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
- 1 Firth and the Origins of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- 2 Key Terms in the SFL Model
- 3 Semantics
- 4 The Clause
- 5 The Rooms of the House
- 6 Context and Register
- 7 Intonation
- 8 Continuing Issues in SFL
- 9 The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax
- 10 SFL in Context
- Part II Discourse Analysis within SFL
- Part III SFL in Application
- Index
- References
5 - The Rooms of the House
Grammar at Group Rank
from Part I - SFL: The Model
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019
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
- 1 Firth and the Origins of Systemic Functional Linguistics
- 2 Key Terms in the SFL Model
- 3 Semantics
- 4 The Clause
- 5 The Rooms of the House
- 6 Context and Register
- 7 Intonation
- 8 Continuing Issues in SFL
- 9 The Cardiff Model of Functional Syntax
- 10 SFL in Context
- Part II Discourse Analysis within SFL
- Part III SFL in Application
- Index
- References
Summary
Jokes like Groucho Marx’s famous ‘elephant in my pyjamas’ prove that we process units at an intermediate level between words and clauses. However, the nature of these units is open for debate. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014:362–3) maintain that there are two different units at this intermediate rank: “A phrase is different from a group in that, whereas a group is an expansion of a word, a phrase is a contraction of a clause.” The aim of this chapter is to examine this claim in detail. We base the argumentation on the three main distinctions between groups and phrases as presented by Matthiessen (1995) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2014). These include the concept of ‘(primary) class’ and the relation between the functional potential of the unit and the ‘head word’, univariate versus multivariate structures, and the role of rankshifted units. We conclude that there is no significant theoretical or practical value in maintaining two different types of unit at this level. We argue that it is important to ask questions such as those we propose here in order to evaluate the strength of the position of the theory and its usefulness in an appliable theory of language.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics , pp. 118 - 141Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Berry, M. 1975. An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1: Structures and Systems. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Berry, M. 2017. Stratum, Delicacy, Realisation and Rank. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 42–55.Google Scholar
Caffarel-Cayron, A. 2017. The Verbal Group in French. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 319–38.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. 2004. The Interaction of Identification and Quantification in English Determiners. In Achard, M. and Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 507–33.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2000a. In Place of Halliday’s ‘Verbal Group’, Part 1: Evidence from the Problems of Halliday’s Representations and the Relative Simplicity of the Proposed Alternative. Word 51(2): 157–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2000b. In Place of Halliday’s ‘Verbal Group’, Part 2: Evidence from Generation, Semantics and Interruptability. Word 51(3): 327–75.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2010. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2013. Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic-functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2017a. The English Nominal Group: The Centrality of the Thing Element. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 267–83.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2017b. On Prepositions and Particles: A Case for Lexical Representation in Systemic Functional Linguistics. Word 63(2): 115–35.Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. 1977. English Predications of Comparison. In DiPietro, R. and Blansitt, E., eds., The Third LACUS Forum 1976. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. 545–56.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. 2014. The Directionality of (Inter)subjectification in the English Noun Phrase: Pathways of Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M 2014. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Edward Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 2016. Nominal Structure in Cognitive Grammar: The Lublin Lectures. Edited by Głaz, A., Kowalewski, H., and Łozowski, P.. Lublin: Marie Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1996. Types of Structure: Deconstructing Notions of Constituency in Clause and Text. In Hovy, E. H. and Scott, D. R., eds., Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account. Heidelberg: Springer. 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Teruya, K., and Lam, M.. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
McDonald, E. 2017. Form and Function in Groups. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 251–66.Google Scholar
Morley, D. 2000. Syntax in Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Lexicogrammar in Systemic Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Quiroz, B. 2017. The Verbal Group. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 301–18.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. 1998. The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives: A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexis. London: Cassell Academic.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. 2017. The Adjectival Group. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. 284–300.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by