Cover not available
Article published In:
On mood and speech function and the ‘why’ of text analysis: In honour of Margaret Berry
Edited by Lise Fontaine, Miriam Taverniers and Kristin Davidse
[Functions of Language 26:1] 2019
► pp. 64–85
Mood and speech function

Does functional linguistics have a ‘fundamental unity’?

Doing things with words in three structural-functional theories

| Swansea University | University of Huddersfield
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What makes a theory a functionalist theory? A preliminary assessment
  • 3.The overall orientation of the three theories
  • 4.Doing things with words in the three theories
    • 4.1Systemic Functional Linguistics
    • 4.2Functional Discourse Grammar
    • 4.3Role and reference grammar
  • 5.Conclusion: A basic unity?
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 27 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18017.but
References

References

Allen, Keith
2007 The Western classical tradition in linguistics. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk
2017 Interpersonal meaning and the clause. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 115–130.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L.
1962 How to do things with words. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Tom & Gerard O’Grady
(eds.) 2017 The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, Margaret
2016 Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction 9(1). 33–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bowcher, Wendy L.
2017 Field, tenor and mode. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 391–403.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S.
2003a Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2003b Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2004 Corpus linguistics and functional linguistic theories. Functions of Language 11(2). 147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive adequacy in structural-functional theories of language. Language Sciences 301. 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica 43(1). 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and psycholinguistics: opportunities for dialogue. Functions of Language 20(2). 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
2014 Exploring functional-cognitive space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Miriam Taverniers
2008 Layering in functional grammars: An introductory survey. Linguistics 46(2). 689–756.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
(eds.) 2004 Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray J. Jackendoff
2005 Simpler syntax. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2004 BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at [URL]
Dik, Simon C.
1997 The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 11: The structure of the clause. 2nd edn., Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer
(eds.) 2003 Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P.
2000 A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 206). Amsterdam: 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 edn. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2011 A semantic system network for MOOD in English. ‘Work in progress’ version available from [URL]
2017 From meaning to form in the Cardiff Model of language and its use. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 56–76.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sheena
2017 Systemic functional linguistics and genre studies. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 473–488.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio
2003  Shall and will in contemporary English: A comparison with past uses. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), 267–300.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1978 Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1994 Systemic theory. In Ronald E. Asher & James M. Y. Simpson (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 4505–4508. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
2002 Introduction: A personal perspective. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), On grammar (Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. 1), 1–14. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
1999 Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
2014 An introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya
2013 Choice, system, realisation: Describing language as meaning potential. In Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice, 269–299. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Towards a paradigmatic description of context: Systems, metafunctions, and semantics. Functional Linguistics 1(9).Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya, Carmel Cloran, Geoffrey Williams & Annabelle Lukin
2007 Semantic networks: The description of linguistic meaning in SFL. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), 697–738.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster
(eds.) 2007 Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective. Vol 21. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, Eli Nazareth Bechara, Roberto Gomes Camacho, Alessandra Regina Guerra, Taísa Peres de Oliveira, Eduardo Penhavel, Erotilde Goreti Pezatti, Liliane Santana, Edson Rosa Francisco de Souza & Maria Luiza de Sousa Teixeira
2007 Basic illocutions in the native languages of Brazil. Alfa-Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 73–90.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
2008 Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray J.
2007 A whole lot of challenges for linguistics. Journal of English Linguistics 30(3). 353–358.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M.
2008 Psychological explanations in Gricean pragmatics and Frege’s legacy. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intentions, common ground, and egocentric speaker-hearer, 9–44. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia, Jorge Arús & Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla
2010 Systemic-Functional Grammar of Spanish: A contrastive study with English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2003 Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), 223–240.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M.
1989 Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Vol. 11. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R.
1992 English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Interpersonal meaning. Systemic functional linguistics perspectives. Functions of Language 25(1).Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
2007 Lexicogrammar in systemic functional linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical developments in the ‘IFG’ tradition since the 1970s. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), 765–858.Google Scholar
Moore, Alison R.
2017 Register analysis in Systemic Functional Linguistics. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 418–437.Google Scholar
Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Winfred W. Xuan
2016 A survey of studies in Systemic Functional language description and typology. Functional Linguistics 3(8).Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2005 Brothers in arms? On the relations between functional and cognitive linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Carvel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 69–100. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2013 Functional and cognitive grammars. In Keith Allan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics, 485–501. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena & Tanja Mortelmans
2010 Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte und Theorien. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tann, Ken
2017 Context and meaning in the Sydney architecture of Systemic Functional Linguistics. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 438–456.Google Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro, Ernest Akerejola, Thomas H. Anderson, Alice Caffarel, Julia Lavid, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, Uwe H. Petersen, Pattama Patpong & Flemming Smedegaard
2007 Typology of MOOD: A text-based and system-based view. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), 859–920.Google Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2015 Halliday in relation to language comparison and typology. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M. A. K. Halliday, 427–452. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
1993 A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Robert D. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 82), 1–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar. In Robert D. Van Valin (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (Studies in Language Companion Series 105), 161–178. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Role and Reference Grammar as a framework for linguistic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 703–738. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2014 Developing comprehensive criteria of adequacy: The challenge of hybridity. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco Gonzálvez García & Angela Downing (eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse, 19–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar