1887
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this paper the interpersonal grammar of Tagalog is explored from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Following a brief metafunctional profile of Tagalog grammar, a framework for interpreting the discourse function of Tagalog clauses is introduced – exchange structure. Subsequently the systems of and are considered, alongside their realisation in tone, clause structure and lexical selection. The role played by these interpersonal systems and structure is then illustrated through a brief sample of Tagalog discourse. The paper demonstrates the manner in which a paradigmatic perspective can be used to integrate the description of grammatical resources typically fragmented and marginalised in syntagmatically organised descriptions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.17016.mar
2018-08-10
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bautista, Maria Lourdes S.
    1979Patterns of speaking in Filipino radio dramas: Sociolinguistic analysis. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1917Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis (University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 2 & 3). Urbana: University of Illinois.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buenaventura-Naylor, Paz
    1975 Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics14. 12–79. doi: 10.2307/3622792
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3622792 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1995 Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax. In David C. Bennett , Theodora Bynon & George B. Hewitt (eds.), Subject, voice and ergativity, 161–201. London: SOAS.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, Christopher S.
    2003aStructure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories – Part 1 Approaches to the simplex clause (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2003bStructure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories – Part 2 From clause to discourse and beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler, Christopher S. & Miriam Taverniers
    2008a Introduction. Linguistics46(4). 679–687. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.023 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2008b Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics46(4). 689–756. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.024 [Google Scholar]
  9. Caffarel, Alice
    1995 Approaching the French clause as a move in dialogue: Interpersonal organisation. In Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118), 1–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.118.02caf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118.02caf [Google Scholar]
  10. Caffarel, Alice , J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    (eds.) 2004Language typology: A functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.253
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dingemanse, Mark & Nicholas J. Enfield
    2015 Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics1(1). 96–118. doi: 10.2478/opli‑2014‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1979 Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In David J. Allerton , Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: Essays offered to William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1984 Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin P. Fawcett , M. A. K. Halliday , Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture: Vol 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hasan, Ruqaiya , Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster
    (eds.) 2007Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective. Volume 2 . London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 On statives and potentives in western Austronesian (mostly Tagalog). In Paul Law (ed.), Proceedings of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 11 (ZAS Papers in Linguistics Nr 34). 103–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2006a Tagalog. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 350–376. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2006b How to miss a paradigm or two: Multifunctional ma- in Tagalog. In Felix K. Ameka , Alan C. Dench & Nicholas J. Evans (eds.), Catching language, 487–526. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnston, Trevor
    1992 The realisation of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language. Language Sciences14(4). 317–353. doi: 10.1016/0388‑0001(92)90021‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(92)90021-6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin, J. R.
    1981  conjunction and continuity in Tagalog. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics, 310–336. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1983 Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte. Australian Journal of Linguistics3(1). 45–74. doi: 10.1080/07268608308599299
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608308599299 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1988 Grammatical conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, face and fate – with reference to Benjamin Lee Whorf. In James D. Benson , Michael J. Cummings & William S. Greaves (eds.), Linguistics in a systemic perspective, 243–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.39.11mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.39.11mar [Google Scholar]
  23. 1990 Interpersonal grammatization: Mood and modality in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics21(1). 2–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1993 Clitics. In Andrew Gonzalez (ed.), Philippine Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 237–240. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1995a Logical meaning, interdependency and the linking particle {-ng/na} in Tagalog. Functions of Language2(2). 189–228. doi: 10.1075/fol.2.2.04mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.2.04mar [Google Scholar]
  27. 1995b Text and clause: Fractal resonance. Text15(1). 5–42. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1996a Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Eduard H. Hovy & Donia R. Scott (ed.), Computational and Conversational Discourse, 39–66. Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03293‑0_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1996b Transitivity in Tagalog: A functional interpretation of case. In Margaret Berry , Christopher Butler , Robin P. Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 229–296. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1996c Metalinguistic diversity: The case from case. In Ruquaiya Hasan , Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), 323–372. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.121.12mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.121.12mar [Google Scholar]
  31. 2004a Metafunctional profile: Tagalog. In Alice Caffarel (eds.), 255–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2004b Prosodic ‘structure’: Grammar for negotiation. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies46. 41–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2008 What kind of structure? Interpersonal meaning and prosodic realisation across strata. Word59(2). 113–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martin, J. R. & David Rose
    2007Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause, 2nd revised edn.London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2008Genre relations: mapping culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, J. R. , Pin Wang & Yongsheng Zhu
    2013Systemic Functional Grammar: A next step into the theory – Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    1988 Representational issues in systemic functional grammar. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Functional approaches to discourse, 136–175. Norwood, N J: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 1992 Interpreting the textual metafunction. In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics, 37–81. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004 Descriptive motifs and generalisations. In Caffarel (eds), 537–673.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & M. A. K. Halliday
    2009Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. , Kazuhiro Teruya & Canzhong Wu
    2008 Multilingual studies in a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 146–220. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. McGregor, William B.
    1990 The metafunctional hypothesis and syntagmatic relations. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics4. 5–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1997Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pike, Kenneth Lee
    1982Linguistic concepts: An introduction to Tagmemics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pike, Kenneth Lee & Evelyn G. Pike
    1983Text and tagmeme. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Poynton, Cate
    1990 The privileging of representation and the marginalising of the interpersonal: A metaphor (and more) for contemporary gender relations. In Terry Threadgold & Anne Cranny-Francis (eds.), Feminine/masculine and representation, 231–255. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schachter, Paul
    1973 Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. In Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Celio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday (Philippine Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph Issues No. 4), 214–231. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 1976 The Subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 491–518. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 1977 Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Saddock (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 279–306. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1995 The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics15. 51–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2008 Tagalog (Revised by Lawrence A. Reid). In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages (2nd edn), 833–855. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes
    1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 Turn organisation: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  55. Teruya, Kazuhiro
    2006A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese. Vols. 1 & 2 . London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Teruya, Kazuhiro , Ernest Akerejola , Thomas H. Anderson , Alice Caffarel , Julia Lavid , Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen , Uwe Helm Petersen , Pattama Patpong & Flemming Smedegaard
    2007 Typology of mood: A text-based and system-based functional view. In Ruqaiya Hasan (eds.), 859–920.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ventola, Eija
    1987The structure of social interaction. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.17016.mar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.17016.mar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error