Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Context and Text
Vol. 2:1 (2020) ► pp.59–90

Is there a role for prosody within register studies

And if so what and how?

ORCID logo | Cardiff University
This article examines whether the incorporation of prosody within register studies can lead to a richer description of what speakers can mean in a specific environment. In order to situate how prosody resets the probabilities of contextual variables, a number of texts are examined and it is argued that prosodic systems at and above the rank of tone group are meaningful and situated on the content plane. The article concludes by suggesting some redrawing of the standard SFL stratification model by arguing that the view that meaning redounds with wording which in turn redounds with sounding needs some revision to incorporate the higher units of the phonological rank scale being situated on the content plane.
Keywords: register, prosody, stratification, redundancy, realisation, context, system, phonological rank scale, potential, instance, articulation, spoken and written language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Register within the SFL architecture of language
  • 3.Meaning making in written and oral texts
    • 3.1The weather-forecast texts
    • 3.2The political statement
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00021.ogr
References (44)
References
Bache, Carl. 2010. Hjelmslev’s glossematics: A source of inspiration for systemic functional linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 421. 2562–2578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, Margaret. 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, 365–383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction 91. 33–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenick. 2013. Praat doing phonetics by computer. Computer programme Version 5.3.52.Google Scholar
Brazil, David. 1997. The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Canalis, Stefano. 2007. A note on the influence of Louis Hjelmslev’s suprasegmental phonology. ICPhS XVI Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, Richard T. 1999. Openings rhythm and relationships: Philip Larkin reads Mr Bleaney. Language and Literature 81(11). 35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corballis, Michael C. 2017. The truth about language: What it is and where it came from. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsen, Hike. 2017. The two meanings of sound symbolism. Open Linguistics 31. 491–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1954. Review of a prolegomena to a theory of language by Louis Hjelmslev. Language 30(1). 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978. Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
2002. How do you mean? In Michael A. K. Halliday, On grammar, volume 1 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 352–368. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2003. On language and linguistics, volume 3 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2005. The language of science, volume 5 in the collected works of M. A. K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & William S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., Angus McIntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. An introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1996. Semantic networks: A tool for the analysis of meaning. In Carmel Cloran, David Butt & Geoff Williams (eds.), Ways of saying, ways of meaning, 104–127. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1963. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison Wisc: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
. 1975. Resume to a theory of language. Madison, Wisc: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay. 1995. Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd edition). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography. Tokyo: International Language Sciences.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. The architecture of phonology according to systemic functional linguistics. In The collected works of Christian Matthiessen. London: Equinox.
Moore, Alison. 2017. Register analysis in systemic functional linguistics. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 418–437. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard. 2010. A grammar of spoken English: The intonation of increments. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2012. Key concepts in phonetics and phonology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
. 2014. An investigation of how intonation helps signal information structure. In Wendy S. Bowcher & Bradley Smith (eds.), Systemic phonology: Recent studies in English, 27–52. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Intonation and systemic functional linguistics: The way forward. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 146–162. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Theme and prosody: Redundancy and meaning making. English Text Construction 10(2). 274–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2011. The syntax–semantics interface in systemic functional grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics 431. 1100–1126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
. 2003. Processes of semogenesis in English. Functions of Language 10(2). 209–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibault, Paul. 2004. Brain, mind and the signifying body. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2000. Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings middles and ends. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Willett, Michael. 2015. A study in the productivity of 12 onset English phonaesthemes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

O’Grady, Gerard
2024. Theme in spoken language: when a tone group is not a clause. Journal of World Languages 10:1 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Ariztimuño, Lilián I., Shoshana Dreyfus & Alison Rotha Moore
2022. Emotion in speech. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 4:2 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Doran, Yaegan J., David Caldwell & Andrew S. Ross
2021. Language in action. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 3:2 ► pp. 274 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.