Phasal dynamism and the unfolding of meaning as text

References

1. Andersen, Thomas Hestbaek , Morten Boeris , Eva Maagerø & Elise Seip Tønnessen
   2015 Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions. London and New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Arús Hita, Jorge
   2007 On the aboutness of theme. InProceedings of the 30th International AEDEAN Conference, María Losada , Pilar Ron , Sonia Hernández & Jorge Casanova (eds). Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235345776_On_the_aboutness_of_Theme (Last accessed on29 December 2015).
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bartlett, Tom
   2015 Multiscalar modelling of context: Some questions raised by the category of Mode. InEssays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan: Society in Language, Language in Society, Wendy Bowcher & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds). London and New York: Palgrave, 166–183.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Berry, Margaret
   1996 What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. InMeaning and Form: Systemic Functional Perspectives, Robin P. Fawcett , Margaret Berry , Christopher Butler & Guowen W. Huang (eds). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–64.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Caffarel, Alice , James R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
   (eds) 2004 Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.253
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253 [Google Scholar]
6. Caffarel, Alice , James R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
   2004a Foreword. In Caffarel , et al , Language Typology: A Functional Perspective,xi–xiii. doi: 10.1075/cilt.253
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253
7. Caffarel, Alice , James R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
   2004b Introduction. In Caffarel , et al , Language Typology: A Functional Perspective,1–76. doi: 10.1075/cilt.253.03caf
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253.03caf
8. Cloran, Carmel
   2010 Rhetorical unit analysis and Bakhtin’s chronotope. Functions of Language17 (1): 9–70. doi: 10.1075/fol.17.1.02clo
   https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17.1.02clo [Google Scholar]
9. Cloran, Carmel
   1994 Rhetorical Units and Decontextualisation: An Enquiry into some Relations of Context, Meaning and Grammar (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 6). University of Nottingham.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Daneš, František
    1974 Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. InPapers on Functional Sentence Perspective, František Daneš (ed.). The Hague: Mouton, 106–128.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fawcett, Robin P
    2003 The many types of ‘Theme’ in English: Their semantic systems and functional syntax. Unpublished mimeo. www.isfla.org/Systemics/Print/Papers.html (Last accessed on30 December 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
12. Firbas, Jan
    1992a Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
13. Firbas, Jan
    1992b On some basic problems of functional sentence perspective. InAdvances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds). London: Pinter, 167–188.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fries, Peter
    1995 Themes, methods of development, and texts. InOn Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective, Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter Fries (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 317–360. doi: 10.1075/cilt.118.10fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118.10fri [Google Scholar]
15. Fries, Peter
    2008 The textual metafunction as a site for the discussion of the goals of linguistics and techniques of linguistic analysis. InText Type and Structure, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds). London and Oakville: Equinox, 8–44.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Gregory, Michael
    1988 Generic situation and register: A functional view of communication. InLinguistics in a Systemic Perspective, James D. Benson , Michael Cummings & William Greaves (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 301–329. doi: 10.1075/cilt.39.12gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.39.12gre [Google Scholar]
17. Halliday, M.A.K
    1985 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Halliday, M.A.K
    1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Halliday, M.A.K & Ruqayia Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Halliday, M.A.K & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edition. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Halliday, M.A.K. & Jonathan J. Webster
    2014 Text Linguistics: The How and Why of Meaning. Sheffield and Bristol: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Langacker, Ronald W
    1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. MacDonald, Flora
    2009 Còco is Crùbagan. Cocoa and Crabs. A Hebridean Childhood. South Lochs: Islands Books Trust.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Mackenzie, Lachlan J
    2009 Aspects of the interpersonal grammar of Gaelic. Linguistics47 (4): 885–911. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.031 [Google Scholar]
25. MacLean, Iain
    2009 Cogadh Ruairidh. Dingwall: Sandstone Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Mann, William C. , Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Sandra Thompson
    1992 Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. InDiscourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 39–78. doi: 10.1075/pbns.16.04man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.04man [Google Scholar]
27. Mathesius, Vilém
    1964 On linguistic characterology with illustrations from Modern English. InA Prague School Reader in Linguistics, Josef Vachek (ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 59–67.
    [Google Scholar]
28. O’Grady, Gerard
    2010 A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: the Intonation of Increments. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Tannen, Deborah
    1993 What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. InFraming in Discourse, Deborah Tannen (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 14–56.
    [Google Scholar]