Chapter 4 explores mood systems and structures. It concentrates on paradigmatic relations – and the ways in which these can be motivated in the grammars of English, Spanish and Chinese. This chapter foregrounds questions about the nature of functional language typology, when confronted with the diverse structural realisations of mood in three different languages. It highlights the need to focus on system rather than structure, on higher ranks rather than lower ones and ultimately on discourse semantics rather than grammar by way of establishing comparable ground whenever languages are being contrasted and compared.

Chapter 6 explores theme and information systems and structures. It concentrates on the need to argue from discourse semantics as far as the interpretation of information flow is concerned. This chapter brings some phonological analysis into the picture, since information systems are realised through prosodic phonology (i.e. rhythm and intonation). This work draws on Halliday’s analysis of English intonation, as presented in Halliday (1967, 1970) and Halliday & Greaves (2008).

The final chapter rounds off the discussion, highlighting the distinctive nature of argumentation in the development of functional grammars informed by SFL and the importance of assembling data as a corpus of texts designed on the basis of a linguistic theory of register and genre.

Chapter 5 explores transitivity systems and structures. It concentrates on the evidence used to motivate descriptions of paradigmatic relations. At stake here is the weight given to evidence of different kinds, including arguing from above, around and below. This chapter also foregrounds the cline of delicacy with respect to both system and structure, exploring what happens when general transitivity classes are explored in greater detail and issues that arise with respect to how much subclassification should be reflected in function structure labelling.

This chapter examines reference in a non-collaborative context. Despite the collaborative nature of referring, there are times when referring become problematic. Focussing specifically on problems in referring, we explore some of the reasons for problematic reference, including how the problems get resolved. The main focus of the chapter is on uses of reference in contexts which are discursively non-collaborative, despite shared common ground. This chapter makes a significant contribution by detailing how referring works when the speaker and addressee do not share goals and have no invested interest in a shared conceptualisation of the referent. We look at various examples from primarily legal contexts to extend our understanding of reference in these contexts. We show that collaboration is indeed needed even when the social relationship is adversarial but that the strategies for ratifying an expression differ depending on whether or not speaker and addressee share the same discourse goals.

This chapter examines reference in planned, deliberated language production. Using evidence from examples of institutional writing (writing text in academic, professional, and social settings), the effects of the written mode of production on referential choice, including evidence from keystroke logging methods which give us insight into revisions during the writing process. In comparison with spontaneous discourse, we demonstrate how the relatively low frequency of pronominal reference that is typical of spontaneous discourse is replaced with more complex referential expressions. We also consider whether referential choice is a feature of genre as we examine the referential profiles of different text types. The chapter concludes that referring expressions in prepared discourse tend to be more frequently information rich and consequently, the modification and qualification zones of the noun phrase are more active in this type of discourse.

We have indeed come to the end of our work. In preparing this volume, we hoped to address the need for an integrated approach to referring, one that brings together functional grammar and cognitive linguistics within a model of context and one that is informed by empirical evidence. We wanted to offer our perspective on building bridges between the traditional literature on reference and more usage-based functional approaches to language. Most of all, we felt there was a need to provide an account of atypical uses of reference given that most literature on reference concentrates on typical reference, frequently using isolated expressions or experimental tasks. What we hope we have shown throughout the volume is that referring expressions matter.

This chapter provides a detailed account of the atypical use of a certain type of indefinite referring expression. Contrary to the established view that indefinite expressions cannot be used for uniquely identifiable reference, we show that this is not always the case. Using written texts from opinion writing in newspaper discourse, we detail how writers can create an adequately definite shared space with their readers to allow an indefinite expression to be understood as referring to an established entity. The cotextual and contextual scaffolding put in place by the writer is sufficient for the indefinite expression to be understood as identifiable. The chapter also discusses the reasons why a writer would want to override normal accessibility considerations. Writers use these atypical expressions to ensure the association to an old, identifiable referent remains explicit by exploiting contextually and co-textually established information which is tied to the context or ongoing discourse.