Cover not available
Part of
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. 15–27
Tributes

Tributes to Margaret Berry

|
|
|
Article outline
  • Margaret Berry: An influential teacher, scholar and friend
  • My great debts to Margaret Berry
    • 1.Introductory remarks
    • 2.Margaret’s contribution to establishing the infrastructure of SFL
    • 3.Margaret’s contributions to theoretical and descriptive linguistics
    • 4.Concluding comments
  • A Tribute to Margaret Berry
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 27 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18020.hil
References (42)
References
Berry, Margaret. 1975. Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Vol 1: Structures and systems. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
. 1977. Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Vol 2: Levels and links. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
. 1980. They’re all out of step except our Johnny: A discussion of motivation (or lack of it) in systemic linguistics. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics Vol 31. 5–67.Google Scholar
. 1981a. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Malcolm Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1981b. Polarity, ellipticity, elicitation and propositional development: Their relevance to the well-formedness of an exchange. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 101. 36–63.Google Scholar
. 1981c. Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network 21. 23–32. Available online at [URL]
. 1982. Review of Halliday, 1978, Language as social semiotic, London: Arnold. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 111. 64–94.Google Scholar
. 1987a. Projects for Modern English language courses. Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
. 1987b. Is teacher an unanalysed concept? In M. A. K. Halliday & Robin Fawcett (eds.), New developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol 1: Theory and description, 41–63. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
. 1995. Thematic options and success in writing. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, 55–84. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
. 1996. What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. In Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic Functional interpretations. Meaning and choice in language: Studies for Michael Halliday, 1–64. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 2013. Towards a study of the differences between formal written English and informal spoken English. In Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice, 243–268. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. On describing contexts of situation: A theoretical view. In Siân Alsop & Sheena Gardner (eds.), Language in a digital age: Be not afraid of digitality. Proceedings from the 24th European Systemic Functional Linguistics conference and workshop, 1–3 July 2013, 17–19. Coventry: Coventry University. Available online at [URL]
. 2016. On describing contexts of situation. In Wendy Bowcher & Jennifer Liang (eds.), Society in language, language in society, 184–205. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, Margaret, Geoff Thompson & Hilary Hillier. 2014. Theme and variations. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 107–126. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davies, Flo. 1997. Marked Theme as a heuristic for analysing text-type, text and genre. In Jordi Pique & David Viera (eds.), Applied languages: Theory and practice in ESP, 45–71. Universitat de Valencia: Servei de Publications.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 51. 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 1973 [1981]. Generating a sentence in Systemic Functional grammar. University College London. Reprinted in M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics, 146–183. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Forey, Gail. 2009. Projecting clauses: Interpersonal realisation of control and power in workplace texts. In Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture, 151–174. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sheena. 2004. Four critical features of teacher-guided reporting in infant science and literacy contexts. Language and Education 18/5. 361–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Centre-stage in the instructional register: Partnership talk in primary EAL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 9(4). 476–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Transforming talk and phonics practice: Or, how do crabs clap? TESOL Quarterly 421. 261–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Sheena & Aizan Yaacob. 2009. CD-ROM multimodal affordances: Classroom interaction perspectives in the Malaysian English literacy hour. Language and Education 23(5). 409–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 171. 241–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969. Options and functions in the English clause. Brno Papers in Linguistics 81. 81–88.Google Scholar
1970. Language structure and language function. In John Lyons (ed.), New horizons in linguistics, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1978. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hillier, Hilary. 1992. The language of spontaneous interaction between children aged 7–12: Instigating action. (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 4). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
. 2004. Analysing real texts: Research studies in modern English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2009. Texturing interpersonal meanings in academic argument: Pulses and prosodies of value. In Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture, 216–233. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Magee, Bryan. 1973. Popper. Glasgow: Fontana.Google Scholar
Martin, James. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. & Manfred B. Sellner. 1980. Discourse and linguistic theory. In Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce & William F. Brewer (eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and education, 165–200. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
North, Sarah. 2005. Disciplinary variation in the use of Theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics 26(3). 431–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolf, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1980. Discourse in relation to language structure and semiotics. In Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, 110–124. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija. 1987. The structure of social interaction. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Wickens, Paul. 2000. Computer-based learning and changing legal pedagogical orders of discourse in UK higher education: A comparative critical discourse analysis of the TLTP materials in law. Warwick: University of Warwick PhD thesis. Available online at [URL]