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 (60)
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
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Liao, Qi & Chenguang Chang
2024. Unraveling the logical status of sentential relative clauses in English: Constructing a multifunctional framework. Lingua 308 ► pp. 103775 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 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.