Relational clauses in English technical discourse: Patterns of verb choice

Arlene Harvey

Abstract

This paper reports on patterns of verb choice in identifying relational clauses (e.g. ‘X is Y, Y is X’) in English technical manuals. While it is obvious that specific lexical verbs will feature in identifying clauses of different functions, e.g. mean (defining), call (naming), exemplify (exemplifying), less transparent is the distribution of these more specific verbs and the general or neutral verb be. The findings suggest that verb choice in (technical) identifying clauses is strongly associated with the degree of equivalence constructed between the two central nominal groups in the clause (the Token and Value). Equivalence relations are one-to-one (rather than one-to-many) and exhaustive (rather than semantically open). Major grammatical influences on equivalence include nominal group structure, ergativity of the clause, and the inclusion of features (e.g. interpersonal, logical or textual) that undermine the privileging of an experientially homogeneous world-view. The results challenge the notions that be and specific verbs are interchangeable and that be is an unmarked choice. On the contrary, the data reveal that under certain conditions be is the more marked choice. The results have practical implications for teachers and students of English (in particular, students of English for Academic and/or Specific Purposes) as well as translators.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Davidse, K
(1991) Categories of experiential grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leuven.
(1992a) A semiotic approach to relational clauses. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 99-131.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1992b) Transitivity/ergativity: The janus-headed grammar of actions and events. In M. Davies & L. Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice. London: Pinter, pp. 103-135.Google Scholar
(1996) Turning grammar on itself: Identifying clauses in linguistic discourse. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations (Meaning and choice in language: Studies for Michael Halliday). Ablex: Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 367-393.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J
(1991) Pragmatic modifications on the ‘representative’ speech act of defining. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 253-264. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fries, P
(1994) On theme, rheme and discourse goals. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 229-249.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1995) Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Parts 1 and 2). Journal of Linguistics 3.1: 37-81 & 3.2: 199-244. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1968) Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Part 3). Journal of Linguistics 4.2: 179- 215. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1978) Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1982) The de-automatization of grammar: From Priestly’s ‘An Inspector Calls’. In J. Anderson (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 129-59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) On the ineffability of grammatical categories. In J. Benson, M. Cummings & W. Greaves (eds.), Linguistics in a systemic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 27-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991a) Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In K. Aijer & B. Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London & New York: Longman, pp. 30-43.Google Scholar
(1991b) Towards probabilistic interpretations. In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 39-61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Introduction to functional grammar. (2nd Ed.) London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan
(1976) Cohesion in English. London & New York: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & J. R. Martin
(1993) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Z. James
(1993) A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In J. Sinclair, M. Hoey & G. Fox (eds.), Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse. London: Routledge, pp. 32-66.Google Scholar
Harvey, A
(1996) Equivalence and depersonalisation in definitions: An exploration of lexicogrammatical and rhetorical patterns in English technical discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.
(1999) Definitions in English technical discourse: A study in metafunctional dominance and interaction. Functions of Language 6.1: 53-94. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R
(1932/1984) The structure of the Russian verb. In L. Waugh & M. Halle (eds.), Russian and Slavic grammar studies, 1931-1981. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton, pp. 1-14.Google Scholar
Langacker, R
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lemke, J
(1990a) Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990b) Technical discourse and technocratic ideology. In M.A.K. Halliday, J. Gibbons & H. Nicholas (eds.), Learning, keeping, and using language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 435-460. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Litowitz, B
(1977) Learning to make definitions. Journal of Child Language 4: 289-304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J.R
(1992) English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C
(1995a) Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1995b) Theme as an enabling resource in ideational ‘knowledge’ construction. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter, pp. 20-55.Google Scholar
Mukarovsky, J
(1977) Word and verbal art: Selected essays. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, C. & G. Plum
(1988) Probabilities in a systemic grammar: The clause complex in English. In R. Fawcett & D. Young (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics, Vol 2: Theory and application. London: Frances Pinter, pp. 6-38.Google Scholar
Newman, J
in prep) (ed.) The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying Crossref
Plum, G. and A. Cowling
(1987) Social constraints on grammatical variables: Tense choice in English. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281-305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plum, G., C. Matthiessen, M. O’Donnell, L. Zeng, C. Nesbitt, A. Harvey, M.A.K. Halliday & J. Bateman
(1992) EDA research and development: Final report. Internal Document, Fujitsu Australia Ltd.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, M
(1994) Definities in schooltaal: Communicatieve, cognitieve en tekstuele aspecten van definiëren in de derde graad van het basisonderwijs. (2 volumes). Ph.D. Thesis, Antwerpen: Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Van Oosten, J
(1984) Sitting, standing and lying in Dutch: A cognitive approach to the distribution of the verbs zitten, staan, and liggen. In J. van Oosten & J. Snapper (eds.), Dutch linguistics in Berkeley. Berkeley: UCB, pp. 137-160.Google Scholar
Wignell, P., J.R. Martin & S. Eggins
(1993) The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiential world. In M.A.K. Halliday & J.R. Martin (eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power. London & Washington, DC: Falmer.Google Scholar