Our LLEN logo: Reflecting key elements of Halliday’s functional model of language
by Brian Dare
Representing a community
After some deliberations on various choices, the logo (above) was enthusiastically adopted by the LLEN Network. One of the appealing aspects of the logo was that it was widely interpreted as representing a network of people who share a common bond, in this case linked by a shared belief in the role of language in all facets of education contexts.
The idea of the interconnectedness of people through social interaction is at the heart of Halliday’s functional model of language. His language theory is deeply rooted in the social—it is through the myriad of social interactions that language has evolved to become ‘our meaning-making system ‘par excellence’’ (Painter 1996: 53).
Halliday proposed that from the outset of learning their first language, children are ‘learning how to mean’ (Halliday 1975: 8). As he and many others have argued (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014, Hasan & Williams 1996, Christie & Martin 1997), this act of meaning making is a profoundly social one; meanings are shaped by and shape the cultural and social contexts in which they are made.
A nod to the three major functions of language
The tripartite nature of the logo prompted a number of suggestions as to possible links to the functional model.
We see this, most obviously perhaps, in a central tenet of his theory that there are three major functions of language: the interpersonal function (concerned with meanings we make as we interact with others); the ideational function (meanings about the world) and the textual function (concerned with organising meanings into a coherent text).
Understanding the ‘functional’ in a ‘functional model of language’
These three major functions are of course what gives rise to the ‘functional’ in ‘functional model of language’.
One of the challenges in using the term ‘functional’ has been the wide range of meanings applied to the term, which is commonly used to describe how useful something is, or how well something works or operates. Over time, this idea has been applied to language, particularly in terms of its usefulness.
One example of this, close to my own experience as an EAL teacher back in the late 80s, was the use of ‘functional’ in the functional-notional approach. In this context, functional referred to the different purposes for which we use language. These included functions such as greeting someone, describing objects or events, comparing and contrasting, asking for directions, expressing regret, and many more.
Other language descriptions use the term more abstractly to try and capture the complex uses to which we put language including the expressive function, the directive function, the functional-typological approach, the social interaction function amongst a variety of ways of using the term.
From function to metafunction
Halliday, for good reason, used the term metafunction rather than simply function. So why ‘meta’?
The prefix ‘meta-’ ‘means "beyond" or "about itself." In using metafunctions, Halliday was signalling that these three major functions of language aren't just surface-level uses of language (like greeting someone or giving directions or asking questions), but fundamental modes of meaning-making that underlie all linguistic choices. In other words, beyond the surface level to describing the fundamental nature of language itself.
Importantly, Halliday argued that these surface-level ways of categorizing language functions held little significance when it came to analyzing the language system itself. Instead—and quite radically—he proposed that language serves these three broad metafunctions, that ‘the entire architecture of language is arranged along functional lines’ (Halliday & Mathhiessen: 31),
From this functional perspective on language, every text simultaneously incorporates ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings. Halliday captures this interplay so beautifully when he describes any text as a ‘a polyphonic composition in which different semantic melodies are interwoven, to be realized as integrated lexicogrammatical structures’ (Halliday 1978: 183).
A nod to the three main functional components of the clause
Many of us working with the functional model advocate that teachers and students share an understanding of the clause as a central meaning making resource. It isn’t surprising then that many see the logo also representing the three major functional components of the clause: the participant(s), the process and the circumstance(s).
In our Australian curriculum, students around 6 years of age are expected to be able to ‘identify the parts of a simple sentence that represent What’s happening?, What state is being described?, Who or what is involved? and the surrounding circumstances. (elaboration reference)
Of course, anyone familiar with the functional model of language would see this elaboration as clearly identifying the three (there’s that number again!) main functional groupings of a clause:
the process (What’s happening?, What state is being described?),
the participants (Who or what is involved?)
the circumstances (surrounding circumstances).
For many working in educational contexts these functional groupings have been a very productive way of approaching the teaching of grammar. The LLEN website has very detailed and extensive evidence of the efficacy of using these functional groupings.
Why red, green and blue?
The use of these colours in our logo was deliberate, representing, as they do, the three functional groupings. No doubt many of you would be asking where did the use of the three colours originate.
The use of these colours in teaching about language was first undertaken by Ruth French who, as a teacher at Haberfield Primary School, was involved in a research project with Geoff Williams and Joan Rothery. (see Ruth French 2013). This brilliant research opened up the possibilities of what might be taught to young children using a pedagogical approach informed by systemic functional linguistics.
Following their inspiring presentation at an ASFLA conference, my Lexis colleague John Polias and I invited Ruth to work with our teachers in South Australia. As a result of seeing how effectively and willingly teachers took up her colour coding, we incorporated it into our Language and Literacy: Classroom applications of functional grammar course, written in the late 90s.
Many teachers who did that course (and subsequent iterations of that course) asked why red, green and blue, so we came up with the following (somewhat contrived!) explanation:
Red on a set of traffic lights signals ‘stop’. This reflects the kind of static nature of a noun, which usually provides the basic element of a participant.
Green in a set of traffic lights signals the meaning ‘to go’. With most verbs there is some kind of physical or mental activity going on.
Blue is the colour of the sky, which provides the environment in which things happen; in a sense like the circumstances in which the process goes on.
The use of the tricolours in association with the functional groupings is now pretty universal in Australia and in many contexts beyond. I would encourage anybody using colour coding with language, to consider making this tricolour as a part of their repertoire of teaching practices around language.
To sum up
I have tried to capture some of the possible ways the tripartite nature of the logo relates to the functional model itself. Appropriately, I will sign off with a further connection and a nod to MAK’s well-known triptych (there’s that three again!), learning language, learning through language and learning about language, which so neatly encapsulates a view that all of us belonging to the LLEN network share about language.
References
Christie, Frances & James R. Martin (eds.). 1997. Genres and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
French, Ruth. 2013. Teaching and learning functional grammar in junior primary classrooms. Armidale, NSW: PhD dissertation, University of New England
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London & New York: Routledge.
Hasan, Ruqaiya & Geoff Williams (eds.). 1996. Literacy in society. London: Longman.
Painter, Clare. 1996. The development of language as a resource for thinking: a linguistic view of learning. In R Hasan and G Williams (eds) Literacy in society. London: Longman.
About the author
Brian Dare is a director of Lexis Education. He is the co-author of a number of professional development courses underpinned by an explicit language-based pedagogy.