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
3 - Semantics
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 explores SFL views on what (a) semantics can be and how those views of semantics can be understood. First, four basic conceptions of meaning/semantics are specified (what), corresponding to places of ‘meaning’ in the SFL model (where): valeur, stratum, content side, language as a whole as meaning-making. Then, it is argued that semantics can be modelled in three ways (how), viz. as topological, discourse-structural, or higher-level systemic meaning. In order to understand why a level of semantics is recognized in Hallidayan SFL, it is necessary to explore the variability between meaning and lexicogrammar, semantics as an interface stratum, and how this is exploited in grammatical metaphor. For a deeper understanding of semantics as a stratum, then, a wider view must be taken, in two ways: on the one hand, by opening up the time perspective: language is flexible but meta-stable through time ('metaredundancy'); on the other hand, by recognizing specific design features of SFL as an ‘extravagant’ model, i.e. a model which honours multiperspectivism and fractality. Finally, three recent semantic ‘endeavours’ in SFL are explored and explained against the theoretical backdrop sketched in this chapter: Martin’s discourse semantics, Halliday & Matthiessen’s ideation base, and Appraisal theory.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Butler, C. S. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-functional Theories, Volume 2: From Clause to Discourse and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. and Taverniers, M.. 2008. Layering in Structural-functional Grammars. Linguistics 46(4): 689–756.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. and Slade, D.. 2005. Analysing Casual Conversation. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. 1967. Aspects of Varieties Differentiation. Journal of Linguistics 3: 177–274.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. Functions and Universals in Language. In Kress, G., ed., Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press. 26–31.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1977. Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts. In van Dijk, T. and Petöfi, J. S., eds., Grammars and Descriptions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 176–225.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1982. The De-automatization of Grammar: From Priestley’s ‘An Inspector Calls’. In Anderson, J. M., ed., Language Form and Linguistic Variation: Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 129–59.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. P., Halliday, M. A. K., Lamb, S., and Makkai, A., eds., The Semiotics of Culture and Language, Volume 1: Language as Social Semiotic. London: Pinter. 3–35.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1991. Towards Probabilistic Interpretations. In Ventola, E., ed., Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1992. How Do You Mean? In Davies, M. and Ravelli, L., eds., Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. London: Pinter. 20–35.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1996. On Grammar and Grammatics. In Hasan, R., Cloran, C., and Butt, D. G., eds., Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–38.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1998a. Things and Relations: Regrammaticising Experience as Technical Knowledge. In Martin, J. R. and Veel, R., eds., Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. 185–235.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1998b. Linguistics as Metaphor. In Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Davidse, K., and Noël, D., eds., Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–27.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2008. Opening Address: Working with Meaning: Towards an Appliable Linguistics. In Webster, J. J., ed., Meaning in Context: Implementing Intelligent Applications of Language Studies. London: Continuum. 7–23.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2009. Methods – Techniques – Problems. In Halliday, M. A. K., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 59–86.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2013. Meaning as Choice. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15–36.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.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.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J.. 2009. Keywords. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 229–53.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1996. Semantic Networks: A Tool for the Analysis of Meaning. In Cloran, C., Butt, D. G., and Williams, G., eds., Ways of Saying, Ways of Meaning: Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Cassell. 104–31.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009. The Place of Context in a Systemic Functional Model. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 166–89.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2010. The Meaning of ‘Not’ is Not in ‘Not’. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., eds., Appliable Linguistics. London: Continuum. 267–306.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2014. Towards a Paradigmatic Description of Context: Systems, Metafunctions, and Semantics. Functional Linguistics 1(9): 1–54.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2003. The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah: Erlbaum. 213–42.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. 1963. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Translated by Whitfield, F. J.. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. 1962. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. 1992. New Challenges for Systemic-functional Linguistics: Dialect Diversity and Language Change. Network 18: 61–8.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. 1995. Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Louw, W. 1993. Irony in the Text or Sincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Tognini-Bonelli, E., eds., Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157–76.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Thompson, S. A.. 1992. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. In: Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Discourse Descriptions: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–78.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1991. Systemic Typology and Topology. In Christie, F., ed., Literacy in Social Processes. Darwin: Northern Territory University, Centre for Studies in Language and Education. 345–83.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Painter, C.. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1993. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2002. Combining Clauses into Clause Complexes: A Multi-faceted View. In Bybee, J. and Noonan, M., eds., Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 235–320.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2009. Meaning in the Making: Meaning Potential Emerging from Acts of Meaning. Language Learning 59: 206–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Thompson, S. A.. 1988. The Structure of Discourse and ‘Subordination’. In Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 275–329.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M. 2002. Systemic-functional Linguistics and the Notion of Grammatical Metaphor: A Theoretical Study and the Proposal for a Semiotic-functional Integrative Model. PhD Thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M. 2008. Hjelmslev’s Semiotic Model of Language: An Exegesis. Semiotica 171: 367–94.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M. 2011. The Syntax–semantics Interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’s Interpretation of the Hjelmslevian Model of Stratification. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4): 1100–26.Google Scholar
Thibault, P. J. 2004. Agency and Consciousness in Discourse: Self–Other Dynamics as a Complex System. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. 1999. Beyond Interpersonal Metaphors of Mood: Modelling the Discourse Semantics of Evaluation and Subjectivity. Paper presented at the 11th Euro-International Systemic Functional Workshop, July 1999, Ghent University.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. 2015. Appraisal Theory. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., and Sandel, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken: Wiley. 1–7.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by