Systemic functional grammar
- 格式：doc
- 大小：58.00 KB
- 文档页数：3
Systemic functional grammar
Systemic functional grammar (SFG) or systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a model of grammar
developed by
Michael Halliday in the 1960s.[1] It is part of a broad social
semiotic approach to
language called systemic linguistics. The term "systemic" refers to the view of language as "a
network of systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning";[2] The term "functional"
indicates that the approach is concerned with the contextualized, practical uses to which language
is put, as opposed to formal grammar, which focuses on compositional semantics, syntax and word
classes such as nouns and verbs.
Systemic functional grammar is concerned primarily with the choices the grammar makes available
to speakers and writers.[1] These choices relate speakers' and writers' intentions to the concrete
forms of a language. Traditionally the "choices" are viewed in terms of either the content or
the structure of the language used. In SFG, language is analysed in three different ways (strata):
semantics, phonology, and lexicogrammar.[3] SFG presents a view of language in terms of both
structure (grammar) and words (lexis). The term "lexicogrammar" describes this combined
approach.
[edit] Metafunctions
According to SFG, functional bases of grammatical phenomena are divided into three broad areas,
called metafunctions: the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual.[4] Written and spoken
texts can be examined with respect to each of these metafunctions in
register analyses.[5]
[edit] Ideational metafunction
The ideational metafunction is divided into two: experiential and logical metafunctions. The
experiential metafunction organises our experience and understanding of the world. It is the
potential of the language to construe figures with elements (such as screen shots of a moving
picture or pictures of a comic novel) and its potential to differentiate these elements into
processes, the participants in these processes, and the circumstances in which the processes occur.
The logical metafunction works above the experiential. It organises our reasoning on the basis
of our experience. It is the potential of the language to construe logical links between figures;
for example, "this happened after that happened" or, with more experience, "this happens every
time that happens".
The ideational metafunction relates to the field aspects of a text, or its subject matter and
context of use.[6] Field is divided into three areas: semantic domain, specialisation, and angle
of representation.[7]
Within the semantic domain, SFG proponents examine the subject matter of a text through organising
its
nominal groups (nouns / noun phrases) and its lexical verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. These
are the words that carry lexical meaning in a text, as opposed to function words, whose purpose
is purely grammatical‚ that is, their purpose lies only in relation to other words in the vicinity. Specialisation is partially determined through attention to
jargon or other technical
vocabulary
items.[8]
Examining the angle of representation involves a close look at types of processes, participants,
and circumstances.[9]
[edit] Interpersonal metafunction
The interpersonal metafunction relates to a text's aspects of tenor or
interactivity.[10] Like field,
tenor comprises three component areas: the speaker/writer persona, social distance, and relative
social status.[11] Social distance and relative social status are applicable only to spoken texts.[12].
Note - this is not so, looking at the text of O´Halloran we are told that we no longer have the
option to contrast the various speakers but we can examine "how the individual authors present
themselves to the reader", therefore, we are able to look at social distance and relative social
status in texts where there is only one author.
The speaker/writer persona concerns the stance, personalisation and standing of the speaker or
writer. This involves looking at whether the writer or speaker has a neutral attitude, which can
be seen through the use of positive or negative language. Social distance means how close the
speakers are, e.g. how the use of
nicknames shows the degree to which they are intimate. Relative
social status asks whether they are equal in terms of power and knowledge on a subject, for example,
the relationship between a mother and child would be considered unequal. Focuses here are on
speech
acts (e.g. whether one person tends to ask questions and the other speaker tends to answer), who
chooses the topic, turn management, and how capable both speakers are of evaluating the subject.[13]
