The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax

doi:10.1017/9781316337936.011

9 - The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax

from Part I - SFL: The Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019

Anke Schulz and

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 provides an overview of the Cardiff approach to syntax within the SFL framework. Detailing how the Cardiff model developed from Halliday’s early work and how it diverged from Halliday’s standard model due to different influences and concerns, we show that there are core Hallidayan concepts that have clearly been maintained. The chapter identifies the key features of the model, including system networks and probabilities, illustrating how the priority given in the Cardiff model to conflating meanings rather than structures has informed the approach it has developed. In addition to this the role of realization is made explicit in the Cardiff model through the relationship between the system networks, selection expressions, and realization rules through to the structural representation of these meanings. The relationship among these features is demonstrated through the analysis of a simple clause, which offers a good introduction to the Cardiff theory of functional syntax.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 230 - 258

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.011 [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

Berry, M. 1975. An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Volume 1: Structures and Systems. London: Batsford.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Clark, V.. 2002. Historical Shifts in Modification Patterns with Complex Noun Phrase Structures: How Long Can You Go without a Verb? In Fanego, T., Lopez-Couso, M. J., and Perez-Guerra, J., eds., English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 43–66.Google Scholar

Butler, C. 2002. On Being True to Form: Models of Syntax in Systemic Functional Grammar. Functions of Language 9(1): 61–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Butler, C. 2003a. Structure and Function: An Introduction to Three Major Structural-functional Theories, Volume 1: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Butler, C. and Gonzálvez-García, F.. 2014. Exploring Functional-cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1973. Generating a Sentence in Systemic Functional Grammar. Reprinted in Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R., eds. 1981. Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1974. Some Proposals for Systemic Syntax, Part 1. MALS Journal 1: 1–15.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1975. Some Proposals for Systemic Syntax, Part 2. MALS Journal 2(1): 43–68.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1976. Some Proposals for Systemic Syntax, Part 3. MALS Journal 2(2): 35–68.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1990. The Computer Generation of Speech with Semantically and Discoursally Motivated Intonation. In Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1993. Language as Program: A Reassessment of the Nature of Descriptive Linguistics. Language Sciences 14(4): 623–57.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1994. On Moving on on Ontologies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 1998. System Network for Thing. Version 5. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2000a. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2000b. In Place of Halliday’s ‘Verbal Group’, Part 1: Evidence from the Problems of Halliday’s Representations and the Relative Simplicity of the Proposed Alternative. Word 51(2): 157–203.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2000c. In Place of Halliday’s ‘Verbal Group’, Part 2: Evidence from Generation, Semantics and Interruptability. Word 51(3): 327–75.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2007. Modelling ‘Selection’ between Referents in the English Nominal Group: An Essay in Scientific Inquiry in Linguistics. In Butler, C. S., Hidalgo Downing, R., and Lavid, J., eds., Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse: Papers in Honour of Professor Angela Downing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 165–204.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2008a. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics: The Cardiff Grammar as an Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2008b. Systemic Functional Grammar as a Formal Model of Language: A Micro-grammar for Some Central Elements of the English Clause. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2009. Seven Problems to Beware of When Analyzing Processes and Participant Roles in Texts. In Slembrouck, S., Taverniers, M., and van Herreweghe, M., eds., From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’: Studies in Linguistics Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. Ghent: Academia Press. 209–24.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2010. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2013. Choice and Choosing in Systemic-Functional Grammar. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 115–34.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. 2017. From Meaning to Form in the Cardiff Model of Language and its Use. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 56–76.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R. forthcoming. Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Form. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

Fawcett, R., Tucker, G., and Lin, Y.. 1993. How a Systemic Functional Grammar Works: The Role of Realization in Realization. In Horacek, H. and Zock, M., eds., New Concepts in Natural Language Generation. London: Pinter. 114–86.Google Scholar

Fontaine, L. 2008. A Systemic Functional Approach to Referring Expressions: Reconsidering Post-modification in the Nominal Group. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar

Fontaine, L. 2012. Analyzing English Grammar: A Systemic-functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fontaine, L. 2017. The English Nominal Group: The Centrality of the Thing Element. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 267–83.Google Scholar

Funamoto, H. 2014. The Interface between Culture and Mind: A Systemic Functional Account of Nominality. 北陸大学紀要第 38 号: 51–80.Google Scholar

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

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder.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

He, W. 2014. Bi-functional Constituent Constructions in Modern Mandarin Chinese: A Cardiff Grammar Approach. Language Sciences 42: 43–59.Google Scholar

Huang, G. 2017. Theme in the Cardiff Grammar. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 163–76.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. 1971. English Complex Sentences: An Introduction to Systemic Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Lin, Y. 1993. Aspects of a Linguistic Approach to Logical Form and Reasoning: COMMUNAL Report No 32. Unpublished manuscript, Cardiff University.Google Scholar

Lin, Y., Fawcett, R., and Davies, B.. 1993. GENEDIS: The Discourse Generator in COMMUNAL. In Sloman, A., Hogg, D., Humphreys, G., Ramsay, A., and Partridge, D., eds., Prospects for Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of AISB 93, the 9th Biennial Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 148–57.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Bateman, J.. 1991. Text Generation and Systemic-functional Linguistics: Experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter.Google Scholar

Neale, A. 2002. More Delicate TRANSITIVITY: Extending the PROCESS TYPE System Networks for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar

Neale, A. 2017. Transitivity in the Cardiff Grammar. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 178–93.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, S., and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Quiroz, B. 2017. The Verbal Group. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 301–18.Google Scholar

Schulz, A. 2008. Tense, Modality and Polarity: The Finite Verbal Group in English and German Newsgroup Texts. In Norgaard, N., ed., Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense: OWPLC 29. 697–716.Google Scholar

Schulz, A. 2015. Me, Myself and I: A Corpus-based, Contrastive Study of English and German Computer-mediated Communication from a Systemic Functional Perspective. PhD Thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt.Google Scholar

Tench, P. 1990. The Roles of Intonation in English Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Tench, P. 1996. The Intonation Systems of English. London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Tench, P. 2017. The Phoneme and Word Phonology in SFL. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 233–50.Google Scholar

Tucker, G. 1998. The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives: A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexis. London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Tucker, G. 2017. The Adjectival Group. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 284–300.Google Scholar

Wegener, R. 2011. Parameters of Context: From Theory to Model and Application. PhD Thesis, Macquarie University.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.