Process Type Classification in Systemic Functional Grammar-the Ambiguity Factor
Analysis of clauses in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is generally based on a classification of the clause into one of six process types. This allocation, although often portrayed as categorical or clear-cut, practically speaking, process distinction can be unclear, and a verb may satisfy the coding criteria of a number of categories. The chief goal of this study is to point out how challenging it is to draw strict typologies of processes within a transitive SFL analysis, by surveying experienced SFL users for their classification of twenty simple sentences. My key findings are three. These include; the inconsistency of analysis being very prevalent - only one of the critical clauses was found to be clearly explicitly categorised for process type; the major point of departure between analysts was the determination of material and of verbal processes since they appear same in most cases and contexts; lastly, the clauses with low consistency ratings appeared to include main verbs which express direct action (performative verbs). My findings are explained in the light of the semantic qualities of performance. This may likely contribute to the difficulty in process type determination. Additionally, possible amelioration or refinement of these challenges of determinacy are discussed to set the pace for a wholistic review of the syntactic and semantic rendition of the clause, in cases where these dimensions of meaning may differ. The student of SFL, by this study, will thus get to be advised on being meticulous in ‘rushing’ to place process types into categories without making room for multiple concession of process typologies in clauses. This opens up yet another window of academic dialogue on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics.
. Austin, JL. 1962. How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. Bloor, T, and M Bloor. 2004. The Functional Analysis of English, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. Butler, CS. 2003. Structure and Function A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories: Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond (Vol. 64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
. Butler, CS. 2009. Lexical phenomena in Functional Discourse Grammar and Systemic Functional Linguistics. From will to well: Studies in Linguistics Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Academia Press, Gent, 55-67.Google Scholar
. Cuvalay, M. 1995. The E-structure in Functional Grammar. Towards a consistent treatment of tense, mood and illocutionary force, Working Papers in Functional Grammar, 59.Google Scholar
. Dik, SC. 1989. The theory of Functional Grammar I. The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. Eggins, S. 2004. An introduction to systemic functional grammar. An introduction to systemic functional grammar.Google Scholar
. Fawcett, R 2000. A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics (Vol. 206). John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
. Fawcett, R. 2009. Seven problems to beware of when analyzing Processes and Participant Roles in texts. In From Will to Well: Studies in Linguistics, Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, ed. S Slembrouck, M Taverniers, and M van Herreweghe, 209–24. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
. Fawcett, R. 2010. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. Fontaine, L. 2012. Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
. Halliday, MAK and CMIM Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. Halliday, MAK and CMIM Matthiessen. 2004. Introducing functional grammar. New York: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
. Halliday, MAK and CMIM Matthiessen. 2014. An introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). Oxon: Routledge Google Scholar
. Halliday, MAK. 1970/1976. Functions and universals. In Halliday: System and Function in Language, ed. G. Kress, 26–35. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. Halliday, MAK. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. Halliday, MAK. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (2ed). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. Halliday, MAK. 2013. Meaning as Choice. In Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, ed. L Fontaine, T Bartlett, and G O’Grady, 269–299. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. Hannay, M. and AM Bolkestein, eds. 1998. Functional Grammar and verbal interaction (Vol. 44). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. Hengeveld, K. 1988. Illocution, mood and modality in Functional Grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6L: 227–269.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
. Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
. Kilgarriff, A., P. Rychly, P. Smrz and D. Tugwell. 1997. The Sketch Engine. Proc EURALEX 2004, Lorient, France; Pp. 105–116. http://www.sketchengine.co.uk. Accessed 10 June 2015.
. Martin, J, CMIM Matthiessen, and C Painter. 1997. Working With Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. Neale, A. 2002. More Delicate TRANSITIVITY: Extending the PROCESS TYPE system networks for English to include full semantic classifications. PhD thesis. Cardiff: School of English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University. http://www.itri.bton.ac.uk/~Amy.Neale/thesis_online/final_thesis.pdf. Accessed 02 September 2015.
. Neuendorf, KA. 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. [See more at: http://digital-activism.org/2013/05/picking-the-best-intercoder-reliability-statistic-for-your-digital-activism-content-analysis/#sthash.tZdwCcUC.dpuf. Accessed 10 June 2015].
. O’Donnell, M, M Zappavigna, and C Whitelaw. 2009. A survey of process type classification over difficult cases. In From Language to Multimodality: New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning, ed. C Jones and E Ventola, 47–64. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. Searle, JR. 1975. Indirect speech acts. Syntax and semantics 3: 59–82.Google Scholar
. Shulz, A. In press. An alternative model of syntax: Cardiff Grammar. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, eds. G. Thompson, W. Bowcher, L. Fontaine and J. Yameng Liang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Google Scholar
. Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar. 2nd edition, London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
. Traugott, E, and R Dasher. 2001. Regularity in semantic change: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
. Tucker, G. 2014. Process types and their classification. In Caught in the Middle - Language Use and translation. A Festschrift for Erich Steiner on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, ed. K Kunz, E Teich, S Hansen-Schirra, S Neumann, and P Daut, 401–416. Saarbrücken: Verlag universaar University of the Saarland.Google Scholar
. Webster, J. 2014. Understanding Verbal Art: A Functional Linguistic Approach. London: Springer.Google Scholar
. Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- There are currently no refbacks.