Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Second Language Writing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seclan

A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2

writing: The case of grammatical metaphor
Marianna Ryshina-Pankova
Georgetown University, German Department, Intercultural Center 466, Washington, DC 20057-1048, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

This article argues for an alternative approach to complexity in L2 writing that foregrounds
Keywords: the link between aspects of linguistic complexity and its discourse-semantic function of
Complexity in L2 writing
constructing particular types of meanings in written texts. To illustrate a meaning- and
Nominalizations
form-integrating approach, the paper focuses on nominalizations as a linguistic form
Grammatical metaphor
L2 writing pedagogy recently identified as a potentially significant indicator of complexity of advanced L2
writing. In line with the linguistic theory of meaning making, systemic functional
linguistics (SFL), nominalizations are explored as realizations of grammatical metaphor
(GM), a concept that helps capture the complexity of the semantic dimension of these
linguistic forms. Furthermore, exploring nominalizations as GMs helps explain their
discourse function as meeting the demands of more complex communicative tasks typical
of advanced literacy contexts. Application of such conceptualization of complexity is
illustrated by an analysis of an advanced L2 writing task that demonstrates precisely how
nominalizations as GMs enable the L2 writer to meet the complexity of these demands
through conceptual refiguration of experience and configuration or development of
concepts in texts. The paper concludes with the implications of such an approach for L2
writing research, curriculum construction, and L2 writing pedagogy.
ã 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The construct of complexity in learner production has attracted increasingly keen interest from SLA researchers in
general, as well as writing researchers in particular (e.g., Crossley & McNamara, 2014; Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Ortega, 2003).
Despite this interest there has also been dissatisfaction with the current measurement approaches that typically assess L2
writing through quantitative measures of lexical complexity, such as lexical density, and syntactic complexity, such as
amount of subordination. Pallotti (2009) and Ortega (2012) lament that complexity measures are often used and interpreted
in simplistic terms reduced to “the longer the better” and “the more the better” arguments. Norris and Ortega (2009) propose
that different complexity measures should be considered as more or less appropriate for investigating different acquisitional
levels and that one should use a combination of them to gain a more accurate insight into the phenomenon.
The findings have also been inconsistent. For example, in reviewing studies of complexity in L2 writing Norris and Ortega
(2009) and Ortega (2012) report that increases in subordination and the length of T-units, despite being the two most
popular measures of linguistic complexity, are indicative of only some levels in language development and in fact do not
capture the entire developmental span. Similarly, Bulté and Housen (2014) conclude from the results of the analysis of post-
secondary L2 written texts in the Michigan State University (MSU) corpus that subordination “may not be adequate to gauge

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Ryshina-Pankova).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.005
1060-3743/ ã 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
52 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

L2 complexity in all contexts under all circumstances” (p. 56) and may even be an inadequate measure of advanced learner
writing. And Pallotti (2009) cautions, assumptions that increase in subordination (or other complexity measures) signals
development are problematic, since complexity may reflect contextual factors and can be thus strongly related to situational
appropriateness and to the nature of genre and task.
The problem Pallotti (2009) indirectly points at is that complexity is studied as an ability to produce certain types of
language forms, divorced of considerations of meaningful content production and realization of communicative goals. For
example, why would one expect a large amount of subordination in a text type such as descriptions in the first place? The
communicative purpose of descriptions, whether administered as a lower-level or a higher-level proficiency task, is
primarily about the characterization of a person, object, or phenomenon, which is typically realized through the use of noun
phrases and their modification (e.g., special person, my childhood friend), rather than about temporal or causative relations
which are typically realized through subordinate clauses. This might explain why in descriptions L2 writers would prefer
noun elaboration as opposed to subordination in response to contextually-determined demands, while subordination might
still be a relevant indicator of progress when its use is analyzed in other genres. Indices of subordination or phrasal
elaboration not only signal performance at a certain level or progression towards greater complexity but are also more or less
likely to occur in specific genres or text types.
While the studies in this special issue successfully address some of the identified shortcomings in investigation of
complexity in L2 writing by using a combination of complexity measures (Lu & Ai, this volume; Vyatkina, Hirschmann, &
Golcher, this volume) and by relating complexity features to specific tasks (Adams, Newton, & Nik, this volume) and genres
(Mazgutova & Kormos, this volume), this article contributes to the research on L2 writing by offering an understanding of
linguistic complexity that focuses on the meaning dimension of complexity. This dimension has been missing from
traditional investigations of complexity and from the existing taxonomies of the construct. The current contribution thus
attempts to show empirically what is to be gained when a linguistic theory of meaning making, Systemic Functional
Linguistics, or SFL (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), is put to the task to characterize linguistic complexity as a reflection of
both development and communicative appropriateness. The proposal takes to its ultimate consequences the idea that
language use and development are motivated by the meaning-based, contextual, and communicative demands of the tasks
to which learners actively respond. What would be achieved with this change of perspective, and what would a meaning-
based approach to the measurement of complexity in L2 writing accomplish? I will argue that contextual aspects at the heart
of the meaning-making purposes associated with different genres might explain the variation found in syntactic and lexical
complexity in L2 production. Moreover, and in turn, curricular and pedagogic practices informed by a meaning-based
understanding of L2 complexity may have an impact on L2 learner written performance and writing development and by
implication on our approach to the analysis of complexity in L2 writing.
The article is organized as follows. I begin with a focus on nominalizations as a linguistic form recently identified as a
potentially significant indicator of complexity of advanced L2 writing. I then propose to view this feature of complexity in
meaning-oriented terms as a methodological move that can help clarify why it should be measured in the first place. To this
end, and in line with the SFL theory (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Ravelli, 2003), I suggest using the concept of grammatical
metaphor (GM), typically realized as nominalizations, as a construct that links linguistic complexity to discourse-semantic
complexity and helps capture complex meaning making in advanced L2 writer texts. The analysis of L2 writer textual
excerpts that follows illustrates precisely how GMs as nominalizations function as a tool for making complex meanings in
advanced literacy contexts. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of such an approach to complexity for L2 writing
research, for curriculum construction, and for pedagogy at different levels of language acquisition.

2. Complexity as complex meaning making through particular linguistic resources

Housen, Kuiken, and Vedder, (2012) define linguistic complexity in L2 writing as “formal or semantic-functional
properties of L2 elements” (p. 4). However, so far the majority of research studies on linguistic complexity have favored the
formal properties of complexity and operationalized this construct as grammatical and lexical complexity (Bulté & Housen,
2012). What appears to be missing from research is a focus on the discourse-semantic aspects of linguistic complexity
defined as a focus on the link between the complexity of linguistic forms and its function in construction of meaning
(semantics) in texts (discourse) at different levels of L2 abilities, an area of investigation that should be of particular interest
to L2 writing research and instruction. The formal and structural features of linguistic complexity on the one hand and the
discourse-semantic complexity on the other appear to be separated in the current elaborate taxonomy of complexity
constructs offered by Bulté and Housen (2012, p. 23). For example, while the discourse-interactional complexity (as the
number and type of turns in a dialogue) and propositional complexity (as the number of idea units) are part of the model, it is
not clear whether and how these constructs are related to the complexity of forms.
I propose that research on complexity in L2 writing can gain both theoretical and pedagogical insights by focusing on the
link between aspects of linguistic complexity and its discourse-semantic function of constructing particular types of
meanings in written texts. To illustrate such an approach to complexity, I explore the discourse-semantic properties of
nominalizations as linguistic forms that, in contrast to the common syntactic complexity measures of beginning and
intermediate L2 writer texts, have been suggested as signaling complexity in advanced written discourse associated with a
shift from a dynamic verb-based to a more complex noun-based style (Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010Ortega, 2012). Indeed, a
nominalized style has for quite some time been identified as one of the most salient features of advanced literacy discourses:
 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63 53

of the academy (e.g., Biber, 1988, 2006; Biber et al., 2011Wells, 1960), the disciplines (e.g., Charles, 2003), and the professions
(e.g., Guillen Galve, 1998). Research on nominalizations in academic and professional texts may thus shed new light on
linguistic complexity in advanced L2 writing. However, even though nominalization use may be a significant indicator of
linguistic complexity at more advanced levels of L2 writing in advanced literacy settings, two questions remain: first, why
one would focus specifically on nominalizations as signaling development of linguistic complexity and advancement
towards higher levels of literacy; and second, why one would expect L2 writers to shift towards the synoptic styles that
privilege nominality as they develop advanced academic literacies. In what follows, I argue that a meaning-based
conceptualization of complexity from an SFL perspective can address both of these questions.

2.1. Connecting nominalizations to semantic complexity

Nominalization refers to the process whereby adjectives, verbs or adverbs become nouns, through derivational
morphology (to discuss–discussion), agnation (to work–work) or a new lexical item (near–proximity). From a purely formal
perspective, nominalizations can be characterized as linguistically complex structures, although not necessarily so. For
example, nominalizations can be morphologically complex when they are formed through derivational suffixes but are
simple structures when formed through agnation (to play–play). Or while some nominalizations also indicate lexical
complexity understood as sophisticated vocabulary, not all nominalizations do (e.g., work derived from to work). A semantic
perspective is needed to understand why nominalizations play a central role as linguistic resources that enable construction
of complex arguments in advanced literacy discourse. Such semantic explanation is offered by the SFL grammar (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004), particularly through the construct of GM.
An appropriate understanding of the semantic concept of GM and its connection to nominalizations places it within the
nexus of linguistic forms, acts of meaning-making, and situational and cultural contexts. The SFL grammar does so by
presenting language as a hierarchically stratified system whose strata of context, content, and expression transform
experience into meaning (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin, 1997). The content stratum is split into two: one that has to
do with meanings (semantics) and the second one where meanings are transformed into lexicogrammar (Fig. 1).
A key feature of the stratification model is the type of relationship between the semantic stratum and the wordings or
lexicogrammar described in terms of realization. Realization refers to the idea that meanings and lexicogrammar do not
correspond to each other in a direct way, but rather through a system of various choices of wordings. For example, giving
commands can be realized through a variety of language means: imperatives, interrogatives or declarative statements. Some
realizations are considered typical or congruent realizations. For example, giving commands is typically realized by
imperatives (e.g., bring the book on Friday). Realizing a command by a declarative statement (e.g., I need the book on Friday) is
less congruent, as declaratives are typically used to give information, not to demand goods and services (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004). A move from more direct, typical, or congruent realizations of the meaning into wordings to more

Fig. 1. Stratified model of language (adapted on Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004, p. 25).
54 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

indirect, incongruent, and metaphorical construals of meanings can help understand complexity of linguistic forms in terms
of their semantic complexity.
Let me illustrate this point with an example. Consider the following sentences from an advanced L2 writer’s composition:

1) Because the hard-working Vietnamese parents demand that their children work hard in school and as helpers at home,
they stress their children out enormously as they are growing up.

The clauses in Excerpt 1 point to a situation in which Vietnamese parents are engaged in the processes of demanding that
their children work and thus stressing them out. This is considered a congruent construal of the situation because verbs for
actions, nouns for things or people and clauses for situations with participants and actions are typical for representing
experience “as it is”, in its flow. The grammatical categories used are directly related to the categories of our experience
resulting in a high degree of iconicity between the two (see Givon, 1988, on iconicity).
However, because the relationship between meanings and wordings is not one to one, other types of realizations of the
experiential situation that involves the Vietnamese and their children may be possible, as in the following example:

2.) The harsh demands of the hard-working Vietnamese parents on their children result in enormous pressure on the
Vietnamese students as they are growing up.

In Excerpt 2, from a semantic standpoint, the nouns demands and pressure both name the action (to demand, to put
pressure on) and stand for an entire situation that involves both the actions and the participants in it: Someone demands
something from someone else; someone exerts pressure on someone else. From the standpoint of grammar, instead of a
clause that typically realizes an experiential situation that includes participants and actions, there is a single nominal phrase
that subsumes both; from the perspective of a specific linguistic form, it is the nominalization that makes such a realization
possible.
To sum up, while nouns as a grammatical class typically and congruently realize people or things like in Excerpt 1, in
Excerpt 2 nominalization realizes an entire situation with people and their actions and thus construes experience in an
incongruent way. This “remapping between the semantics and grammar” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 640), a
realization where single elements as nominalizations metaphorically stand for an entire situation typically realized through
a clause rather than a phrase, is called a grammatical metaphor. It is ‘metaphorical’ because, like in a lexical metaphor, one
construct moves into the domain of another (i.e., a situation with several elements becomes one entity); and it is
‘grammatical’ because this process occurs in the grammar (not in the lexicon): one grammatical–semantic category (a
process that is typically realized through verbs) is realized through another grammatical category (nouns that typically
realize entities). Nominalizations that enable realizations of actions as entities but also of qualities and logical relationships
as entities are the most dominant forms of the phenomenon of GM (but not the only ones, see, for example, Halliday (1998)
and Halliday and Matthiessen (1999), on other realizations of GM). Table 1 presents the major types of nominalizations as
realizations of GM, whereby qualities, actions, and logical connections are being construed as things.

Table 1
From congruent to incongruent (GM) realizations of semantics through nominalizations.

Semantics Congruent realization Incongruent realization: GMs as nominalizations

Process Verb (e.g., move) Noun (e.g., motion)
Quality Adjective (e.g., distant) Noun (e.g., distance)
Logical relation Conjunction (e.g., because) Noun (e.g., reason)

At the same time, because GM is first and foremost a semantic concept that refers to the incongruity in realization, it
cannot be equaled with nominalizations. One and the same nominalized form can be seen as more or less metaphorical,
depending on the context of use. In the following two examples, the meaning of the nominalization assignment or
task/Aufgabe changes from more concrete, as homework tasks (Excerpt 3), to more grammatically metaphorical, as a duty
and obligation (Excerpt 4):

3) Sie haben doppelt so viel Schulaufgaben wie die anderen deutschen Schüler.

They have twice as many school tasks as the other German students.

4) Die Vietnamesischen Kinder fühlen sich vor ihren Eltern verpflichtet, in der Schule die besten Noten zu erhalten. Diese Aufgabe,
perfekt szu ein, die sie sich selbst geben, ist mit der konfuzianischen Tradition verbunden
The Vietnamese children feel obliged to get the best grades in school. This task (duty) to be perfect that they assign to
themselves is connected to the Confucian tradition.
 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63 55

And in (5), the abstract noun perspective/Perspektive is not a nominalized form where a linguistic trace to an original
process can be established. Yet, it can be considered a GM (see Ravelli, 2003; Schmid, 2000) because of its reconstruing
function: perspective/Perspektive stands for the Germans criticizing the Vietnamese (criticize/kritisieren):

5) Viele Deutsche kritisieren die vietnamesichen Eltern, die ihre Kinder unter einem ständigen Leistungsdruck erziehen. Wie kann
man diese deutsche Perspektive mit der Akzeptanz einer fremden Kultur in Einklang bringen?
Many Germans criticize the Vietnamese parents who bring up their children under constant pressure to succeed. How can
one reconcile this German perspective with the acceptance of a foreign culture?
Thus, the line between congruent and incongruent often has to be contextually determined. One way to overcome this
difficulty is to identify GM along a continuum from less metaphorical to more metaphorical.1

Returning to the issue of complexity, GMs as nominalizations can be seen as more semantically complex than other types
of wordings for two reasons. First, they signal a shift from “the primary semiotic construal of experience” (Halliday, 2003, p.
419) through language as a dynamic flow of experience to a new semiotic step of reconstruing it as stable ‘entities’ for
interpretation and reflection. Second, metaphorical structures are complex because their “semantic junction” (Halliday,
2003, p. 419) retains both meanings: the dynamic action (e.g., to demand) and the more abstract conceptual object (e.g.,
demands). This aspect allows one to see GMs under propositional complexity or informational density (see the taxonomy in
Bulté & Housen (2012), p. 23).
To elaborate on these two reasons, one can note this: When situations are construed in grammar as single elements
through nominalizations, the resulting metaphorical expressions can enter into new relations with other parts of the clause
in various ways: in terms of qualification, classification, measurement, causation, and ultimately interpretation of the world
around. Looked at from a semantic perspective, it is easier to quantify, measure, and qualify things or objects since they are
more or less stable as contrasted with processes that are transient. Therefore, nominalizations are not only more
semantically complex in and of themselves—they also allow additional semantic density to cluster around them. Looked at
from a grammar perspective, the nominal groups are more amenable to being modified by a variety of language structures
such as prepositional phrases, attributes, relative clauses, and appositions. Thus, nominalizations function as attractors of
structural complexity, as well. This potential of nouns to accumulate meanings and stretch syntactically and semantically
stands in contrast to the lesser potential for modification of the verbal group that occurs lexically primarily through
circumstances associated with the action and grammatically mostly on the temporal dimension (tense and aspect).
In Excerpt 2, the action of parental demanding is turned into plural objects the demands and evaluated prenominally with
an attributive adjective (harsh) and postnominally with a prepositional phrase (of the hard-working Vietnamese parents). But
there is yet another opportunity for meaning expansion. In the clause structure, nominalizations that themselves refer to
actions become “participants” in further actions. In (2), the meaning of the demands is further expanded causatively into
enormous pressures that the demands lead to. In other words, Excerpt 2 allows for a different and new way of connecting these
experiences, whereby one phenomenon (Vietnamese demand) is understood in terms of the other (students experience
pressure).
One might question the idea that GMs in the form of nominalizations lead to a form of meaning expansion and object by
saying that the same meanings can be expressed without GM and the use of nominalizations. Comparing Excerpts 1 and 2,
the expansion of meaning in Excerpt 2 occurs because it juxtaposes the two processes within one clause as a complete
information unit, whereas Excerpt 1 uses 3 clauses and 3 informational units.2 Furthermore, in Excerpt 2, construal of the
processes in the life of the Vietnamese as demands and pressures that appear in a cause–effect relationship allows one to
categorize and theorize about the Vietnamese experience in terms of these overarching concepts and thus also potentially to
use these abstract categories to juxtapose the Vietnamese experience to that of other migrants and non-migrants. In
contrast, foregrounding the Vietnamese parents and Vietnamese students, Excerpt 1 stays at the specific level of the events in
the life of the Vietnamese. In other words, even if Excerpt 1 parallels the logical connection evident in the incongruent
Excerpt 2 and links the two processes congruently through a conjunction of cause (because), it does not elevate the events in
the life of this migrant group to more abstract categories that would be necessary for further understanding and reflecting on
the Vietnamese experience and relating it to circumstances in the life of other members of the society.
To conclude, the type of compact abstract meaning making that GMs as nominalizations enable, as in Excerpt 2, is not
intrinsically better than more concrete and iconic representations of experience through language, as in Excerpt 1. However,
the abstracting and theorizing made possible through the use of GMs are necessary to fulfill the communicative purposes of
particular situations. It is to these considerations that are task-related and contextual in nature that we turn next.

1
On transcategorizations, ‘faded’ or ‘dead’ metaphors, nominal clauses, and other precursors of GM see also Derewianka (2003), Painter (2003), and Torr
and Simpson, 2003 for first language contexts and Byrnes (2014b) and Ryshina-Pankova (2010) for second language contexts.
2
The clause as they are growing up was not counted in either (1) or (2) as it does not relate to the two primary processes of demanding and stressing out.
56 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

2.2. Connecting nominalizations to the complexity of communicative demands in tasks typical of advanced literacy contexts

What motivates the use of GM realized in nominalizations? Or, more pointedly, when is GM appropriate and when would
one expect L2 writers to use it? In other words, discourse-semantic complexity and, in turn, formal-structural complexity
need to be investigated in relation to task complexity. While task complexity has been primarily defined in terms of cognitive
processing issues (Robinson, 2011), I would argue for a different view of the construct where task complexity would be
understood in terms of the complexity of communicative demands typical of certain contexts, and in terms of ideational,
interpersonal, and textual meanings along with their lexicogrammatical realizations associated with these contexts (Byrnes,
2014a). To understand complexity in terms of more complex communicative demands we first need to consider specific
contextual aspects that impact the meanings that can potentially be made in a particular situation and the realization of
these meanings through language. In the SFL model (Fig. 1), these contextual aspects include genre, as a purposeful and step-
by-step or staged unfolding of verbal action, and register as the configuration of the situational variables (Martin, 1997). The
latter include field as nature of social activity and subject matter that correlates with the semantics of ideational meanings,
tenor or relationships between the participants that correlates with interpersonal meanings, and mode as role of language
in construing field and tenor textually. It has been suggested (Eggins, 2004; Martin, 1984) that it is the aspect of distance in
the contextual variables of field and tenor that has an impact on semantic complexity and complexity of language use.
The distance in field refers to the distance between language and the social process or activity participants are engaged in.
At one end of the continuum, language accompanies social activity and itself is a kind of action, like, for example, in cooking
or playing a game of cards. At the other end, there is no other activity but the one in which language constitutes the social
process, that of reflection, and this occurs, for example, when one is writing an article. While in the first case language
depends largely on the context of situation, it creates this context through text in the second one. The distance in tenor refers
to the spatial distance between the participants, as well as the distance in their relationships. On the one end, interaction
occurs among several participants, with the possibility of immediate feedback and with interactants knowing each other
well. On the other end, monologic communication is addressed at potential non-intimates who are not in close and frequent
contact and cannot provide immediate feedback.
The degree of distance in field and distance in tenor impacts complexity on the semantic and lexicogrammatical levels,
with greater distance leading to an increase in semantic complexity and lexicogrammar. Situations characterized by lesser
distance between lived experience and language as well as lesser distance between participants in discourse are ideationally
and interpersonally less complex and construed in language congruently: concrete people or entities are realized through
nouns or pronouns and dynamic processes as verbs connected to each other sequentially, more or less as they happen in real
life. By contrast, situations characterized by a greater distance between experience and language as well as greater distance
between participants in discourse, where language is used to reflect on something that is abstracted from the particular time
and space, are ideationally and interpersonally more complex. This complexity is construed through incongruous language
forms such as GMs that subsume and generalize over specific processes and participants, and that enter into new
relationships with other abstract entities through elaborate rhetorical (i.e., causal, evaluative and non-iconic) configurations.
As explained above, these entities that help objectify experience for reflection are GMs. Overall, from the linguistic
perspective, Halliday (1993) has characterized this move towards greater distance between situation and language as a shift
from more congruent dynamic, verb- and clause-dominated, to the more metaphorical synoptic, noun-dominated language
use.
Situations characterized by lesser distance are typically associated with spoken language use, where language is itself a
type of action, and the ones with the greater distance with written language use, where language is used for reflection.
However, what one might want to highlight to explain the shift towards incongruent/metaphorical language use is not the
communication channel (oral/written) by itself, but rather the aspects of field and tenor in combination with the
communicative purpose of the verbal activity or genre. For example, semantic complexity realized through synoptic and
GM-dominated language use might not be as prominent in written narratives that display more similarities with spoken
discourse than some other written genres (see, for example, Tannen, 1982). In other words, the increase in discourse-
semantic complexity and in linguistic complexity that results from it can be expected to occur along both the register (field,
tenor, and mode) and genre (as communicative purpose realized through a staged structure) variables.
Combining both considerations we can then conclude this: Discourse-semantic and the ensuing linguistic complexity are
most manifest in contexts where communication centers on interpreting and arguing about non-common-sense subject
matter with non-intimate participants and in a written mode, and thus is typical of academic, institutional, and professional
settings. Under the pressure of meeting the complexity of the communicative tasks characteristic of these settings, GMs in
the form of nominalizations are instrumental for producing theoretical, impersonal, and argumentative meanings. In the
next section we turn to such an ideationally and interpersonally complex task, a composition produced by one advanced L2
writer, to further illustrate how GMs function to fulfill the complex communicative needs of this task.

3. Complex meaning making through GMs in an advanced learner text

If GMs as nominalizations emerge at the juncture between context and discourse-semantics, investigation of complexity
in language use requires a careful selection of genres and tasks for the analysis where complexity is expected to be necessary
and appropriate. In other words, the use of complex features in L2 writer texts is contingent on the communicative necessity
 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63 57

and typicality of such use determined by the genre and register settings of the task. Whereas previous studies have
demonstrated ways in which GMs are a central means of constructing texts in advanced literacy settings in terms of
contributing to their textuality (cohesion and coherence) as well as objective and interpersonal nature (e.g., Byrnes, 2009;
Colombi, 2006; Ravelli, 2004; Ryshina-Pankova, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2004a,b, 2006), here I focus on GM use in an L2 writer
text specifically from the perspective of complex meaning making that is enabled by this feature.
My example comes from a text produced by an L2 writer of German in response to a task that was administered within a
thematic unit on multiculturalism, at the end of an advanced level university course (after 255 credit hours of instruction).
The task asked students to write a magazine article where they had to explain a particular aspect of the life of the Vietnamese
migrants in Germany (see task description in the Supplement). From the perspective of genre and situational context,
complex language use in this task is motivated because learners engage with non-trivial content (problems of migration) and
ideational meanings that have to be shaped as a written explanation of a phenomenon (its description, causes, consequences,
and significance). The task is also complex with regard to interpersonal meanings as it is intended as communication in a
public journal that addresses non-intimates. All these contextual demands necessitate a reflective and synoptic language
mode in which GM can be expected to play a crucial role.
The analysis of learner texts written in response to this task conducted elsewhere (Ryshina-Pankova & Byrnes, 2013) leads
one to describe this role in terms of two functions that are instrumental for addressing the complexity demands of the task of
explaining a phenomenon: conceptual refiguration of experience and configuration or development of concepts in texts.
Conceptual refiguration refers to the potential of GM to generalize over and abstract from individual experiences, evaluate
them, and point to their significance that extends beyond specific contexts. Thus through conceptual refiguration writers
meet the ideational and generic complexity of the explanation task that asks for an interpretative presentation of the various
occurrences in the life stories of the Vietnamese under an overarching aspect(s) that can help relate these occurrences to
each other. The following Excerpts 6, 7, 8, each from a high-rated3 learner text (see an abridged version of the essay in the
Appendix) drawn from the same cohort, illustrates how this L2 writer interprets the circumstances of the Vietnamese life in
terms of three different GMs, child labor/Kinderarbeit, family duties/Familienphflichten and industriousness/Fleißigkeit, as
central issues of this migrants’ experience:

6) Die Mehrheit von Deutscher kennen Kinder wie Huyen nicht. Wenn sie ihr aber kennen lernen, erfahren sie nicht nur von ihrer
Gesamtschule und Studien, sondern auch, dass die 16-jährige “Verkäuferin” am Wochenende und in den Ferien Blumen im
Blumenladen ihrer Eltern verkauft. Als Kinderarbeit sieht sie es nicht;
The majority of Germans do not know children like Huyen. If they however get to know her, they learn not only about her
school and studies, but also that this 16-year old salesgirl sells flowers in the flower shop of her parents on week-ends and
holidays. As child labor she does not see it;

In Excerpt 6, GM child labor/Kinderarbeit reconstrues specific actions of the Vietnamese girl Huyen in terms of an abstract
concept that points beyond the particular situation of the Vietnamese migrants. Not only does the use of GM help connect
the various levels of meaning, dynamic and synoptic views of the happenings, and generalize over discrete actions, it also
enables the writer to expand the meaning-making by presenting a potential evaluative stance on these processes: child
labor/Kinderarbeit is a negative term. The next concrete example of the Vietnamese experience, Excerpt 7, the story of another
Vietnamese girl Titi, is connected to the first one (Huyen) through construing the specific work of Titi in terms of the GM
familial obligations/Familienpflichten, also related to the concept of child work:

7) Titi hat aber auch Familienpflichten, genause wie Huyen. Weil ihre Mutter als Sozialarbeiterin in einem Projekt für
vientamesische Frauen arbeitet, hilft sie ihrer Mutter oft bei der Arbeit mit den Kindern...
Titi also has familial obligations, just like Huyen. Because her mother works as a social worker in a project for the
Vietnamese women, she often helps her mother with child care...

The third story, Excerpt 8, that of Dung, again abstracts from the experiences of this Vietnamese and construes them in
terms of industriousness or hard work in school/Fleissigkeit (Fleiss) in der Schule that functions as an extension of work for the
family in general:

8) Obwohl (während) die Vietnamesenkinder in Deutschland fleißiger Helfer wegen der Familieneinkommens sind, das beste
Beispiel für die Fleißigkeit der Vietnamesenkinder kann man nur hinsichtlich der Schule erfahren. ... Der Vietnameser Dung Van
Nguyen repräsentiert diese Realität ganz gut.
Although Vietnamese children in Germany are hardworking contributors to the family economy, one could see the best
example for their industriousness in their work at school. . . . The Vietnamese student Dung Van Nguyen is a striking
example of that. . . .

3
As described in Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes (2013), learner compositions were rated with a help of a holistic rubric by 4 raters (instructors in the
program). Ratings were justified in separate comments and discrepancies in ratings were resolved.
 58 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

At the end of the essay, these three examples of the pressure on the children to work, either as helpers at home, at their
parents’ jobs, or at school are further assessed with the help of GMs: evaluated as problematic (problem/Problem) and
explained in terms of the traditions of the Vietnamese culture (traditions like “respect for the elders”/Traditionen wie “der
Respekt vor den Älteren”) in Excerpt 9.

9) Hinsichtlich der Kinderarbeit, sieht man das Problem ganz klar. Ueber 3.000 Vietnamesen wohnen jetzt im Bezirk Lichtenberg
und haben Traditionen wie“ der Respekt vor den Älteren” aus Vietnam mitgebracht.
With regard to child work, the problem is very clear. Monika Kunkel, a social worker in the Licthtenberg Youth Office
knows this issue well. Over 3000 Vietnamese live now in the Lichtenberg district and have brought with them such
traditions as “respect for the elders.”

Thus, GMs in this essay function as key elements in its conceptual framework, with child work as the superordinate
category. GMs determine the text’s perspective and, therefore, the way the writer responds to the challenge and complexity
of the task and its communicative goal of describing and explaining some aspects of the overall experience of the Vietnamese
as migrants in Germany.
The second function of GM, configuration of concepts in texts, refers to the creation of links between the concepts. The
configuration function contributes to textual complexity: to the coherent and logical unfolding of ideational meanings in
text. In Excerpt 6, GM helps to connect ideas between adjacent clauses, whereby child labor/Kinderarbeit classifies and
evaluates the work of Huyen as a salesgirl. In Excerpt 7, GM helps to move the discussion forward in a new paragraph and
connect the story of Huyen to that of Titi through restating the issue of child work as familial obligations/Familienphflichten.
Excerpt 8 further introduces a new facet in the concept of work through GM industriousness at school/Fleissigkeit in der Schule,
thus adding a third story to the text, that of Dung. And finally, in Excerpt 9, GM problem/Problem4 signals a shift to evaluation
of the phenomenon helping to recreate a typical structure of the explanation genre by introducing the final evaluation stage.
Thus, GM functions as a powerful instrument for local cohesion within a paragraph (as in Excerpt 6) as well as for global
coherence across paragraphs (as in Examples 7, 8, 9) both within a particular textual stage (e.g., exploration of the
phenomenon through its various aspects: child labor, family obligations, industriousness at school) and across stages (from
description to evaluation, as in Example 9). To conclude, a focus on GM can be instrumental in the analysis of the complexity
of advanced L2 writing as it can reveal how writers address the task challenges of construing experience as abstract concepts
and configuring these concepts into a particular line of reasoning in explanatory and argumentative texts.

4. Implications for L2 writing research

A meaning-based theorization of complexity in L2 writing, here with a particular focus on GMs realized as
nominalizations, raises important questions for future research in at least four areas.
First, a meaning-based approach to complexity would entail redrawing the theoretical taxonomy of complexity
constructs (Bulté & Housen, 2012) into a model that would situate complexity of language forms not by presenting it as
parallel to discourse or propositional complexity but rather by foregrounding the links among formal complexity (e.g.,
lexical, syntactic), semantic complexity (e.g., concrete vs. abstract; congruent vs. incongruent), and contextual complexity
(e.g., written recount for a friend vs. written argumentation for professional audience).
Second, at the methodological level, if the use of particular linguistic resources is seen as driven by a task’s
communicative demands, then an investigation of complexity must start with the analysis of the genre and situational
context of the tasks that an L2 writer must complete. Importantly, this analysis involves not only a familiar focus on the
organizational structure or text type (i.e., narrative, argumentation) but also on other variables like subject matter (field) and
type of audience (tenor) which either decrease or increase the need for and type of linguistic complexity (e.g., subordination
vs. phrasal elaboration).
For example, the investigation of complexity in the MSU corpus, mentioned in the introduction to this paper, might
benefit from a focus on such considerations in the following way. The text type of description that was analyzed in these
studies most likely exhibits a different degree of complexity depending on whether one describes one’s personal friend to
other friends or, in a different scenario, a political or social problem. In terms of the field variable, description of a friend and
description of a problem will most likely differ in complexity, as the second description relates to general and abstract (as
opposed to specific) participants and entities and a much greater variety of relations and processes. The tenor aspect could
also potentially play a role, as we often perform these different types of description for different types of audiences.
In other words, it is the communicative purpose of the genre, the subject matter, and the type of audience, in combination
with their typical or recurrent linguistic realizations in the target culture, that should be taken into consideration at various
points in an L2 complexity investigation, both when assessing learner performance and identifying learning trajectories.
These contextual considerations would be important for L2 writing research in three areas: in designing L2 writing tasks for
investigation of complexity as tasks that provide learners with an opportunity for meaningful, purposeful, and

4
Abstract words like problem/Problem were coded in this data analysis as GM; see the section on Connecting nominalizations to semantic complexity for an
additional comment on this coding decision.
 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63 59

contextualized engagement; in determining what can be considered successful fulfillment of the task, that is its quality or
communicative appropriateness; and in analyzing how linguistic complexity is likely to contribute to this success. This latter
aspect may potentially require that researchers analyze the typical occurrence and function of linguistic complexity in the
genres of the target culture (for example, as in Biber, Gray, & Poonpon, 2011).
Third, a meaning-based approach to complexity, as incongruent semiosis, has important implications for coding learner
data. As pointed out earlier, because identification of GM as a semantic construct is context-dependent and the line between
congruent and incongruent is not always clear, GMs can be challenging to code. This means that coding criteria have to be
thoroughly specified and coding cannot be automatized, as the environment in which GMs occur is important.
And finally, a meaning lens on complexity as indexed by GM use requires researchers to maintain a balance between
quantitative and qualitative aspects of research on complexity. Quantitative investigations have been useful in
demonstrating GM as a marker of progression towards more complex meaning making both in the first language (L1)
discourse (e.g., Derewianka, 1995; Halliday, 1993, 2003; Halliday and Mathiessen, 2004; Painter, 2003) and in second
language (L2) writing across developmental levels (e.g., Byrnes, 2009, 2014b; Ryshina-Pankova, 2010). At the same time,
qualitative studies can reveal precisely how GM contributes to complex meaning making in a variety of genres. Furthermore,
if one way to study complexity is by considering its communicative appropriateness in texts, quantitative results that
describe performance are not always helpful in differentiating between the quality and communicative success of the essays,
especially if they are produced within one task by learners at the same level.
This is confirmed, for example, in the study by Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes (2013). This investigation showed that, once a
certain use threshold has been reached, the quality of the essays (defined as high, mid and low as a result of the content-
oriented rating process based on the detailed holistic rubrics) did not depend on the quantity of GMs used but on their
strategic placement in the compositional texture. A similar conclusion is reached by Liardét (2013) who points out that the
increase in the quantity of GM between the first and the fourth curricular levels in her cross-sectional study of already
advanced Chinese learners of English did not necessarily result in the expansion of academically valued meanings: “although
experiential metaphors (i.e., GMs) were the most widely deployed metaphorical resource across the two levels that were
compared in this study, their potential for organizing the text and building the arguments through anaphoric reconstrual and
elaborated nominal groups remains to be reached by these writers” (p. 176, my insertion).
Overall, ample research conducted for various textual genres and across different contexts of language use illustrates the
significance of GM for complex meaning making at advanced and highly advanced proficiency levels (in L1: Christie &
Derewianka, 2008; Drury, 1991; Ravelli, 2004; in L2: Schleppegrell, 2004b, 2006; in heritage learner texts: Achugar &
Colombi, 2008; Colombi, 2006; in foreign language texts: Byrnes, 2011; Chen & Foley, 2004; Liardét, 2013; Ryshina-Pankova,
2006; Ryshina-Pankova & Byrnes, 2013). However, in light of the considerable amount of time GM development takes,
longitudinal investigations are rare and a majority of findings about the use of GM are concerned with the description of
performance at a particular time. More longitudinal studies, qualitative and quantitative, and particularly at more advanced
developmental levels, would clarify what use of GM distinguishes the various levels of advanced performance in various
tasks. Ideally, the emergence, development, and use of complex semiosis enabled through GM would be researched within
the framework of a coherent language program where progression in complexity is clearly conceptualized across curricular
levels and implemented through specific instructional practices. The next section briefly outlines what such curricular
trajectories and pedagogical practices might be.

5. Implications for curricular and pedagogical practice

Fostering development of complexity in L2 writing is unlikely to be effective if it takes the form of instruction that focuses
purely on linguistic forms —“use more subordinate clauses to make your writing complex”— in individual courses. Rather, it
would necessitate a well-articulated curriculum that engages learners across a long-term instructional sequence in a variety
of contexts and tasks within them, where aspects of linguistic complexity are presented to the students as motivated by
particular communicative demands of the tasks representing these contexts. Increasing distance in field and tenor, as well as
implementing the concurrent shift in genres, from the ones with the communicative purpose of relating experience towards
the ones interpreting it, can help educators sequence the genres of materials for reading and oral discussion from less to
more complex. Learner writing tasks that would be based on the genres (see Byrnes, Crane, Maxim, & Sprang, 2006) would
follow a similar progression (e.g., having students read, analyze, and discuss a recount serves the basis for learner written
production in a similar genre).
In particular, in such a curriculum the increase in complexity of genres and writing tasks can be conceptualized as a
gradual trajectory from genres more congruent with reality and thus less complex to the ones that are more removed from
the immediate experience and reflective of it and thus more complex. To specify further, this gradual continuum from less to
more complex can be built along the following axes: from a focus on concrete, personal every-day activities to a focus on
abstract, discipline- or domain-specific construction of knowledge; from explicitly dialogic and interactive to implicitly
dialogic genres; and finally, from narrative genres to more interpretative, explanatory, expository, and ultimately
argumentative genres (see Byrnes and Sprang, 2004; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Crane, 2006; Ryshina-Pankova, 2013 for
a detailed discussion on the possible implementation of such sequencing in a curriculum). While the complexity of these
latter genres is realized through nominalized language use, the language of texts written in these genres does not have to be
entirely noun-based. Rather, these texts can incorporate elements of simpler genres (e.g., arguments often include narrative
60 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

parts) and alternate between more dynamic verb-based and more static noun-based language use, with synoptic forms
organizing the text on the global level (as evident from the learner text in the Appendix).
Pedagogically, complex meaning-making in writing, specifically through the use of GM that enables refiguration of
experience and configuration of concepts textually can be developed in various ways depending on the level of instruction
and genre of the writing task. At the introductory level, use of GM should not necessarily be seen as a tool for developing
writing, but rather as a conceptual tool to represent experience, in a way that is more typical of the reflective written genres.
For example, nominalized terms can be used to enhance learning by helping students organize vocabulary into meaningful
categories (e.g., learning the simple expressions of feelings by dividing them into physical and mental conditions/körperliche
und geistige Verfassung, see the Supplement). At the intermediate level, where the focus typically shifts from every-day life
and personal experiences towards thematic areas representing a particular foreign culture, GMs as nominalized processes as
well as other abstract terms and generalizations can scaffold an exploration of relevant topics and thus serve as rubrics for
development of ideas for written reflection on these themes (e.g., using nominalizations for the key terms/categories in a
semantic map within the topic of home/Heimat as preparation for a reflective essay, see the Supplement).
But it is particularly at the advanced level that GM, with its conceptual refiguration and textual configuration capacities,
becomes increasingly important, as L2 writers have to meet the challenges of producing more complex reflective or
interpretative writing, in such macro-genres as explanation and argumentation. Close analysis of model texts with regard to
this role of GM can help learners understand how GMs function as signposts connecting more abstract meanings across
paragraphs through the various logical relations.
The pedagogical focus on GM in the form of nominalization can be instrumental for teaching yet another complex macro-
genre at the advanced level, that of summaries, with summarization being a crucial academic literacy ability necessary for
knowledge recontextualization for one’s own communicative purposes. Instruction on summary writing can focus on the
use of GM as a powerful tool for condensing information (see more on this function of GMs in summaries in Byrnes, 2011;
Drury, 1991; Hood, 2008). But even more importantly, a focus on the conceptual refiguration function of GM can help see the
act of summarizing in more meaningful terms, beyond treating a summary as formal rewording through nominalized forms
for the purpose of reduction of the original text. Along with enabling condensation of meanings in a summary, GMs can be
shown to facilitate interpretation of content of the original text through classification and composition (Hood, 2008) and
evaluation (Charles, 2003; Schmid, 2000; see the Supplement for examples).
To summarize, these pedagogical strategies aim to expand learner understanding of the various functions of GM across
different contexts and explicitly teach the potential of GM as a resource to construct and reconstruct knowledge and evaluate
experience. Once the functional aspects of GM use have been foregrounded, detailed linguistic work (especially in inflection-
rich languages) will be necessary to scaffold the learning of the grammar surrounding the use of GMs, which includes not
only morphological derivation rules (e.g., ambitious-ness), but also ways to modify GMs by means of adjectives, extended
attributes (e.g., under adverse conditions), relative pronouns (e.g., power of culture, whose ambitiousness), genitive
prepositional phrases (e.g., school success of the Vietnamese), idiomatic combination of nominalizations with specific verbs
(e.g., to corroborate a claim), and the syntactic positioning of GM in clauses (tendency to occupy the beginning or ending
position in a clause; fronting of nominalized clauses).

6. Conclusion

In this contribution to the special issue on complexity, I have made a case for an approach to investigating L2 complexity
in writing that prioritizes the meaning of complex forms rather than form itself. I argued that the focus on meaning is
inseparable from the functions complexity serves in various contexts of human verbal interaction. I used the SFL theory of
language to demonstrate how connections between meanings, wordings, and contexts can be made systematically. In line
with other SFL-inspired investigations, I chose the concept of GM as a crucial construct that helps understand one type of
complexity in semantic and context-related terms. Focusing on the realization of GM in nominalizations, I illustrated how
GM makes learner discourse complex by enabling language users to refigure experiences and connect these refigurations
through particular patterns in texts. While investigation of GM cannot be the sole way of measuring complexity, it is a
felicitous construct for capturing complexity in language and content at the more advanced levels of language development.
Prioritizing a meaning lens on L2 writing assessment can turn the abstract notion of complexity into contextualized
notion of “useful complexity” that can become relevant for L2 curriculum and pedagogy. After all, the interest in researching
complexity has probably emerged in response to the challenges that complexity poses for language educators. To
demonstrate the relevance and value of the GM construct for programmatic and instructional purposes the article
commented briefly on a curricular progression and made suggestions for pedagogical activities around GM. These aimed to
show that complexity in the form of GM is best understood when linked to its function in constructing educational
knowledge through classification, abstraction, condensation, and movement between various levels of meanings within text
development patterns typical of various genres. Ultimately, such an approach to complexity in writing is yet another reason
to see L2 writing not only as fostering the learning of the foreign language but, on a deeper level, as contributing to the
construction of academic knowledge in a variety of subject areas.
 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63 61

Appendix.

Learner Essay (abridged) and translated from German

GMs that organize the entire essay are in bold and italics
Other key GMs are in bold
Vietnamesen in Deutschland: zu fleißig?
...Die Mehrheit von Deutscher kennen Kinder wie Huyen nicht. Wenn sie ihr aber kennen lernen, erfahren sie nicht nur
von ihrer Gesamtschule und Studien sondern auch, dass die 16 jährige “Verkäuferin” am Wochenende und in den Ferien
Blumen im Blumenladen ihrer Eltern verkauft. Als Kinderarbeit sieht sie es aber nicht; es steht einfach als einen Teil ihres
Lebens ...Sie behauptet, “Ich kann doch im Urlaub nicht faulenzen, während meine Eltern die schwere Arbeit machen.” Diese
Mentalität ist nicht typisch Deutsch, aber es scheint als ob, die Beziehung zwischen Huyen und ihrer Eltern trotzdem
funktioniert.
Huyen und ihrer Familie sind nach Deutschland gekommen genauso wie viele andere Vietnamesen nach der Wende...
Titis Van Ngos kam zum Beispiel 1988 auch zu Berlin weil ein Elternteil als Vertragsarbeiter in der DDR arbeitete. Ähnlich
wie die Familie von Huyen, wollte sie immer in Deutschland bleiben und beantragte Titis Mutter eine unbefristete
Aufenthaltsgenehmigung...Titi erlebte die Wende...Sie bemerkte aber auch direkt eine demokratische Gesellschaft. Sie
meinte, dass man diskutiere bis zum “Geht-nicht-mehr” und könne alles sagen was man wolle. Im Vergleich zu älteren
Vietnamesen findet sie diese öffentliche Aussicht ganz ansprechend weil sie erzählt, dass die Mehrheit von ältere
Vietnamesen Meinungen habe, die sie überhaupt nicht vertrete. Man entdeckt hier eine wichtige Unterschied zwischen
Huyen und Titi, nämlich dass, sie hat den Mut und die Anregung eine verscheidene Meinung als die Ältere zu sein.
Titi hat aber auf Familienpflichten, genauso wie Huyen. Weil ihre Mutter als Sozialarbeiterin in einem Projekt für
vietnamesische Frauen arbeitet, hilft sie ihre Mutter oft bei der Kinderarbeit. ...
Obwohl die Vietnamesenkinder in Deutschland fleißiger Helfer wegen der Familieneinkommens sind, das beste Beispiel
für die Fleißigkeit der Vietnamesenkinder kann man nur hinsichtlich der Schule erfahren. Keine andere Einwanderergruppe
in Deutschland ist so erfolgreich in der Schule als die Vietnamesen... Der Vietnameser, Dung Van Nguyen, repräsentiert diese
Realität ganz gut. ...
Hinsichtlich der Kinderarbeit, sieht man das Problem ganz klar. Als Sozialarbeiterin im Lichtenberger Jugendamt kennt
Monika Kunkel diese Situation. Über 3.000 Vietnamesen wohnen jetzt im Bezirk Lichtenberg und haben Traditionen wie
“der Respekt vor den Älteren” aus Vietnam mitgebracht. Kunkel meint, dass es in Vietnam eine Selbstverständlichkeit sei,
dass Kinder sich ihren Eltern unterordnen würden. Sie erzählt auch, “Noch schwieriger ist es bei Kindern, die hier geboren
und in der Kita sozialisiert wurden, weil sich die Eltern zu wenig mit ihnen beschäftigen, stehen sie den Anforderungen und
Wertvorstellungen ihrer Kinder völlig verständnislos gegenüber.” Vielleicht ist das der Grund, weshalb berichtet, “Immer
wieder kommen solche Jugendlichen ganz allein ins Jugendamt und sagen, wie wollten nicht mehr bei den Eltern leben. Ich
soll sie in einem Kinderheim unterbringen.” Das Recht auf Kindheit und Jugend ist ungewöhnlich in der Kultur der
Vietnamesen; Deutschland strebt jetzt um diese Realität zu ändern...
Vietnamese in Germany: Too hard-working?
. . . The majority of Germans do not know children like Huyen. If they however get to know her, they learn not only about
her school and studies, but also that this 16-year old salesgirl sells flowers in the flower shop of her parents on week-ends and
holidays. As child labor she does not see it, but rather as simply a part of life. She insists, “I can’t just spend my vacations
relaxing while my parents are working hard.” This mentality is atypical of Germans, but it seems as though Huyen and her
parents have a healthy relationship.
Huyen and her family immigrated to Germany just as many other Vietnamese did after German reunification . . .
Titi Van Ngos, too, arrived in Berlin in 1988 while one of her parents worked as a contractor in the GDR. Just like Huyen’s
family, she always wanted to remain in Germany and so Titi’s mother applied for permanent residence . . . Titi lived through
reunification . . . and observed a democratic society. She saw that people discussed any issue they wanted and said
whatever they wanted. In contrast to the older Vietnamese, she finds this more public outlook very appealing because she
says that the opinions of most older Vietnamese are not representative of her own views. Here we see an important
difference between Huyen and Titi: the latter has the drive and courage to defy parents’ opinions.
Titi does, however, have familial obligations. Because her mother works as a social worker in a project for the Vietnamese
women, she helps her mother with child care...
Although Vietnamese children in Germany are hardworking contributors to the family economy, one could see the best
example for theirindustriousness (in their work) at school. . . .
The Vietnamese student Dung Van Nguyen is a striking example of that. . . .
With regard to child work, the problem is very clear. Monika Kunkel, a social worker in the Licthtenberg Youth Office
knows this issue well. Over 3000 Vietnamese now live in the Lichtenberg district and brought with them such traditions as
“respect for the elders.” She says that it is taken for granted (nominalization in German: Selbstverständlichkeit) in Vietnam
that children are subservient to their parents. “It’s even more difficult for children who were born here and grew up among
others in day care, because their parents are less involved in their lives. The parents must confront the unfamiliar challenges
and values of their children.” Perhaps that is the reason why children reportedly “come to the Youth Office alone, asking if
62 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63

they could live apart from their parents. I then have to place them in a children’s shelter.” The right to youth and childhood
is uncommon in Vietnamese culture; Germany is trying to change this situation . . .

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jslw.2015.06.005.

References

Achugar, M., & Colombi, M. C. (2008). Systemic functional linguistic explorations into the longitudinal study of advanced capacities: The case of spanish
heritage language learners. In L. Ortega, & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 36–57). London: Routledge.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?
TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and
proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.
Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20,
50–66.
Byrnes, H. (2011). Beyond writing as language learning or content learning. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional
language (pp. 133–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrnes, H. (2014a). Theorizing language development at the intersection of ‘task’ and L2 writing: Reconsidering complexity. In H. Byrnes, & R.M. Manchón
(Eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 79–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrnes, H. (2014b). Linking task and writing for language development: Evidence from a genre- based curricular approach. In H. Byrnes, & R.M. Manchón
(Eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 237–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrnes, H., & Sprang, K. A. (2004). Fostering advanced L2 literacy: A genre-based, cognitive approach. In H. Byrnes, & H.H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced foreign
language learning: A challenge to college programs (pp. 47–85). Boston: Heinle.
Byrnes, H., Crane, C., Maxim, H., & Sprang, K. (2006). Taking text to task: Issues and choices. In curriculum construction. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 152, 85–110.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design,
pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94(Suppl s-1) .
Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery... ’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313–326.
Chen, Y., & Foley, J. A. (2004). Problems with the metaphorical reconstrual of meaning in chinese EFL learners’ expositions. In L.J. Ravelli, & R.A. Ellis (Eds.),
Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 190–209). London: Continuum.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.
Colombi, C. M. (2006). Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in latino students in spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language
learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147–163). London: Continuum.
Crane, C. (2006). Modelling a genre-based foreign language curriculum: Staging advanced L2 learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The
contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 227–245). London: Continuum.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2
learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79.
Derewianka, B. (1995). Language development in the transition from childhood to adolescence: The role of grammatical metaphor. Unpublished dissertation.
Macquarie University: Sydney.
Derewianka, B. (2003). Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence. In A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical
metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 185–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Drury, H. (1991). The use of systemic linguistics to describe student summaries at university level. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics:
Approaches and uses (pp. 431–445). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics, second edition London: Continuum.
Givon, T. (1988). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guillen Galve, I. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalizations occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics,
30, 363–385.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J.R. Martin, & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical
and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–235). London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On language and linguistics. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic contexts: Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education, 19, 351–365.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder
(Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liardét, C. L. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 22, 161–178.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader (pp. 21–29). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie, & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions. Social processes in the workplace and
school (pp. 3–39). London: Cassell.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics,
24, 492–518.
Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In B. Kortmann, & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic complexity.
Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Painter, C. (2003). The use of a metaphorical mode of meaning in early language development. In A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L.J. Ravelli
(Eds.), Gramamtical Metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 151–167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 M. Ryshina-Pankova / Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (2015) 51–63 63

Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.
Ravelli, L. J. (2003). Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor. In A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M.
Taverniers, & L.J. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ravelli, L. J. (2004). Signalling the organization of written texts: Hyper-themes in management and history essays. In L.J. Ravelli, & R.A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing
academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 104–130). London: Continuum.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language
task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2006). Creating textual worlds in advanced learner writing: The role of complex theme. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning.
The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 164–183). London: Continuum.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2010). Towards mastering the discourses of reasoning: Use of grammatical metaphor at advanced levels of foreign language
acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 181–197.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2013). Connecting languaging and knowing through genres: Exemplifying the link in a curricular progression. In J.L. Plews, & B.
Schmenk (Eds.), Traditions and transitions: Curricula for German Studies (pp. 227–252). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H. (2013). Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 22, 179–197.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004a). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004b). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L.J. Ravelli, & R.A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic
writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172–189). London: Continuum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2006). The linguistic features of advanced language use: The grammar of exposition. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The
contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 134–146). London: Continuum.
Schmid, H. J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 1–16).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Torr, J., & Simpson, A. (2003). The emergence of grammatical metaphor: Literacy-oriented expressions in the everyday speech of young children. In A.M.
Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 169–184). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Wells, R. (1960). Nominal and verbal style. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 213–220). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova is Assistant Professor of German at Georgetown University. As Director of Curriculum she is actively involved in the
maintenance, revision, and evaluation of the undergraduate curriculum and in mentoring graduate students teaching in the program. Her research interests
include application of systemic functional theory in language pedagogy and content- and language-integrated curriculum design, second-language writing
development, advanced literacy, and development of cohesion and interactional resources in foreign language writer texts.