What does Social Semiotics have to Offer Mathematics Education Research?

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

“Just don’t”: The suppression and invitation of dialogue in the mathematics classroom (2008, background): “5 Here, the observation of Morgan (2006) about their”
The Writing’s on the Board (2011, background): “…and use of language in the teaching of mathematics has concentrated mostly on primary and secondary classrooms (e.g., Gerofsky, 2004; Lerman, 2001; Morgan, 2006; Pimm, 1987), and, as Speer, Smith, and Horvath (2010) have recently observed, “very little empirical research has yet described and…”
Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: the significance of stance (2010, background): “Because stance bundles are closely related to language that construes interpersonal meaning in the way Halliday (1978) and Morgan (1998; 2006) describe it (each of whom were describing mathematics discourse), we draw on systemic functional linguistics in our interpretations.”
Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning (2009, background): “Drawing on Morgan’s (2006) list of questions in her development of social semiotics for mathematics education, we suggest the following questions as potent for research and for use by mathematics teachers.”
Appraising lexical bundles in mathematics classroom discourse: obligation and choice (2010, background): “This example shows how a teacher’s direction of mathematical processes has both social and mathematical significance (a phenomenon also described by Morgan (2006) ).”