[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-593856-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":73,"doc-detail-593856-en":122},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":66,"head_meta":68,"extra_data":70,"updated_unix":72},105,"en","hallidays-view-of-child-language-learning-has-it-been-misinterpreted-article-3","Halliday’s View of Child Language Learning: Has it been Misinterpreted? - Article 3","","The paper summarizes Halliday’s theory of how children learn to talk, tracing language development from microfunctions to macrofunctions and then to metafunctions in adult speech. It identifies a likely origin of misinterpretation in Frank Smith’s work (1983) and shows how this view has influenced some Australian pre-service teacher textbooks. Connections are drawn to teachers’ knowledge about language (KAL) and the Australian Curriculum English (ACE), arguing that calling school microfunctions “Halliday’s functions” may be misleading.",{"@graph":14,"@context":65},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/hallidays-view-of-child-language-learning-has-it-been-misinterpreted-article-3/593856/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/hallidays-view-of-child-language-learning-has-it-been-misinterpreted-article-3/593856.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"4398046744996","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How does the paper connect Halliday’s ideas to teacher knowledge and curriculum?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It links the discussion to teachers’ knowledge about language (KAL) and priorities in the Australian Curriculum English (ACE), while warning against referring to microfunctions as “Halliday’s functions.”","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":67,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":69,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":71,"site_id":7},593856,1792252200,{"code":4,"msg":74,"data":75},"success",[76,80,84,87,92,97,101,106,111,114,118],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":77,"show_sort_weight":78,"slug":79},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":81,"show_sort_weight":82,"slug":83},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},70,"exam",{"id":88,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":93,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":109,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":113},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":117},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":88,"slug":121},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":74,"data":123},{"doc_id":71,"user_id":124,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":11,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":125,"file_id":126,"file_url":127,"file_type":128,"file_size":129,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":130,"language":131,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":132,"faqs":133,"seo_title":134,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":135,"read_time":99,"preview_page_count":4},4398046744996,"Australian Journal of Teacher Education  \n\n| Volume 44 | Issue 5 | Article 3 |\n| --- | --- |\n\n2019  \nHalliday’s View of Child Language Learning: Has it been Misinterpreted?  \nAnne Thwaite  \nEdith Cowan University, [a.thwaite@ecu.edu.au](a.thwaite@ecu.edu.au)  \nRecommended Citation  \nThwaite, A. (2019). Halliday’s View of Child Language Learning: Has it been Misinterpreted?. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (5).  \nRetrieved from [https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss5/3](https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss5/3)  \nThis Journal Article is posted at Research Online.  \n[https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss5/3](https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss5/3)  \nAustralian Journal of Teacher Education  \nHalliday’s View of Child Language Learning: Has it been Misinterpreted?  \nAnne Thwaite  \nEdith Cowan University  \nAbstract:This paper gives a brief summary of Halliday’s theory of  \nhow children learn to talk, illustrating the development of children’s  \nlanguage from the microfunctions through the macrofunctions and  \ninto the metafunctions of adult language. The paper points to a  \npossible source of the misinterpretation of Halliday’s theory in the  \nwork of Frank Smith (1983), which appears to have “trickled down”  \ninto some of the textbooks written for pre-service teachers in  \nAustralia. Links are made to teachers’ knowledge about language  \n(KAL) and the current Australian Curriculum English (ACE). It is  \nsuggested that while any number of functions of the language of  \nschool-aged children may be described, it is perhaps misleading to  \nrefer to the microfunctions as “Halliday’s functions”.  \nKey terms: Child language learning, Preservice teacher education, Halliday  \nIntroduction  \nOver more than half century linguists and others have discussed the fascinating question of how children learn to talk. This not only has many implications in the field of education, but also teaches us about the nature of language itself. Some of the greatest insights in this area have come from the work of Halliday (e.g. 1973, 1975, 1978) and developments from this. However, the question of how children learn language is very complex, and it is possible that some of this work may have been misinterpreted, or at least misapplied, in the field of language education. To investigate to what extent this might be the case, the ten textbooks cited by publishers as the most commonly used in Language and Literacy education in Australia (Troy Alexander, personal communication 16.01.2018) were investigated. Listed in alphabetical order, these texts are Derewianka & Jones (2016); Emmitt, Zbaracki, Komesaroff & Pollock (2015); Fellowes & Oakley (2014); Henderson (2012); Kalantzis, Cope, Chan & Dalley-Trim (2016); McLachlan, Nicholson & FieldingBarnsley (2013); Seely Flint, Kitson, Lowe & Shaw (2014); Tompkins, Campbell & Green (2012); Winch, Johnston, March, Ljungdahl & Holliday (Eds.) (2015); and Wing Jan (2015) . Some current texts widely used in pre-service teacher programs, i.e. the First Steps materials (DETWA 2006); Hill (2015) and Krause, Bochner, Duchesne & McMaugh (2010), were also examined.  \nThe discussion below gives a brief summary of Halliday’s theory, points to a possible source of the misinterpretation in the work of Frank Smith (1983), examines how child language learning is presented in the most popular Australian textbooks, and makes links to current curriculum priorities.  \nVol 44, 5, May 2019 42  \nAustralian Journal of Teacher Education  \nHalliday’s Theory  \nHalliday’s work (1973, 1975, 1978; Halliday & Webster 2004) is based on a description of how his son Nigel learnt to talk. It has been supported by later studies for English, notably by Painter (e.g. 1984/2015, 1985, 1989, 1999, 2009) and Torr (1997, 2005, 2015), and also for other languages such as Chinese (Qiu, 1985) . Halliday recorded his son’s developing language in the form of extensive notes, which included pronunciation, intonation and stress. He did this beginning from wh","cbCaipYHXdWBeaWc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipYHXdWBeaWc","pdf",294359,16,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n# Halliday’s Theory","[{\"question\":\"How does the paper connect Halliday’s ideas to teacher knowledge and curriculum?\",\"answer\":\"It links the discussion to teachers’ knowledge about language (KAL) and priorities in the Australian Curriculum English (ACE), while warning against referring to microfunctions as “Halliday’s functions.”\"}]","Halliday’s View of Child Language Learning: Has it been Misinterpreted? - Article 3 | PDF",1792078047]