Antia, B.E. & Kamai, R.A. (2016).

Writing biology, assessing biology: The nature and effects of

variation in terminology.
Terminology, 22(2): 201 – 222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/term.22.2.03ant

Writing biology, assessing biology: The nature and effects of

variation in terminology

Bassey E. Antia and Richard A. Kamai

Abstract
There has been substantial research into terminology as an issue in learning science,
especially against the backdrop of concerns over school literacy in science and as sometimes
reflected in the poor performance of high school students in assessment tasks. Relevant
research has emphasized issues such as lexical load, complexity and metaphor. Variation in the
use of terminology has, however, been relatively under researched, although there is evidence
that terminology use does vary within and across high school textbooks of science. Drawing
on an eclectic theoretical framework comprising transitivity analysis (Halliday 1994),
legitimation code theory semantics (Maton 2013a), and the context-specific term model
(Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2008), this article identifies and classifies variations in the terminology
employed in three high school textbooks of biology in Nigeria. It then determines what impact
assessment tasks which use terms that differ from those employed in students’ study
materials have on students. Examples are found of variant terminology impeding science
literacy and task performance, even though there is reason to suspect such variation might in
fact have been leveraged to enhance cognition.

1. Introduction
There has been substantial research into terminology as an issue in learning science. Lexical
load has been one focus of this research, and the view here is that science textbooks tend to
contain far too many new technical words which need to be simultaneously understood for
sense to be made of texts (Snow 2010; Fang 2006; Groves 1995; Halliday and Martin 1993;
Yager 1983). Complexity has been another thrust of the research, and it has been studied
from the standpoint of the opacity of words of Greco-Latin origin for learners without a
background in Greek and Latin (Harmon et al. 2005), or of opacity of grammatical
metaphor, that is, the nominalization of entire clauses to facilitate thematic progression in
scientific text (Halliday and Martin 1993). A third major perspective deals with ordinary
lexical metaphors. Although metaphors may generally be seen as supportive of understanding
because they facilitate conceptualization of new realities in terms of known entities, they
sometimes can be misleading, as when a learner attempts to understand field in physics in
terms of an arena for games, or school in ecology in terms of an educational setting. What is
true of metaphors is also true of other ordinary words and expressions (e.g. takeaway, root,

University of the Western Cape Research Repository sfmalan@uwc.ac.za

odd, power) which have different meanings in subject-specific fields, for instance, in
mathematics (Baker 2007, 174).

Variation in the use of terminology within and across textbooks, and between textbooks and
assessment tasks, is, with the exception of a handful of examples, one dimension of
terminology that has not received much attention in research on the learning of school
science. Terminological variation has been defined “as the use of different forms for the same
referent e.g. synonyms, orthographic variants and geographical variants in the same text or
set of related texts, as well as hyponyms” (Rogers 2008, 109). As a result of the relative
inattention to this phenomenon, precious little is known of typologies of variant terminology
in these textbooks, the effects such terminology has on students, how any problems variant
terminology poses might be addressed, or how to leverage the advantages associated with
such variation.

In one study we could find (Evans 1976), the analysis showed that 13% of the terminology used
across six Ordinary level biology textbooks in the UK varied. Evans notes that synonyms
further “increase vocabulary burden and make it more difficult for a pupil to pass from one
book to another” (Evans 1976, 19). Regrettably, this claim was not empirically investigated in
Evan’s study, and an understandable but hardly practicable recommendation was made:
eliminate synonyms! This article, which builds on an earlier pilot (Antia and Kamai 2006),
has the following objectives:

1. to document variant terminology on select topics within and across three high school
textbooks of biology used in Nigeria, and to analyze the clause structure within which these
variant terms occur;
2. to provide a typological description of variant terminology in the corpus analyzed;
3. to ascertain the effects of variant terminology on the performance of students in an
assessment task; and
4. to reflect on strategies for overcoming any difficulties associated with variant terminology,
including how variation can in fact be seen as a cognitive resource. The analysis envisaged here
is one that requires in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, we use biology as
our database because of our familiarity with this subject. Subsequent parts of this paper
successively present a theoretical framework, the methods, the findings, a proposal on
terminology literacy, and the conclusion.

2. Theorizing variation in terminology

Even though the focus has seldom been on educational discourses, variation in terminology
is the subject of established theorization as countless publications in this journal show.
Generally, a range of explanations have been proposed for variant terminology. First, the need
to create texts that are coherent, and to do so in a way that avoids monotony, means that,
apart from simple lexical repetition (which would guarantee consistency), there would be such
other forms of lexical cohesion like synonymy, hyponymy, complex repetition, simple and
complex paraphrases (Hoey 1991; Halliday and Hassan 1976) — all leading to variation in
terminology. Second, the dictates of economy in communication would suggest that, following

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
the first use of the citational form of a multi-unit term in text, subsequent references may
use elliptical forms, including but not limited to abbreviations or acronyms (Rogers 2008).
Third, the need to focus on specific dimensions of complex multidimensional objects, the
observation that complex conceptual categories are understood differently according to
standpoints, or that use and understanding of terms are inherently social constructivist
processes — these would all justify variations in terms and definitions (Temmerman 2000;
Bowker 1987; Rogers 2007).

To analyze the phenomenon of variant terminology in school textbooks, we draw on an

established (but insufficiently exploited) framework within terminology (Gerzymisch-
Arbogast’s context-specific term model; cf. Gerzymisch-Arbogast 1996, 2008). We also apply
to terminology frameworks developed elsewhere, namely, Maton’s legitimation code theory
(LCT) semantics (Maton 2013a, 2013b) and Halliday’s transitivity analysis (Halliday 1994).
Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s model provides a typology of variation; Maton’s LCT semantics
explains the pedagogical functions of variation; and Halliday’s transitivity analysis provides a
grammar for identifying variant terminology and for hypothesizing conceptual equivalence.
Maton’s legitimation code theory (LCT) is a response to a perceived knowledge-blindness in
much of the research on education and knowledge, where the focus has been on knowers
and on the process of knowing, rather than also on knowledge itself (Maton 2013a).
Semantics, one of several dimensions of LCT, offers codes for unlocking how knowledge is
built up across disciplinary orientations, how meaning is made and mediated in a
pedagogical context, and what knowledge performances are considered valid achievements
or consistent with ‘conventional’ practice in a given discipline (Maton 2013b; Jackson 2015;
Szenes et al. 2015).

LCT semantics operates with two codes: semantic gravity and semantic density. Given that
all meanings are dependent on some kind of context, semantic gravity may be seen as
referring to the degree to which meanings are heavily or not heavily dependent on specific
kinds of context; in other words, semantic gravity refers to the degree to which meanings
communicated are more abstract or less abstract, more decontextualized or narrowly
context-dependent. Thus, while the term Sodium chloride and its symbol NaCl do come with
a context, that context is more general or abstract than the one for, say, table salt. So, Sodium
chloride may be coded SG− (low semantic gravity) to indicate it is relatively less context-
dependent, more generic, while table salt might be coded SG+ (high semantic gravity)
because the context of its meaning is more circumscribed.

Semantic density, on the other hand, refers to just how much knowledge goes into
constituting a given meaning and, conversely, how much knowledge or effort is required to
unpack that meaning. The concept underlying the term Sodium Chloride would, in many
situations and as evidenced by conventional definitions, require quite a bit of disciplinary
knowledge to be unpacked, whereas comparatively much less information may be required to
explain or understand table salt. In other words, there is greater condensation of meaning in
the former than in the latter. On this reading, then, Sodium Chloride would be coded SD+ to
indicate a higher level of meaning condensation than table salt which would be coded SD−.

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
Of course, what is described as having higher/lower level of density/gravity is relative, for
instance, to the specific terms in comparison and to the knower. There may sometimes be an
entailment of the one code specification in the other. Thus, SG− (less context-dependence)
may entail SD+ (richer, more layered, condensed or complex meaning), while SG+ (greater
context-dependence) may entail SD− (simpler meaning). As a result, for several kinds of
analysis, it is arguably sufficient to use one code specification (Maton 2013: 13).

In several studies in which this toolkit has been used to analyze pedagogical discourses
(Matruglio et al. 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Martin 2013), the finding has frequently been
that knowledge in school textbooks and in teacher talk proceeds as waves of: (a) meanings
that are relatively more abstract/decontextualized (SG−) and dense/richly layered (high
semantic density, SD+), (b) meanings that are relatively more context-bound (high semantic
gravity, SG+) and less layered or dense (so-called low semantic density, SD−), and (c) back to
(a). The rationale for getting back to (a) is that, while (b) serves to unpack the meaning, so it is
properly understood, such understanding would need to be demonstrated using (a)-type
formulations because it is in such formulations that the basis of achievement (e.g. in
assessment tasks) lies. Needless to say, determinations of simplicity and complexity are made
relative to the students.

The ‘semantic profile’ created from these successions of abstract/complex meanings and,
contextualised simpler meanings is called a semantic wave. But there are other profiles as
well, for instance, a semantic flatline, which can be ‘high’ if, over a stretch of text or talk,
meaning is made consistently at a decontextualized/dense level, or ‘low’ if, over a stretch,
meaning is made consistently at a simpler/more contextualised level.

From the standpoint of this article’s interest in terminology variation, LCT semantics makes
the following points: terminology variation is indexical of the sources or kinds of knowledge
that are combined in pedagogy — e.g. Bernstein’s (1999) vertical discourses (academic
knowledge) and horizontal discourses (every day or common knowledge); within each of these
sources of knowledge but also across them, variation is a matter of degrees (as terms do not
vary only across the specialised vs. non-specialised usage divide, but also according to levels
within each domain); variation is functional, and seeks to support both understanding and
expression; it is the non-recognition of the function of variation that sees it becoming a
problem; the notion of the semantic wave profile suggests that variation is potentially
systematic as it responds to logics of conceivably different types:
e.g. proximity/alternation (term 1, and variant 2 which occurs in apposition to term 1), but
also across modes (running text vs. graphics); finally, the codes (e.g. SD+, SD−) also provide
a metalanguage to describe variant terminology. Let us turn to a second framework.

In her context-specific term model, Gerzymisch-Arbogast (1996) uses ‘contamination’, a

rather infelicitous term (even in the German original), in her account of how system-level
specifications of the form and meaning of terms (e.g. in dictionaries, authoritative texts) are
actually realized at the parole-level of texts in special-purpose communication. Insight into a

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
rather complex account is perhaps better provided by commenting on Figure 1 which is an
adapted and simplified form of Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s original model. In reading Figure 1
anti-clockwise from the bottom right pane, we assume that in the disciplinary space of
interest to specialists in a given field (e.g. geologists, lawyers), there is a set of material or
immaterial objects l1–18 and features P1–P11 available for identifying these objects both
positively and negatively. These features or properties provide a basis for the formation of
disciplinary concepts by abstraction of common or shared features. Thus, we notice that
objects l7 and l8 share a common feature P1 which provides the basis for forming a concept
C0. To exemplify, the features of the material object we call coal are constituted differently by
different disciplines. In geology, it is a rock; in power generation, it is a source of electricity; in
economics, it is a commodity; and so on (Felber 1994, 213). This, in a sense, illustrates the
anti-essentialist position taken in social constructivism.

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
In the top right pane, which is the system or citation level for concepts, the features or
characteristics of each of concepts C0 to C3 are specified according to three kinds of criteria:
features which in the given discipline are (by consensus) considered compulsory or common
to all instances of a particular concept; features that are optional or can also be read into the
particular concept; and features that are excluded. Thus, in the concepts at the system-level,
concept C0 has P1 as compulsory characteristic; P3, P4, P5, P9, P11 are specific to some
instances of concept C0; while P2, P6, P7, P8, and P10 are excluded from all instances of
Concept C0.

Moving to the top left pane, which is the citation level for terms, we see that to each concept
constituted by a unique combination of features, there corresponds a normative or ideal
term. Thus, C0 is termed D0, C1 termed D1, and so on. In the bottom left pane, which
accounts for the operational context or text-level realizations, we encounter the infelicitous
‘contamination’ of system-level assignments of term and concept. There will of course be times
when the ideal relation of term to concept as specified citationally will be maintained.

Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s theory of system-text term variation gives rise to several categories of

‘contamination’. From the perspective of the term, contamination can manifest when:

a) A term other than the one specified at the system level is used interchangeably to represent
the same exact concept. This is referred to as contamination of similarity, and is illustrated
by example (A) in the lower left pane of Figure 1;
b) A hyperonym (superordinate term) and a hyponym (subordinate term) are used
interchangeably so as to represent the other concept. This is referred to as contamination of
inclusion, and is illustrated by example (B) in the lower left pane of Figure 1;
c) Two terms are used interchangeably so as to represent concepts which intersect at the
system level. This is referred to as contamination of intersection, and is depicted as example
(C) in the lower left pane of Figure 1.

From the perspective of the concept, contamination may also manifest in several ways,
including:

d) The activation at text level of only a part of the system level concept. This is referred to as
partial activation;
e) The use of a term at text level in such a way that the concept which is activated differs from
the concept at system level. This is referred to as author-specific usage.

Concept contamination (d and e) above are not shown in Figure 1. As with other accounts
which define term variants in relation to an original, a challenge of applying this model in some
cases may lie in determining what the system level specification is and what the text level
realization or contamination is. However, what might have been a more important
shortcoming of the model (the claim of a predetermined core set of conceptual
characteristics) may be addressed in two ways: first, by viewing the core (and perhaps
6

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
excluded) characteristics as determined by consensus, thus socially constructed; second, by
the allowance made for a category of optional characteristics. The latter allow us to see how
contextualization processes (as local, situated meaning-making) may lead to varying uses of
terms at text levels. The model is thus useful for observing and accounting for variations in
term usage. Specifically, it provides a simple metalanguage for describing forms of terminology
variation.

In Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), transitivity is the system for analyzing
language in its function as representation (Halliday 1994; Eggins 1994; Ravelli 2000). At
the core of transitivity analysis is the Process, that is, “some activity, or some way of being, a
going-on” (Ravelli 2000, 35). The Process type determines the type of Participants. Thus, a
material Process would have a Participant called Actor; a Participant that is the object of the
action (called Goal); and the Participant that provides information on the time, cause,
extent, place and manner of the action (called Circumstance). A relational Process, when it is
of the identifying sub-type (as in a definition), would have Participants called the Token (i.e.
the definiendum) and the Value (the definiens). A transitivity analysis of conceptually
equivalent clauses enables us to see how the wording for specific clause functions differs from
one clause to the other. Such an analysis may sometimes (but not always) offer an adequate
framework for hypothesizing equivalents through the linking of a set of terms to a common
function. Consider the following simple clauses as analysed in transitivity tables (see Tables 1
and 2).

Where both clauses are already known to be conceptually equivalent, transitivity analysis
would show how in each clause a particular function is linguistically realized (Actor as rabies
and hydrophobia, Process as potentiates and causes, and so on). Where both clauses are not
already known to be conceptually equivalent, the analysis sets up a focused framework for
reflecting on possible term equivalents.

3. Materials and Methods

Passages related to three topics, namely, nitrogen cycle, cell environment (osmosis, diffusion)
and the nervous system, were excerpted from three biology textbooks used in the second tier
of high school (final three years) in Nigeria. These passages were selected either because

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
within each there was variation in the terminology used for a given topic, or because
variation could be observed across the different textbook excerpts on a given topic. For some
of the topics, there were graphic illustrations in addition to the narrative or running texts.
The first objective of this article was addressed as follows: variant terminology was identified in
the corpus, then simultaneously presented and analyzed within the clause structures in
which it occurs in order to determine variation according to clause functions. For this
purpose, we used transitivity analysis. We drew on the metalanguage of LCT (Maton 2013b)
and the context-specific term model (Gerzymisch-Arbogast 1996) to address the second
objective on providing a typological description of variant terminology. For reasons of space,
only the data on nitrogen cycle are presented in respect of the first two objectives, but we
drew on data from the other topics in addressing other objectives.

For the third objective on the effects of variant terminology, a task to be performed by study
participants was set up as follows. A passage (using a specific set of terms) was chosen for
each topic to serve as reading material. Questions were then formulated, using the wording
or terminology employed in the other passages or sections of a passage, thus setting up a
situation in which one or more of the terms employed in a question differed from the terms
used in the excerpts read by the participants. Participants had to answer six questions, two
each from nitrogen cycle, cell environment (osmosis, diffusion) and the nervous system (see
samples in textboxes 1, 2 and 3 in Section 5). The participants (15 in number) were in the final
year of secondary schooling in an elite high school in Maiduguri, north east Nigeria. They were
assigned to groups of three and interviewed by one of the researchers, so that the reasoning
behind whatever written down answers could be verbalized (as think-aloud protocols) and
audio-recorded. As in other schools in Nigeria, English is the medium of instruction in the
school from which participants were recruited, even though the participants were themselves
L1 speakers of a number of Nigerian languages. At the time of participating in the study,
students had been exposed to all topics, but in different grades or classes.

In addressing the fourth objective on overcoming any observed barriers posed by variant
terminology, we offer the outlines of a pedagogy for developing terminology literacy, drawing
in part on the theoretical frameworks presented earlier.

4. A picture of variation in the use of terms: objectives 1 and 2

In attempting to provide a composite picture of variation in the use of terms, we combine the
analysis of data for the first and second objectives. For reasons of space, we are only able to
provide the data for nitrogen fixation (see Table 3).

Table 3 uses the metalanguage of transitivity analysis to present a picture of variant

terminology related to the subject of nitrogen fixation as documented in the running text
and graphical illustration of passages in the three textbooks. Apart from the doublets —
nitrogen fixing bacteria and azotobacter (in brackets) — which are themselves consistently
used whenever they occur, there is reasonable consistency of terms for the Actor function.
The Material Process function is realized by four different forms: converts, fixes, a directed

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
arrow and synthesises. The Goal is realized by three forms: atmospheric nitrogen, nitrogen in
the air, atmospheric nitrogen gas.

Note that organic substances (further specified by protein) only appears in the Goal position as
a result of the peculiar process (synthesise) used which requires a swapping of positions, but

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
it belongs to the Circumstance. The Nominal Group in the Circumstance is realized by four
different forms: nitrogenous compounds (specified further by protein in the soil), nitrates and
nitrate.

Using Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s analytical categories to comment, it is evident that, for the

Actor, there is largely an ideal relation (involving tokens of nitrogen fixing bacteria) across all
the source materials but for one, that is, Essential Biology Text, where Azotobacter and
Clostridium are used, and exemplify a relation of inclusion vis-à-vis a generic nitrogen fixing
bacteria. The foregoing relates to intertextual relations. Intra-textually, that is, within a
given running text or between the running text and the associated graphic, we observe a
relation: of inclusion involving nitrogen fixing bacteria and azotobacter in Exam Focus text,
Exam Focus graphic, and Essential Biology graphic.

With respect to the Process, terms used across the running texts of the three sources
illustrate Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s relation of similarity (converts, fixes and synthesises). The
latter affects sequence of Goal and Circumstance, as seen earlier. Across the graphics of the
three source materials, an ideal relation is observed (with the directed arrows). Between
graphics and running texts, there is contamination of similarity (arrows and verbs).

As for the Goal, with atmospheric nitrogen, we find an ideal relation across the running text of
all three sources. Between two of the graphics (Exam Focus and Essential Biology), we also
find an ideal relation involving the tokens of nitrogen in the air, which then stand in a relation
of similarity to the running text tokens of atmospheric nitrogen and the New Biology graphic
of atmospheric nitrogen gas. For the Circumstance, the preposition is realised by to and
directional arrows, which exemplify a relation of similarity. But in the Essential Biology text,
the preposition is not at all stated, and in the New Biology text we have an opposite
preposition from which is the consequence of the Process employed (synthesise). For the
Nominal Group class of the Circumstance, we find the three tokens of Nitrate used across all
three graphics exemplifying the ideal relation. Within each of the Exam Focus text and the
New Biology text, we find in the term doublets relations of inclusion: in the case of Exam
Focus, proteins in the soil are an instance of, or included in, Nitrogenous compounds; with the
New Biology text, proteins are included in, or are an instance of, organic substances.

An LCT view allows for a dynamic perspective that reveals how sets of variant terms interact,
for instance, within a text. Adopting such a perspective for the clauses from the running text
and the graphics of Essential Biology text in Table 3, we obtain a picture such as Figure 2. We
assume that a directed arrow ( — >) may be semantically more dense than its linguistic
realization (converts, to, etc.).

10

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
In Figure 2, the designations realizing the clause functions in the graphic mode (broken
lines) of Essential Biology form the shape of a wave (that looks like one full dome and half a
dome), illustrating the undulation of semantic densities in text time or progression. The
designations associated with the textual mode (solid lines) form three complete waves.
Figure 2 shows that, when both the running text and graphic are considered, each clause
function (Actor, Process, Goal, Circumstance) is realized by more than one designation. The
nominal group in the Circumstance in fact has three designations (nitrates, nitrogenous
compounds and proteins in the soil). Interestingly, for each clause constituent there is a
relatively more dense/complex designation (SD+) and a relatively unpacked/simpler
designation (SD−).

What this means is that for every simple designation intended to ease understanding, there is
a more technical/specialized one whose use may be considered indexical of in-depth
disciplinary knowledge. It is also instructive in this specific example that in neither mode do
the designations build a semantic flatline (high or low). Rather, we have clause functions
realized by terms with relatively high and low densities building waves for each mode. These
waves do not run in a parallel fashion, but intersect or criss-cross.

To sum up how the data in Table 3 address the first two objectives, it is evident that virtually
each clause function is realized by three or more designations, with the Actor position being
relatively more stable than other functions. Hypernymic/ hyponymic shifts, or relations of
inclusion, are a major feature of the designations for the Actor function, while relations of
similarity typify the Process function. The differences in semantic densities, which have the
function of simplifying and complexifying, are frequently a consequence of
hypernymic/hyponymic shifts in textual progression. Although for reasons of space we do
not comment here on the other datasets, fairly similar patterns to the data on Table 3 can be
observed.

11

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
5. Exploring possible effects of terminology variation: objective 3
Table 4 presents an overview of the performance of participants on the 6- item test.

Table 4 (last row) shows that the majority (nine or 60%) of test participants scored less than
60% on the test. The Table also shows that while the performance was between 80%–100% on
three of the questions, the performance on the other three questions was extremely low,
ranging between 13%–20%. For a group that had been exposed to all the topics prior to the
test, this task would appear to suggest (going by the lower scores) that variant terminology
could have been a specific type of challenge for which the students were not particularly
prepared. But however suggestive these test scores are, the number of participants is much
too small to draw anything but the most tentative inferences concerning the impact of variant
terminology. This is even more so because no pattern of correlation could be discerned
between performance and the type of variation involved. As a result, we focus on the
qualitative, talk-aloud protocol data, in order to obtain deeper insight into the effects of
variant terminology on students’ reasoning or processing of tasks.

A striking example of a student recognizing and verbalizing a problem of variant terminology,

then resolving it with what Pym (2003) refers to as “justified confidence”, is seen in protocol
data 1 related to question 4. The question required participants to react by answering [Yes] or
[No] to a statement (see textbox 1).

Textbox 1: Question 4

Question 4: The movement of molecules of gas, solid and liquid from a region of higher
concentration of that substance to a region of lower concentration of that substance is
diffusion. True or False?
Reference text which participants were to read: Diffusion is the movement of ions or
molecules of a substance from a region of higher concentration to region of lower
concentration. Source: Exam Focus, p. 6.

The answer expected was [True]. Notice that, whereas the text to be read used ions or
molecules for the Goal, the question used solid, liquid or gas. Let us see how participant Benny
(fictitious name) processes this challenge.

Protocol data 1: Verbalisation by Benny on the process of diffusion

1. The answer is true because it is stated here (Referring to the reference text) that diffusion is
2. the movement of ions or molecules, while in the question, it is said to be the movement of
3. gas or liquid. Gas or liquid may be in form of ions in the human body and they are in
4. molecules.

Benny states the correct answer (she says ‘true’). She recognizes and verbalizes the intended
challenge by contrasting what is said in the reference text and in the question, then goes on to
state in the final sentence (lines 3–4) that gas or liquid are generic to ions and molecules. She

12

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
demonstrates one kind of knowledge required to correctly answer the question, that is,
knowledge that ions and molecules are hyponymic forms of the hypernyms gas and liquid.

Let us consider another example of a correct answer, even if less felicitously arrived at. Question
1 on the nitrogen cycle similarly required participants to answer [True] or [False]. See textbox
2.

13

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
The answer expected was [True]. In textbox 2 there are differences in the terms used across
question and reference text for several clause functions: Actor function: azotobacter vs.
nitrogen fixing bacteria; Goal: atmospheric nitrogen vs. nitrogen in the atmosphere; etc. Let
us see how participant Izuoma (fictitious name) processed the challenge.

Protocol data 2: Verbalisation by Izuoma on the process of nitrification in the Nitrogen

Cycle
1. I choose true because from the definition of nitrogen fixing bacteria, it says nitrogen fixing
2. bacteria is the process of converting atmospheric nitrogen in to what? compound
nitrogen,
3. by a bacteria called eeheeh bacteria for example called azobacter*, and from here
4. (referring to the Reference Text) nitrogen fixing bacteria converts nitrogen in the
5. atmosphere to form nitrogenous compounds. And that is the correct definition of
nitrogen
6. fixing bacteria and I choose true for that.

Izuoma somehow anomalously re-processes the question as being about the definition of
nitrogen fixing bacteria (in lines 5–6), and describes nitrogen fixing bacteria as being the
“process of converting” (lines 1–2). Even with this confusion, in line 3 Izuoma usefully sets up
a relationship of inclusion (not stated in the reference text) between bacteria and
azotobacter: she speaks of azobacter [sic] as an example of bacteria that is the Actor
responsible for (see preposition ‘by’ in line 3) her “nitrogen fixing bacteria is the process of ”.
With the particular challenge of the hypernymic — hyponymic shift in the reference text and
question apparently resolved, Izuoma does not appear to be concerned by the other
variations: atmospheric nitrogen/nitrogen in the atmosphere; compound
nitrogen/nitrogenous compounds. She goes on to conclude that the statement must be
correct.

The next two protocols show even less felicitous processing of variant terminology, leading to
incorrect answers. Question 3 on the process of osmosis required participants to choose
either [True] or [False] as reaction to a statement (see textbox 3). The answer expected was
True.

14

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
Notice in textbox 3 that there are differences in the terms that are used across question
stem and reference text, e.g.: solvent vs. water molecules; dilute solution vs. hypotonic
solution/ weaker solution; more concentrated solution vs. hypertonic solution/ stronger
solution. Consider protocol data 3 presenting the reasoning behind student Nokani’s (wrong)
answer.

Protocol data 3: Verbalisation by Nokani on Osmosis

1. The answer is false because in the passage osmosis is said to be the movement of
2. molecules from hypotonic to hypertonic solution. That makes the answer to the question
3. wrong… I mean false.

Presumably, as Nokani is unable to map hypotonic solution and hypertonic solution to their
equivalents in the question, she concludes that the answer to the question must be false. She
clearly fails to leverage the bridging function of the semantically less dense (SD−) weaker
solution and stronger solution to map hypotonic solution and hypertonic solution to their
equivalents in the question.

In sum, we have seen in this section that, in the quantitative results, the performance on
three questions was extremely low, ranging between 13%–20%. Such low levels of performance
were said to be striking, considering that the group had been exposed to all the topics prior to
the test. In the qualitative (protocol) data presented, we saw one student getting the answer
correct with justifiable confidence, on the basis of an identification of a hypernymic-
hyponymic shift involving ions/molecules and gas/liquid. Her processing underscored the
kind of competence required to respond to the challenge. Such awareness of variant
terminology was largely absent in the other three protocols presented, including one in which
the participant got the answer correct by fluke.

6. Responding to terminology variation: prologemonon to a pedagogy of

literacy in variant terminology
What these data would appear to suggest is that variant terminology could have been a
specific type of challenge for which the students were not particularly prepared. Recall that
the students had been exposed to all three topics prior to their participation in the test. How
might these students have been better equipped to deal with variant terminology? In ongoing

15

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
work, we are developing and hoping to test an approach to terminology literacy within content
learning. For now, we can draw attention to how two of the theoretical frameworks employed
in this article might provide some of the bases for (a teacher’s guide to) developing students’
literacy of variant terminology. While of course extensive further reading can only be helpful,
the guide as developed here presupposes little more than a good understanding of this article.

To illustrate aspects of this terminology literacy, we will use the text in textbox 4, which is a
combination of the text of question 3 and the corresponding reference text in textbox 3. A text
with an accompanying and labeled graphic might also have been of interest in light of text-
graphic variations in term use.

The guide outlined here has three parts; it is presented in a pedagogical style; and it can be
taught to students once at the beginning of a term or at intervals within the term; the idea,
however, is for students to integrate the awareness gained into their own independent
learning processes.

A) Sensitization to terms. The first point in this pedagogy is to sensitize students to

terminology in knowledge and texts. This could proceed in the form of the following exercises:

1. Based on the definition of terms as one-word, multi-word or even non-verbal

designations for the concepts of a special subject field, underline all term tokens in the
passage in textbox 4.
2. Martin (2013) refers to terms as ‘power words’ by which he means the technical or
specialized labels or designations of a subject field, but which we can also interpret in a
near-literal sense. Now, efface/conceal all previously underlined term tokens from the text in
textbox 4. Is what is left of the text still meaningful? If, on the other hand, you left the
previously underlined terms

intact and effaced all other words, would you be able to make sense of the text (e.g. say what the
text was all about)? Do you see the near literal sense in which terms are power words?

On sensitization to terms, see also the notes and exercises in Antia (2005).

5. Sensitization to variation. The second point of the pedagogy would be to draw attention to
the reality and the functions of variant terminology specifically. This point may be developed
as follows:

16

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
• LCT semantics suggests that pedagogical discourses tend to function as oscillations
between more technical and less technical registers, with the consequence that items in the
latter registers stand in synonymic relations to the former which they simplify. In the text
provided (textbox 4), without prejudice to your answers in the exercises in section A, match a
relatively more difficult term with its simpler equivalent. Having done this, do you agree with
the claim that oscillation between registers functions, in part, to support understanding?
• (With a text involving several distinct ‘contamination’ types (cf. Gerzymisch-Arbogast’s or
other typologies of variation), a question on variation types seen in the paired terms of B1
above might also have been appropriate.

6. Confirmatory procedures. The final core point of the pedagogy would be on the
diagnostic potentials of transitivity analysis. Although operating at the level of grammar rather
than meaning, transitivity analyses of different clauses (e.g. in question and reference text) may
on occasion facilitate identification or confirmation of conceptual equivalence among terms.
This point may be operationalized as follows:

1. Use the table (Table 5) provided to do a transitivity analysis of the two clauses below, the
second of which has been slightly modified to also read like a definition with an identifying
relational Process:

7. Osmosis is the passage of solvent from a dilute solution to a more concentrated

solution.
8. Osmosis is the movement of water molecules from the hypotonic solution to
hypertonic solution.

2. Are you able to confirm and/or expand on your analysis in B2?

17

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
Although as yet empirically untested and subject to further development, this pedagogy has
thrusts that are coherent with the tasks reported in this article and the manner in which
these tasks were processed.

7. Conclusion
In this article we have attempted to bring insights from work on variant terminology or
‘indeterminacy in terminology’ (Antia 2007) to bear on science education. We have done this
as a means of drawing attention to what is perhaps a promising pathway for addressing an
aspect of the crisis of science literacy in high schools. While worldwide concerns about the
performance of students in the sciences have continued to be addressed from a range of
standpoints, including language proficiency, relatively little attention has been devoted to
variant terminology which, as the data presented in this article show, is quite pervasive and
does on occasion impede literacy. As the performance data showed, 9 of the 15 study
participants scored less than 60% on the 6 test items, with the performance on 3 of the items
being extremely low (between 13%–20%).

It would seem perfectly logical that the problem of variant terminology be addressed by
controlled language mechanisms that enforce specific forms of usage, as Evans (1976)
appears to suggest. It has also been suggested that the terminological load of school science
textbooks, which is only made worse by variant terminology, is itself unnecessary as quite a bit
of this abstruse terminology can be expressed in simple ordinary words (Groves 1995).
Whatever the merits of these approaches are, we have elected to take a different tack. Our
approach acknowledges that:

• Terminology (consistent or variant) simultaneously has a high nuisance value and a high
functional value;
• Much as we would like to think of terms as the building blocks of specialized knowledge,
these blocks require the glue of grammar;
• Much is to be gained from systematic reflection on how to develop terminology literacy in
a manner that is integral to content teaching and learning;

Acknowledgement
For input made into an earlier version of this paper, while the second author was at the
University of Sydney (as guest of Jim Martin), the following are thanked: Jim Martin, David
Rose and Harni Kartika Ningsih.

18

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
References
Antia, B.E. 2005. Terminology for Terminographers. (http://www.termnet.org/downloads/
english/projects/IFAP/03_termtrain2005_bassey_confab_ter_graphy.pdf). Accessed
15 August 2016.
Antia, B.E., and R. Kamai. 2006. “African Issues in Terminology: An Educational Perspective....”
In Modern Approaches to Terminological Theories and Applications, ed. by H. Picht,
137–144. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Antia, B.E. (ed). 2007. Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP: Studies in Honour of
Heribert Picht. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tlrp.8
Baker, C. 2007. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4th ed. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Bernstein, B. 1999. "Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay." British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 20(2): 157–73.
Bowker, L. 1987. “A Descriptive Study of the Influence of Multidimensionality on Term
Formation and Use with Special Reference to the Subject Field of Optical Scanning
Technology...” Terminology 4(2): 275–302. doi: 10.1075/term.4.2.04bow
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
Evans, J.D. 1976. “The Treatment of Technical Vocabulary in Textbooks of Biology....”
Journal of Biological Education 10(1): 19–30. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1976.9654052
Fang, Z. 2006. “The Language Demands of Science Reading in Middle School...” International
Journal of Science Education 28(5): 491–520. doi: 10.1080/09500690500339092
Felber, H. 1994. “The Correspondence of Object, Concept & Symbol...” In Terminology Science &
Terminology Planning/Theoretical Issues of Terminology Science, ed. by J.K. Draskau
and H. Picht, 209–216. Vienna: TermNet.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 1996. Termini im Kontext. Verfahren zur Erschließung und
Übersetzung der textspezifischen Bedeutung von fachlichen Ausdrücken. Tubingen:
Gunter Narr (FFF 31). Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 2008. “Fundamentals of LSP
Translation...” In LSP Translation Scenarios. Selected contributions to the EU Marie
Curie Conference, Vienna 2007, ed. by H.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, G. Budin, and G. Hofer, 7–64. Vienna: ATRC Group.
Groves, F.H. 1995. “Science Vocabulary Load of Selected Secondary Science Textbooks...” School
Science and Mathematics 95(5): 231–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15772.x
Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. “Language as Social Semiotic...” In Language and Literacy in
Social Practice: A Reader, ed. by J. Maybin, 23–43. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Halliday, M.A.K., and J.R. Martin. 1993. Writing science. Literacy and Discursive Power. London:
The Falmer Press.
Harmon, J.M., W.B. Hendrick, and K.D. Wood. 2005. “Research on Vocabulary Instruction
in the Content Areas: Implications for Struggling Readers.” Reading & Writing
Quarterly 21(3): 261–280. doi: 10.1080/10573560590949377
Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, F. 2015. “Using Legitimation Code Theory to Track Pedagogic Practice in a South
African English Home Language Poetry Lesson.” Journal of Education 53: 29–55.

19

http://repository.uwc.ac.za
Maton, K. 2013a. Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. London &
New York: Routledge.
Maton, K. 2013b. “Making Semantic Waves: A key to Cumulative Knowledge-Building.” Linguistics
and Education 24(1): 8–22. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
Matruglio, E., K. Maton, and J.R. Martin. 2013. “Time Travel: The Role of Temporality in
Enabling Semantic Waves in Secondary School Teaching.” Linguistics and Education
24(1): 38–49. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.007
Martin, J.R., K. Maton, and E. Matruglio. 2010. “Historical Cosmologies: Epistemology and
Axiology in Australian Secondary School History.” Revista Signos 43(74): 433–463. doi:
10.4067/S0718-09342010000500003
Martin, J.R. 2013. “Embedded Literacy: Knowledge as Meaning.” Linguistics and Education 24:
23–37. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.006
Pym, A. 2003. “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a
Minimalist Approach.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal
48(4): 481– 497. doi: 10.7202/008533ar
Ravelli, L. 2000. “Getting Started with Functional Analysis of Texts.” In Researching Language
in Schools and Communities, ed. by L. Unsworth, 27–64. London: Cassell.
Rogers, M. 2007. “Lexical Chains in Technical Translation: A Case Study in Indeterminacy.”
In Indeterminacy in LSP and Terminology: Studies in Honour of Heribert Picht, ed. by
B.E. Antia, 15–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tlrp.8.05rog
Rogers, M. 2008. “Consistency in Terminological Choice: Holy Grail or False Prophet?”
Synaps.
Fagspråk, Kommunikasjon, Kulturkunnskap (Festskrift for Magnar Brekke) 21: 107–113.
Snow, C.E. 2010. “Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning.”
Science 328(5977): 450–452. doi: 10.1126/science.1182597
Szenes, E., N. Tilakaratna, and K. Maton. 2015. “The Knowledge Practices of Critical Thinking.”
In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, ed. by M. Davies and
R. Barnett, 573–591. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137378057_34
Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tlrp.3
Yager, R.E. 1983. “The Importance of Terminology in Teaching K‐12 Science.” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 20(6): 577–588. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200610

Textbook sources
[Exam Focus]: Egunyomi, A., F.G. Bob-Manuel, B.A. Abdulahi, and O.A. Oyetola. 2000. Exam
Focus. Biology for WASSCE and SSSCE. Ibadan: University Press.
[New Biology]: Okeke, E.A.C., O.A. Oyetola, J.B. Owolabi, P.P. Udofia, M.A. Abubakar, and C.W.
Ayaban. 1998. Biology for Secondary Schools: A Publication of Science Teachers’ Association
of Nigeria. Ibadan: Heinemann.
[Essential Biology]: Michael, M.C. 2012. Essential Biology for Senior Secondary Schools.
Lagos: Tonad.

20

http://repository.uwc.ac.za