Defining Academic Language:
Academic language is one of those words that seems easy to define until one actually tries to define it. At its most basic, it can be defined as language used in schools (Snow & Uccelli 2009, p 112), or to use it self-referentially, language used in academic settings. Although there are certainly many of us who would feel fairly comfortable with a definition like that (thinking to ourselves, yeah, that makes sense), it does fall apart rather quickly with minimal prodding. Is language in school really consistent enough to be able to use it as a reference point? Is there a role for academic language outside of a school? Don’t different schools use different language? Like our favorite party balloon, eventually this definition will end up deflated in a far flung corner of the room.
So where does one go from here? A cursory review of literature on the topic reveals that pretty much no one really agrees on a definition. One particularly wordsmithy set of authors posited the following: “a register of english that has distinctive lexical, morphological, syntactic and stylistic features” that utilizes “precision, diversity and density of content words” (Bauman & Graves 2010, p 5). Although this certainly sounds accurate, couldn’t the same be said about some of the lyrics found on a Wu-Tang Clan album? Another well phrased definition is: “ a form of language expected in contexts such as exposition of topics in school curriculum, making arguments, defending propositions and synthesizing information” and that it tends to fall towards one end of the spectrum of writing (Snow 2010, p450) that spectrum apparently not including the aforementioned Wu-Tang Clan album. Although at first glance it would appear this quote gets back to the old self-referential definition that started this discussion, the author pushes for a little more specificity and goes on to describe a number of grammatical and syntactical features present in academic language. (p 451) In essence the goal of all these various features is to present complicated ideas efficiently. (ibid) This model appears to define a spectrum, where on one end is colloquial English and slang, while the other end is academic language.
Maybe that is the case. The article that started our discussion, the one that lifted up that fairly self-referential definition, goes on from there. The authors point out that academic language is used for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge and skills. (Snow and Uccelli 2009, p 112) But if we were to take a step back for a moment and look at language as a whole, what is the primary purpose of language? Is it not to convey ideas? And furthermore, don’t those lyrics on the Wu-Tang Album convey some pretty profound ideas? Ideas about what it means to be human and to struggle to make sense of the world? If I am completely honest, I do not think we have found a truly usable definition of Academic language yet.
But, as a science teacher, journal articles found in Science and Nature are clearly different and unique when placed against day to day conversation. I often find that they are so specifically written that they almost need to be translated for those who do not have their PhDs in a science field. Hell, I am not sure if journal articles are even mutually exclusive across various scientific disciplines, I mean can a particle physicist really read a journal article that deals with the cutting edge of cardiological research and understand more than say fifty or sixty percent of it? There is clearly something to academic language that makes it different and often challenging.
Up until quite recently most discussion of academic language was confined to conversations surrounding english language learners and about how there was really two levels of proficiency when learning english. One is Basic Interpersonal Communication skills or BICS which comes first and can mastered rather quickly and is basically what it sounds like, the ability for someone to have a conversation with a group of friends and get a clear point across and understand others’ points (Snow & Uccelli 2009, p 113). The second is termed Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency or CALP and this refers to the kind of English one needs to be successful in academic settings, like school.(ibid) This is maybe where our self-referential definition comes from, and it maybe makes a little more sense now in this context. What teachers were starting to realize is that it was not just english language learners who struggled with this more specific type of english. What emerges from this is the idea of academic domain knowledge, that fields (like science) have specific content and organization in the language they use. (Bauman & Graves 2010, p 5). This tends to subordinate the concept of academic language to vocabulary. Lists of types of vocab words have popped up as a result, words that one needs to know to be effective in communicating within a specific field of study. One hierarchy–Fisher Fry–has three classes of words: 1- general words 2- specialized words and 3- technical words. (Ibid p 7) General words are everyday words that fit into the BICS category as mentioned above. Specialized words are words that are specific to academic settings, but are used more generally across various domains and fields of study. Technical words are words specific to a domain or field of study. These latter two would prove challenging for an English Language Learner who had yet to master CALP. Other vocab type lists exist, and not all hierarchies. Two other lists simply define the types of words that would tend to make something fall into the academic language category. The first list–Hamon Wood Hendrick– is: 1- Academic technical words, 2- non-technical words, 3- phrases that have very specific meanings (like “the product of” in either math or chemistry) and 4- symbols (like NaCl for salt). (ibid) The second list–Hiebert Lubliner–that somewhat mirrors the last is: 1-Content specific, 2- general Academic, 3- school task vocab (a word used within the context of school, but probably not outside of school) and 4-literary vocab.(ibid) It has also been suggested to add math language to these sorts of lists as well as symbols (beyond scientific abbreviations found in the Hamon Wood Hendrick vocab list). (Ibid p 10)
Cultural Considerations
Thinking about vocab is helpful, but there is still more to it. There is a kind of way of speaking often used in academic language that can sometimes feel convoluted. The next question that starts to emerge is who creates this sort of language, who approves its use, who defines it. It could be said that the academic community polices its own language, but language is not nearly a neat enough concept to fall in line with that sort of proposition. Often academic language is the language regularly used by middle and upper class white communities. History has shown time and time again that the ability to define appropriate or inappropriate language is a powerful thing to weld. It should not be surprising then that a growing critique of academic language, particularly when it is defined “a list of empirical linguistic practices”, highlights the way it can disadvantage those who do not grow up in the kinds of communities where the specific syntax, vocabulary and grammar of academic language is regularly spoken. (Flores p 24) A key question becomes: is a latino student, who can often explain nuanced and complex concepts bilingually, somehow less proficient in understanding because they don’t use that “list of empirical linguistic practices”? Or a student who chooses to use more slang, or a syntax that is more familiar to them, somehow comprehending less than a counterpart who is simply more exposed and comfortable with the “list of empirical linguistic practices”? In the worst cases it shifts any sense of deficit from the speaker/writer to the listener/reader and places the responsibility on the listener/reader to figure it out instead of the speaker/writer communicating their information in a way that can be more widely understood. (ibid) It follows patterns that can be seen in colonialism, putting the responsibility on those being colonized to do the work of integration. (ibid)
This is clearly a real problem within academic language, and it has to be acknowledged. Many of the definitions we have encountered so far fall into the unfortunate traps highlighted by Nelson Flores. Flores suggests thinking not about dichotomous framing of language, but instead of language architecture. (p 25) Instead of teaching specific syntax and grammar and vocab, teaching students how to structure their writing so they can be understood more clearly. This would allow for a more broad definition of academic language and certainly a more inclusive one. Getting students to think about their audience, what background knowledge can be assumed versus what needs to be explicitly explained. What genre is appropriate? Getting students to think about these questions while writing instead of worrying about the specifics of language would allow students to build confidence in their writing and clearly express complex and nuanced ideas. (Snow & Uccelli 2009 p120-21).
The Unique Challenges of Science
For me, this makes sense in the context of a lot of disciplines. To be able to read and write about history or politics or even sports with complexity and nuance is important for living in a modern society, and taking an architectural approach instead of the “list of empirical linguistic practices approach” can be very helpful as nuance can be transmitted in a variety of ways. But what about when it comes to reading a scientific journal? Most Americans do not really need that level or type of reading proficiency. Which leads me into teaching literacy and writing within the context of Science. Scientific writing can be very different from what most students will encounter. Unless a student grew up in a family with scientists, the language, syntax and grammar of most scientific writing can be as challenging as a foreign language. And although high school students may not need to be able to read un-scaffolded journal articles, understanding how scientists develop their arguments is very important to being able to use scientific research to inform a decision about who to vote for and what their plans for addressing climate change might be. Like a foreign language it often involves explicit instruction and lots of practice. One of the most important things students need to learn is what kind of genre a particular piece of scientific writing might encompass. Donovan and Coleman propose a few genre classifications to be aware of when approaching science writing. First is an informational report, where the idea is simply to transmit some information in detail. (p 64) Students can be encouraged to develop this understanding when teachers ask them to expand on a sentence with more information or by encouraging comparisons. (ibid) The procedure genre of science writing is a how to, and students can be encouraged to develop this skill by writing out detailed procedures on fairly routine tasks. (ibid) There is also an explanation genre that covers conditions like when or if, where learning to reason through phenomena is key to scientific understanding. (p 65) And lastly there is the argument genre, where evidence is used to support a scientific claim. (p 66) Donovan and Coleman encourage regular modeling of these various genres in the classroom.
The Standards and Literacy.
When one looks to the New York State science standards, one begins to see these sorts of genres embedding everywhere. I could make a very exhaustive list, but some examples include phrases like: “communicate scientific and technical information about…” HS-PS2-6, “analyze data to support the claim…” HS-PS3-6, “construct an explanation based on evidence that…” HS-LS4-4, “communicate scientific ideas about…” HS-ESS1-3, “construct an argument based on evidence about…” HS-ESS2-8. Again, I could go on, I found 26 different standards that included some aspect of science specific literacy/language, but these exemplify the standards’ commitment to incorporating a broader view of science specific academic language, embracing the idea of learning how to structure scientific language, in a more architectural way than just through using the right words or the syntax.
All that being said, I do believe that at least an introductory level of “journal” language needs to be a part of a science literacy curriculum. Although most students may never encounter a scientific journal past high school, some will, and getting them ready for that world will help them become stronger scientists in the future. This is always a bit of a balancing act in science, teaching students who might go on to become full fledged scientists and those who will not. Those learning trajectories become very different immediately after high school, and I believe it would be imprudent of us as teachers of science to ignore the realities that will face those students. Having being through science at a college level, I confidently know that they will have chances to learn “journal language” and in their careers will become proficient within their specific fields, but giving those students even a little bit of a leg up will give them a chance to delve deeper into the important content they will need to learn while they don’t have to struggle quite as much with learning a completely “new” language from scratch.
Works Cited
Bauman, J. & Graves, M. (2010). What is academic vocabulary. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 54(1), 4-12.
Donovan, C. & Coleman, J. (2018). The language of science in the reading and writing of
student scientists. Science and Children, Aug 18, 62-66.
Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic
ideologies in research and practice. Theory into Practice, 59(1), 22–31.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In Olson, D. R., & N.
Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 112-133). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Snow, C.E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading and learning about
science. Science, 328(5977), 450-452.