Why Systemic Functional Linguistics is the Theory of Choice for Students of Language

8/19/2019 Why Systemic Functional Linguistics is the Theory of Choice for Students of Language

1/12

Why Systemic Functional Linguistics is the theory of choice forstudents of language?

Perhaps because he is a language teacher turned linguist, M.A.K . Halliday has been able to maintain a

perspective on language that is grounded in how we actually use language to construe realityand enact social relationships. … which has become the theory of choice (in more ways thanone) for those interested in achieving an appliable! description leading to an understanding of theenabling power of language. "he need for a systemic functional semantics came from three sources# ($) from stylistics, the linguisticstudy of literary te%ts& (') from sociological linguistics as set out in the wor of asil ernstein ($*+$,$**), and (-) from computational linguistics (ee chapter $-)

/or 0alliday, the underlying 1uest has always been about description rather than theory. 0e maintainsthat it is 2not so much new theories but new descriptions3 that will enable us to engage moree4ectively with language.Description and theory5escription must be grounded in a theory of how language wors at the level of grammar. A grammar isthat abstract stratum of coding between meaning and e%pression& it is a resource for maing meaning. "he grammar 2transforms e%perience into meaning3& the grammar is itself 2a theory of

e%perience.36rammatics is theori7ing about a theory of grammar& it is a theory for e%plaining how the grammar worsand enables one to unconsciously construe e%perience.

Grammatical metaphor6rammatical metaphor involves the 8unction of category meanings, not simply word meanings. 9%amplesof grammatical metaphor include length, which is a 8unction of (the 1uality) long! ! and the categorymeaning of a noun, which is 2entity3 or 2thing3!, and motion, which is a 8unction of the (theprocess) 2move3 and the category meaning, again of a noun!. :ith grammatical metaphor, the scientistcan mae the world stand still, or turn it into one consisting only of things, or even create new, virtualrealities.;n order to understand better the meaning of whatever discourse we encounter, we need an approach tostudying language which will help us understand how meaning materiali7es in language, and howlanguage wors to construe e%perience and enact social relationships.Language as a systemic resource


2/12

lause and text "he point of origin into the system networ is the clause. "he clause as most basic le%icogrammatical unitcreates and gives meaning to the te%t of which it is a constituent…., it is also the actuali7ation of thete%t, inheriting properties from the te%t=as=model which is itself reali7ed in relation to the conte%t ofsituation.>lauses create te%t, e%plains 0alliday, because a clause 2has itself evolved by analogy with the te%t asmodel, and can thus represent the meanings of a te%t in a rich variety of di4erent ways3 ($*?$a# @@).

"he di4erence between a te%t and a clause is that a te%t is a semantic entity, i.e. a construct ofmeaning, whereas a clause is a le%icogrammatical entity, i.e a construct of wording. A te%t is anintersub8ective event, in which speaer and listener e%change meaning in a conte%t of situation.

ontext of situation is specied with respect to feld, tenor and mode. "he nature of the activity !feld B is a determinant in the selection of options from e%periential systems, including choicesrelated to transitivity structure, or process, participant, circumstance. Cole relationships B tenor Bhave a handin determining the selection of interpersonal options, such as those from the systems of mood andmodality. "he symbolic organi7ation of the te%t ! mode B is involved in the selection of options in te%tualsystems, which relate to the overall te%ture of the te%t, including choices involving cohesion, andthematic and information structures.…2people create meaning by e%changing symbols in shared conte%ts of situation! (0alliday $*?@c, ''B'+ volume $# --) y means of my 2te%t3, ; participate in an act of interpersonal e%change,communicating my sense of my own identity, my world view, my interpretation of e%perience. "he

investigation of the situation focuses on three main dimensions# (a)eld D what is happeningE (b)tenor D who is involvedE (c) mode D how is it taing placeE orresponding to each 1uestion is a component of meaning or semantic metafunction# ideational,interpersonal and te%tual. ystemic=functional grammar (/6) sees to identify the language=specicstructures that contribute to the meaning of a te%t. Analysis along the lines proposed by 0alliday isintended to show how and why a te%t means what it does. "e%ture is what maes a te%t into a coherent piece of language…. Gne aspect of te%ture is cohesion, whichdeals with how successive sentences are integrated to form a whole. "he other aspect of te%ture has todo with t to conte%t, or those choices based on what the speaer wants to say ("heme), and thosechoices related to the H Iow of information (6iven=Jew).0alliday and others woring within the systemic=functional to ystemic /unctional hinese mae use of the initial position in the clause to identify the "heme.

"he distinction between 6iven and Jew information is but one consideration on the part of thespeaer when it comes to deciding how best to convey the message in a particular linguistic andsituational conte%t. "he organi7ation of the message to t the conte%t comprises two aspects# one aspect, what 0allidayrefers to as the 2hearer angle3, relates to the organi7ation of the message so that it ties up with theprecedingte%t, with that which the hearer has already heard about, i.e. the 6iven& the second aspect, the2speaer angle3, relates to how the message is organi7ed around what the speaer wants to say, orwhat 0alliday calls 2"heme3.M.A.K. 0alliday!s ystemic /unctional "heory, with its emphasis on e%ploring the semogenic (meaning=maing!) power of language, provides the handle we need to understand te%ts as intentional acts ofmeaning.;nstead of theori7ing about language 2as an autonomous intellectual game3, the goal should be todescribe the grammatical resources available in language for maing meaning. Meaning serves as afunction of the description.

ames C. Martin, in the chapter on 25iscourse studies3, credits 0alliday!s modeling of social conte%tin terms of eld, tenor and mode for stimulating subse1uent wor on register and genre, noting inparticular the development of genre analysis within Australian educational linguistics. Martin identies thestrength of /< wor on discourse with 2its relatively well developed descriptions of genre and functionalgrammar, and the adaptability of /< modeling across modalities (to image, music and action fore%ample).3

Language as a semiotic system/< locates language, in its turn, as one among a wider class of systems called 2semiotic3 systems ==systems of meaning. (0alliday, 'La). Language as system enables the language user to combine


3/12

phonemes to orm words, words to orm phrases, phrases to orm sentences, and sentences to ormspoken or written texts—each unit ollowing its own rules as well as the rules or combination. Crucial tounderstanding language, then, is the idea o systematicity. Language as system, however,is much morecomplex than the descriptions o or may lead us to believe.


4/12

subse1uent linguistic demands of developing discipline based educational! nowledge during theschool years (0alliday $***, Painter '+). "he distinctive characteristic of human learning is that it is a process of maing meaning B a semioticprocess& and the prototypical form of human semiotic is language. 0ence the ontogenesis of language isat the same time the ontogenesis of learning. (0alliday $**-b# *-, ''B'+ volume @# -'+);f this is recognised, what are usually referred to as cognitive strategies, such as comparing andcontrasting, classifying, generalising and reasoning can be regarded as strategies for meaning,

simultaneously manifested in language and providing a means to develop the language further.…the way achieving literacy at all levels involves a more conscious focus on language itself,demonstrating again the relation between learning language, learning through language and learningabout language.;n summary, while there is still much to learn about language ontogenesis, the /< has particular value inrespect of three broad contributions.Gn the one hand it a4ords insights into the nature of language as a stratied, metafunctional meaningresource realising higher! levels of social meaning in the process of instantiation as te%t, showing how itis possible for such a system to emerge from a much simpler ind of semiotic. At the same time, itdemon=strates the fundamentally dialogic nature of its development, which both enables learning of themother tongue and ensures that it simultaneously an apprenticeship into the culture. /inally, it providesa basis for building 2a general theory of learning interpreted as learning through language! QwhichRshould be grounded in whatever is nown about learning language!3 0alliday ($**-b# $$-, ''B'+volume @# -L$).

Language as *deology(


5/12

+, F)/,S +F L*L )S ) S01HS*S/rom Marsh, Mehisto and /rigols

2/L*3L F+/SS supporting language learning in content classesS supporting content learning in language classesS integrating several sub8ectsS organi7ing learning through cross=curricular themes and pro8ectsS supporting reIection on the learning processS)F )1D 1,*H*1G L),1*1G 14*,+121S using routine activities and discourseS displaying language and content throughout the classroomS building student condence to e%periment with language and contentS using classroom learning centresS guiding access to authentic learning materials and environmentsS increasing student language awareness)/H1**0S letting the students as for the language help they needS ma%imi7ing the accommodation of student interestsS maing a regular connection between learning and the studentsT lives

S connecting with other speaers of the >


6/12

(/rom Ma%imi7ing the enets of Pro8ect :or in /oreign lassrooms)

Ulent Alan and /redrica


7/12

decisions can be made about the si% curricular components which dene the i%="Ts Approach# "hemes, "e%ts, "opics, "hreads, "ass, and "ransitions.hemes are the central ideas that organi7e ma8or curricular units& they are chosen to be appropriate tostudent needs and interests, institutional e%pectations, program resources, and teacher abilities andinterests. Jormally a class e%plores more than one theme in a given term or semester.exts# dened in a broad sense, are content resources (written and aural) which

drive the basic planning of theme units. "e%t selection will depend on a number ofcriteria# tudent interest, relevance, and instructional appropriateness provide a rst setof guidelines for determining te%t selection& format appeal, length, coherence,connection to other materials, accessibility, availability, and cost represent secondarycriteria.opics are the subunits of content which e%plore more specic aspects of thetheme. "hey are selected to complement student interests, content resources, teacherpreferences, and larger curricular ob8ectives. ;n general, topics should be organi7ed togenerate ma%imum coherence for the theme unit and to provide opportunities toe%plore both content and language. A given theme, unit will evolve di4erentlydepending on the specic topics selected for e%ploration. /or e%ample, a teacher couldchoose to develop a theme unit on Jative Americans by e%ploring the Java8o, the0opi, and the Apache (each tribe representing a di4erent topic for the theme unit)&conversely, the same theme unit could be developed to e%amine the tensions that e%istin contemporary Jative American communities by means of three di4erent topics# rural

versus urban living, traditional versus contemporary religious practices, and the valuesof young and older generations. "hese e%amples, as well as those outlined in /igure.-, illustrate how theme units can be developed in di4erent ways, depending on thetopics designated (or negotiated) for e%ploration.hreads are linages across themes which create greater curricular coherence. "hey arc, in general, not directly tied to the central idea controlling each theme unit.Cather, they are relatively abstract concepts (e.g., responsibility& ethics, contrasts,power) that provide natural means for lining themes, for reviewing and recycling -Limportant content and language across themes, and for revisiting selected learningstrategies. "hreads can bridge themes that appear 1uite disparate on the surface (e.g.,American education, demography, and to%ic wastes), thereby fostering a morecohesive curriculum. "here can be a number of threads lining thematically di4erentcontent, providing opportunities to integrate information and view both language andcontent from new perspectives. /igure .@ illustrates how one thread could be used to

lin ve di4erent theme units.as8s# the basic units of instruction through which the i%="Ts Approach isreali7ed day=to=day, are the instructional activities and techni1ues utili7ed for content,language, and strategy instruction in language classrooms (e.g., activities for teachingvocabulary, language structure, discourse organi7ation, communicative ;nteraction,study sills, academic language sills). ;n the i%="Ts Approach, tass are planned inresponse to the te%ts being used. "hat is, content resources drive tas, decisions andplanning. Ma8or tass, se1uenced within and across themes to reali7e curricular goals,are recycled with higher levels of comple%ity as students move from one theme unit tothe ne%t and as students progress through the academic year. 5evising a series oftass which leads toward a nal culminating activity or pro8ect=one which incorporatesthe learning from various tass in the theme unit=is particularly e4ective& culminatingactivities whir re1uire the synthesis of content information help students develop thesills they will need in regular content=area courses, and provide a sense of successfulcompletion for students as well. pecic e%amples of tass are given in the following

section and are discussed at greater length in rinton, 6oodwin, and Cans ($**@)&rinton, now, and :esche ($*?*)& >hamot and GTMalley ($**@)& and Mohan ($*?).ransitions are e%plicitly planned actions which provide coherence acrosstopics in a theme unit and across tass within topics. "ransitions create lins acrosstopics and provide constructive entrees for new tass and topics within a theme unit. "wo ma8or types of transitions are particularly e4ective# topical and tas transitions.he six 7s provide the means for developing a coherent content=based.curriculum. ;n this approach, the themes become the primary source for curriculumplanning. A variety of relevant and interesting te%ts leads to topic selection. A coherentset of topics is e%pected to stimulate student interest, ; create connections that


8/12

maintain student involvement, and allow for the completion of a meaningful nalpro8ect. pecic tass are designed to teach the language nowledge and contentinformation central to the te%ts for a given .theme unit, thereby meeting student needsand achieving curricular priorities. "ransitions and threads create additional linagesthroughout the curriculum, creating a sense of coherence and seamlessness.

Prezi presentations: a guide for the Project and for oral presentations

http(99pre:i.com9&f;rym8yeshareemail

http(99pre:i.com9h@exsi&smy889copy-of-exposiciones-orales9

:0A" 5G9 "09 >NCC;>N0GG< >


9/12


10/12


11/12


12/12

Why Systemic Functional Linguistics is the Theory of Choice for Students of Language

Documents

Transcript of Why Systemic Functional Linguistics is the Theory of Choice for Students of Language