Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I SFL: The Model
- Part II Discourse Analysis within SFL
- 11 Models of Discourse in Systemic Functional Linguistics
- 12 Cohesion and Conjunction
- 13 Semantic Networks
- 14 Discourse Semantics
- 15 Appraisal
- 16 SFL and Diachronic Studies
- 17 SFL and Multimodal Discourse Analysis
- 18 SFL and Critical Discourse Analysis
- Part III SFL in Application
- Index
- References
16 - SFL and Diachronic Studies
from Part II - Discourse Analysis within SFL
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I SFL: The Model
- Part II Discourse Analysis within SFL
- 11 Models of Discourse in Systemic Functional Linguistics
- 12 Cohesion and Conjunction
- 13 Semantic Networks
- 14 Discourse Semantics
- 15 Appraisal
- 16 SFL and Diachronic Studies
- 17 SFL and Multimodal Discourse Analysis
- 18 SFL and Critical Discourse Analysis
- Part III SFL in Application
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter traces the historical relationship between Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). I describe Fairclough’s linguistic SFL approach to CDA focusing on his seminal 1989 work Language and Power and outline his three-stage methodology, which enables analysts to account for discourse as (i) text, (ii) discursive practice, and (iii) societal practice. Text samples are used to illustrate how SFL is able to analyze language use as text and practice. Furthermore, I show that the Marxist heritage underpinning the genesis of SFL is shown to fully harmonize linguistic theory with social theory. Various criticisms of SFL-flavoured CDA such as the unrepresentativeness of data, subjectivity of analyses, and an anti-mentalist theory of context are discussed and dismissed. A claim that cognitive linguistics is the missing link in the analysis of ideological patterns underpinning social action is considered and mostly rejected on the grounds of its seeming incompatibility with social theory and individual-centred focus. Finally, technological developments which have the potential to add to the power of CDA descriptions and explanations in language and other modes are briefly outlined, as are some of the tensions remaining between theory and practice.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 410 - 432Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. 1980. A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. London: André Deutsch.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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 4
- Cited by