Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allen, Keith
    2007The Western classical tradition in linguistics. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk
    2017 Interpersonal meaning and the clause. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 115–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, J. L.
    1962How to do things with words. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartlett, Tom & Gerard O’Grady
    (eds.) 2017The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315413891
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315413891 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berry, Margaret
    2016 Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction9(1). 33–55. 10.1075/etc.9.1.03ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.03ber [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowcher, Wendy L.
    2017 Field, tenor and mode. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 391–403.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, Christopher S.
    2003aStructure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2003bStructure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004 Corpus linguistics and functional linguistic theories. Functions of Language11(2). 147–186. 10.1075/fol.11.2.02but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.2.02but [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008 Cognitive adequacy in structural-functional theories of language. Language Sciences30. 1–30. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica43(1). 1–66. 10.1515/FLIN.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013 Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and psycholinguistics: opportunities for dialogue. Functions of Language20(2). 185–218. 10.1075/fol.20.2.03but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20.2.03but [Google Scholar]
  14. Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
    2014Exploring functional-cognitive space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  15. Butler, Christopher S. & Miriam Taverniers
    2008 Layering in functional grammars: An introductory survey. Linguistics46(2). 689–756.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    (eds.) 2004Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.253
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.253 [Google Scholar]
  17. Culicover, Peter W. & Ray J. Jackendoff
    2005Simpler syntax. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies, Mark
    2004BYU-BNC. (Based on theBritish National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/bnc/
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dik, Simon C.
    1997The theory of Functional Grammar. Part1: The structure of the clause. 2nd edn., Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer
    (eds.) 2003Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110895339
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fawcett, Robin P.
    2000A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 206). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.206
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.206 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, 3rd edn.London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011 A semantic system network for MOOD in English. ‘Work in progress’version available from[email protected]
  24. 2017 From meaning to form in the Cardiff Model of language and its use. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 56–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gardner, Sheena
    2017 Systemic functional linguistics and genre studies. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 473–488.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gotti, Maurizio
    2003Shall and will in contemporary English: A comparison with past uses. InRoberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), 267–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1978Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1994 Systemic theory. InRonald E. Asher & James M. Y. Simpson (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 4505–4508. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2002 Introduction: A personal perspective. InJonathan J. Webster (ed.), On grammar (Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. 1), 1–14. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1999Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014An introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn.Revised byChristian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hasan, Ruqaiya
    2013 Choice, system, realisation: Describing language as meaning potential. InLise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice, 269–299. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.018 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2014 Towards a paradigmatic description of context: Systems, metafunctions, and semantics. Functional Linguistics1(9).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hasan, Ruqaiya, Carmel Cloran, Geoffrey Williams & Annabelle Lukin
    2007 Semantic networks: The description of linguistic meaning in SFL. InRuqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), 697–738.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hasan, Ruqaiya, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster
    (eds.) 2007Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective. Vol2. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hengeveld, Kees, Eli Nazareth Bechara, Roberto Gomes Camacho, Alessandra Regina Guerra, Taísa Peres de Oliveira, Eduardo Penhavel, Erotilde Goreti Pezatti, Liliane Santana, Edson Rosa Francisco de Souza & Maria Luiza de Sousa Teixeira
    2007 Basic illocutions in the native languages of Brazil. Alfa-Revista de Lingüística51(2). 73–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
    2008Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackendoff, Ray J.
    2007 A whole lot of challenges for linguistics. Journal of English Linguistics30(3). 353–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M.
    2008 Psychological explanations in Gricean pragmatics and Frege’s legacy. InIstvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intentions, common ground, and egocentric speaker-hearer, 9–44. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lavid, Julia, Jorge Arús & Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla
    2010Systemic-Functional Grammar of Spanish: A contrastive study with English. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Leech, Geoffrey
    2003 Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. InRoberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), 223–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1989Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Vol.1. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Martin, J. R.
    1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2018 Interpersonal meaning. Systemic functional linguistics perspectives. Functions of Language25(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2007 Lexicogrammar in systemic functional linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical developments in the ‘IFG’ tradition since the 1970s. InRuqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), 765–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Moore, Alison R.
    2017 Register analysis in Systemic Functional Linguistics. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 418–437.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Winfred W. Xuan
    2016 A survey of studies in Systemic Functional language description and typology. Functional Linguistics3(8).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nuyts, Jan
    2005 Brothers in arms? On the relations between functional and cognitive linguistics. InFrancisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Carvel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 69–100. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Siewierska, Anna
    2013 Functional and cognitive grammars. InKeith Allan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics, 485–501. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Smirnova, Elena & Tanja Mortelmans
    2010Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte und Theorien. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110223873
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223873 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tann, Ken
    2017 Context and meaning in the Sydney architecture of Systemic Functional Linguistics. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 438–456.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Teruya, Kazuhiro, Ernest Akerejola, Thomas H. Anderson, Alice Caffarel, Julia Lavid, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, Uwe H. Petersen, Pattama Patpong & Flemming Smedegaard
    2007 Typology of MOOD: A text-based and system-based view. InRuqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), 859–920.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Teruya, Kazuhiro & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2015 Halliday in relation to language comparison and typology. InJonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M. A. K. Halliday, 427–452. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
    1993 A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. InRobert D. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 82), 1–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2008 RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar. InRobert D. Van Valin (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (Studies in Language Companion Series 105), 161–178. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.105.14van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.105.14van [Google Scholar]
  58. 2010 Role and Reference Grammar as a framework for linguistic analysis. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 703–738. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wray, Alison
    2014 Developing comprehensive criteria of adequacy: The challenge of hybridity. InMaría de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco Gonzálvez García & Angela Downing (eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse, 19–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.247.02wra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.02wra [Google Scholar]

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