Semantics

doi:10.1017/9781316337936.005

3 - Semantics

from Part I - SFL: The Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019

Edited by

Lise Fontaine and

Geoff Thompson: Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Wendy L. Bowcher: Affiliation:
Sun Yat-Sen University, China
Lise Fontaine: Affiliation:
Cardiff University
David Schönthal: Affiliation:
Cardiff University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter explores SFL views on what (a) semantics can be and how those views of semantics can be understood. First, four basic conceptions of meaning/semantics are specified (what), corresponding to places of ‘meaning’ in the SFL model (where): valeur, stratum, content side, language as a whole as meaning-making. Then, it is argued that semantics can be modelled in three ways (how), viz. as topological, discourse-structural, or higher-level systemic meaning. In order to understand why a level of semantics is recognized in Hallidayan SFL, it is necessary to explore the variability between meaning and lexicogrammar, semantics as an interface stratum, and how this is exploited in grammatical metaphor. For a deeper understanding of semantics as a stratum, then, a wider view must be taken, in two ways: on the one hand, by opening up the time perspective: language is flexible but meta-stable through time ('metaredundancy'); on the other hand, by recognizing specific design features of SFL as an ‘extravagant’ model, i.e. a model which honours multiperspectivism and fractality. Finally, three recent semantic ‘endeavours’ in SFL are explored and explained against the theoretical backdrop sketched in this chapter: Martin’s discourse semantics, Halliday & Matthiessen’s ideation base, and Appraisal theory.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 55 - 91

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Butler, C. S. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-functional Theories, Volume 2: From Clause to Discourse and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. and Taverniers, M.. 2008. Layering in Structural-functional Grammars. Linguistics 46(4): 689–756.Google Scholar

Eggins, S. and Slade, D.. 2005. Analysing Casual Conversation. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

Gregory, M. 1967. Aspects of Varieties Differentiation. Journal of Linguistics 3: 177–274.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of the Theory of Grammar. Word 17: 241–92.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. Functions and Universals in Language. In Kress, G., ed., Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press. 26–31.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1977. Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts. In van Dijk, T. and Petöfi, J. S., eds., Grammars and Descriptions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 176–225.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1982. The De-automatization of Grammar: From Priestley’s ‘An Inspector Calls’. In Anderson, J. M., ed., Language Form and Linguistic Variation: Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 129–59.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. Language as Code and Language as Behaviour: A Systemic-functional Interpretation of the Nature and Ontogenesis of Dialogue. In Fawcett, R. P., Halliday, M. A. K., Lamb, S., and Makkai, A., eds., The Semiotics of Culture and Language, Volume 1: Language as Social Semiotic. London: Pinter. 3–35.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1991. Towards Probabilistic Interpretations. In Ventola, E., ed., Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 39–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1992. How Do You Mean? In Davies, M. and Ravelli, L., eds., Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. London: Pinter. 20–35.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1996. On Grammar and Grammatics. In Hasan, R., Cloran, C., and Butt, D. G., eds., Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–38.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1998a. Things and Relations: Regrammaticising Experience as Technical Knowledge. In Martin, J. R. and Veel, R., eds., Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. 185–235.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1998b. Linguistics as Metaphor. In Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Davidse, K., and Noël, D., eds., Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–27.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2008. Opening Address: Working with Meaning: Towards an Appliable Linguistics. In Webster, J. J., ed., Meaning in Context: Implementing Intelligent Applications of Language Studies. London: Continuum. 7–23.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2009. Methods – Techniques – Problems. In Halliday, M. A. K., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 59–86.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 2013. Meaning as Choice. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15–36.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J.. 2009. Keywords. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 229–53.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1996. Semantic Networks: A Tool for the Analysis of Meaning. In Cloran, C., Butt, D. G., and Williams, G., eds., Ways of Saying, Ways of Meaning: Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Cassell. 104–31.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 2009. The Place of Context in a Systemic Functional Model. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 166–89.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 2010. The Meaning of ‘Not’ is Not in ‘Not’. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., eds., Appliable Linguistics. London: Continuum. 267–306.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 2014. Towards a Paradigmatic Description of Context: Systems, Metafunctions, and Semantics. Functional Linguistics 1(9): 1–54.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2003. The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah: Erlbaum. 213–42.Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, L. 1963. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Translated by Whitfield, F. J.. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Lamb, S. M. 1962. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar

Lemke, J. L. 1984. Semiotics and Education. Toronto: Victoria University. 23–62.Google Scholar

Lemke, J. L. 1992. New Challenges for Systemic-functional Linguistics: Dialect Diversity and Language Change. Network 18: 61–8.Google Scholar

Lemke, J. L. 1995. Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Louw, W. 1993. Irony in the Text or Sincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Tognini-Bonelli, E., eds., Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157–76.Google Scholar

Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Thompson, S. A.. 1992. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. In: Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Discourse Descriptions: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–78.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1995. Text and Clause: Fractal Resonance. Text 15(1): 5–42.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1991. Systemic Typology and Topology. In Christie, F., ed., Literacy in Social Processes. Darwin: Northern Territory University, Centre for Studies in Language and Education. 345–83.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Painter, C.. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2003. Working with Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. and White, P.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1993. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2002. Combining Clauses into Clause Complexes: A Multi-faceted View. In Bybee, J. and Noonan, M., eds., Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 235–320.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2009. Meaning in the Making: Meaning Potential Emerging from Acts of Meaning. Language Learning 59: 206–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Thompson, S. A.. 1988. The Structure of Discourse and ‘Subordination’. In Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 275–329.Google Scholar

Taverniers, M. 2002. Systemic-functional Linguistics and the Notion of Grammatical Metaphor: A Theoretical Study and the Proposal for a Semiotic-functional Integrative Model. PhD Thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar

Taverniers, M. 2008. Hjelmslev’s Semiotic Model of Language: An Exegesis. Semiotica 171: 367–94.Google Scholar

Taverniers, M. 2011. The Syntax–semantics Interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’s Interpretation of the Hjelmslevian Model of Stratification. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4): 1100–26.Google Scholar

Thibault, P. J. 2004. Agency and Consciousness in Discourse: Self–Other Dynamics as a Complex System. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

White, P. R. R. 1999. Beyond Interpersonal Metaphors of Mood: Modelling the Discourse Semantics of Evaluation and Subjectivity. Paper presented at the 11th Euro-International Systemic Functional Workshop, July 1999, Ghent University.Google Scholar

White, P. R. R. 2015. Appraisal Theory. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., and Sandel, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken: Wiley. 1–7.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.