historians. Her study raises new questions about the relationship between genres and disciplinary fields.

We hope that our work on Spanish and Chinese will encourage linguists and educators to explore history discourse in more languages, including both robust and endangered ones. We need to find out more about the range of genres involved, the modes through which they are composed, and the values they propagate – including work on the relationship between oral history, popular history, and the history genres discussed in this book. Increasingly, these discourses involve modalities of communication other than language – for example, photos, infographics, animations, film, and dance – meaning that multimodal discourse analysis is urgently required if we are to keep up with the affordances of print and electronic media as they render what has happened in our world. Ideally this work would be undertaken from both a CDA perspective, focusing on semiosis in the service of power, and a PDA perspective focusing on semiosis in the service of social change (Reference Bartlett, Flowerdew and RichardsonBartlett, 2018; Reference MartinMartin, 2004) so that we can better understand why things are the way they are and do something constructive about possible futures.

Most of us first bump into history in schooling, so that is obviously a key site to consider. But social media increasingly re/interprets the past for followers on a moment-by-moment basis as events unfold. This follows most of us throughout our lives. Having both a critical and an interventionist constructive gaze is now more important than ever.

We look forward to seeing work along these lines as research, education, and practice unfold. We believe that the linguistic insights offered by the authors in this volume, through their conceptualisations, analytical methods, and findings, will lead to the growth of new ideas. In many respects work on history discourse remains a poor cousin when compared with work on discourses of science in SFL. We hope that this collection, and any work it catalyses, will help balance the ledger – so we can better understand not just what we are but who we are, and why.