FLE 7367 Week 13

Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning(Halliday, 1993)

The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based theory of learning” (Wells, 1994)

Some Context for Halliday’s Article1920s1930s

Vygotsky wrote most (or all) of his worksPublished in West much later (1970s and 1980s)

1984 Introduction to Functional Grammar (Halliday)

1993 Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning (Halliday)

1994 The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based theory of learning” (Wells)

1997 • “Sociocultural shift”• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. On discourse, communication

and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.

• 2007 Modern Language Journal on 10th Anniversary of Firth & Wagner

“Michael Halliday’s linguistics is notable for its extravagance. It has enlarged our current picture of language… it has broadened the scope of linguistic inquiry...” (Kilpert, 2003, p.160)

• “…the metafunctions. Halliday does not posit these as a discovery about some entities that actually exist in language, but sets them up as a way of talking about language . I cannot emphasize this point too strongly; in my view, this is the essential strength of Halliday’s linguistics… these concepts have proved their worth many times over as aids to discourse analysis and language teaching.” (p.161)

• Halliday did not seek to come up with a theory of exactly what language is; instead he sought to provide us with “a way of talking about language” (Kilpert, 2003, p.161)

Getting the full picture: a reflection on the work of M.A.K. Halliday. (Kilpert, 2003)

Some of M.A.K Halliday’s Major Publications: (Compiled from Tully, 2013; Kilpert, 2003)• Explorations in the functions of language. (1973). • Cohesion in English (Hasan & Halliday, 1976) • Language as Social Semiotic (1978)• An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985, 1994a) [4 editions]• Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning (1993)

Prezi PresentationBanh & Tully, 2013

1. From England but latter career was mostly out of Australia

2. Originally a Chinese language scholar3. Ruquiya Hasan is his wife (one of the Recommended

Readings)4. Obtained much of his empirical data from observing

his son, Nigel.5. The founder of Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG);

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)

Halliday and SFG bibliographies at

ISFLA(O’Donnell)

Discourses: Reflections on M.A.K. Halliday’s “Toward a Language-Based Theory of Learning.” (Gee, 1994): • Gee sums up his view on Halliday: “Halliday’s article is an extremely important first step.” • Although Halliday correctly sees learning as a meaning-making process, Gee faults his

theories for not fully addressing the [quote] “and sociocultural nature of thinking and knowing.” (p.33) Gee thinks that psychological and educational theories are overly narrow and try to define development on terms favorable to their fields.

• Gee’s final sentence in his article sums up Halliday’s importance for some: “Halliday has been, for a long time now, a guiding light in the darkness.” (p.39).

Systemic Functional Grammar/Linguistics (SFG/SFL)

Metafunctions: The 3 Metafunctions at the Clause Level

Experiential (Ideational)

actor(participant)

process: material (transformative)

goal(participant)

circumstance

The boy rode his bicycle down the street.

Interpersonal

Mood

Predicator Complement AdjunctSubject FiniteThe boy (did) rode his bike down the street.

TextualTheme RhemeThe boy rode his bike down the street.

(Thompson, 2013)

Annabel LukinVimeo videos

• communicating, or meaning-making, involves making choices (3 metafunctions)• cline of instantiation: instance <> system (“weather” <>” climate”) (cf. parole & langue)• Descriptive vs. prescriptive grammars

Register:(Thompson, 2013)Field (what is happening) (Wells, 2006) Tenor (who & relationships)Mode (language’s participation)

Toward a Language-Based Theory of LearningHalliday, M.A.K. (1993). Linguistics and Education 5(2), 93-116.

Major Points:• Halliday believes understanding how children learn a language is key to

understanding how children develop and learn in general because what makes makes us human is our engagement in the communication, construal (understanding), and negotiation of meaning (p.93) (“social semiotics”)

• general learning = learning to make and understand meaning = language learning• Learning a language is not just one aspect of learning; it is learning itself • Children “simultaneously engage in ‘learning language’ and ‘learning through

language’.” • “educational knowledge” [language] vs. “common sense” [language] (p.93)• Through language, “experience becomes knowledge.” (p.94) (cf. Wells, 2013)• Halliday does not claim he can create a comprehensive language-based theory of

learning but any such theory should cover 21 points he develops in the article. His description of these points forms the bulk of the article.

• A learning theory focusing on language necessitates:• observing learners who are communicating spontaneously (Nigel)• Conclusions about “system” that are based on actual usage (“instance”) (cf.

Bakhtin, Saussure)

• Halliday believes that theories of cognitive development “ignore language development” (p.94) or have mistaken views of the actual role language plays

• He strongly asserts that: “Language is not a domain of human knowledge (except in the special context of linguistics, where it becomes an object of scientific study); language is the essential condition of knowing, the process by which experience becomes knowledge” (p.94)

• “learning as something that is inherently a semiotic [meaning-making] process.”

• Human language has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, culminating in written and specialized/academic language, which are relatively recent developments

• Children get to speed through this sociohistorical process (similar to Vygotsky) without realizing what their ancestors did for them.

• Halliday based his theory on his observations of his son Nigel and data from other scholars.

“a three-step model of human semiotic development”“(proto-

language)” “grammatical

generalization” “grammatical abstractness”

“grammatical metaphor”

(Halliday, p.111) “language”

& “systematic

commonsense knowledge”

“literacy”

“secondary education”

&“discipline-based

and technical” “knowledge”

• This model is applicable not only to individual (ontogenetic) development, but also basically parallels the development of human language throughout history.

• The steps begin with the interpersonal metafunction (p.103)

21 aspects

21 “FEATURES OF CHILD LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT” (p.94-)

Feature Description 1 Moving from the first and simplest levels of communication that are directly related to

needs, infants begin engaging in (innate) interaction and “construing experience into meaning” (p.95). From this communication (“acts of meaning”, p.94), “signs” begin to develop. (0;3 - 0;5). We can see how Halliday stresses the central role language plays in general cognitive and psychological development.

2 “Iconic (Natural) Symbols: Constructing signs that resemble what they mean” (p.116)

• Movements & sounds that indicate meaning (desires or experiences) (0;6 - 0;10) • Roles of “learners” and “teachers” develop from these interactions• Communication moves from interactive meanings to experiential, a characteristic

of other features, and one of Halliday’s key points in his theory.

3 • “protolanguage” begins with development of rudimentary lexicogrammar “systems”, that involve “choice”, begin to develop (p.96) (0;8 - 1;4)

• Signs begin function for several purposes: • “instrumental and regulatory”• “interactional”• “personal”• “imaginative or play function”

• Not yet identifiable as an adult language. • “limitations [of protolanguage]: It cannot create information, and it cannot

construct discourse.” (p.96)

(Summary on p.116 )

Feature Description 4 • “explosion into grammar” (p.97)

• “adult language” begins• “naming and reference” begin: the abstraction needed for deeper learning• lexicogrammar develops (interpersonal, experiential, textual)• “the grammar brings into being a semiotic that has unlimited potential for learning

with” (p.97)5 • “the fundamental principle of conventionality has been established.” (p.97)

• A step in the direction of abstractness. Children begin to grasp and use symbols (language, gestures, etc.) that do not have a direct link to their meaning.

• I think this means that whereas symbols and meanings have needed a direct connection, arbitrary meaning can begin to be assigned to symbols. It is a step forward in abstractness.

6 • “fluke” vs. “trailer” (p.97)• Like a movie “trailer”, children temporarily uses language that is beyond their

developmental level. Halliday thinks it is an indication that children are in the process of linguistic development.

7 • “magic gateway to grammar”• nonsymbolic > iconic > symbolic• concrete > magic gateway > abstract• Nigel discovered that words he had been using (“Mummy/Daddy/Anna”) were

referential (iconic) and that he could create meaning beyond the word level with intonation. This discovery may have been his “magic gateway” to the discovery of grammar.

Feature Description 8 • “generalization”: “from ‘proper name’… to ‘common name’… This is the origin of

words” (p.98-99)• “annotating”; “classifying”; “outclassifying”; “taxonomy”• “thesaurus” instead of “dictionary”• “The system now has the potential for creating information”• Classifying (taxonomizing) signs leads to linguistic and psychological

development9 • Metafunctions: Interpersonal and Experiential (“most important single principle ”)

• Children begin to realize that both experiential and interpersonal choices are available when choosing what semiotic symbols to employ while communicating.

10

• “semogenic strategies”: “a multidimensional semantic space, highly elastic, which can be expanded” (p.101)

• Children develop 3 strategies1. “delicacy” (more precision, or narrowness in meaning)2. expand the contexts in which they can use language;

• create new “personae” for each context;• Complexity: “when”, “if”, “because”

3. “dissociating associated variables, or deconstructing and recombining” (p.101)

• Example: “separating polarity from modality” [+-] [can, will, maybe]

Feature Description11 • “information”: “impart” and “ask for” (p.102)

• “complex” and important step in grammatical and psychological development• As children can impart un-shared information, they can also ask for it• A step forward in the development of abstraction and grammatical metaphor

(objectification and nominalization)12 • “The Interpersonal “Gateway”: Developing new meanings first in interpersonal

• contexts.” (Halliday, p.116)• 5 “interpersonal occasions” of developing grammar by first using interpersonal

meanings:1. “Imparting Unknown Information”2. “Extending Into New Experiential Domains”3. “Developing Logical-Semantic Relations” (“cause and condition”)(3;6 - 4;0)4. “Learning Abstract Terms” “necessary for the move into literacy”5. “Moving Into Grammatical Metaphor”

13 • “dialectic of system and process”: “(a) from acts of meaning children construe the system of language, while at the same time, (b) from the system they engender acts of meaning.” (p.104)

• Attempting to transmit interpersonal and experiential meaning, children discover lexicogrammar that facilitates their efforts. But this language they are encountering, in turn, also provides them with new meanings. It is a reciprocal process.

Feature Description14 • “filtering, and the ‘challenge’ zone” (p.105)

• Children will concentrate on language that they can handle and ignore the rest• Perhaps not intended, but this seems to be touching on Vygotsky’s ZPD.

15 • “Grammatical probabilities” (p.106)• Halliday believes that children’s lexicogrammar focus is on both simpler

structures and more commonly used structures.• Having experienced a huge amount of language, children have a feel for

language that is more commonly used.• Halliday’s example: Children will use “do you like it?” for a long time before

using the simpler (formally unmarked) “you like it?” (with a rising intonation).16 • “textual” “metafunction” (p.107) and “discourse”

• “an integrated mode of activity”: interpersonal, experiential, & textual• Children begin to link the interpersonal and experiential metafunctions of

language together, and to this they also add the “textual” “metafunction”• Children begin to link language together• “conjunction, ellipsis, coreference, synonymy” (p.107)• During the stages between protolanguage and adult language

Feature Description17 • “complementarity” (p.108)

• In everyday language, children come to understand that experience can be construed and depicted in multiple ways that can be “contradictory” (p.108).

• Experiencing these “complementarities” gives children insight into language• Halliday’s examples:

• “countable” vs. “uncountable”• “Aspect… versus tense”• “Transitive… versus ergative”

18 • Abstraction: Interpersonal interaction leads to development of “abstractness,” which is a prerequisite for literacy and education.

• Children find generalization easier than abstraction • age 4 or 5• Ability to understand and use abstract concepts and language enables literacy• Written symbols are abstractions of concrete and abstract ideas from the

spoken, everyday language19 • “Semiotic regression” can result from the difficulty of “reconstructing”

everyday knowledge in the form of “grammatical metaphor” in written and academic genres. (p.109-110)

• “up to three years” (p.110)

Feature Description20 • A key feature of “grammatical metaphor” is “nominalization”:

• Construing and describing a “dynamic” (“doing”) experience as a “synoptic” object (or thing) (p.110)

• (age 9, but over 3 to 5 years)• This is the third stage of “human semiotic development” (slide 8)• Necessary for higher education and specialized genres• Grammatical metaphor/nominalization has turned around and come back into

daily speech, although we might not recognize it.21 • Recognizing, reconciling and learning through “two complementary modes: the

dynamic mode of the everyday commonsense grammar and the synoptic mode of the elaborated written grammar.” (p.112)

• Halliday suggests moving highly specialized written genres (academic, etc.) back in the direction of everyday language to match more how people actually communicate in their daily lives.

• Use of more subject/agent + action/verbs instead of nominalization/grammatical metaphor

Gordon Wells - NASFLA - 3.16.13“Gordon Wells speaks on the limitations of Halliday (1993), ultimately suggesting that in order to be useful for education, the theory needs something that shows how to move the process of language development along.” (Kathryn Accurso, 2013)

“Panel discussion: Revisiting the complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “language-based theory of learning” Gordon Wells”

• Wells quotes the opening paragraph and then comments, “I’ve never been happy with that statement [Halliday’s opening paragraph]. It seems to me to be a matter of linguistic imperialism. Arguing that the only real learning takes place in and through the learning of language…” (0:00 to about 1:20) [Slide #29]

• [Wells agrees that] “Language becomes the sort of semiotic basis of almost all our activity… but it doesn’t necessarily start like that. And that learning isn’t waiting for language development to start.” [about 2:28]

• “Halliday overstates the importance of language in human development” (7:00-7:15)

• Halliday fails to understand ZPD involves assistance. (about 2:00)• Wells gives Halliday credit for giving him ideas on coding his research. (SFG)

Jim Lantolf - NASFLA - 3.16.13“In this response to Gordon Wells' argument that Halliday's systemic functional linguistics (1993) could benefit from a well-formed theory of development, Jim Lantolf suggests that Vygotsky offers just that. Though Vygotsky didn't have a well worked out theory of language, he realized it was something that worked outwardly and inwardly, so theories of language that focus on meaning, not structure, are well-suited for pairing with Vygotsky's theory of development.” (Kathryn Accurso) https://youtu.be/3yWA68Xmt_s

Heidi Byrnes - NASFLA - 3.16.13https://youtu.be/nea0ZJG0ya4Professor of German at GeorgetownSFG scholar

“Panel discussion: Revisiting the complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “language-based theory of learning” Gordon Wells”

Byrnes seems to defend Halliday, saying that he, of course, took a linguist’s perspective. She also attests to the usefulness of SFG in education.

The complementary contributions of

Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based theory of learning”

“a comprehensive language-based theory of learning” (p.85)

(Linguistics)Systemic Functional

Linguistics

(Psychology)Sociocultural Theory

Wells, G. (1994). Chapter 1: The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based theory of learning” in Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education (p. 3-50). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Canvas.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning, Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116.

• Wells feels that Vygotsky and Halliday’s ideas are generally very similar and that their differences complement the weaknesses in each other’s theories.

• Wells also believes that both can contribute a lot to “a language-based theory of learning.” (p.43)

• Wells indicates that discussion of Halliday is very relevant because in 1994 education reform was a large issue and because he believes that “language and learning” (p.41), which is right up Halliday’s alley with his focus on “social semiotics” (p.41), cannot be separated from each other when examining education reform.

• Halliday: to gain insight into the process of learning we should examine how children “simultaneously engage in ‘learning language’ and ‘learning through language’, (p.42)

Halliday Vygotskytools/mediation/signs/semiotics (aka “language”)

linguistics and “social semiotics” psychology and “semiotic tools”

• interested in how people operate as members of a society

• focuses largely on meaning: its construal, communication, and negotiation (Humans “mean.”)

• “ultimate target is an explanation of individual mental functioning” (p.45)

• interested in how society and culture bring about psychological development in the individual

Centrality of speech• sought to describe the acquisition and

nature of the tools (“social semiotics” = language) with which people create and communicate meaning

• focused on the use of social semiotics (signs or tools), and the primary one was language.

• speech development represents overall mental development

• focused on the “psychological tools that mediate mental activity”

• “the most important tools were signs” (p.2, 2006)

• “tool of tools”: language ” (Wells, p.2, 2006)

• speech as mediator and internalizer of physical and mental processes

• “inner speech…. most interested Vygotsky” (p.46) (mediate mental activity)

Halliday: “social semiotic” Vygotsky: “semiotic tool”Humans are born with 2 innate desires that lead to language development:

1. “interacting communicatively and2. interpreting experience” (p.54)

• For Vygotsky, innate desires or abilities do not lead solely to speech; instead, they can lead to thought and physical activity

Language development precedes mental development; or rather, linguistic development is mental development

• Initially, speech and cognitive development are separate (p.53)

• Interaction is part of the process of internalizing progressively complex mental functions (speech > inner speech > self-reg.; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006)

• H. does not thoroughly examine pre-speech behavior, but Wells (1994) feels that engaging in protolanguage, which includes gestures, is not inconsistent with Vygotsky’s view of pre-speech as mental and physical.

“the predisposition to interpret experience does not initially involve speech but is more akin to the chimpanzee’s tool-like manipulation of objects. Only when both preintellectual speech and prespeech thinking have reached a relatively high level does language proper begin: “To “discover” speech, the child must think” (1987, p. 112).

• interaction creates, affirms, and formalizes social relations, “knowledge”, and culture

• Interaction (speech) internalizes external values, culture, social relations, and higher levels of mental functioning

Both believed in a degree of both determinism and ability to change (Wells, 2006)• While enabled or constrained by ‘genres

of power’, there is the possibility of affecting change (Wells, 2006)

• Influenced by Whorf (Lowe, 2008; Banh & Tully, 2013)

Vygotsky (1981): “By being included in the process of behavior, the psychological tool alters the entire flow and structure of mental functions… determining the structure of a new instrumental act… (1981, p.137)” (quoted in Wells, 2006)

genetic approaches • Both Halliday and Vygotsky take genetic approaches because to understand

development it is necessary to understand the origins, processes, and stages involved (“genotypes” instead of “phenotypes”, p.44). For Halliday, a genetic approach also gives insight into how the systems of language developed.

1. [“hunting and gathering… settlement, iron age, and industrial revolution…. ‘age of information’” (Wells, 2006)]

2. sociohistorical (“semohistory”, Wells, 2006)

3. ontogenetic (“social” , Wells, 2006)4. [ ]• language, writing, and education

1. phylogenetic 2. sociocultural 3. ontogenetic (“psychological”, Wells, 2006)

4. microgenetic• Ontogenetic development is not copy of

the phylogegentic and sociocultural development of humans.

Halliday’s genetic approach focused on language development, which is central to psychological development.

Vygotsky’s genetic approach focused on psychological development that included language

Drawbacks, Gaps, Criticisms, SuggestionsHalliday Vygotsky

”Halliday barely touches on…. the child’s learning through language, which occurs in and as a result of… conversations” (Wells, p.42)[Learning is more than learning a language; in and through a language.]

• Did not go into details about language’s centrality as mediational tool for learning (Wells, 2006)

• Vygotsky does not thoroughly examine how “semiotic mediation” creates, maintains, or alters culture (Wells, 1994, p.47)

“Halliday… has very little to say about the intellectual development of the child prior to the emergence of language,” (p.54)

[“…the predisposition to interpret experience does not initially involve speech but is more akin to the chimpanzee’s tool-like manipulation of objects. Only when both preintellectual speech and prespeech thinking have reached a relatively high level does language proper begin: “To “discover” speech, the child must think” (1987, p. 112).]

[Halliday fills the gap by “exploring this reciprocal relationship between language and culture” (p.47)]

“V. has rather little to say about the role that semiotic mediation plays… in both instantiating the culture and in recreating and modifying it.” (p.47)

Strengths and ImpactHalliday Vygotsky

Guidance for British, Australian, and Council of Europe educational programs (both language and general educ.) (Lowe, 2008)

Strong influence of concepts (ZPD, mediation, etc.) on education throughout the world

“the greatest long-term educational impact through its influence on the thinking of teachers and teacher educators has been their developmental studies of language and learning.” (p.43)

gave insight into the impact of mentors in development (Halliday, too)

Concepts (e.g., SFG) are used to code and analyze data (Wells, 1994, p.42)

• The “functional approach… has provided support for my conviction that the explanation of language development is to be found in the study of conversational interaction” (Wells, 1994, p.42)

“His characterization of verbal thought as inner speech-the last stage in theinternalization of social conversation-has never ceased to intrigue me. But, above all, Vygotsky has helped me to understand the role of parents and other teachers in the learning process, which, like Halliday, he sees as being performed quite largely through conversational interaction” (p.42)

Drawbacks, Gaps, Criticisms, SuggestionsHalliday Vygotsky

Criticism of Halliday from an Activity Theory perspective:• “In sociocultural theory… language is

certainly a powerful and versatile tool. However, it is the activity that it mediates that has conceptual and historical primacy; for it is through action and activities that we are related both to each other and to the external world” (p.83)

• Learning is “development of resources for acting, speaking, and thinking” (p.84)

• To “do”, as well as “mean”

Wells suggests combing Activity Theory ideas to create a useful basis for theories of education and development. Halliday fills the gaps of “interpersonal and social discourse” in Vygotsky’s ideas (p.84)

Discussion QuestionsWith your partner, please discuss some of the topics that were covered today, or topics of your own choosing if you wish. The questions below are some suggestions. Please feel free to use or adapt them, or use your own. The questions are very general, so please feel to put them in whatever context you wish. If we have time, please share what you discussed with the rest of the class. (Or, if we don’t have much time, we could just do this as a class discussion.)

1) Halliday’s discussion of 21 features that a language-based theory of learning should contain seemed to be almost a chronological sequence of language and learning development. • Have you noticed moments when language learners (children or adults) seemed to make (ontogenetic or

microgenetic) progress in their linguistic or general cognitive development? • What did you notice? • What/How did they communicate before that progress was made? How did they communicate differently

later? • What kind of linguistic progress have you observed in children or other language learners?

2) Vygotsky has, of course, made a huge impact on the SLA field, and on education in general. Similarly, Halliday has made his mark in linguistics and language education, and the general field education as well. • Are there any particular theorists or theories that have intrigued you, or upon which you have based, or will

base, your studies? (It’s Halliday and SFG for me!) What appeals to you about these theorists and theories? To borrow Gee’s quote (1994), what makes them “a guiding light in the darkness”? (p.39)

• Or, on the other hand, are there any theories that you feel are ineffective or even counterproductive?• Wells sees Halliday and Vygotsky’s similarities and differences as complementary. They fill the gaps in

each other’s theories. Are there any other theories or theorists that you see as particularly complementary? Or, as incompatible?

3) Wells started his 1994 article by pointing out how relevant a language-based theory of learning was to the turn-of-the-century changes in education he expected to come. • What kind of changes happened in education? In what educational contexts (location, education level,

subject/field, etc.)? What theories or methodologies were employed, or left unemployed, at that time? • Sixteen years later, what sorts of changes are happening now?• What sorts of theories (perspectives, methodologies, etc.) do you think are particularly relevant as we move

forward? Do you have any predictions about future SLA or educational trends?

References• Accurso, K. (2013, March 24). Gordon Wells - NASFLA - 3.16.13 [Video file].

Retrieved from https://youtu.be/sqCtWJAHNPg• Accurso, K. (2013, March 24). Heidi Byrnes - NASFLA - 3.16.13 [Video file].

Retrieved from https://youtu.be/nea0ZJG0ya4• Accurso, K. (2013, March 24). Jim Lantolf - NASFLA - 3.16.13 [Video file].

Retrieved from https://youtu.be/3yWA68Xmt_s• Banh, K. & Tully, S. (May 23, 2013). MAK Halliday [Prezi presentation]. Retrieved

from https://prezi.com/ecamsweztzoc/mak-halliday/• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some)

fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.• www.isfla.org/Systemics/Bibliographies/index.html• Gee, J.P. (1994). Discourses: Reflections on M.A.K. Halliday’s “Toward a

Language-Based Theory of Learning.” Linguistics And Education, 6, 33-40.• Halliday, M.A. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics

and Education, 5, 93-116.• Halliday, M.A. MAK Halilday, delivering a paper to adult TESOL teachers in Sydney

1994. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/45681353 • Halliday, M.A.K. 1985 Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold.• Kilpert, D. (2003). Getting the full picture: a reflection on the work of M.A.K.

Halliday. Language Sciences, 25, 159-209.

References p.2

• Lafford, B.A. (2007). Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal, 91, 735-756 Lowe, M. (2008). Michael Halliday at 80: a tribute. Modern English Teacher, (2), 64. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/

• Lantolf, J.P. & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Lukin, A. (2013). MAK Halilday, delivering a paper to adult TESOL teachers in Sydney 1994 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/45681353

• NASFLA. (2013). NASFLA Newsletter12, Volume 12. Retrieved from http://nasfla.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/5/9/11590518/newsl11.pdf

• Thompson, G. (2013). Introducing Functional Grammar 3rd edition. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

• Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based theory of learning”. Linguistics And Education, 6, 41-90.

• Wells, G. (1999). Chapter 1: The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based theory of learning” in Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education (p. 3-50). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

• Wells, G. (2006). Gordon Wells on Halliday. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2006_01.dir/0159.html

Halliday’s opening paragraph:

“When children learn language, they are not simply engaging in one kind of learning among many; rather, they are learning the foundation of learning itself. The distinctive characteristic of human learning is that it is a process of making meaning-a semiotic process; and the prototypical form of human semiotic is language. Hence the ontogenesis of language is at the same time the ontogenesis of learning.” (p.93)

Halliday, M.A. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.

Wells’ 2013 analysis of Halliday Back to slide #16