Cover not available
Part of
The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and implications
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Angela Downing
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247] 2014
► pp. 1–16

On the relatedness of functionalism and pragmatics

| University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| University of La Rioja, Spain
| University of Almería, Spain
| Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.01ang
References (88)
References
Aijmer, Karin, and Anne Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds). 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast . Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “I think – An English Modal Particle.” In Modality in Germanic Languages , ed. by Toril Swan, and Olaf J. Westvik, 1–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, James L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus . ­London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey N. Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies . Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words . The Hague and Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universal in Language Use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2009. “Criteria of Adequacy in Functional Linguistics. ” Folia Linguistica 43 (1): 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. The Directive Function of the English Modals . PhD dissertation, University of Nottingham.
. 1985a. “Discourse Systems and Structures and Their Place within an Overall Systemic Model.” In Systemic Perspectives on Language, Vol. I: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop , ed. by William S. Greaves, and James D. Benson, 213–228. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
. 1985b. Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications . London: Batsford.Google Scholar
. 1988a. “Politeness and the Semantics of Modalised Directives in English.” In Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective , ed. by James D. Benson, Michael Cummings, and William S. Greaves, 119–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988b. “Pragmatics and Systemic Linguistics. ” Journal of Pragmatics 12: 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “On the Concept of an Interpersonal Metafunction in English.” In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Vol. 2 of Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday . (Advances in Discourse Processes Volume LVII), ed. by Margaret Berry, Christopher S. Butler, Robin Fawcett, and Guowen Huang. 151–181. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Repeated Word Combinations in Spoken and Written text: Some Implications for Functional Grammar.” In A Fund of Ideas: Recent Developments in Functional Grammar (Studies in Language and Language Use, 31), ed. by Christopher S. Butler, John H. Connolly, Richard A. Gatward, and Roel M. Vismans, 60–77. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT).Google Scholar
. 1998a. “Collocational Frameworks in Spanish. ” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3 (1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. “Multi-word Phenomena in Functional Grammar. ” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 36: 13–36.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-­Functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Part 2: From Clause to Discourse and Beyond . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2003b. “Multiword Sequences and Their Relevance for Recent Models of Functional Grammar. ” Functions of Language 10 (2): 179–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005a. “Formulaic Language. A Cross-linguistic Perspective.” In The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives , ed. by Christopher S. Butler, María de los Ángeles Gomez-González, and Susana Doval-Suárez, 221–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. “Focusing on Focus: A Comparison of Functional Grammar, Role and Reference Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar. ” Language Sciences 27: 585–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. “Formulaic Sequences in Functional and Cognitive Linguistics. ” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 67–90.Google Scholar
. 2008b. “Interpersonal Meaning in the Noun Phrase.” In The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 195), ed. by Daniel García Velasco, and Jan Rijkhoff, 221–261. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008c. “‘Basically Speaking’: A Corpus-based Analysis of Three English Adverbs and Their Formal Equivalents in Spanish.” In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives , ed. by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie, and Elsa González Álvarez, 147–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008d. “The Subjectivity of Basically in British English.” In Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente , ed. by Jesús Romero Trillo, 37–63. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008e. “Three English Adverbs and Their Formal Equivalents in Romance Languages: A Corpus-based Collocational Study. ” Languages in Contrast 8 (1): 107–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. “Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics” in Folia Linguistica 43 (1): 1–66 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “The Lexical Constructional Model: genesis, strengths and challenges”. In Deconstructing constructions , C. S. Butler, and J. Martín Arista (eds), 117–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Coming Face to Face with N1 P N1 Sequences in Spanish.” In Exploring New Paths in Language Pedagogy: Lexis and Corpus-Based Language Teaching , ed. by María Moreno Jaén, Fernando Serrano Valverde, and María Calzada Pérez, 368–371. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S., and Joanna M. Channell. 1989. “Researching Politeness in a Second Language.” In Language and Literature: Theory and Practice. A Tribute to Water Grauberg , ed. by Christopher S. Butler, Joanna M. Channell, and Richard A. Cardwell, 1–16. Special monographic issue of Nottingham Linguistic Circular, in association with Nottingham Monographs in the Humanities.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caron, Jean. 1992. Introduction to Psycholinguistics . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, John H. 2007. “Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. ” Alfa 51 (2): 11–33.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1992. “Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-headed Grammar of Actions and Events.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics , ed. by Mark Davies, and Louise J. Ravelli, 105–135. London: Printer.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1986. “On the Notion Functional Explanation. ” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 1: 11–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. (Part I: The structure of the clause) . ­Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar (2nd revised edition, edited by Kees Hengeveld). Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Does, A., N. A. Johnson, and T. Thiel. (accessed 2010 April 10). Genetically Modified Organisms. In Rediscovering Biology . Available at: [URL].
Downing, Angela, and Philip Locke. 2006. English Grammar. A University Course. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics , ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gvozdanovic, J. 1997. Language Change and Functionalism . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1987/2003. “Language and the Order of Nature.” In The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature , ed. by Colin MacCabe, Nigel Fabb, Derek Attridge, and Alan Durant, 135–154. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Reprinted in Michael A. K. Halliday, and Jonathan J. Webster (eds.). 2003. On Language and Linguistics, 116–138. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar . 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A  ­Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and Pérez Quintero, María Jesús. 2001. “Descriptive adequacy in Functional Grammar”. In Challenges and developments in Functional Grammar (Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 42), ed. by María Jesús Pérez Quintero, 103–117. La Laguna: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Laguna.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott . 2003. Grammaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovy, Edward, and Julia Lavid. 2010. “Towards a Science of Corpus Annotation: A New Methodological Challenge for Corpus Linguistics. ” International Journal of Translation 22 (1): 13–36.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. W. (accessed 2010 April 15). “Can Humans Be Cloned?” In Kimball’s Biology Pages . Available at: [URL].
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. “How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in Language Evolution. ” Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Jay. 1998. “Resources for Attitudinal Meaning: Evaluative Orientations in Text Semantics. ” Functions of Language 5 (1): 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2007. “Soþlice, Forsoothe, Truly – Communicative Principles and Invited Inferences in the History of Truth-intensifying Adverbs in English.” In Methods in Historical Pragmatics , ed. by Susan Fitzmaurice, and Irma Taavitsainen, 81–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin James R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English . Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James, and Pam Peters. 1985. “On the Analysis of Exposition.” In Discourse on Discourse: Workshop Reports from the Macquarie Workshop on Discourse Analysis (Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Occasional Papers 7), ed. by Ruqaiya Hasan, 61–92. Wollongong: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. 1938. “Foundations of the Theory of Signs.” In International Encyclopedia of Unified Science . Vols 1–2, ed. by Otto Neurath, 13–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pang, Bo, and Lillian Lee. 2008. “Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. ” Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2 (1–2): 11–35.Google Scholar
Peeters, Bert. 1998. “Cognitive musings”. Word 49: 225–237.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Does Cognitive Linguistics live up to its name?”. In Language and Ideology: Volume 1: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches , ed. by René Dirven, Bruce Hawkins and E. Sandikcioglu, 83–106. Bert Peeters: University of Tasmania. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2011. “Honorifics: The Cultural Specificity of a Universal Mechanism in Japanese.” In Politeness in East Asia , ed. by Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills, 45–70. ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed). 2012. Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching . ­Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ron. 2005. “The Discourses of Food in the World System: Toward a Nexus Analysis of a World Problem. ” Journal of Language and Politics 4: 465–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality . London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Making of the Social World . Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 2004. Trust the Text . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Borrowed Ideas.” In Language, People, Numbers , ed. by Andrea ­Gerbig, and Oliver Mason, 21–42. Amsterdam: Rodopi.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John McH., and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Small, Henry. 2001. “Belver and Henry. ” Scientometrics 51 (3): 489–497.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London: Continuum .Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems . ­Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticalisation of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalisation , Vol 2, ed. by Elizabeth Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. “(Inter)Subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification”. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization , ed. by K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte and H. Cuyckens (eds), 29–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher . 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology. Sociolinguistics Determinants of Linguistic Complexity . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2009. The Grammar of Complement-Taking Mental Predicate Constructions in Present-Day Spoken British English . PhD thesis, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Howard D., and Katherine W. McCain. 1998. “Visualising a Discipline: An Author Co-citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972–1995.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49 (4): 327–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilmut, I., A. E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A. J. Kind, and K. H. S. Campbell. 1997. “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells. ” Nature 385: 810–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison, and George W. Grace. 2007. “The Consequences of Talking to Strangers: Evolutionary Corollaries of Socio-cultural Influences on Linguistic Form.” Lingua 117 (3): 543–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeung, Lorrita. 2009. “Use and Misuse of ‘Besides’: A Corpus Study Comparing Native Speakers’ and Learners’ English. ” System 37: 330–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra, and Sarah Lee. 2009. “A Metonymic Analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar , ed. by Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda ­Thornburg, and Antonio Barcelona, 291–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar