1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-7233
  • E-ISSN: 2589-7241
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

If we follow one line of development in systemic functional linguistics (SFL), from Halliday & Hasan (1976) through Martin (1992) to Martin & White (2005), we arrive at a model of discourse semantics with six major systems: and (ideational meaning), and (textual meaning) and and (interpersonal meaning). The complementarity of the latter two systems, and is the focus on this paper. Work on was inspired by Berry’s (e.g. 1981a1981b) development of Sinclair & Coulthard (1975) analysis of exchange structure. Later work on was inspired by Plum’s (1988) critique of Labov’s work on narrative (e.g. Labov & Waletzky 1967Labov 1984). The interaction of the and systems is first explored in Martin (2000a) in relation to work on casual conversation by Eggins & Slade (1997). This interaction is further developed here.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00010.mar
2019-07-22
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bavelas, Janet B. , Linda Coates & Trudy Johnson
    2000 Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79. 941–952. 10.1037/0022‑3514.79.6.941
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berry, Margaret
    1981a Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Malcolm C. Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1981b Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network2. 23–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
    1988 Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes11(1). 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
  6. Butler, Christopher S.
    2003a Part 1 Approaches to the simplex clause. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003b Part 2 From clause to discourse and beyond. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. (Studies in Language Companion Series 64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, Christopher S. & Miriam Taverniers
    2008a Introduction. Linguistics46(4). 679–687. 10.1515/LING.2008.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.023 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008b Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics46(4). 689–756. 10.1515/LING.2008.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.024 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burton, Deirdre
    1980Dialogue and discourse. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1981 Analysing spoken discourse. In Malcolm C. Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 146–157. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree
    2002 Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84. 73–111. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coffin, Caroline
    1997 Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 196–230. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2006Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe
    2009 Hypotheses of natural phonology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics45(1). 1–31. 10.2478/v10010‑009‑0002‑x
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0002-x [Google Scholar]
  16. Dubois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  17. Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade
    1997Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. [Reprinted by Equinox 2005].
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Enfield, Nick J.
    2017How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Feez, Susan , Rick Iedema & Peter R. R. White
    1994Media literacy (write it right literacy in industry research project – Stage 2). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program. [reprintedSydney: NSW AMES 2008]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fox, Barbara A. , Sandra A. Thompson , Cecilia C. Ford & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2013 Conversation analysis and linguistics. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Strivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 726–740. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1961 Categories of the theory of grammar. Word17(3). 241–292. 10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1967a Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics3(1). 37–81. 10.1017/S0022226700012949
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012949 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1967b Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics3(2). 199–244. 10.1017/S0022226700016613
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1968 Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics4(2). 179–215. 10.1017/S0022226700001882
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001882 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1970 Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language6(3). 322–361.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1984 Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin Fawcett , Michael A. K. Halliday , Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture, volume 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1985An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Halliday, Michael A. K. & William S. Greaves
    2008Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. (English Language Series 9). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hao, Jing
    . In press. Nominalisations in scientific English: A tristratal perspective. Functions of Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden
    2013 The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Strivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation, 57–76. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hood, Susan
    2010Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274662
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jefferson, Gail
    1988 On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems (Special issue Language, interaction, and social problems) 35(4). 418–441. 10.2307/800595
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  36. Knight, Naomi
    2010 Wrinkling complexity: Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliation. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.). 35–58. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 Evaluating experience in funny ways: How friends bond through conversational humour. Text & Talk33(4–5). 553–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Labov, William
    1984 Intensity. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics), 43–70. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Labov, William & David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (Proceedings of the 1966 spring meeting of the American Ethnological Society), 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2005 Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies7(4–5). 431–453. 10.1177/1461445605054401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054401 [Google Scholar]
  42. Liberman, Mark
    2014 More on Um and Uh. Language Log. languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13713
  43. Lindström, Anna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2013 Affiliation in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Strivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 350–369. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Martin, James R.
    1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2000a Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2000b Factoring out exchange: Types of structure. In Malcolm Coulthard , Janet Cotterill & Frances Rock (eds.), Working with dialogue, 19–40. Tubingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110941265‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-003 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2010 Semantic variation: Modelling system, text and affiliation in social semiosis. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliation, 1–34. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011 Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. In Frances Christie & Karl Maton (eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, 35–61. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2013Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory – axial relations. (with Chinese translation and extensions by Wang Pin & Zhu Yongsheng ). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2017 The discourse semantics of attitudinal relations: Continuing the study of lexis. Russian Journal of Linguistics Vestnik RUDN (Special issue Discourse analysis in the 21st Century: Theory and practice) 21(1). 22–47. Republished as Attitudinal relations: Continuing the study of lexis. In Leila Barbara , Adail S. Rodriques-Júnior & Giovanna M. V. Hoy (eds.), Estudos e pesquisas em linguística sistêmico-funcional, 53–87. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2018 Interpersonal meaning: Systemic functional linguistic perspectives. Functions of Language (Special Issue Systemic functional linguistics and interpersonal grammar, edited by James R. Martin ) 25(1). 2–19. 10.1075/fol.17018.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17018.mar [Google Scholar]
  52. Martin, James R. & Shooshi Dreyfus
    2015 Scaffolding semogenesis: Designing teacher/student interactions for face-to-face and on-line learning. In Sonja Starc , Carys Jones & Arianna Maiorani (eds.), Meaning making in text: Multimodal and multilingual functional perspectives, 265–298. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/9781137477309_14
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137477309_14 [Google Scholar]
  53. Martin, James R. & Mary Macken-Horarik
    (eds.) 2003Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation. Special Issue of Text and Talk. 23(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Martin, James R. & Guenter Plum
    1997 Construing experience: Some story genres. Journal of Narrative and Life History (Special Issue Oral versions of personal experience: Three decades of narrative analysis, edited by Michael Bamberg ) 7 (1–4). 299–308. 10.1075/jnlh.7.37con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.37con [Google Scholar]
  55. Martin, James R. & David Rose
    2007Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd Edition). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  58. Martin, James R. & Michele Zappavigna
    2016a Exploring restorative justice: Dialectics of theory and practice. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. 23(2). 217–244. 10.1558/ijsll.v23i2.28840
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v23i2.28840 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2016b Rites of passion: Remorse, apology and forgiveness in Youth Justice Conferencing. Linguistics and the Human Sciences (Special issue Legal discourse, edited by Wang Zhenhua ) 12(2–3). 101–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Michael A. K. Halliday
    2009Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Muntigl, Peter
    2009 Knowledge moves in conversational exchanges: Revisiting the concept of primary vs. secondary knowers. Functions of Language16(2). 225–263. 10.1075/fol.16.2.03mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.2.03mun [Google Scholar]
  62. Ochs, Elinor , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson
    (eds.) 1996Interaction and grammar. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  63. Oteíza, Teresa
    2017 The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 457–472. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Plum, Guenter
    1998Text and contextual conditioning in spoken English: A genre-based approach, volumes1 & 2. (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 10). Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Ruusuvuori, Johanna
    2013 Emotion, affect and conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Sirens (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 330–349. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
    2010 Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes. 47(2). 130–174. 10.1080/01638530903223380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903223380 [Google Scholar]
  68. Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2001Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sinclair, John McH
    1972A course in spoken English: Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Sinclair, John McH . & Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(1). 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  72. Tann, Ken
    2017 Context and meaning in the Sydney architecture of SFL. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.) Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 438–456. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Language and Linguistics6(4). 807–837.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Ventola, Eija
    1987The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Walker, Gareth
    2013 Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation, 456–474. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. White, Peter R. R.
    2000 Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. in Malcolm Coulthard , Janet Cotterill & Francis Rock (eds.), Working with dialogue, 67–80. Tubingen: Neimeyer. 10.1515/9783110941265‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-006 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2012 Exploring the axiological workings of ‘reporter voice’ news stories – attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context & Media1(2–3). 57–67. 10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  78. Zappavigna, Michele & James R. Martin
    2018Discourse and diversionary justice: An analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑63763‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63763-1 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00010.mar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00010.mar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affiliation , appraisal , bonding , CA , discourse semantics , interaction , interpersonal grammar , negotiation , SFL and tenor
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