Continuing Issues in SFL

doi:10.1017/9781316337936.010

8 - Continuing Issues in SFL

from Part I - SFL: The Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019

Edited by

Lise Fontaine and

Geoff Thompson: Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Wendy L. Bowcher: Affiliation:
Sun Yat-Sen University, China
Lise Fontaine: Affiliation:
Cardiff University
David Schönthal: Affiliation:
Cardiff University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses two issues that are not fully resolved within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Firstly, the chapter explores the basis behind the grammatical categories within SFL, with particular attention on Transitivity categories. To what degree are these categories determined on notional grounds (mirroring extralinguistic organization), rather than on regularities of form? Secondly, the chapter explores the issue of where ‘genre’ belongs within the SFL model. The positioning of genre within various SFL models is contrasted. Central to this discussion is the issue of stylistic variation between elements of generic structure within a text. Does this represent shifts of register within a text, or is this type of variation not register-related?

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 204 - 229
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.010 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bateman, J. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef Google Scholar

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Butler, C. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories, Part 1: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cloran, C. 1987. Negotiating New Contexts in Conversation. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 1: 85–110.Google Scholar

Ellis, J. 1965. Linguistic Society and Institutional Linguistics. Linguistics 3(19): 5–20.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, J. and Ure, J.. 1969. Language Varieties: Register. In Meetham, A. R., ed., Encyclopedia of Linguistics: Information and Control. Oxford: Pergamon. 251–9.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2009. Seven Problems to Beware of When Analyzing Processes and Participant Roles in Texts. In Slembrouck, S., Taverniers, M., and van Herreweghe, M., eds., Will to Well: Studies in Linguistics, Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. Ghent: Academia Press. 209–24.Google Scholar

Gregory, M. and Carroll, S.. 1978. Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gregory, M. and Malcolm, K.. 1981. Generic Situation and Discourse Phase: An Approach to the Analysis of Children’s Talk. Unpublished mimeo. Toronto.Google Scholar

Gwilliams, L. and Fontaine, L.. 2015. Indeterminacy in Process Type Classification. Functional Linguistics 2(8): 1–19.10.1186/s40554-015-0021-xCrossRef Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1965. Speech and Situation. English in Education 2(A2): 14–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In Lyons, J., ed., New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 140–65.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. Language as Code and Language as Behaviour: A Systemic Functional Interpretation of the Nature and Ontogenesis of Dialogue. In Fawcett, R., Halliday, M. A. K., Lamb, S., and Makkai, A., eds., The Semiotics of Culture and Language, Vol 2: Language and Other Semiotic Systems of Culture. London: Pinter. 3–35.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2006. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1978. Text in the Systemic-functional Model. In Dressler, W., ed., Current Trends in Text Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 228–46.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1981. What’s Going On: A Dynamic View of Context. Seventh LACUS Forum. Columbia: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1995. The Conception of Context in Text. In Fries, P. and Gregory, M., eds., Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives. New York: Ablex. 183–284.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1999. Speaking with Reference to Context. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 219–328.10.1075/cilt.169.11hasCrossRef Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 2015. Towards a Paradigmatic Description of Context: Systems, Metafunctions, and Semantics. Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–54.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. 1971. English Complex Sentences. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Lee, D. Y. W. 2001. Genres, Registers, Text Types, Domains, and Styles Clarifying the Concepts and Navigating a Path through the BNC Jungle. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 37–72. Available online at: https://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/lee. (Last accessed 15/05/2017.)Google Scholar

Lukin, A., Moore, A. R., Herke, M., Wegener, R., and Wu, C.. 2011. Halliday’s Model of Register Revisited and Explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 4(2): 187–213.10.1558/lhs.v4i2.187CrossRef Google Scholar

Malcolm, K. 2010. Phasal Analysis: Analyzing Discourse through Communication Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1984. Types of Writing in Infants and Primary School. In Unsworth, L., ed., Reading, Writing, Spelling: Proceedings of the Fifth Macarthur Reading/Language Symposium. Sydney: Macarthur Institute of Higher Education. 34–55.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1985. Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis. In Benson, J. and Greaves, W., eds., Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1. Norwood: Ablex. 248–74.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.59CrossRef Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1999. Modelling Context: A Crooked Path of Progress in Contextual Linguistics. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25–61.10.1075/cilt.169.05marCrossRef Google Scholar

Martin, J. R., ed. 2013. Interviews with M. A. K. Halliday: Language Turned Back on Himself. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 2014. Evolving Systemic Functional Linguistics: Beyond the Clause. Functional Linguistics 1(3): 1–24.10.1186/2196-419X-1-3CrossRef Google Scholar

Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Painter, C.. 2010. Deploying Functional Grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2015. Register in the Round: Registerial Cartography. Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–49.10.1186/s40554-015-0015-8CrossRef Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. 1991. Functional Explanation in Linguistics and the Origins of Language. Language and Communication 11(1–2): 3–28.10.1016/0271-5309(91)90011-JCrossRef Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 1990. A Dynamic Model of Exchange. Word 41(3): 293–328.10.1080/00437956.1990.11435825CrossRef Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 1999. Context in Dynamic Modelling. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 63–99.10.1075/cilt.169.06odoCrossRef Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 2012. Tenor in a Dynamic Model of Context. Paper presented at Register and Context 2012. Macquarie University, 6–8 February 2012. Available online at: www.wagsoft.com/Presentations/ODONNELL-MAcquarie-Tenor2012.pdf. (Last accessed 15/05/2017.)Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. and Sefton, P.. 1995. Modelling Telephonic Interaction: A Dynamic Approach. Interface: Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1): 63–78.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M., Zappavigna, M., and Whitelaw, C.. 2008. A Survey of Process Type Classification over Difficult Cases. In Jones, C. and Ventola, E., eds., From Language to Multimodality: New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning. London: Continuum. 47–64.Google Scholar

Paltridge, B. 1996. Genre, Text Type, and the Language Learning Classroom. ELT Journal 50(3): 237–43.10.1093/elt/50.3.237CrossRef Google Scholar

Stillar, G. 1992. Phasal Analysis and Multiple Inheritance: An Appeal for Clarity. Carlton Papers in Applied Language Studies 9: 104–28.Google Scholar

Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, G. 2015. Pattern Grammar and Transitivity Analysis. In Groom, N., Charles, M., and John, S., eds., Corpora, Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21–41.10.1075/scl.73.02thoCrossRef Google Scholar

Tomlin, R. 1990. Functionalism in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 155–77.Google Scholar

Tucker, G. 2014. Process Types and Their Classification. In Kunz, K., Teich, E., Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S., and Daut, P., eds., Caught in the Middle: Language Use and Translation. A Festschrift for Erich Steiner on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Saarbrücken: universaar, University of the Saarland. 401–16.Google Scholar

Ure, J. N. and Ellis, J.. 1977. Register in Descriptive Linguistics and Linguistic Sociology. In Uribe-Villegas, O., ed., Issues in Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. 197–243.10.1515/9783110806687.197CrossRef Google Scholar

Ventola, E. 1983. The Dynamics of Genre. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 13:103–23.Google Scholar

Ventola, E. 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Pinter.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.