1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-7233
  • E-ISSN: 2589-7241
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00036.for
2022-04-06
2022-05-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berry, Margaret
    1975An introduction to systemic linguistics: I. Structures and systems. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1977An introduction to systemic linguistics: II. Levels and links. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1979 A note on Sinclair and Coulthard’s classes of acts including a comment on comments. Nottingham Linguistic Circular8. 49–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1981a Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. InMalcolm Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1981b Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network2. 23–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1981c Polarity, ellipticity and propositional development: Their relevance to the well-formedness of an exchange. (A discussion of Coulthard and Brazil’s classes of move.)Nottingham Linguistic Circular10. 36–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1995 Thematic options and success in writing. InMohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, 55–84. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1996 What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. InMargaret Berry, Christophe Butler, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations. Meaning and choice in language. Studies for Michael Halliday, 1–64. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013a Contentful and contentlight subject themes in informal spoken English and formal written English. InLise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Systemic functional linguistics: Exploring choice, 365–383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9781139583077.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.022 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013b Towards a study of the differences between formal written English and informal spoken English. InLise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Systemic functional linguistics: Exploring choice, 365–383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.022 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2016a Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction9. 33–55.   10.1075/etc.9.1.03ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.03ber [Google Scholar]
  12. 2016b On describing contexts of situation. InWendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Y. Liang (eds.), Society in language, language in society, 184–205. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137402868_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137402868_8 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2017a Stratum, delicacy, realisation and rank. InTom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 4–14. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017b Challenging moves and supporting moves in discourse. InStella Neumann, Rebekah Wegener, Jennifer Fest, Paula Niemietz & Nicole Hutzen (eds.), Challenging boundaries in linguistics: Systemic functional perspectives, 255–280. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2019 The clause: An overview of the lexicogrammar from part I – SFL: the model. InGeoff Thompson, Wendy Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schonthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of SFL, 92–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2021 Inequalities in status: how do they show in discourse and what can be done about them. Lingua261.   10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102924
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102924 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, Noam
    1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies, Florence
    1994 From writer roles to elements of text: Interactive, organisational and topical. InLeila Barbara, Mike Scott & Antonieta Celani (eds.), Reflections on language learning, 170–183. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1997 Marked Theme as a heuristic for analysing text-type, text and genre. InJordi Pique & David J. Viera (eds.), Applied languages: Theory and practice in ESP, 45–71. Universitat de Valencia: Servei de Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Davidse, Kristen
    2021 Exchanging propositions in the epistemic domain and actions in the deontic domain. Symposium #5: Roundtable in honour of Margaret Berry. ESFLC 2021. September16. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidse, Kristen, Lise Fontaine & Miriam Taverniers
    2019 Introduction. Functions of Language26 (1). 5–12. 10.1075/fol.18021.fon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18021.fon [Google Scholar]
  22. Fawcett, Robin P.
    1980Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and other components of a communicating mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos & Exeter University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2010Alternative architectures for systemic functional linguistics: How do we choose? Discussions in functional approaches to language. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fontaine, Lise & Anne McCabe
    2021 Conversations with Margaret Berry on class, type and categories. Symposium #5: Roundtable in honour of Margaret Berry. ESFLC 2021, September16. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fontaine, Lise & David Schönthal
    2019 The rooms of the house: Grammar at group rank. InGeoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 118–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316337936.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Forey, Gail
    2004 Workplace texts: Do they mean the same for teachers and business people?English for Specific Purposes23(4). 447–469. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(04)00004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(04)00004-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2009 Projecting clauses: Interpersonal realisation of control and power in workplace texts. InGail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture, 151–174. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2021 Bridging theory and impact on learning: The explicit teaching of Theme and Rheme in primary schools. Symposium #5: Roundtable in honour of Margaret Berry. ESFLC 2021, September16. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Forey, Gail & Geoff Thompson
    (eds.) 2009Text type and texture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fries, Peter
    1995a A personal view of Theme. InMohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, 1–19. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1995b Themes, methods of development, and texts. InRuqaiya Hasan & Peter Fries (eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective, 317–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.118.10fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118.10fri [Google Scholar]
  32. 2009 The textual metafunction as a site for a discussion of the goals of a linguistics and techniques of linguistic analysis. InGail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture, 70–93. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gardner, Sheena
    2004 Four critical features of teacher-guided reporting in infant science and literacy contexts. Language and Education18 (5). 361–378. 10.1080/09500780408666889
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666889 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2006 Centre-stage in the instructional register: Partnership talk in primary EAL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism9 (4). 476–494. 10.2167/beb342.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb342.0 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2008 Transforming talk and phonics practice: Or, how do crabs clap?TESOL Quarterly42. 261–284. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00118.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00118.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Gardner, Sheena & Aizen B. T. Yaacob
    2009 CD-ROM multimodal affordances: Classroom interaction perspectives in the Malaysian English literacy hour. Language and Education. 23 (5). 409–424. 10.1080/09500780802691751
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802691751 [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1959The language of the Chinese “Secret History of the Mongols”. Publications of the Philological Society XVII. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1961 Categories of the theory of grammar. Word17 (2). 241–292.   10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756 [Google Scholar]
  39. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kimps, Ditte, Kristin Davidse & Gerard O’Grady
    2019 English tag questions eliciting knowledge or action: A comparison of the speech function and exchange structure models. Functions of Language26 (1). 86–111. 10.1075/fol.18019.kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18019.kim [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin, James R.
    1992 Theme, method of development in existentiality: the price of reply. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics6. 147–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Martin, James R. & David Rose
    2007Working with discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Martin, James R., Michelle Zappavinga & Paul Dwyer
    2009 Negotiating shame: Exchange and genre structure in youth justice conferencing. InAhmar Mahboob & Caroline Liposkvy (eds.), Studies in applied linguistics and language learning, 41–72. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Martinez-Insua & Ana Elina
    2017 On the contentfulness of Themes in English historical medical texts. InStella Neumann, Rebekah Wegener, Jennifer Fest, Paula Niemietz & Nicole Hützen (eds.), Challenging boundaries in linguistics: Systemic functional perspectives, 111–132. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2019 Scientific writing and contentfulness of Subject Themes: How science was explained to (lay) audiences. Journal of Pragmatics138. 216–230.   10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  46. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    1992 Interpreting the textual metafunction. InMartin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice, 37–81. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mukherjee, Sarah-Jane
    2016Children’s meaning making in classroom role-play at 4–5 years: A systemic functional linguistic investigation. PhD Unpublished. The Open University, England.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mukherjee, Sarah-Jane & Margaret Berry
    2021 Problems of analysis in work on exchange structure. Symposium #5: Roundtable in honour of Margaret Berry. ESFLC 2021, September16. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rose, David
    2014 Analysing pedagogic discourse: An approach from genre and register. Functional Linguistics. 1 (11). 1–32. 10.1186/s40554‑014‑0011‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-014-0011-4 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Taverniers, Miriam
    2021 Speech function and mood as seen through metafunctional fractals. Symposium #5: Roundtable in honour of Margaret Berry. ESFLC 2021, September16. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ventola, Eija
    1987The structure of social interaction. London: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wickens, Paul
    2000Computer-based learning and changing legal pedagogical orders of discourse in UK higher education: A comparative critical discourse analysis of the TLTP materials in Law. PhD dissertation. University of Warwick, England. Available atwrap.warwick.ac.uk/4030/
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zappavinga, Michelle & James R. Martin
    2018Discourse and diversionary justice: An analysis of youth justice conferencing. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. 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.00036.for
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00036.for
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