Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpersonal Meaning: Systemic Functional Linguistics perspectives
Edited by J.R. Martin
[Functions of Language 25:1] 2018
► pp. 54–96

Interpersonal grammar of Tagalog

A Systemic Functional Linguistics perspective

| University of Sydney | Shanghai Jiao Tong University
| Ateneo de Manila University
In this paper the interpersonal grammar of Tagalog is explored from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Following a brief metafunctional profile of Tagalog grammar, a framework for interpreting the discourse function of Tagalog clauses is introduced – exchange structure. Subsequently the systems of mood, polarity, modality, tagging, vocation, comment and engagement are considered, alongside their realisation in tone, clause structure and lexical selection. The role played by these interpersonal systems and structure is then illustrated through a brief sample of Tagalog discourse. The paper demonstrates the manner in which a paradigmatic perspective can be used to integrate the description of grammatical resources typically fragmented and marginalised in syntagmatically organised descriptions.
Article outline
  • 1.Multinocular vision
  • 2.Metafunctional profile
  • 3.Negotiating meaning
    • 3.1 mood
    • 3.2 polarity
    • 3.3 modality
    • 3.4 tagging
    • 3.5 vocation
    • 3.6 comment
    • 3.7 assessment
  • 4. mood systems
  • 5. mood structure
  • 6.Tracking and challenging
  • 7.Negotiating genre
  • 8.Interpersonal vision
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17016.mar
References (57)
References
Bautista, Maria Lourdes S. 1979. Patterns of speaking in Filipino radio dramas: Sociolinguistic analysis. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis (University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 2 & 3). Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Buenaventura-Naylor, Paz. 1975. Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics 141. 12–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax. In David C. Bennett, Theodora Bynon & George B. Hewitt (eds.), Subject, voice and ergativity, 161–201. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2003a. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories – Part 1 Approaches to the simplex clause (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2003b. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories – Part 2 From clause to discourse and beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Miriam Taverniers. 2008a. Introduction. Linguistics 46(4). 679–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics 46(4). 689–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, Alice. 1995. Approaching the French clause as a move in dialogue: Interpersonal organisation. In Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118), 1–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark & Nicholas J. Enfield. 2015. Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1(1). 96–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In David J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: Essays offered to William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin P. Fawcett, M. A. K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture: Vol 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.). 2007. Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective. Volume 2 1. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. On statives and potentives in western Austronesian (mostly Tagalog). In Paul Law (ed.), Proceedings of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 11 (ZAS Papers in Linguistics Nr 34). 103–119.Google Scholar
2006a. Tagalog. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2006b. How to miss a paradigm or two: Multifunctional ma- in Tagalog. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan C. Dench & Nicholas J. Evans (eds.), Catching language, 487–526. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 1992. The realisation of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language. Language Sciences 14(4). 317–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1981. conjunction and continuity in Tagalog. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics, 310–336. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
1983. Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 45–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Grammatical conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, face and fate – with reference to Benjamin Lee Whorf. In James D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings & William S. Greaves (eds.), Linguistics in a systemic perspective, 243–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. Interpersonal grammatization: Mood and modality in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 21(1). 2–51.Google Scholar
1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Clitics. In Andrew Gonzalez (ed.), Philippine Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 237–240. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.Google Scholar
1995a. Logical meaning, interdependency and the linking particle {-ng/na} in Tagalog. Functions of Language 2(2). 189–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995b. Text and clause: Fractal resonance. Text 15(1). 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996a. Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Eduard H. Hovy & Donia R. Scott (ed.), Computational and Conversational Discourse, 39–66. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. Transitivity in Tagalog: A functional interpretation of case. In Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin P. Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 229–296. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
1996c. Metalinguistic diversity: The case from case. In Ruquaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), 323–372. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004a. Metafunctional profile: Tagalog. In Alice Caffarel et al. (eds.), 255–304.Google Scholar
2004b. Prosodic ‘structure’: Grammar for negotiation. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 461. 41–82.Google Scholar
2008. What kind of structure? Interpersonal meaning and prosodic realisation across strata. Word 59(2). 113–143.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause, 2nd revised edn. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008. Genre relations: mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., Pin Wang & Yongsheng Zhu. 2013. Systemic Functional Grammar: A next step into the theory – Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1988. Representational issues in systemic functional grammar. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Functional approaches to discourse, 136–175. Norwood, N J: Ablex.Google Scholar
1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction. In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics, 37–81. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
2004. Descriptive motifs and generalisations. In Caffarel et al. (eds), 537–673.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & M. A. K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Canzhong Wu. 2008. Multilingual studies in a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 146–220. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1990. The metafunctional hypothesis and syntagmatic relations. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 41. 5–50.Google Scholar
1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth Lee. 1982. Linguistic concepts: An introduction to Tagmemics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth Lee & Evelyn G. Pike. 1983. Text and tagmeme. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Poynton, Cate. 1990. The privileging of representation and the marginalising of the interpersonal: A metaphor (and more) for contemporary gender relations. In Terry Threadgold & Anne Cranny-Francis (eds.), Feminine/masculine and representation, 231–255. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. In Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Celio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday (Philippine Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph Issues No. 4), 214–231. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
. 1976. The Subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 491–518. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Saddock (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 279–306. New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 151. 51–52.Google Scholar
. 2008. Tagalog (Revised by Lawrence A. Reid). In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages (2nd edn), 833–855. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organisation: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2006. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese. Vols. 1 & 2 1. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro, Ernest Akerejola, Thomas H. Anderson, Alice Caffarel, Julia Lavid, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, Uwe Helm Petersen, Pattama Patpong & Flemming Smedegaard. 2007. Typology of mood: A text-based and system-based functional view. In Ruqaiya Hasan et al. (eds.), 859–920.Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija. 1987. The structure of social interaction. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Cheng, Shi
2023. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages DOI logo
Li, Dongqi
2023. A Systemic Functional Typology of Imperative Mood. In A Systemic Functional Typology of MOOD [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Li, Dongqi
2023. Literature Review. In A Systemic Functional Typology of MOOD [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Li, Dongqi
2023. Methodology. In A Systemic Functional Typology of MOOD [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran
2023. Structure markers. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 5:1 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Figueredo, Giacomo
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in Brazilian Portuguese. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Cruz
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in Tagalog: Assessment Systems. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R., Beatriz Quiroz & Giacomo Figueredo
2021. Introduction: Theory and Description in Interpersonal Grammar across Languages. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Rose, David
2021. Interpersonal Grammar of Pitjantjatjara. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Rudge, Luke A.
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in British Sign Language. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Dongbing
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in Khorchin Mongolian. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Angela T. Cruz
2019. Relational Processes in Tagalog: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective. In Discourses of Southeast Asia [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Angela T. Cruz
2022. Re/construing Our World: An Ecolinguistic Perspective on Tagalog Nominal Group Resources. <i>WORD</i> 68:2 ► pp. 200 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 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.