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
4 - The Clause
An Overview of the Lexicogrammar
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 considers the structure of the clause from the perspective of the metafunctional choices that give rise to it. Experiential metafunction choices (Transitivity) are shown to lead to the number and nature of the basic constituents of the clause. Interpersonal metafunction choices (Mood and Modality) have realizations threaded in among the basic constituents. Textual metafunction choices (Theme and Given/New) relate to what comes at the beginning of the clause and what comes at the end. Remembering that an important concern of SFL is that it should be appliable to text analysis, the chapter includes discussion of how ‘probes’ are used in SFL to identify instances of categories in texts. An application of SFL of particular interest to the chapter’s author is that of discovering how children learn to write in different registers. Most of the exemplification of the theoretical points is from the work of an eleven-year-old girl, who provided a variety of pieces of writing from her different school courses. There is no room in the chapter for full discussion of her registers, but by implication the chapter shows how the analysis is relevant to such a study.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 92 - 117Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Berry, M. 1975. An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Volume 1: Structures and Systems. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 1996. What is Theme? A(nother) Personal View. In Berry, M., Butler, C. S., Fawcett, R. P., and Huang, G., eds., Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 1–64.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 2016. Interpersonal Meanings, with Particular Reference to Getting People to Do Things. Paper for seminar, Vigo, February 2016.Google Scholar
Berry, M. forthcoming. ‘Actually Given’ Versus ‘Presented as Given’ and ‘Actually New’ Versus ‘Presented as New’: What Happens when the ‘Presented as’ Gets out of Step with the ‘Actually’? Paper presented at the 2nd Round Table on Communicative Dynamism, Namur, Belgium, September 2016.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1999. On the Subject of the Subject in English. Functions of Language 6(2): 243–73.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2013. Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. 1981. On the Status of Theme in English: Arguments from Discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6: 1–38.Google Scholar
Gwilliams, L. and Fontaine, L.. 2015. Indeterminacy in Process Type Classification. Functional Linguistics 2(8): 1–19.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2002. Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure and Their Determination by Different Semantic Functions. In Webster, J. J., ed., On Grammar: Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. Vol. 1. London: Continuum. 196–218.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
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1992. Interpreting the Textual Metafunction. In Davies, M. and Ravelli, L., eds., Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. London: Pinter. 37–81.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Zappavigna, M., and Whitelaw, C.. 2009. 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
- 5
- Cited by