Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:41:35.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Discourse Analysis within SFL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2019

Edited by
Geoff Thompson ,
Wendy L. Bowcher ,
Lise Fontaine  and
David Schönthal
Geoff Thompson
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Wendy L. Bowcher
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-Sen University, China
Lise Fontaine
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
David Schönthal
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 283 - 484
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Andersen, T. H., Boeris, M., Maagerø, E., and Tønnessen, E. S.. 2015. Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, T. 2012. Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualising Positive Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartlett, T. 2013. ‘I’ll Manage the Context’: Context, Environment and the Potential for Institutional Change. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 342–64.Google Scholar
Bartlett, T. 2017. Context in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Towards Scalar Supervenience? In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 375–90.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. and Martin, J. R.. 2010. New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 1981a. Systemic Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: A Multi-layered Approach to Exchange Structure. In Coulthard, M. and Montgomery, M., eds., Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 120–45.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 1981b. Towards Layers of Exchange Structure for Directive Exchanges. Network 2: 23–32.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 2016. Dynamism in Exchange Structure. English Text Construction 9(1): 33–55.Google Scholar
Butt, D. G., Moore, A. R., Henderson-Brooks, C., Meares, R., and Haliburn, J.. 2007. Dissociation, Relatedness and ‘Cohesive Harmony’: A Linguistic Measure of Degrees of ‘Fragmentation’? Linguistics and the Human Sciences 3(3): 263–93.Google Scholar
Cloran, C. 1994. Rhetorical Units and Decontextualisation: An Enquiry into Some Relations of Context, Meaning and Grammar. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 6. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Cloran, C. 2010. Rhetorical Unit Analysis and Bakhtin’s Chronotope. Functions of Language 17(1): 29–70.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. and Slade, D.. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. 1995. Generic Expectancies and Discoursal Surprises: John Donne’s The Good Morrow. In Fries, P. H. and Gregory, M., eds., Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday. London: Ablex. 67–84.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1964. Descriptive Linguistics in Literary Studies. In Duthie, A., ed., English Studies Today: Third Series. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 23–9.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1989. Language, Context and Text. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In Flood, J., ed., Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language and the Structure of Prose. Newark: International Reading Association. 181–219.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1989. Semantic Variation and Sociolinguistics. Australian Journal of Linguistics 9: 221–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. 1995. The Conception of Context in Text. In Fries, P. and Gregory, M., eds., Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday. London: Ablex. 183–284.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1996. The Nursery Tale as Genre. In Cloran, C., Butt, D., and Williams, G., eds., Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. London: Cassell. 51–72.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009. Wanted: A Theory for Integrated Sociolinguistics. In Webster, J. J., ed., Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan,Volume 2: Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics. Sheffield: Equinox. 5–40.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2014. Towards a Paradigmatic Description of Context: Systems, Metafunctions and Semantics. Functional Linguistics 1(9): 1–54.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2016. Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 2: Context in the System and Process of Language. Edited by Webster, J. J.. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. and Fries, P.. 1995. Reflections on Subject and Theme: An Introduction. In Hasan, R. and Fries, P., eds., On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. xiii–xlv.Google Scholar
Hasan, R., Cloran, C., Williams, G., and Lukin, A.. 2007. Semantic Networks: The Description of Linguistic Meaning in SFL. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 697–738.Google Scholar
Lukin, A. 2012. Meanings in Questions: A Case Study of the ABC’s Current Affairs Coverage of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In Bartlett, T. and Chen, H., eds., Special Issue of Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 9(1): 424–44.Google Scholar
Lukin, A. 2015. Language and Society, Context and Text: The Contributions of Ruqaiya Hasan. In Bowcher, W. and Liang, J. Y., eds., Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan: Society in Language, Language in Society. London: Palgrave. 143–65.Google Scholar
Lukin, A., Moore, A. R., Herke, M., Wegener, R., and Wu, C.. 2011. Halliday’s Model of Register Revisited and Explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 4(2): 187–213.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1991. Functions of Language in Two Frameworks. Word 42(3): 231–49.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A.. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a Functional Theory of Text Organisation. Text (8)3: 243–81.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Thompson, S. A.. 1992. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. In Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1999. Modelling Context: A Crooked Path of Progress in Contextual Linguistics. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25–61.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2010. Semantic Variation: Modelling Realisation, Instantiation and Individuation in Social Semiosis. In Bednarek, M. and Martin, J. R., eds., New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity and Affiliation. London: Continuum. 1–34.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2014. Appliable Discourse Analysis. In Yan, F. and Webster, J. J., eds., Developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Application. Sheffield: Equinox. 138–208.Google Scholar
Moore, A. R. 2017. Register Analysis in Systemic Functional Linguistics. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 418–37.Google Scholar
Scott, C. 2010. Peace and Cohesive Harmony: A Diachronic Investigation of Structure and Texture in ‘End of War’ News Reports in The Sydney Morning Herald. In Yan, F. and Wu, C., eds., Challenges to Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the 36th ISFC. Beijing: ISFC Organising Committee. 89–96.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, R. M.. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. The Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., and Souberman, E.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webster, J. J., Chan, J., Yan, V., and Wong, K.. 2013. Visualizing the Architecture and Texture of a Text: A Case Study of Selected Speeches of US President Barack Obama. In Shi, F. and Peng, G., eds., Festschrift in Honour of Prof. William S-Y. Wang’s 80th birthday. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. 301–24.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 2007. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

References

Alonso i Alemany, L. and Fort, M. Fuentes. 2003. Integrating Cohesion and Coherence for Automatic Summarization. Proceedings of EACL’03 Student Research Workshop. Budapest, Hungary. 1–8.Google Scholar
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A.. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berzlánovich, I. and Redeker, G.. 2012. Genre-dependent Interaction of Coherence and Lexical Cohesion in Written Discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 183–208.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, J., Tetreault, J. R., and Andreyev, S.. 2010. Using Entity-based Features to Model Coherence in Student Essays. Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 11th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Los Angeles. 681–4.Google Scholar
Cristea, D., Ide, N., and Romary, L.. 1998. Veins Theory: A Model of Global Discourse Cohesion and Coherence. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (ACL-98/COLING-98). Montreal, Canada. 281–5.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. 2004. Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C., ed. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 2013. Discourse in English Language Education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, J. E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harabagiu, S. 1999. From Lexical Cohesion to Textual Coherence: A Data Driven Perspective. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 13(2): 247–65.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In Flood, J., ed., Understanding Reading Comprehension. Newark: International Reading Association. 181–219.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1985. The Texture of a Text. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R., Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 70–96.Google Scholar
Hearst, M. 1994. Multi-Paragraph Segmentation of Expository Text. Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’94). Las Cruces, New Mexico. 9–16.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. 1979. Coherence and Coreference. Cognitive Science 6: 67–90.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 1991. Another Perspective on Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In Ventola, E., ed., Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 385–414.Google Scholar
Khoo, K. M. 2016. ‘Threads of Continuity’ and Interaction: Coherence, Texture and Cohesive Harmony. In Bowcher, W. L. and Liang, J. Y., eds., Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 300–30.Google Scholar
Kunz, K. and Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.. 2014. Cohesive Conjunctions in English and German: Systemic Contrasts and Textual Differences. In Vandelanotte, L., Davidse, K., Gentens, C., and Kimps, D., eds., Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 229–62.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. 1976. An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. 1983a. An Overview of the Nigel Text Generation Grammar: ISI/RR-83–113. Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. 1983b. An Overview of the Penman Text Generation Grammar: ISI/RR-83–114. Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Thompson, S. A.. 1992. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. In Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–78.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A.. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text 8(3): 243–81.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., and Cai, Z.. 2014. Automatic Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, J. and Hirst, G.. 1991. Lexical Cohesion Computed by Thesaural Relations as an Indicator of the Structure of Text. Computational Linguistics 17(1): 21–48.Google Scholar
Parsons, G. 1996. The Development of the Concept of Cohesive Harmony. In Berry, M., Butler, C. S., Fawcett, R., and Huang, G., eds., Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations (Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday). Norwood: Ablex. 585–99.Google Scholar
Polanyi, L. 1988. A Formal Model of the Structure of Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601–38.Google Scholar
Purver, M. 2011. Topic Segmentation. In Tur, G. and De Mori, R., eds., Spoken Language Understanding: Systems for Extracting Semantic Information from Speech. Hoboken: Wiley. 291–317.Google Scholar
Rahimi, Z., Litman, D., Wang, E., and Correnti, R.. 2015. Incorporating Coherence of Topics as a Criterion in Automatic Response-to-Text Assessment of the Organization of Writing. Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Denver. 20–30.Google Scholar
Renkema, J. 2009. The Texture of Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., and Noordman, L.. 1992. Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., and Noordman, L.. 1993. Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2): 93–133.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. 1996. Strategies for Discourse Cohesion: Because in ESL Writing. Functions of Language 3(2): 235–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. and Thompson, G.. 2001. Introduction: Why ‘Patterns of Text’? In Scott, M. and Thompson, G., eds., Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–11.Google Scholar
Somasundaran, S., Burstein, J., and Chodorow, M.. 2014. Lexical Chaining for Measuring Discourse Coherence Quality in Test-taker Essays. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING). Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. 2000. Cohesion as a Measure in Generic Analysis. In Melby, A. and Lommel, A., eds., The 26th LACUS Forum. Chapel Hill: The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. 35–49.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. 2004. Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanskanen, S.-K. 2006. Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. 2014. Introducing Functional Grammar. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trnavac, R. and Taboada, M.. 2016. Cataphora, Backgrounding and Accessibility in Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 93: 68–84.Google Scholar
Webber, B., Stone, M., Joshi, A. K., and Knott, A.. 2003. Anaphora and Discourse Structure. Computational Linguistics 29(4): 545–87.Google Scholar
Wong, B. T. M. and Kit, C.. 2012. Extending Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics with Lexical Cohesion to Document Level. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. Jeju Island, Korea. 1060–8.Google Scholar

References

Bartlett, T. and Chen, H.. 2012. Applying Linguistics in Making Professional Practice Re-Visible. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 9(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language, Volume 1. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 1975 Class, Codes and Control: Applied Studies towards a Theory of Educational Transmission, Volume 3. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 1987. Social Class, Codes and Communication. In Ammon, V., Dittmar, N., and Matthier, K. J., eds., Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 536–79.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 1990. Class, Codes and Control: The Structure of Pedagogic Discourse, Volume 4. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. 2nd ed. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bowcher, W. L. 2007. Field and Multimodal Texts. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 619–46.Google Scholar
Bowcher, W. L. 2014. Issues in Developing Unified Systems for Contextual Field and Mode. Functions of Language 21(2): 176–209.Google Scholar
Butt, D. 2004. Parameters of Context: On Establishing the Similarities and Differences between Social Processes. Unpublished mimeo, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Chu, P. Y. 2011. Picture Book Reading in a New Arrival Context: A Multimodal Perspective on Teaching Reading. PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. and Heritage, J.. 2002. The News Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cloran, C. 1994. Rhetorical Units and Decontextualisation: An Enquiry into Some Relations of Context, Meaning and Grammar. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 6. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Cloran, C. 1999. Context, Material Situation and Text. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics: Systemic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 219–328.Google Scholar
Cloran, C. 2000. Socio-semantic Variation: Different Wordings, Different Meanings. In Unsworth, L., ed., Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives. London: Cassell. 152–83.Google Scholar
Cloran, C., Stuart-Smith, V., and Young, Y.. 2007. Models of Discourse. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 647–70.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. 1990. Keeping the Conversation Going: A Systemic-functional Analysis of Conversational Structure in Casual Sustained Talk. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. and Slade, D.. 2004. Analyzing Casual Conversation. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fung, A. 2016. Hasan’s Semantic Networks Revisited: A Cantonese Systemic Functional Approach. In Bowcher, W. L. and Liang, J. Y., eds., Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Palgrave Macmillan.115–40.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. and Handford, M., eds. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. 1985. Towards ‘Communication’ Linguistics: A Framework. In Benson, J. and Greaves, W., eds., Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Volume 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop. Norwood: Ablex. 119–34.Google Scholar
Hall, P. 2004. Prone to Distortion? Undue Reliance on Unreliable Records in NSW Police Service Formal Interview Model. In Gibbons, J., Prakasam, V., Tirumalesh, K. V., and Nagrajan, H., eds., Language in the Law. New Delhi: Orient Longman Private Limited. 44–81.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Towards a Sociological Semantics. In Halliday, M. A. K., Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold. 72–102.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. Language as Code and Language as Behaviour: A Systemic-functional Interpretation of the Nature and Ontogenesis of Dialogue. In Fawcett, R. P. et al., eds., The Semiotics of Culture and Language, Volume 1: Language as Social Semiotic. London: Pinter. 3–35.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2006a. Some Theoretical Considerations Underlying the Teaching of English in China. The Journal of English Studies (Sichuan International Studies University) 4: 7–20.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2006b. Working with Meaning: Towards an Appliable Linguistics. In Webster, J. J.. ed., Meaning in Context: Implementing Intelligent Applications of Language Studies. London: Continuum. 7–23.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2008. Complementarities in Language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2009. Methods – Techniques – Problems. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 59–86.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1983. A Semantic Network for the Analysis of Messages in Everyday Talk between Mothers and Their Children. Unpublished mimeo, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In Flood, J., ed., Understanding Reading Comprehension. Newark: International Reading Association. 181–219.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1989. Semantic Variation and Sociolinguistics. Australian Journal of Linguistics 9(2): 221–76.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1996. Semantic Networks: A Tool for the Analysis of Meaning. In Cloran, C., Butt, D., and Williams, G., eds., Ways of Saying, Ways of Meaning: Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Cassell. 104–30.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1999. Speaking with Reference to Context. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 219–328.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2000. The Uses of Talk. In Sarangi, S. and Coulthard, M., eds., Discourse and Social Life. London: Longman. 30–81.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2005. Language in Society in a Systemic Functional Perspective. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language, Volume 1. Sheffield: Equinox. 55–80.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009a. Language in the Processes of Socialization: Home and School. In Webster, J. J., ed., Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics: The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 119–79.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009b. Meaning in Sociolinguistic Theory. In Webster, J. J., ed., Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics: The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 271–308.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009c. The Place of Context in a Systemic Functional Model. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 165–89.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009d. Questions as a Mode of Learning in Everyday Talk. In Webster, J. J., ed., Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics: The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 231–68.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009e. Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics: The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 2. Edited by Webster, J. J.. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009f. A Sociolinguistic Interpretation of Everyday Talk between Mothers and Children. In Webster, J. J., ed., Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics: The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 75–118.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2010. The Meaning of ‘Not’ Is Not in ‘Not’. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N. K., eds., Appliable Linguistics: Texts, Contexts and Meanings. London: Continuum. 267–305.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2011. A Timeless Journey: On the Past and Future of Present Knowledge. In Cheng, D. N., ed., Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan on Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. xiv–xliii.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2013. Choice, System, Realization: Describing Language as Meaning Potential. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 269–99.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2014. Towards a Paradigmatic Description of Context: Systems, Metafunctions, and Semantics. Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–54.Google Scholar
Hasan, R., Cloran, C., Williams, G., and Lukin, A.. 2007. Semantic networks: The Description of Meaning in SFL. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 697–738.Google Scholar
Hyland, K., ed. 2013. Discourse Studies Reader: Essential Excerpts. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Paltridge, B., eds. 2011. Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kim, J. E. 2014. Parent Child Sharing Reading: The Affordances of Print, Digital and Hand-held Electronic Storybooks. PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1978. Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics Paper #44. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. 1–16.Google Scholar
Lukin, A. 2012. Hasan’s Semantic Networks as a Tool in Discourse Analysis. In Knox, J. S., ed., Papers from the 39th International Systemic Functional Congress. Sydney: Organising Committee of the 39th International Systemic Functional Congress. 141–6.Google Scholar
Lukin, A. 2013. Evaluating Questions in Journalism: A Case Study of the Australian Public Broadcaster’s Coverage of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 9(1): 127–47.Google Scholar
Lukin, A., Moore, A., Herke, M., Wu, C., and Wegener, R.. 2011. Halliday’s Model of Register Revisited and Explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 4(2): 187–213.Google Scholar
Mahboob, A. and Knight, N.. 2010a. Appliable Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mahboob, A. and Knight, N.. 2010b. Appliable Linguistics: An Introduction. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., Appliable Linguistics. London: Continuum. 1–12.Google Scholar
Maley, Y. and Fahey, R.. 1991. Presenting the Evidence: Constructions of Reality in the Court. International Journal for the Science of Law 4(1): 3–17.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142–75.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2014. Evolving Systemic Functional Linguistics: Beyond the Clause. Functional Linguistics 1(1): 3.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1988a. Representational Issues in Systemic Functional Grammar. In Benson, J. D. and Greaves, W. S., eds., Systemic Functional Perspectives on Discourse. Norwood: Ablex. 136–75.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1988b. Semantics for a Systemic Grammar: The Chooser and Inquiry Framework. In Benson, J. D, Cummings, M. J., and Greaves, W. S., eds., Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 221–42.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1990. Two Approaches to Semantic Interfaces in Text Generation. COLING 90: 322–9.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1993. Register in the Round: Diversity in a Unified Theory of Register Analysis. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Painter. 221–92.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2004. The Semantic System of Relational Expansion: Rhetorical Structure Theory Revised. Unpublished draft, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2007. The Architecture of Language According to Systemic Functional Theory: Developments since the 1970s. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 505–61.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2009. Ideas & New Directions. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 12–58.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2012. Systemic Functional Linguistics as Applicable Linguistics: Social Accountability and Critical Approaches. D.E.L.T.A. 28: 435–71.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2014. Appliable Discourse Analysis. In Fang, Y. and Webster, J. J., eds., Developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Application. Sheffield: Equinox. 138–208.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2015a. Halliday on Language. In Webster, J. J., ed., The Bloomsbury Companion to M. A. K. Halliday. London: Bloomsbury. 137–202.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2015b. Modelling Context and Register: The Long-term Project of Registerial Cartography. Letras, Santa Maria 25(50): 15–90.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. and Bateman, J.. 1991. Systemic Linguistics and Text Generation: Experiences from Japanese and English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Moore, A. R. 2016. Can Semantic Networks Capture Intra- and Inter-Registerial Variation? Palliative Care Discourse Interrogates Hasan’s Message Semantics. In Bowcher, W. L. and Liang, J. Y., eds., Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 83–114.Google Scholar
Patten, T. 1988. Systemic Text Generation as Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torr, J. 2004. Talking about Picture Books: The Influence of Maternal Education on Four-year-old Children’s Talk with Mothers and Pre-school Teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 4(2): 181–210.Google Scholar
Turner, G. J. 1973. Social Class and Children’s Language of Control at Age Five and Age Seven. In Bernstein, B., ed., Class, Codes and Control, Volume 2: Applied Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge. 121–79.Google Scholar
Wake, B. J. 2006. Dialogic Learning in Tutorial Talk: A Case Study of Semiotic Mediation as a Learning Resource for Second Language International Students. PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Williams, G. 1995. Joint Book-Reading and Literacy Pedagogy: A Sociosemantic Examination. PhD Thesis, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Williams, G. 2005. Semantic Variation. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J.. eds., Continuing Discourse on Language, Volume 1. Sheffield: Equinox. 457–80.Google Scholar
Wong, Y. T. 2009. The Linguistic Function of Cantonese Discourse Particles in the English Medium Online Chat of Cantonese Speakers. MA Dissertation, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar

References

Bateman, J. A. 2014. Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Verbal/Visual Divide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 1981. Systemic Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: A Multi-layered Approach to Exchange Structure. In Coulthard, M. and Montgomery, M., eds., Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 120–45.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. 2006. Historical Discourse: The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. 1981. On the Status of Theme in English: Arguments from Discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6(1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. Jr. 1968. Contrastive Analysis in Discourse Structure. In J. E. Alatis, ed., Contrastive Linguistics and Its Pedagogical Implications, Report of the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. 39–63.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. Language as Code and Language as Behaviour: A Systemic-functional Interpretation of the Nature and Ontogenesis of Dialogue. In Fawcett, R., Halliday, M. A. K., Lamb, S. M., and Makkai, A., eds., The Semiotics of Language and Culture, Volume 1: Language as Social Semiotic. London: Pinter. 3–35.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1998. Things and Relations: Regrammaticising Experience as Technical Knowledge. In Martin, J. R. and Veel, R., eds., Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. 185–235.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2009. Methods – Techniques – Problems. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 59–86.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Greaves, W. S.. 2008. Intonation in the Grammar of English. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Language: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009. Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and Sociolinguistics. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Knight, N. 2010 Wrinkling Complexity: Concepts of Identity and Affiliation in Humour. In Bednarek, M. and Martin, J. R., eds., New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity and Affiliation. London: Continuum. 35–58.Google Scholar
Knight, N. 2013. Evaluating Experience in Funny Ways: How Friends Bond through Conversational Humour. Text & Talk 33(4–5): 553–74.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. 1985. Ideology, Intertextuality and the Notion of Register. In Benson, J. D. and Greaves, W. S., eds., Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Volume 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood: Ablex. 275–94.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1983. Participant Identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 45–74.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1999. Modelling Context: The Crooked Path of Progress in Contextual Linguistics. In. Ghadessy, M., ed., Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25–61.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2013a. Systemic Functional Grammar: A Next Step into the Theory – Axial Relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2013b. Modelling Context: Matter as Meaning. In Gouveia, C. and Alexandre, M., eds., Languages, Metalanguages, Modalities, Cultures: Functional and Socio-discursive Perspectives. Lisbon: BonD & ILTEC. 10–64.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2014. Evolving Systemic Functional Linguistics: Beyond the Clause. Functional Linguistics 1(3): 1–24.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum. 2nd Revised Edition.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2012. Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Painter, C.. 2010. Deploying Functional Grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P., and Cleírigh, C.. 2013. Users in Uses of Language: Embodied Identity in Youth Justice Conferencing. Text & Talk 33(4–5): 467–96.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M.. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ventola, E. 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Pinter.Google Scholar

References

Almutairi, B. 2015. Visualizing Evaluative Language in Relation to Constructing Identity in English Editorials and Op-Eds. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Emerson, C. and Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion Talk Across Corpora. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. and Caple, H.. 2017. The Discourse of News Values: How News Organizations Create Newsworthiness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caffarel, A. and Rechniewski, E.. 2009. A Systemic Functional Approach to Analysing and Interpreting Ideology: An Illustration from French Editorials. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22: 27–43.Google Scholar
Chang, C. 2017. Defining English Idioms in a Bilingual Learner’s Dictionary: Applications of Systemic Functional Linguistics in Lexicography. In Webster, J. J. and Peng, X., eds., Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics: The State of the Art in China Today. London: Bloomsbury. 321–36.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. 2010. The Semiotic Construal of Attitudinal Curriculum Goals: Evidence from EFL Textbooks in China. Linguistics and Education 21: 60–74.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. 2017. Comparing the Semiotic Construction of Attitudinal Meaning in the Multimodal Manuscript, Original Published and Adapted Versions of ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’. Semiotica 215(2): 341–64.Google Scholar
Cléirigh, C. 2011. Gestural and Postural Semiosis. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. 2002. The Voices of History: Theorising the Interpersonal Semantics of Historical Discourses. Text 22(4): 503–28.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. 2006. Historical Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. and Donohue, J.. 2014. A Language as Social Semiotic-based Approach to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
De Oliveira, L. C. 2010. Knowing and Writing School History: The Language of Students’ Expository Writing and Teachers’ Expectations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Economou, D. 2009. Photos in the News: Appraisal of Visual Semiosis and Verbal-visual Intersemiosis. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Economou, D. 2012. Standing Out on Critical Issues: Evaluation in Large Verbal-visual Displays in Australian Broadsheets. In Bowcher, W., ed., Multimodal Texts from around the World. London: Continuum. 246–69.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. and Slade, D.. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Feez, S., Iedema, R., and White, P.. 1994. Media Literacy. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Services.Google Scholar
Feng, D. and Qi, Y.. 2014. Emotion Prosody and Viewer Engagement in Film Narrative: A Social Semiotic Approach. Narrative Inquiry 24(2): 347–67.Google Scholar
Fuller, G. 1998. Cultivating Science: Negotiating Discourse in the Popular Texts of Stephen Jay Gould. In Martin, J. R. and Veel, R., eds., Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. 35–62.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. Language as Code and Language as Behaviour: A Systemic-functional Interpretation of the Nature and Ontogenesis of Dialogue. In Fawcett, R., Lamb, S. M., and Makkai, A., eds., The Semiotics of Culture and Language, Volume 1. London: Pinter. 3–35.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Greaves, W.. 2008. Intonation in the Grammar of English. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hao, J. and Hood, S.. in press. Valuing Science: The Cooperation of Language and Body Language in the Cultivation of Scientific Values in Undergraduate Lectures. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.001.Google Scholar
Hao, J. and Humphrey, S.. 2012. The Role of ‘Coupling’ in Biological Experimental Reports. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 5(2): 169–94.Google Scholar
Hood, S. 2006. The Persuasive Power of Prosodies: Radiating Values in Academic Writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 34–79.Google Scholar
Hood, S. 2010. Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hood, S. 2011. Body Language in Face-to-face Teaching: A Focus on Textual and Interpersonal Meaning. In Dreyfus, S., Hood, S., and Stenglin, M., eds., Semiotic Margins: Meaning in Multimodalities. London: Continuum. 31–52.Google Scholar
Hood, S. and Forey, G.. 2008. The Interpersonal Dynamics of Call-centre Interactions: Co-constructing the Rise and Fall of Emotion. Discourse and Communication 2(4): 389–409.Google Scholar
Hood, S. and Martin, J. R.. 2007. Invoking Attitude: The Play of Graduation in Appraising Discourse. In Webster, J. J., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Hasan, R., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language, Volume 2. Sheffield: Equinox. 739–64.Google Scholar
Inako, A. 2014. The First Month on Plutonium: Physicist’s and Free Journalist’s Reactions to the Fukushima NPP Accident on Twitter. International Journal of the Oita Text Forum 2: 8–24.Google Scholar
Inako, A. 2015. Affiliating in Crisis: A Linguistic Perspective on Community Formation on Twitter after the Nuclear Accident in Japan in 2011. PhD Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
Knight, N. 2010. Wrinkling Complexity: Concepts of Identity and Affiliation in Humour. In Bednarek, M. and Martin, J. R., eds., New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation. 35–48. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Korner, H. 2000. Negotiating Authority: The Logogenesis of Dialogue in Common Law Judgments. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lander, J. 2015. Building Community in Online Discussion: A Case Study of Moderator Strategies. Linguistics and Education 29: 107–20.Google Scholar
Lee, S. H. 2010. Differences in the Use of Appraisal Resources between L1 and L2 Writers: Focusing on the Graduation System. Journal of Issues in Intercultural Communication 3(1): 21–47.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. 1998. Resources for Attitudinal Meaning: Evaluative Orientations in Text Semantics. Functions of Language 5(1): 33–56.Google Scholar
Liu, F. 2017. Strategies for Affiliation in Media Editorials: Persuading and Aligning Readers. PhD Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
Liu, F. and Hood, S.. in press. Repositioning Readers in Newspaper Editorials: The Role of Ir/realis Attitude in Enacting Affiliation. Text & Talk.Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, M. 2003. Appraisal and the Special Instructiveness of Narrative. Text 23: 285–312.Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, M. and Isaac, A.. 2014. Appraising Appraisal. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 67–92.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992a. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992b. Macroproposals: Meaning by Degree. In Mann, W. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 359–95.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142–75.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2007. Construing Knowledge: A Functional Linguistic Perspective. In Christie, F. and Martin, J. R., eds., Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum. 34–64.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2011. Multimodal Semiotics: Theoretical Challenges. In Dreyfus, S., Hood, S., and Stenglin, M., eds., Semiotic Margins: Meaning in Multimodalities. London: Continuum. 125–43.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2014. Evolving Systemic Functional Linguistics: Beyond the Clause. Functional Linguistics 1(3): 1–24.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2017. The Discourse Semantics of Attitudinal Relations: Continuing the Study of Lexis. Russian Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 22–47.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Plum, G.. 1997. Construing Experience: Some Story Genres. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7: 1–4.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M., and Dwyer, P.. 2010. Negotiating Evaluation: Story Structure and Appraisal in Youth Justice Conferencing. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., eds., Appliable Linguistics: Texts, Contexts, and Meanings. London: Continuum. 44–75.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P., and Cléirigh, C.. 2013. Users in Uses of Language: Embodied Identity in Youth Justice Conferencing. Text and Talk 33(4–5): 467–96.Google Scholar
Martinec, R. 2001. Interpersonal Resources in Action. Semiotica 135 (1/4):117–45.Google Scholar
Matruglio, E. 2010. Evaluative Stance in the Humanities: Expectations and Performances. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., eds., Appliable Linguistics: Texts, Contexts, and Meanings. London: Continuum. 168–84.Google Scholar
Matruglio, E. 2014. Humanities’ Humanity: Construing the Social in HSC Modern and Ancient History, Society and Culture, and Community and Family Studies. PhD Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
Moyano, E. I. 2014. La Discusión en artículos de microbiología: género, compromiso y construcción del conocimiento. Onomázein Número Especial 9 ALSFAL: 161–85.Google Scholar
Munday, J. 2012. Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ngo, T. 2014. A Comparison of Linguistic Resources for Evaluation in English and Vietnamese Conversations: An Exploratory Study. PhD Thesis, University of New England, Australia.Google Scholar
Ngo, T. and Unsworth, L.. 2015. Reworking the Appraisal Framework in ESL Research: Refining Attitude Resources. Functional Linguistics 2(1). DOI 10.1186/s40554-015-0013-xGoogle Scholar
Oteíza, T. 2009. Evaluative Patterns in the Official Discourse of Human Rights in Chile: Giving Value to the Past and Building Historical Memories in Society. DELTA 25: 609–40.Google Scholar
Oteíza, T. and Pinuer, C.. 2016. Appraisal Framework and Critical Discourse Studies: A Joint Approach to the Study of Historical Memories from an Intermodal Perspective. International Journal of Language Studies 10(2): 5–32.Google Scholar
Painter, C. 1984. Into the Mother Tongue. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Painter, C. 2003. Developing Attitude: An Ontogenetic Perspective on Appraisal. Text 23(2): 183–209.Google Scholar
Painter, C., Martin, J. R., and Unsworth, L.. 2013. Reading Visual Narratives: Image Analysis of Children’s Picture Books. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R., ed. 1970. Prosodic Analysis. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peng, X. 2008. Evaluative Meanings in Literary Texts: The First Step towards Appraisal Stylistics. In Norgaard, N., ed., Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use: Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication, Volume 29. Odense: University of Southern Denmark. 665–84.Google Scholar
Rothery, J. 1984. The Development of Genres: Primary to Junior Secondary School. In Christie, F., ed., Children Writing: Study Guide. Geelong: Deakin University Press. 67–114.Google Scholar
Rothery, J. and Stenglin, M.. 1997. Entertaining and Instructing: Exploring Experience Through Story. In Christie, F. and Martin, J. R., eds., Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School. London: Cassell. 231–63.Google Scholar
Rothery, J. and Stenglin, M.. 2000. Interpreting Literature: The Role of APPRAISAL. In Unsworth, L., ed., Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives. London: Cassell. 222–44.Google Scholar
Sano, M. 2012. Apureizaru riron o kitee to shita hyooka hyoogen no bunrui to jisho no koochiku [The Classification of Japanese Evaluative Expressions and the Construction of a Dictionary of Attitudinal Lexis: An Interpretation from an Appraisal Perspective]. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo Ronshuu [NINJAL Research Papers] 3: 53–83.Google Scholar
Szenes, E. 2017. The Linguistic Construction of Business Reasoning: Towards a Language-based Model of Decision-making in Undergraduate Business. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Thomson, E. A. and White, P. R. R., eds., 2008. Communicating Conflict: Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Tian, P. 2011. Multimodal Evaluation: Sense and Sensibility in Anthony Browne’s Picture Books. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Torr, J. 1997. From Child Tongue to Mother Tongue: A Case Study of Language Development in the First Two and a Half Years. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 9. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Vian, O. Jr. 2012. Avaliatividade, Engajamento e Valoracão (Appraisal, Engagment and Valuation). D.E.L.T.A. 28(1): 105–28.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. and Zhang, Q.. 2014. How Disputes are Reconciled in a Chinese Courtroom Setting: From an Appraisal Perspective. Semiotica 201: 281–98.Google Scholar
Welch, A. 2005. The Illustration of Facial Affect in Children’s Literature. Unpublished BA Hons coursework paper, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. 1998. Telling Media Tales: The News Story as Rhetoric. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. 2003. Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance. Text 23(2): 259–84.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. 2012. Exploring the Axiological Workings of ‘Reporter Voice’ News Stories: Attribution and Attitudinal Positioning. Discourse, Context and Media 1: 57–67.Google Scholar
Yu, L., Peng, X., He, Z., Liu, Y., Zhang, R., Tan, X., and Wang, Y.. 2017. Generic Distributions of English Appraisal Categories Based on Appraisal Corpus. In Webster, J. J. and Peng, X., eds., Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics: The State of the Art in China Today. London: Bloomsbury. 169–83.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How to Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M., Cléirigh, D., Dwyer, P., and Martin, J. R. 2010. Visualising Appraisal Prosody. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., eds., Appliable Linguistics: Texts, Contexts, and Meanings. London: Continuum. 150–67.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P., and Martin, J. R.. 2008. Syndromes of Meaning: Exploring Patterned Coupling in a NSW Youth Justice Conference. In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N., eds., Questioning Linguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 164–85.Google Scholar
Zhang, M. and Guo, T.. 2014. Event-related Brain Potentials Differentiate Three Types of Emotional Words Categorized from Linguistic Perspective. Journal of Neurolinguistics 31: 17–27.Google Scholar
Zhang, M., Ge, Y., Kang, C., Guo, T., and Peng, D.. 2018. ERP Evidence for the Contribution of Meaning Complexity Underlying Emotional Word Processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics 45: 110–18.Google Scholar

References

Atkinson, D. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Banks, D. 1995. Your Very First ESP Text (Wherein Chaucer Explaineth the Astrolabe). ASp 15–18: 451–60.Google Scholar
Banks, D. 2005. Introduction à la linguistique systématique fonctionnelle de l’anglais. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Banks, D. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing, Linguistic Features and Historical Context. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Banks, D. 2016. On the (Non)necessity of the Hybrid Category Behavioural Process. In Miller, D. R. and Bayley, P., eds., Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguistics, Grammar, Text and Discourse. Sheffield: Equinox. 21–40.Google Scholar
Banks, D. 2017. The Birth of the Academic Article: Le Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, 1665–1700. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B.. 2010. Challenging Stereotypes about Academic Writing: Complexity, Elaboration, Explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2–20.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B.. 2011. Grammatical Change in the Noun Phrase: The Influence of Written Language Use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 223–50.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B.. 2013. Being Specific about Historical Change: The Influence of Sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 104–34.Google Scholar
Bynon, T. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1980. A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1999. The Penguin Dictionary of Language. 2nd ed. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cummings, M. 1995. A Systemic Functional Approach to the Thematic Structure of the Old English Clause. In Hasan, R. and Fries, P. H., eds., On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 275–316.Google Scholar
Cummings, M. 2010. An Introduction to the Grammar of Old English: A Systemic Functional Approach. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hall, M. B. 2002. Henry Oldenburg: Shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1988. On the Language of Physical Science. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features. London: Pinter. 162–78.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R.. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J.. 2014. Text Linguistics: The How and Why of Meaning. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. 1994. The Crystallization of a New Narrative Form in Experimental Reports (1660–1690): The Experimental Evidence as a Transaction between Philosophical Knowledge and Aristocratic Power. Science in Context 7(2): 205–44.Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. 1996. La formation de la pratique scientifique: Le discours de l’expérience en France et en Angleterre (1630–1820). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martínez-Insua, A. E. 2013. There-constructions as a Choice for Coherence in the Recent History of English. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–25.Google Scholar
Morgan, B. T. 1928. Histoire du Journal des Sçavans depuis 1665 jusqu’en 1701. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2003. Intersemiosis in Mathematics and Science: Grammatical Metaphor and Semiotic Metaphor. In Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M., and Ravelli, L., eds., Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 337–66.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2005. Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. 1999. From ‘Mr. Guthrie is Profoundly Mistaken …’ to ‘Our Data Do Not Seem to Confirm the Results of a Previous Study on …’: A Diachronic Study of Polemicity in Academic Writing (1810–1995). Ibérica 1: 5–28.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. and Zambrano, N.. 2001. The Bittersweeet Rhetoric of Controversiality in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century French and English Medical Literature. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(1): 141–73.Google Scholar
Starc, S. 2010. Textual Patterning and Information Flow (Theme^Rheme) in the Generic Evolution of 19th Century Slovene Newspaper Advertisements. In Swain, E., ed., Thresholds and Potentialities of Systemic Functional Linguistics: Multilingual, Multimodal and other Specialised Discourses. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste. 133–57.Google Scholar
Starc, S. 2015. The Difference in Text Structure between Advertisements and Classified Advertisements from a Diachronic Perspective. In Banks, D., ed., Aspects linguistiques de la ‘petite annonce’. Paris: L’Harmattan. 25–35.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis, English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1988. Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization. In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A., and Singmaster, H., eds., Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 406–16.Google Scholar
Urbach, C. 2013. ‘Choice’ in Relation to Context: A Diachronic Perspective on Cultural Valeur. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 300–17.Google Scholar
Valle, E. 1999. A Collective Intelligence: The Life Sciences in the Royal Society as a Scientific Discourse Community, 1665–1965. Turku: Anglicana Turkuensia.Google Scholar

References

Baldry, A. P. and Thibault, P. J.. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. 2014a. Looking for What Counts in Film Analysis: A Programme of Empirical Research. In Machin, D., ed., Visual Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 301–29.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. 2014b. Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. and Schmidt, K.-H.. 2012. Multimodal Film Analysis: How Films Mean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christie, F. 2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Waurn Ponds: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2008. Complementarities in Language. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Waurn Ponds: Deakin University.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iedema, R. 2001. Resemiotization. Semiotica 137: 23–39.Google Scholar
Iedema, R. 2003. Multimodality, Resemiotization: Extending the Analysis of Discourse as a Multisemiotic Practice. Visual Communication 2: 29–57.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C., ed. 2014. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., and O’Halloran, K. L.. 2015. Introducing Multimodality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koffka, K. 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
Kok, A. K. C. 2004. Multisemiotic Mediation in Hypertext. In O’Halloran, K. L., ed., Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives. London: Continuum. 131–59.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. 2005. Multiplying Meaning. In Martin, J. R. and Veel, R., eds., Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. New York: Routledge. 87–114.Google Scholar
Liu, Y. and O’Halloran, K. L.. 2009. Intersemiotic Texture: Analyzing Cohesive Devices between Language and Images. Social Semiotics 19: 367–88.Google Scholar
Machin, D. 2007. Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Hodder Arnold..Google Scholar
Machin, D. and Mayr, A.. 2012. How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2002. Meaning beyond the Clause: SFL Perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 52–74.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martinec, R. 1998. Cohesion in Action. Semiotica 120: 161–80.Google Scholar
Martinec, R. and Salway, A.. 2005. A System for Image–Text Relations in New (and Old) Media. Visual Communication 4: 337–71.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. L., ed. 2004. Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. L. 2008a. Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis SF-MDA: Constructing Ideational Meaning Using Language and Visual Imagery. Visual Communication 7: 443–75.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. L. 2008b. Inter-semiotic Expansion of Experiential Meaning: Hierarchical Scales and Metaphor in Mathematics Discourse. In Jones, C. and Ventola, E., eds., From Language to Multimodality: New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning. Sheffield: Equinox. 231–54.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. L. 2011. Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In Hyland, K. and Paltridge, B., eds., Bloomsbury Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Bloomsbury. 120–37.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. L. and Lim-Fei, V.. 2014. Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In Norris, S. and Maier, C. D., eds., Texts, Images and Interactions: A Reader in Multimodality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 137–53.Google Scholar
O’Toole, M. 2011. The Language of Displayed Art. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Royce, T. 2007. Intersemiotic Complementarity: A Framework for Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In Royce, T. and Bowcher, W. L., eds., New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 63–110.Google Scholar
Royce, T. 2015. Intersemiotic Complementarity in Legal Cartoons: An Ideational Multimodal Analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 28(4): 719–44.Google Scholar
Sharoff, S. 2010. In the Garden and in the Jungle. In Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., and Santini, M., eds., Genres on the Web: Computational Models and Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Springer. 149–66.Google Scholar
Unsworth, L. 2008. Multiliteracies and Metalanguage: Describing Image/Text Relations as a Resource for Negotiating Multimodal Texts. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., and Leu, D. J., eds., Handbook of Research on New Literacies. Oxford: Taylor and Francis. 377–405.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. 1999. Speech, Music, Sound. Houndsmills: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. 2012. The Critical Analysis of Musical Discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 9: 319–28.Google Scholar

References

Baldry, A. and Thibault, P.. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bartlett, T. 2012. Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualising Positive Discourse Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartlett, T. 2013. ‘I’ll Manage the Context’: Context, Environment and the Potential for Institutional Change. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 342–64.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. 1971. Class Codes and Control, Volume 1: Theoretical Studies towards Sociology of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bowcher, W. 2017. Field, Tenor and Mode. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. 391–403.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-Garcia, F.. 2014. Exploring Functional-cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N.. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ Error. New York: G. P. Putnam.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2013. Language: The Cultural Tool. London: Profile.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2006. Language and Globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2009. A Dialectal-relationship to Critical Discourse Analysis in Social Science. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., eds., Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE. 162–86.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2015. Language and Power. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. and Graham, P.. 2010. Marx as Critical Discourse Analyst. In Fairclough, N., ed., Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman. 310–46.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., and Wodak, R.. 2011. Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE. 357–78.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. P. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julian Groos.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds. 2013. Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punishment. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1981. The Order of Discourse. In Young, R., ed. Unifying the Text: A Post-structuralist Reader. London: Routledge. 48–78.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. 1988. Generic Situation and Register: A Functional View of Communication. In Benson, J. D., Cummings, M. J., and Greaves, W. S., eds., Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 301–29.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1969. Relevant Models of Language: The State of Language. Educational Review, University of Birmingham 22(1): 26–37.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Enquiry into the Language of William Golding’s ‘The Inheritors’. In Halliday, M. A. K., Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold. 103–43.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2007. Some Thoughts on Language and Middle School Years. Language and Education: Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Volume 9. Edited by Webster, J. J.. London: Continuum. 49–62.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2014. The Continuing Influence of Marxism. In Webster, J. J., ed., The Bloomsbury Companion to M. A. K. Halliday. London: Bloomsbury. 94–100.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hart, C. 2015. Discourse. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 322–45.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2005. Semiotic Mediation and Three Exotropic Theories: Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein. In Webster, J. J., ed., Language, Society and Consciousness: The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Volume 1. Sheffield: Equinox. 130–59.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009a. Everyday Talk between Mothers and Children. In Webster, J. J., ed., Semantic Variation: Meaning and Society in Sociolinguistics. Sheffield: Equinox. 75–118.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 2009b. Rationality in Everyday Talk: From Process to System. In Webster, J. J., ed., Semantic Variation: Meaning and Society in Sociolinguistics. Sheffield: Equinox. 309–52.Google Scholar
Hodge, B. 2017. Discourse Analysis. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. 520–32.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2013. Systemic Functional Linguistics, Corpus Linguistics and the Ideology of Science. Text and Talk 33(4–5): 617–40.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. 2009. Different Approaches to Multimodality. In Jewitt, C., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge. 28–39.Google Scholar
Jones, P. E. 2013. Bernstein’s Codes and the Linguistics of ‘Deficit’. Language and Education 27(2): 161–79.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and Hodge, B.. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krizsan, A. 2011. The EU Is Not Us. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1991. The Metaphor Theory: The Metaphor System Used to Justify the War in the Gulf. Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies 2: 59–72.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Leckie-Tarry, H. 1995. Language and Context: A Functional Theory of Register. Edited by Birch, D.. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Machin, D. 2013. What Is Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies? Critical Discourse Studies 10(4): 347–55.Google Scholar
Mahboob, A. and Knight, N.. 2010. Appliable Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P., and Cléirigh, C.. 2013. Users in Uses of Language: Embodied Identity in Youth Justice Conferencing. Text and Talk 33(4–5): 467–94.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1932. A Critique of the German Ideology. Available online at: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf. (Last accessed 05/03/2015.)Google Scholar
Maton, K. 2015. Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, D. R. and Johnson, J. H.. 2013. Register-idiosyncratic Evaluative Choices in Congressional Debate: A Corpus-assisted Comparative Study. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G., eds., Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 432–52.Google Scholar
O’Grady, G. 2011. The Unfolded Imagining of Segolene Royal. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2489–500.Google Scholar
O’Grady, G., Bartlett, T., and Fontaine, L., eds. Choice in Language: Applications in Text Analysis. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2003. Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R.. 2009. The Discursive Historical Approach. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., eds., Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. 87–121.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology 7: 532–47.Google Scholar
Slembrouk, S. 2001. Explanation, Interpretation and Critique in the Analysis of Discourse. Critique of Anthropolology 21: 33–57.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 2017. Reading Images (Including Moving Ones). In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. 575–90.Google Scholar
Thibault, P. 2011. First-Order Languaging Dynamics and Second-Order Language: The Distributed Language View. Ecological Psychology 23: 1–36.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Hunston, S.. 2006. System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 2008. Discourse and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varoufakis, Y. 2013. The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the Global Economy. 2nd ed. London: Zed.Google Scholar
Voloshinov, V. N. 1973. Language Speech and Utterance. In Voloshinov, V. N., ed., Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 65–82.Google Scholar
Webster, J. J. 2007. M. A. K. Halliday: The Early Years 1925–1970. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. J., eds., Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, Volume 1. Sheffield: Equinox. 3–14.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. 1995. Discourse Analysis: A Critical View. Language and Literature 4: 157–72.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. 1998. The Theory and Practice. Applied Linguistics 19: 136–51.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×