Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • M. A. K. Halliday - Spoken and Written Language-Oxford University Press (1989)

    Uploaded by

    wei zhuang
    4 views63 pages

    Original Title

    M. a. K. Halliday - Spoken and Written Language-Oxford University Press (1989)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views63 pages

    M. A. K. Halliday - Spoken and Written Language-Oxford University Press (1989)

    Uploaded by

    wei zhuang

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 63
    Spoken and written language M. A. K, Halliday 10 v4g4 Oxtord Urey Pass ‘Wate Sec, OMe OX2 6D Cxond_iew York Torn Delt Bee" Calene Madias Karahi Penta Singapore Hong Koog Tokyo Netabt ‘Dares Sanam Cape Tow Mitune” Aactand td saad opis erin aon fod, Oxford Ealih an he Oxford Engi ogo are de mais of ‘Gaford Davenay Pree Isanois 4371530 © Dean Universi 1988, 1989 Fr oulshe 1985 Stet eioe 589 Sec ipso 1990 Lone ‘lpn toed Kopi twin lus red na vase oath, na (Slr orty any ears cron, ntl, rey ‘Sowing er anne. thet he pra persion ‘Gnlre Unter res. “TWistvk sl jth comin ha aha at #7 iene obese ee es no te ced wba he pes pit cnsn iy a [Steg nconer her thea ttn WAS pad wa ‘at vr conto ng coon bg Tago oe he ubegue pocse™ Pre in Hang Kong About the author M. A. K, Halliday Michael Halliday was born in Leeds, Bogland, in 1925. Me took his BA at London University in Chinese language and iterate, then std linguistics asa graduote stabs, Gist in China Peking, University and. Lingnan. University, Canton) and then’ st Cambridge, where he received his PhD in 1955. ‘Alice holding appoimments at Canibridge and Edinburgh he went to University College London in 1963, a8 Direcor of the Communi. ES cation Research Ceatte. Thete e directed two research projets, one the Linguistic Properties. of Scientific English and the otner in Linguistics and English Teaching the later produced Rrealihrough 12 Literacy for ower primary schoas and Language in Use for secondary Schools, i 1965 he was appoiniad concurrestly Professor of General Lingoistis, with responsibility for building up 2 new department in this subject. He remained at University College London Until the end of 1970. From 1973 to 1975 he was Profesor of Linguistica at the University of Hlinois, Chicago Circle. At the beginning of 1976 be became Head of the new Department of Linguistics atthe University ‘of Sydney, from which he recently retired. He was consulant to the Curncutum Developmen Conte's Language Development Project 1976-78 and subsequently = member Of the Project Review and Advisory Panel ‘Re tigi on the Linge Sociesy of America’s summer Linguistic Institutes in 1964 diana), 1966 (UCLA), and 1973 (Michigan), and was clected fo honorary membership ofthe Soviet) i 1978. He has bed visiting professorships at Val, Brown, UC. Irvine, and the Univer sicy of Naieobi and in 1972-73 was a Fellow f the Cenire for Advanced Study inthe Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, California. In 1969 he was awarded an honorary doctorate atthe University of Nancy. France: 2d in 1981 be received the David H Russell Award for Distinguished Research in the Teaching of English from the National Council of “Teachers of English (USA) "is curtentrescarch interests aFe the semantics and grammar of ete modern English: language development in early childhood; text lin Buistice and register variation; educational applications of linguistics; nd artificial intelligence, in which he is associated with the ‘Penman’ project at the Information Scieuces Institute, University of Southern California. “Among his publications are: ‘The Language of the Chinese ‘Secret History of the Mongols’, Publi- cations of the Philological Society, Vol. 17 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1959). (With Angus Meintosh & Peter Strevens) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching (Longman, London, 1963). Intonation and Grammar in British English (Mouton, The Hague, 1967). “Notes on transitivity and theme in English—Parts 1-3°, Journal af Lin- ‘guistics, vol. 3, 1967 and vol. 4, 1968, 4 Colrse in Spoken English: Intonation (Oxford University Press, Tandon, 1970), splertions inthe Fancions of Langage (Eaward rng Londo, 1973), * Leaning How 10 Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language (Edward Arnold, London, 1975). (Owith Rugaiya Hasan) Cohesion in English (Longman, London, 1976). System and Function in Language, eatted by Gunther Kress (Oxford University Press, London, 1976) Language as Soclal Semiotic: Te Social Interpretation of Language ‘aad Meaning (Edward Arnold, London, 1978). (With J. R. Martin) (eds.) Readings in Systemic Linguistics (Batsford, London, 1981). An Ineroduction to Functional Grammar (Edward Arnold, London, 1985). Foreword Ina sense, educational interest in language isnot new. Studies of rhetoric and of grammar go back as far as he Greeks; in the Englishspeaking countries, studies of the classical languages, and more recendy of English itself, have had a well established plsce in educational practice. Moreover, a nurnber of the istaes which have aroused the most passionate debates about how to develop language abilities have tended to remain, ‘resurfacing at various points in history in somewhat differen formulations perhaps, But nonetheless stil there, and sill lively. ‘Of these issues, probably the most lively has been that concerning the extent to which explicit knowiedge about language on the part of the learner is a desirable or « useful thing, But the manner in which discussion about this issue has been conducted has often been allowed to obscure oher and bigger questions: questions, for example, both about the nature of language as an aspect of human experience, and about language a8 a resource of fundamental importance in the building of human experience. The tendency in much of the western intellectual teadition has been to dissociate language and experience, in such a way ‘that language is seen as rather neutral, merely serving to ‘carry’ the fruits of experience. Whereas in this view language is seen as @ kind ‘of “conduit, subservient to experience in various ways, an alternative View. as propounded in the books in this series, would arguc that language is itself not only & part of experience, but intimately involved in the manner in which we construct and organise experience. AS such. itis never neutrat, but deeply implicated in building meaning. One's notions conceming how to teach about language will ditfer quite markedly, ‘depending upon the view one adopks Concerning language and experience {In fact, though discussions concerning teaching about language can sometimes be intresting, in practice many such discussions have proved. theoretically il-founded and barren, serving merely to perpetuate a ‘number of unhelpful myths about language. ‘The most serious and confusing ofthese myths are those which would suggest we can dissociate language from meaning — form from function, ‘or form from ‘content’. Where such myths apply, teaching about language ‘becomes matter of teaching about “language rules’ — normally ‘grammatical rules ~ and as history has demonstrated over the years, Such teaching rapidly degenerates into the arid pursuit of parts of speech and the parsing of isolated sentences. Meaning, and the critical role of fangoage in the building of meaning, are simply overlooked, and the kinds of knowledge about language made available to the learner are ‘of a very limited kind. ‘The volumes in this series of monographs devoted to language ‘education in my view provide a much better basis upon which to adress ‘questions related tothe teaching sbout language than has been the case anywhere in the English-speaking world for some time now. I make this elaim for several reasons, one of the most important being that the series never sought directly to establish & model for teaching about language at all. On the contrary, it sought to establish a principled model ‘of language, which, once properly aniculated. allows us to address many {questions of an educational nature, including those to do with teaching about language. To use Halliday’s term (1978), such a model sees language primarily as 2 "socist semiotic", and asa Fesource for mean ‘centrally involved in the processes by which human beings negotiate, Construct and change the nature of social experience. While the series certtinly does not claim to have had the last word on these and related subjects, I believe it does do much to set a new educational agenda ~ ‘one which enables us 40 look closely at the role of language both in ‘ising and in learning: one which, moreover, provides a bass upon which to docide those kinds of teaching and learning about language which ‘may make a iegitimate contribution to the development ofthe learner Thave said tha arguments to do with teaching about language have been around for a long tire: certainly as long asthe (we hundred years of white setement in Australia. {n fact, coincidentally, just asthe first settlers were taking up their enforced residence inthe Australian colony fof New South Wales, Lindley Murray was preparing his English Grammar (1795), which, though nol the only volume produced on the subject in the eighteenth century, was cerzainly the best. lundeeds of ‘school grammars that were to appear in Britain and Australia for the feat century atleast, were to draw very beavily upon what Murray has written. The parts of speech, parsing and sentence analysis, the later as propounded by Morell (an influenta) inspector of schools in England), were the principal elements in the teaching about language in the ‘Australian colonies, much as they were in England throughout the ‘century. By the 18603 and 1870s the Professor of Classics and Logic at Sydney University. Charles Bachar, who had arrived from England ‘in 1867, publicly disagreed with the examining authorities in New South ‘Wales concerning the teaching of grammar. To the contemporary reader there i a surprising moderniy about many ofhis objections, most noubly his strongly hetd conviction that successful control of one's language is Teuened less as a matter of committing to memory the parts of speech nd he principles of persing, than ta maner of fequem opportunity Historically, the study by which issues of use had been most effectively addressed had been that of ehetoric, in itself quite old in the English-speaking tradition, dating back at least to the sixteenth century. [Rhetorical studies flourished in the eighteenth century, the best known, ‘works on the subject being George Campbell's The Philosophy of ‘Rhetoric (1776), and Hugh Blair's Lecures on Rhetoric and Bells Leures (1783), while in the nineteenth century Richard Whately published his work, Elements of Rhetoric (1828). As the nineteenth century proceeded. scholarly Work on rhetoric declined, as was estified by the markedly inferior but nonetheless influential works of Alexander Bain (English ‘Compasition and Rhetoric, 1866; Revised version, 1887). Bain, in fact, did much t corrupt and desioy dhe older *etorieal traditions, primarily because he lost sight of the need for a basic concern with meaning in language. Bain’s was the century of roranticism aftr all: on the one hand, Matthew Amold was exclling the civiising influence of English literature inthe development of children; on the other hand, there was a tendency towards suspicion, even contempt, for those who wanted to take a scholarly look atthe linguistic organisation of texts, and at ‘the ways in which they were structured for the building of meaning. In 1921, Baltard (who was an expert wittess before the Newbol Enquiry ‘on the teaching of English), wrote a book called Teaching the Mother Tongue, in which he noted among other things. that unfortunately i@ Englang at Yeas shetorial studies had become associated with what were ‘thought to be rather shallow devices for persuasion and argument. The ‘isinclination to take seriously the study of the rhetorical organisation ‘of texts gave rise to a surprisingly unhelpful tradition for the teaching ‘of liverature, which is with us yet in many places: ‘ivilising? it right be, but it was nor to be the object of systematic study, For such study would in some il-defined way threaten or devalue the work of literature inst ‘A grammarian like Murray bad never been in doubt about the ‘elaionship of graramar and thetoric. As he examined i, grammar Was ‘concerned withthe syntax of the written English sentence: it was not concerned with the study of "syle", about which he wrote a short appendix i his original gramwmar, where his debe tothe major ehetoriians ‘of the period was apparent. Rhetorical studies, especially as discusted bby Campbell for instance, did address questions of ‘style’, always from the standpoint ofa recognition of the close relationship of language to the socially created purpose in using Tn fact, the general model ‘of language as discussed by Campbell bore some relationship tothe node! taken up in this series, most noxably in its commitment to register. ‘The notion of register proposes a very intimate relationship of text to content: indeed, $0 intimate i that relationship, it is asserted, thet the ane ean only be interpreted by reference to the other. Meaning is realised im language (in the form of text), which iy thus shaped oF patterned in response to the contest of situation in which itis used. To Study Tangsnge then, is to concentrate upon exploring how it is systematically patterned towards important social ends. The linguistic theory adopted here i that of systemic linguistics, Such a linguistic theory | set also a Social Uheory, fr it proposes Firstly, that tis the nature ‘or human behaviour to build reality and/or experience through complex semiotic processes, and secondly, that the principal semiotic system available to humans is their language. In this sense, to study language istoexplore some of te most important and pervasive of the processes bby which human beings build their world ‘originally developed the volumes inthis series asthe basis of two ‘major off campus courses in Language Education taught in the Master's degree program at Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, To the best ‘of my knowledge, such courses, which are designed primarily for teachers and teacher educators, ate the first of theit kind inthe wortd, and while they actually appeared in the mid 1980s, they emerge from ‘work in language education which has been going on in Australia for vi sent one,Nisnhde bo sca Linggs Deepa ee Soe a Tr wn eh a et et arena ct oe a Cee Cea aoe ne Gat 7 eh eee see a A ee Fe ee ec Sa ee See a a tk variously exploring aspects of language education, and leading to the a a a I Oe (Deakin University, 1983); Brendan Bare and John Carr (eds.), Cs Ue), Re a ee Le OS ee peak i a, ts A Mee cad wr, yu ean). Dore a Dice am Unie gain Ana, Gen Pg Le ee en nt Cer Gee pe Ae si, Geran op, Nae 9, 1 Lin ee Se ne Hono hn ero) A es so ei aga opin aati i asin tie gig wd apg cco vii ice a st setae te remap ence ae A er ee eet te soli ay Spi i ei cian tay a a et ae sce pei yn oc eh hoe ne 2 ee a eee Fe ct Ce as cepoluceeing te ree ta ato ones of en sneer a eae oy otter agi ee meth srt ohn a op re ee Seen ee ee cen ihe pence teaeat cece oe bcheect discon rt ee etn eee ra See eo 2 oc co i ane a which he worked, i fact, grammar looked at syntactic rules divorced from considerations of mesning oF soeial purpose. By contrast, Halliday’s approach to grammar has a number of real ‘strengths, the frst of which is the fat that its basis is semantic, not symtactic; that is to say, iti a semantically driven grammar, which, While not denying that cerain principles of syntax do apply, secks consider and identity the role of various linguistic ems in any tex in terms of their function in building meaning. Its for this reason that its practices for imerpreting and labelling various finguistic items and sroupings are functionaly besed, not syntactically Based. Tere is in ‘ther words, no dissociation of “grammar” on the one hand and "semantics" or meaning on the other. A second strength of Halliay's approach is that itis not uniguely interested in written language, being instead committed tothe study of both the spoken and written modes, ‘nd to un explanation ofthe diferences between the two, in such @ way that cach is illuminated because of its contrast with the other. A third and final strength of the systemic functional grammar is tht i permits Useful movement across the text, addressing the manner in which linguistic pattenings aro built up for the constriction of the overall text in its pantcular “genre, shaped as itis in Fesponse 10 the context of situation which gave rise 10 Halliday’s functional grammar les behind all ten volumes in his, sevies, though one ther volume, by Michael Christie, called Aboriginal perspectives om experience und learning’ the role of language in Aboriginal Education, draws upon somewhat diferent if ail compatible perspectives in educational and language thory to develop is arguments. The laver volume, is available dzeely from Deakin University. In varying ways, the volumes in this series provide a helpful introduction to much that is more fully deat with in Halliday"s Grammar, apd 1 commend the series to the reader who wants to develop some sense of the ways such a body of linguistic theory ean be applied wo educational ‘Questions. A version of the grammar specifically designed for teacher ‘education remains to be writen, and while I cherish ambitions to begin ‘work on such a version soon, I am aware that otbers have similar ambitions ~ in itself s most desirable development While I have just suggested tht the reader wite picks up any of the volumes inthis series should find ways to apply systemic Hngustie theory 10 educational theory, T want to argue, however, that what is offered here is more than merely course i applies linguistics, legitimate though such a course might be- Rather, I want te claim that this is a course in educational linguistics, aterm of importance beenuse places linguistic sedy firmly atthe heart of educational enquiry. While iis {rue that a great deal of linguistic research ofthe past, whee i did not interpret language in terms of interactive, social procestes, or where itwas not grounded ina concern for meaning, has fad litle of relevance to offer education, socially relevant editions of Kngustics Uke tha from ‘which systemics is derived, do have a fot to contribute. How that contribution shovld be articulated is quite properly a matter of evelopment in partnership between eduationists, teachers and linguists, and a great deal has yet to be done to achieve sich articulation 1 believe that work in Australia currently i8 making 4 major

    You might also like