Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I SFL: The Model
- 1 Firth and the Origins of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- 2 Key Terms in the SFL Model
- 3 Semantics
- 4 The Clause
- 5 The Rooms of the House
- 6 Context and Register
- 7 Intonation
- 8 Continuing Issues in SFL
- 9 The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax
- 10 SFL in Context
- Part II Discourse Analysis within SFL
- Part III SFL in Application
- Index
- References
9 - The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax
from Part I - SFL: The Model
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I SFL: The Model
- 1 Firth and the Origins of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- 2 Key Terms in the SFL Model
- 3 Semantics
- 4 The Clause
- 5 The Rooms of the House
- 6 Context and Register
- 7 Intonation
- 8 Continuing Issues in SFL
- 9 The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax
- 10 SFL in Context
- Part II Discourse Analysis within SFL
- Part III SFL in Application
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter situates SFL in functional-cognitive space, a multidimensional space based on a wide range of properties, in which various functional and/or cognitively oriented and/or constructionist approaches to language can be plotted. The discussion refers to the detailed comparison of sixteen such models presented in Butler and Gonzálvez-García (2014), based on a questionnaire in which experts in each model rated fifty-eight features for their importance, together with close reading of the literature on each model. The chapter first examines the SFL questionnaire data statistically in relation to that for other models. It then considers the final ratings of the authors for SFL in the light of those for other models. We then turn to a detailed analysis, with particular reference to SFL, of each group of questionnaire items: (i) fundamental features of functional approaches, e.g. the importance of communicative function; (ii) what range of phenomena the model is intended to cover; (iii) the database for description; (iv) explanatory connections between language and the factors which are considered to motivate its structure and function; (v) the form of the grammar itself; and (vi) applications. The concluding section summarises the similarities and differences between SFL and the other approaches.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 230 - 258Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Berry, M. 1975. An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Volume 1: Structures and Systems. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Clark, V.. 2002. Historical Shifts in Modification Patterns with Complex Noun Phrase Structures: How Long Can You Go without a Verb? In Fanego, T., Lopez-Couso, M. J., and Perez-Guerra, J., eds., English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 43–66.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 2002. On Being True to Form: Models of Syntax in Systemic Functional Grammar. Functions of Language 9(1): 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. 2003a. Structure and Function: An Introduction to Three Major Structural-functional Theories, Volume 1: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 2003b. Structure and Function: An Introduction to Three Major Structural-functional Theories, Volume 2: From Clause to Discourse and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C. and Gonzálvez-García, F.. 2014. Exploring Functional-cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1973. Generating a Sentence in Systemic Functional Grammar. Reprinted in Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R., eds. 1981. Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1975. Some Proposals for Systemic Syntax, Part 2. MALS Journal 2(1): 43–68.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1976. Some Proposals for Systemic Syntax, Part 3. MALS Journal 2(2): 35–68.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1990. The Computer Generation of Speech with Semantically and Discoursally Motivated Intonation. In Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1993. Language as Program: A Reassessment of the Nature of Descriptive Linguistics. Language Sciences 14(4): 623–57.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1994. On Moving on on Ontologies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1998. System Network for Thing. Version 5. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2000a. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2000b. In Place of Halliday’s ‘Verbal Group’, Part 1: Evidence from the Problems of Halliday’s Representations and the Relative Simplicity of the Proposed Alternative. Word 51(2): 157–203.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2000c. In Place of Halliday’s ‘Verbal Group’, Part 2: Evidence from Generation, Semantics and Interruptability. Word 51(3): 327–75.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2007. Modelling ‘Selection’ between Referents in the English Nominal Group: An Essay in Scientific Inquiry in Linguistics. In Butler, C. S., Hidalgo Downing, R., and Lavid, J., eds., Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse: Papers in Honour of Professor Angela Downing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 165–204.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2008a. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics: The Cardiff Grammar as an Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2008b. Systemic Functional Grammar as a Formal Model of Language: A Micro-grammar for Some Central Elements of the English Clause. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.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., From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’: Studies in Linguistics Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. Ghent: Academia Press. 209–24.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2010. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2013. Choice and Choosing in Systemic-Functional Grammar. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 115–34.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2017. From Meaning to Form in the Cardiff Model of Language and its Use. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 56–76.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. forthcoming. Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Form. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R., Tucker, G., and Lin, Y.. 1993. How a Systemic Functional Grammar Works: The Role of Realization in Realization. In Horacek, H. and Zock, M., eds., New Concepts in Natural Language Generation. London: Pinter. 114–86.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2008. A Systemic Functional Approach to Referring Expressions: Reconsidering Post-modification in the Nominal Group. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2012. Analyzing English Grammar: A Systemic-functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2017. The English Nominal Group: The Centrality of the Thing Element. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 267–83.Google Scholar
Funamoto, H. 2014. The Interface between Culture and Mind: A Systemic Functional Account of Nominality. 北陸大学紀要 第 38 号: 51–80.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
He, W. 2014. Bi-functional Constituent Constructions in Modern Mandarin Chinese: A Cardiff Grammar Approach. Language Sciences 42: 43–59.Google Scholar
Huang, G. 2017. Theme in the Cardiff Grammar. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 163–76.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 1971. English Complex Sentences: An Introduction to Systemic Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. 1993. Aspects of a Linguistic Approach to Logical Form and Reasoning: COMMUNAL Report No 32. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Lin, Y., Fawcett, R., and Davies, B.. 1993. GENEDIS: The Discourse Generator in COMMUNAL. In Sloman, A., Hogg, D., Humphreys, G., Ramsay, A., and Partridge, D., eds., Prospects for Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of AISB 93, the 9th Biennial Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 148–57.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Bateman, J.. 1991. Text Generation and Systemic-functional Linguistics: Experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Neale, A. 2002. More Delicate TRANSITIVITY: Extending the PROCESS TYPE System Networks for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Neale, A. 2017. Transitivity in the Cardiff Grammar. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 178–93.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, S., and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quiroz, B. 2017. The Verbal Group. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 301–18.Google Scholar
Schulz, A. 2008. Tense, Modality and Polarity: The Finite Verbal Group in English and German Newsgroup Texts. In Norgaard, N., ed., Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense: OWPLC 29. 697–716.Google Scholar
Schulz, A. 2015. Me, Myself and I: A Corpus-based, Contrastive Study of English and German Computer-mediated Communication from a Systemic Functional Perspective. PhD Thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Tench, P. 2017. The Phoneme and Word Phonology in SFL. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 233–50.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. 1998. The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives: A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexis. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. 2017. The Adjectival Group. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 284–300.Google Scholar
Wegener, R. 2011. Parameters of Context: From Theory to Model and Application. PhD Thesis, Macquarie University.Google Scholar