Cover not available
Article published In:
The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause
Edited by Ben Clarke and Jorge Arús-Hita
[English Text Construction 9:1] 2016
► pp. 99–114

Textual dynamism as a heuristic for a delicate semantic description of ellipsis patterns

This paper puts the case that viewing text dynamically can be valuable in the practice of semantic description. Using, as its case study, the statistically significant occurrence of Subject ellipsis across consecutive clauses in a corpus of newspaper football reports, the paper demonstrates a systematic difference between the lexicogrammatical characteristics of clauses containing such patterned use of ellipsis and the clauses of their surrounding co-text. The lexicogrammatical features in question, which are analysed in detail in the paper, are: clause length in words, number of clause elements, amount of syntactic embedding, and patterns in Hallidayan transitivity process-types. Given the nature of these lexicogrammatical features, the argument is made that Subject ellipsis across consecutive clauses can iconically express an increase in pace – something only observable when the text is viewed dynamically.
Keywords: semantic description, ellipsis, textual dynamism, textual pace, subject ellipsis
Published online: 30 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.06cla
References (38)
Barthes, Roland. 1966. Introduction à l’analyse structurale des récits. Communications 81: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chatman, Seymour. 1969. New ways of analysing narrative structure. Language and Style 21: 3–36.Google Scholar
. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Ben P. 2012. Do patterns of ellipsis in text support systemic functional linguistics’ ‘context-metafunction hook-up’ hypothesis? A corpus-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Cardiff University.
. 2016. Cohesion in Systemic Functional Linguistics in the 21st century: A theoretical reflection. In The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds). Oxford: Routledge, n.a.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Further semantics of ellipsis: The increased textual pace construed by consecutive Subject ellipsis. Submitted to Word.
Cloran, Carmel. 1994. Rhetorical Units and Decontextualisation: An Enquiry into some Relations of Context, Meaning and Grammar. Nottingham: Monographs in Systemic Linguistics.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, František Daneš (ed.). The Hague: Mouton, 106–128.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 2000. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar: An Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, 3rd edition. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1971. On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Sbornik prací filosofické fakulti brnenské university 19 (71): 135–144.Google Scholar
. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R. 1951. Modes of meaning. Essays and Studies of the English Association 41: 123–149.Google Scholar
Genette, Gerard. 1980. Narrative Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Iconicity in Syntax, John Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michael J. 2002. Phasal analysis within communication linguistics: Two contrastive discourses. In Relations and Functions within and around Language, Peter Fries, Michael Cummings, David Lockwood & William Spruiell (eds). London: Continuum, 316–345.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 171: 241–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967a. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3 (1): 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3 (2): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4 (2): 179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: Essays Offered to William Haas, David J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds). London: Cambridge University Press, 57–79.Google Scholar
. 1985. Systemic background. In Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds). Norwood: Ablex, 1–15.Google Scholar
. 1993. Systemic theory. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ron E. Asher (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4505–4508.Google Scholar
. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1996. On grammar and grammatics. In Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice, Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. Lexicogrammar in discourse development: Logogenetic patterns of wording. In Discourse and Language Functions, Guo Huang & Zong Wang (eds). Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2–25.Google Scholar
Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 631: 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noordman, Leo & Wietske Vonk. 1994. Text processing and its relevance for literacy. In Functional Literacy: Theoretical Issues and Educational Implications, Ludo Verhoeven (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Michael. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 2014. Just what is narrative urgency? Language and Literature 23 (1): 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xueyan, Yang. 2013. Modelling ellipsis in EFL classroom discourse. In Developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Application, Fang Yan & Jonathan J. Webster (eds). Sheffield: Equinox, 227–240.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bowen, Neil & Luuk Van Waes
2020. Exploring Revisions in Academic Text: Closing the Gap Between Process and Product Approaches in Digital Writing. Written Communication 37:3 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.