Scribd
Upload
40 views

4

Uploaded by

h.khbz1990
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
40 views

4

Uploaded by

h.khbz1990
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2002) 22, 52-74. Printed in the USA. Copyright © 2002 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/01 $9.50 3. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES JR. Martin This chapter takes note of the longstanding orientation Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to discourse studies hefore moving to @ more metaredundency (realisation) Tenguage Figure 1: Metafunctions in relation to register and genre. Recent Developments ‘Throughout the 1990s, SFL discourse analysis developed along several parameters, including relevant aspects of phonology and grammar. Higher levels of phonological analysis, pushing well beyond the tone group as far as rhythm is concerned, are pursued in van Leeuwen (1991), Martinec (2000a), and Watt (2001). In grammar, research expanded across languages and language families, including relevant work on textual meaning. Caffarel, Martin, and Matthiessen (in press) includes chapters on French, German, Telegu, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Pitjantjatjara, each with an emphasis on showing how the various grammars operate in discourse. The papers in Steiner and Yallop (2000) explore the implications of functional descriptions of this kind for ‘ranslation and multilingual text production. 58 3.R. MARTIN For English, one significant trend has been the development of computer assisted analysis programs which facilitate the coding of large quantities of text for SFL grammar and discourse features. ‘These programs include O'Halloran and Judd (2001); Matthiessen and Wu’s SysAm (http://minerva.ling.mq.edu.au! Resources/AnalysisTools/Tools.htm); O’Donnell’s Systemic Coder (O'Donnell, 1995; hitp://www.wagsoft.com/Coder/index. html); and Webster's Functional Grammar Processor (e.g. Webster, 1995; Webster & Kit, 1995). These tools are ‘making it possible to undertake large scale semantic analyses with a view to quantitative interpretation and have given new impetus to longstanding SFL interests in corpus based research (Halliday, 1991, 1992, 1993; Halliday & James, 1993; Matthiessen, 1999, in press; Nesbitt & Plum, 1988; Plum & Cowling, 1987). This work on automated discourse analysis is complemented by work on synthesis, in, for example, the text generation research introduced in Bateman (2001), Bateman, Matthiessen, and Licheng (1999), Bateman and Rondhuis (1997), Matthiessen and Bateman (1991), and Teich (1999), At the level of discourse semantics, some of the most important developments have to do with interpersonal meaning. Eggins and Slade (1997) present a rich model of speech function, especially designed for analyzing initiating ‘moves and responses in casual conversation. Recently this has been insighifully applied to human/bonobo interaction (Benson, Fries, Gredves, Iwamoto, Savage~ Rumbaugh, & Taglialatela, in press). Hasan and her colleagues (Hasan, 1996) have developed a finely tuned set of semantic networks designed for the study of adult-child interaction in home and school. These have been instrumental in exploring Bernstein's theories of language and socialization (Bernstein, 1996), especially in relation to gender and social class, and represent the most important linguistically informed body of research into semantic styles and their implications for education (see especially Cloran, 1989, 1999a, b; Hasan, 1990, 1991, 1992, 2001; Hasan & Cloran, 1990; Williams, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2001). Hasan (1995a) and Halliday (1995) insightfully review the implications of close textual analysis, for Bernstein's work, and deal incisively with populist misunderstandings; Cloran (2000) provides an accessible introduction to semantic networks and their deployment in the study of sociosemantic variation Another major development in interpersonal discourse semantics has been the emergence of appraisal theory (see Martin, 2000a, and the website designed by Peter White at http://www. grammatics.com/appraisal/index.html). Appraisal complements negotiation from the perspective of resources for evaluation, including systems of attitude, engagement, and graduation, Atitude focuses on resources for construing affect, judgment, and appreciation (roughly the lexically realized realms of emotion, ethics, and aesthetics); engagement is concerned with the sourcing of attitude and acknowledgment of alternative voices (heteroglossia); and graduation covers force (intensification of inherently gradable meanings) and focus (‘fuzzification’ of inherently nongradable categories). Work on this MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 59 dimension of intersubjective meaning has refocused attention on prosodic realization (across idcational boundaries) in various registers, such as history (Coffin, 1997); narrative and literary criticism (Rothery & Stenglin 1997, 2000); news stories (White, 1997); casual conversation, including humor and gossip and their implications for generation, ethnicity, and gender (Eggins & Slade, 1997); and popular science (Fuller, 1998). Ideational semantics is elaborated in Halliday and Matthiessen (1999), who are particularly concerned with establishing a semiotic perspective on what is ‘generally viewed as cognition. ‘Their project includes work on what they call sequences which is relevant to conjunction. Van Leeuwen (1996) develops a complementary perspective on agency which has been influential in critical discourse analysis. Matthiessen (in press) explores Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) from the perspective of this research, continuing a dialogue between SFL. conjunction analysis and RST (Mann, Matthiesen, & Thompson, 1992), which began in the 1980s (Martin, 1992). For relevant work on causation in Dutch, see Degand (2001). From the perspective of discourse analysis, what has been slow to emerge is an understanding of different kinds of expectancy relations linking clauses across registers, Temporal sequencing and causal reasoning tend to be foregrounded over tropes of other kinds, such as description, classification, composition, comparison, critique, review, stirring, coaxing, serving, and so on; research is urgently required in these areas. As far as participant identification is concerned, the main developments have come from language typology through consideration of the ways in which ‘nominal group resources interact with Theme, and in some languages with conjunction (the so-called subject-switching systems found in Papua and Australia) ‘These issues are explored in Caffarel etal. (in press) in relation to Martin (1983) Textual meaning has also been investigated in relation t general across languages (Downing & Lavid, 1998; Hasan & Fries, 1995; Lavid, 1997) and in relation to layers of Theme and New in English discourse (Ghadessy, 1995; Halliday & Martin, 1993). Martin (1992, 1993, 1995a) explores the ways in which texts use higher level Themes to predict information flow and higher level News to retrospectively distill the point of preceding discourse, thus following up suggestions by Pike and Halliday about ‘hierarchy of periodicity’ as @ form of textual organization (Fries, 1981). Halliday’s work on grammatical metaphor as a resource for packaging meaning has been instrumental in this area of inquiry (Halliday, 1998; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Simon-Vandenbergen, Taverniers, & Ravelli, in press). ‘This raises the question of higher-level units in discourse, which has been explored in various ways. One useful tool has been Hasan’s cohesive harmony (Cloran, 1999b; Hasan 1984, 1985; Parsons, 1991). In cohesive harmony analysis, we are asking how ideation and identification interact as far as 60 1. MARTIN experiential grammar is concerned, based on the degree to which cohesively related items enter into the same kind of experiential relationship with other cohesively related items. Breaks in the pattern of interaction are associated with discourse boundaries of one kind or another and so relevant to the recognition of hhigher-level units. This style of analysis is not unrelated to the work of Gregory and his colleagues on phasal analysis (Gregory, 1995, 2001; Stainton & Devillers, 2001), which, however, takes into account a full metafunctional spectrum of meaning (ideational, interpersonal, and textual) in order to determine phases and transitions in discourse. Cloran’s work on rhetorical units (RU), on the other hand, is more selective in its parameters, having been designed to focus on the register variable ‘mode (Cloran, 1994, 1995, 1999a, b, 2000). She looks in particular at the context dependency of the participant functioning as subject in a clause and at the tense of that clause’s verb (the “deixis’ of the clause, in other words) and on this basis sets up classes of RU ranging from those positioning language as ancillary to the task at hhand to those in which language constitutes the social activity. The inter- dependencies among RUs are explored through her concept of embedding, and used to investigate parent-child interaction in the home as part of Hasan's language and socialization project outlined above. The relation of all three of these perspectives on units of discourse to work on genre structure is an important issue which has not been resolved. Certainly the conversational data that Gregory and his colleagues and Cloran are investigating is not the kind that has generally attracted genre analysts (see, however, Eggins & Slade, 1997), presumably because of the difficulty in recognizing clear stages of the kind found in the analysis of narrative, exposition, service encounters, appointment making, or classroom discourse. As a result, the issue of generalizing discourse units across registers remains a pressing one in SFL-informed discourse analysis (cf. Taboada, 2000, in press). As far as register analysis is concerned, there has been significant work in tenor, mode, and field. The main tenor initiative draws on appraisal analysis to explore solidarity, as exemplified in Eggins and Slade (1997) and White (2000) ‘who analyze the face work done through casual conversations involving family ‘members, friends, and coworkers. The outstanding mode initiative is multi-modal discourse analysis, inspired by the work of O°Toole (1994) and Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) on images (see also van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001). Martinee (1998, 2000b, c, 2001) extends this work to the modality of action, and van Leewuen (1999) to the modality of music and sound, ‘These tools have encouraged SFL discourse analysts to consider the ways in which language negotiates meaning in cooperation with other semiotic systems (Baldry, 1999; Eggins & ledema, 1997; edema, 2001; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; O'Halloran, 19992) and to focus on MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 61 some of the new kinds of discourse evolving in the print and electronic media (Lemke, 1998; Veel, 1998) Research into field has explored several kinds of school and workplace discourse. Work on institutionalized learning includes mathematics (O*Halloran, 1999a, b, 2000; Veel, 1999), science (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Kress, Jewit, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001; Martin & Veel, 1998; Unsworth, 1998), geography (Martin, 2001b; van Lecuwen & Humphrey, 1996; Wignell, Martin, & Eggins, 1990), history (Coffin, 1997; Martin, 2001c; Martin & Wodak, in press: Veel & Coffin, 1996) English (Martin, 1996a; Rothery & Stenglin, 1997, 2000), and English for academic purposes (Lewin, Fine, & Young, 2001; Ravelli & Ellis, in press; Ventola, 1998; 1999, Ventola & Mauranen, 1995). Work on workplace communication includes administration (Iedema, 1997a, 1998, 2000; ledema & Degeling, 2001; ledema & Schecres, in press), science and technology (Rose, 1997, 1998; White, 1998), speech disorders (Armstrong, 1987, 1992; Fine, 1994, 1995; Fine, Bartolucci, & Szaumari, 1989; Oram, Fine, Okamoto, & ‘Tannock, 1999; Ovadia & Fine, 1995), medicine (Jordens, Little, Paul, & Sayers, 2001), Iaw (Gibbons, in press; ledema, 1993, 1995), and museums and galleries (Ferguson, MacLulich, & Ravelli, 1995; Ravelli, 1996, 1998). ‘The range of this research has had a number of implications for genre analysis, including analysis of generic structures and intertextual relations with one another. Work on administrative directives (ledema, 1997a; Martin, 1998) and print media news stories (ledema, 1997b; White, 1997), for example, revealed genres that are best characterized as having a nucleus/satelite structure (as opposed to a more traditional part/whole beginning, middle, and end organization), a kind of orbital structure with an obligatory core stage and optional elaborating stages that are not strictly sequenced. Martin (1995b, 1996b) follows up the implications of this for experiential structures in general, analogizing from genre structure back ‘o grammar. Across fields, the problem of longer texts arose and attempts were made to model these as series of smaller genres drawing on Halliday’s 1994 categories of expansion (elaboration, extension, and enhancement). This serial perspective on macro-gentes as genre complexes is introduced in Martin 2001b (Gee also Iedema, 2000; Jordens et al., 2001) and further developed in Christie (1999, in press) for classroom discourse Another important dimension of genre analysis across fields has to do with mapping relationships among genres from both typological and topological perspectives. Using paradigms and system networks to model valeur, narrative and factual genres are explored typologically in Martin (2001a) and Martin and Plum (1997); this kind of analysis depends on categorical distinctions. The notion of genres as more gradient semantic regions is explored topologically in Martin (20016, c), Rose (1997, 1998), and Vel (1997) for a range of factual genres from science, geography, and history. The relation of work on macro-genres and genre 62. J.R.MARTIN topology to the question of ‘genre mixing” is discussed in Martin (2001b). For ‘SFL work on genre in relation to other approaches, see Hyon (1996) and Hyland (this volume). Connections Obviously in a survey of this kind I have had (o be selective. One of the most obvious extensions would be to the work of present and past staff and students at the University of Birmingham. Fortunately, this work is ably surveyed in Coulthard (1992, 1994) and Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard (1996). Of these colleagues, special mention should be made of Michael Hoey, who has developed the Hatfield Polytechnic strain of discourse analysis inspired by Eugene Winter (Hoey 1991, 2001; Scott & Thompson, 2000). In America, the clearest links are with west coast functionalism, especially Fox (1987), because she brings several discourse semantic regions (CA, RST, and participant identification) to bear on the ‘grammar’ of text development. Some further connections are explored in Martin and Rose (in press). ‘The strength of SFL work on discourse probably lies in its relatively well developed descriptions of genre and functional grammar, and the adaptability of SFL modeling across modalities (to image, music, and action, for example). This grounds research firmly in the materiality of both global and local perspectives on meaning. The challenge for future work lies in filling in the middle ground between text and clause through intensive corpus-based work on discourse semantics and register. ‘The success of this enterprise depends on the development of relevant software to both enhance and supplant manual analysis. I expect this technology to affect our conception of language and attendant semiotic systems as radically as the invention of writing and the tape recorder have shaped our discipline in the past, since for the first time we'll be able to manage large-scale sociosemantic analyses of data. Notes 1, The terms internal and external are from Halliday and Hasan (1976); van Dijk (1977) opposes pragmatic to semantic relations. The contrast is between He came, because I just saw him (internal = ‘why I’m saying he came’) and He came because I saw him and told him to (external = ‘why he came’). 2. In SFL the ideational metafunction includes two subcomponents, the experiential and the logical; experiential meaning is associated with orbital structure (mononuclear), and logical meaning with serial structure (multinuclear; Martin 19966). MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 62 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Martin (1992) outlines the reading of SFL discourse analysis assumed here. Martin and Rose (in press) provide an accessible introduction to this work, focussing on writing and incorporating recent developments; Eggins and Slade (4997) complement this with a focus on spoken discourse. Halliday and Martin (1993), Christie and Martin (1997), and Martin and Veel (1998) illustrate this kind of analysis across a range of fields. Unsworth (2000) is designed for prospective rescarchers who want to take up these tools. Hasan (1996) surveys her pioneering work on cohesion, genre, semantic networks, and the relation of language to social context. OTHER REFERENCES Armstrong, E. (1987), Cohesive harmony in aphasic discourse and its significance in listener perception of coherence. In R. H. Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology: Conference proceedings, Vol. 17 (pp. 210-215), Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers. Armstrong, E. (1992). Clause complex relations in aphasic discourse: A Jongitudinal study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 74), 261-275. Baldy, A. (Bd.) (1999). Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning ‘age, Campo Basso: Lampo. Bateman, J. A. (2001). Between the leaves of rhetorical structure: Static and dynamic aspects of discourse organization. Verbatum, 23(1), 31-58. Bateman, J. A., Matthiessen, C. M., & Licheng, Z. (1999). Multilingual language generation for multilingual software: A functional linguistic approach. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(6), 607-639. Bateman, J. A., & Rondhuis, K. (1997) Coherence relations: Towards general specification. Discourse Processes, 24, 3-49. Benson, J. D., Fries, P. Greaves, W. S. Iwamoto, K., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Taglialatela, J. (in press). Confrontation and support in bonobo-human discourse. Functions of Language, 9, 2. Benson, J. D., & Greaves, W. S. (Eds.). (1985). Systemic perspectives on discourse: Selected theoretical papers from the Sth International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Benson, J. D., & Greaves, W. S. (1992). Collocation and field of discourse. In W. ‘A. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 397-409). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benson, J. D., Cummings, M. J., & Greaves, W. S. (Eds.). (1988). Linguisties in «systemic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 64 5.R. MARTIN Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis, Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eas.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120-145). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. (Eds.). (in press). Language ‘typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Caldas-Coulthard, C., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.). (1996). Text and practices. Readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge Christie, F. (Ed.). (1999). Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic ‘and social processes. London: Cassell Christie, F. (in press). Classroom discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. Eds.) (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Pinter. Cloran, C. (1989). Learning through language: The social construction of gender. In R, Hasan & J. R. Martin (Eds.). Language development: Learning language, learning culture (pp. 361-403). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cloran, C. (1994). Rhetorical units and decontextualisation: An enquiry into some relations of context, meaning and grammar. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics, 6. Nottingham: School of English Studies, Nottingham University Cloran, C. (1995). Defining and relating text segments: Subject and theme in discourse. In R. Hasan & P. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (pp. 361-403). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cloran, C. (1999a). Contexts for learning. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp. 31-65). London: Cassell Cloran, C. (1999b). Context, material situation and text, In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 177-217). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cloran, C. (2000). Socio-semantic variation: Different wordings, different meanings. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities (pp. 152-183). London: Cassell Coffin, C. (1997) Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 196-230). London: Pinter. Coulthard, M. (Bd.). (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1994). Advances in writen text analysis. London: Routledge. Davies, M., & Ravelli, L. J. (Eds.), (1992). Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice. London: Pinter. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 65 Degand, L. (2001). Form and function of causation: A theoretical and empirical investigation of causal constructions in Dutch. [Studies op het gebied van de Nederlandse taalkunde, 5.) Peeters: Leuven. Downing, A., & Lavid, J. (1998). Information progression strategies in administrative forms: A cross-linguistic study. In A. Sénchez-Macarro & R. Carter (Buds.), Linguistic choice across genres (pp. 99-115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter. Eggins, S., & Iedema, R. (1997). “Difference” without diversity: The semantics of ‘women’s magazines. In R, Wodak (Ba.), Gender and discourse (pp. 165-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eggins, S., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genres and registers of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process, Vol. 1 (pp. 230-256). London: Sage. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell Ferguson, L., MacLulich, C., & Ravelli, L. J. (1995). Meanings and messages: Language guidelines for museum exhibitions. Sydney: Australian Museum. Fine, J. (1994). How language works: Cohesion in normal and nonstandard ‘communication. Norwood, NI: Ablex. Fine, J. (1995). Towards understanding and studying cohesion in schizophrenic speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 25-41. Fine, J., Bartolucci, G., & Szatmari, P. (1989). Textual systems: Their use in creation and miscalculation of social reality. Word, 40 (1-2), 65-80. Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis (Special volume of the Philological Society] (pp. 1-31). London: Blackwell. Fox, B. A, (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Fries, P. H. (1981). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse Forum Linguisticum, 6(1), 1-38. Fries, P., & Gregory, M. (Eds.), (1995). Discourse in society: Systemic functional ‘perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fuller, G. (1998). Cultivating science: Negotiating discourse in the popular texts of Stephen Jay Gould. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 35-62). London: Routledge. Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1993). Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter. Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1995). Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1999). Text and context in functional linguistics. ‘Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Gibbons, J. P. (in press). Forensic linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell 66 3.R MARTIN Gleason, H. A., Jr. (1968). Contrastive analysis in discourse structure. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 21. Washington, DC: Georgetown University (Georgetown University Institute of Languages and Linguistics). Gregory, M. (1995). Before and towards communication linguistics: Essays by Michael Gregory and Associates. (Jin Soon Cha, Ed.). Seoul: Sookmyng Women’s University. Gregory, M. (2001). Phasal analysis within communication linguistics: Two contrastive discourses. In P. Fries, M. Cummings, D. Lockwood, & W. Sprucill (Eds.), Relations and functions within and around language (pp. 316-345). London: Continuum, Gregory, M., & Carroll, S. (1978). Language and situation: Language varieties 4and their social contexts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in literary texts: A study of some grammatical and lexical features of English discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes in transitivity and theme in English: Part 1 Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 37-81 Halliday, M. A. K, (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Amold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). Towards probabilistic interpretations. In E. Ventola (E4.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 39-61). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter, Halliday, M. A. K. (1992), Language as system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4-8 August, 1991, (pp. 61-77). Berlin: De Gruyter. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, description, discourse: Papers on English language in honour of John McH. Sinclair (on his sixtieth birthday] (pp. 1-25). London: Harper Collins. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). Language and the theory of codes. In A. Sadovnik (Ed.), Knowledge and pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein (pp. 127-144). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Halliday, M. A. K, (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R.Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge. Halliday M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman, MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 67 Halliday, M. A. K,, & Hasan, R. (1985) Language, context, and tet: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & James, Z. (1993). A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In J. M. Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox (Eds.), Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse (pp. 32-66). London: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (1999). Construing experience through Janguage: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell. Hasan, R. (1968). Grammatical cohesion in spoken and written English, Part I. Papers of the Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching, Series 1, No. 7. London: Department of General Linguistics, University College Hasan, R. (1977), Text in the systemic-functional model. In W. Dressler (Ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics (pp. 228-246). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language and the structure of prose (pp. 181-219). Newark, DE: International Reading ‘Association. Hasan, R. (1985). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text (pp. 70-96). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Hasan, R. (1990), Semantic variation and sociolinguistics. Australian Journal of Linguistics 9(2), 221-276. Hasan, R. (1991). Questions as a mode of learning in everyday talk. In M. ‘McCausland (Ed.), Language education: Interaction and development (pp. 70-119). Launceston: University of Tasmania, Hasan, R. (1992). Meaning in sociolinguistic theory. In K. Bolton & H. Kwok (Eds.), Sociolinguistics today: International perspectives (pp. 80-119). London: Routledge. Hasan, R. (19952). On social conditions for semiotic mediation: The genesis of mind in society. In A. Sadovnik (Ed.), Knowledge and pedagogy (pp. 171-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hasan, R. (1995b). The conception of context in text. In P. Fries & M. Gregory (Bas.), Discourse in society (pp. 183-283). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of saying, ways of meaning: Selected papers of Rugaiya Hasan (Edited by C. Cloran, D. Butt, & G. Williams). London: Cassell. Hasan, R. (1999). Speaking with reference to context. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 219-328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hasan, R. (2001). The ontogenesis of decontextualised language: Some achievements of classification and framing. In A. Morais, 1. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The 68 1. MARTIN contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 47-79). New York: Peter Lang, Hasan, R., & Cloran, C. (1990). A sociolinguistic interpretation of everyday talk between mothers and children. In M. A. K. Halliday, J. Gibbons, & H. Nicholas (Eds.), Learning, keeping and using language, Vol. 1 (pp. 67-99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hasan, R., & Fries, P. (Eds.). (1995). On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hoey, M. J. (1991). Another perspective on coherence and cohesive harmony. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 385-414). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoey, M. J. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Hyland, K. (his volume). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693-722. edema, R. (1993). Legal English: Discipline specific literacy and genre theory. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 162), 86-122. edema, R. (1995). Legal ideology: The role of language in common law appellate judgments. The International Journal for the Semioties of Law, 722), 21-36. Tedema, R, (1997a). The language of administration: Organizing human activity in formal institutions. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. T3-100). London: Pinter. edema, R. (1997b). The history of the accident news story. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 95-119. edema, R. (1998). Hidden meanings and institutional responsibility. Discourse ‘and society, 9, 481-500. edema, R. (2000). Bureaucratic planning and resemiotisation. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Discourse and community (pp. 47-70). Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Tedema, R. (2001). Analysing film and television. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 183-204). London: Sage. Tedema, R., & Degeling, P. (2001). From difference to divergence: The logogenesis of interactive tension. Functions of Language, (1), 33-56. Tedema, R., & Scheeres, H. (in press). From doing to talking work: Renegotiating knowing, doing and identity. In C. Candlin & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Applied Linguistics (special issue for 2002]. Jordens C. F., Little, M., Paul, K., & Sayers, B. J. (2001). Life disruption and ‘generic complexity: A social linguistic analysis of narratives of cancer illness. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 1227-1236. Kress, G., & van Lecuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse—The modes and ‘media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the classroom. London: Continuum. Lavid, J. (1997). Specifying the discourse semantics of grammatical theme for ‘multitingual text generation: Preliminary findings. Revista de la Sociedad Espaitola para el Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 21, 51-19. Lemke, J. (1995), Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: ‘Taylor & Francis. Lemke, J. (1998), Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R, Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87-113) London: Routledge. Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre based approach to social science texts. London: Continuum. Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Bis.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 39-78). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S.A. (Eds.). (1992). Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: Benjarains Martin, J. R. (1983). Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kate Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 4574. Martin, 1. R, (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science (pp. 221-267). London: Falmer. Martin, J. R. (1995a). More than what the message is about: English theme. In M Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 223-258). London: Pinter. Martin, J. R. (1995b). Text and clause: Fractal resonance. Text, 15(1), 5-42. Martin, J. R. (1996a), Evaluating disruption: Symbolising theme in junior secondary narrative. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Liferacy in society (pp. 124-171). London: Longman. Martin, J. R. (19966). Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (Eds.), Computational ‘and conversational discourse: Burning issues—an interdisciplinary account (pp. 39-66). Heidelberg: Springer. Martin, J. R. (1998). Practice into theory: Catalyzing change. In S, Hunston (Ed), Language at work (pp. 151-167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Martin, J. R. (1999). Modelling context: A crooked path of progress in contextual linguistics (Sydney SFL). In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in ‘Sunctional linguistics (pp. 25-61). Amsterdam: Benjai Martin, J. R. (2000a). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and 703.8 MARTIN the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. R. (2000b). Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical analysis. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities (pp. 275-303). London: Longman. Marin, J. R. (2000¢). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics in Australia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 116-126. Marin, J. R. (2001a). A context for genre: modelling social processes in functional linguistics. In R. Stainton & J. Devilliers (Eds.), Communication in linguistics (pp. 1-41). Toronto: GREF (Collection ‘Theoria) Martin, J. R. (2001b). From litle things big things grow: Ecogenesis in school geography. In R, Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Bds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 243-271). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Martin, J. R. (2001c). Writing history: Construing time and value in discourses of the past. In C. Colombi & M. Schleppergrell (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 87-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin, J. R. (20014). Giving the game away: Explicitness, diversity and genre- based literacy in Australia. In R. Wodak et al. (Eds.), Functional Iiteracy (pp. 155-174). Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften. Martin, J. R., & Plum, G. (1997). Construing experience: Some story genres. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 71-4), 299-308. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (in press). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge. Martin, J. R. & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (in press) Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martinec, R. (1998). Cohesion in action. Semiotica, 120(1/2), 161-180. Martinec, R. (2000a). Rhythm in multimodal texts. Leonardo, 33(4), 289-297. Martinec, R. (20006). Types of process in action. Semtiorica, 130(3/4), 243-268. Martinec, R. (2000c). Construction of identity in M. Jackson's ‘Jam’. Social Semiotics, 10, 313-329, Martinec, R. (2001). Interpersonal resources in action. Semiotica, 135(1/4), 117-145, Matthiessen, C, M. I. M. (1993). Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis. M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory ‘and practice (pp. 221-292). London: Pinter. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). The system of TRANSITIVITY: An exploratory study of text-based profiles. Functions of Language, 6(1), 1-51. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 71 Matthiessen, C. M. 1. M. (in press). Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In J. Bybee & M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson (pp. 237-322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & Bateman, J. (1991). Text generation and systemic linguistics: Experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & Wa, C. (2001). SysAm. [Programs for computational analysis]. Available at: hap: //minerva.ling.mq.edu.au/Resources/AnalysisTools/Tools. htm. Mitchell, T. F. (1957). The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: A situational statement. Hesperis, 26, 31-71 Nesbitt, C., & Plum, G. (1988). Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English. In R. P. Fawcett & D. Young (Eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics, vol. 2: Theory and application (pp. 6-38). London: Pinter. Ochs, E. Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996) Interaction and ‘grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Donnell, M. (1995). From corpus to codings: Semiautomating the acquisition of linguistic features. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation (pp. 120-123). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. O'Halloran, K. L. (1999a). Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in ‘multisemiotic texts. Social Semiotics, 9, 317-354. O'Halloran, K. L.. (1999b). Towards a systemic functional analysis of ‘multisemiotic mathematics texts. Semiotica, 124(1/2), 1-29, ‘O'Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10, 359-388. O'Halloran, K. L., & Judd, K. (2001). Systemics (CD ROM). Singapore: Singapore University Press. Oram, J, Fine, J., Okamoto, C., & Tannock, R. (1999). Assessing the language of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 72-80. O'Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. London: Leicester University Press. Ovadia, R., & Fine, J. (1995). A functional analysis of intonation in Asperger's Syndrome. In J. Siegfried (Ed.), Therapeutic and everyday discourse as behavior change: towards a micro-analysis in psychotherapy process research (pp. 491-510). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Parsons, G. (1991). Cohesion and coherence: Scientific texts. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 415-430). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plum, G., & Cowling, A. (1987). Some constraints on grammatical variables: Tense choice in English. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language 72 3.R. MARTIN Topics: Essays in honor of Michael Halliday, Vol. Ml (pp. 281-308). ‘Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poynton, C. (1985). Language and gender: Making the difference. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Ravelli, L. J. (1996). Making language accessible: Successful text writing for museum visitors. Linguistics and Education, 8, 367-387 Ravelli, L. J. (1998). The consequences of choice: Discursive positioning in an art institution. In A. Sanchez-Macarro & R. Carter (Eds.), Linguistic choice across genres (pp. 137-154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ravelli, L. J. (2000). Beyond shopping: Constructing the Sydney Olympics in three-dimensional text. Text, 20 (4), 1-27 Ravelli, L. J., & Ellis, R. A. (Eds.). (in press). Academic writing in context: Social-functional perspectives on theory and practice. London: Continuum Press. Rose, D. (1997). Science, technology and technical literacies. In F. Christie & J R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. 40-72). London: Pinter. Rose, D. (1998). Science discourse and industrial hierarchy. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 236-265). London: Routledge. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1997). Entertaining and instructing: Exploring experience through story. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. 231-263). London: Pinter. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature: The role of appraisal. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities (pp. 222-244). London: Cassell. ‘Sinchez-Macarro, A., & Carter, R. (Eds.) (1998). Linguistic choice across genres. Variation in spoken and written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Scott, M., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Patterns of text: In honour of Michael Hoey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ‘Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., Taverniers, M., & Ravelli, L. J. (Eds). (in press). Metaphor: Systemic and functional perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press Stainton, R., & Devilliers, J. (Eds.). (2001). Communication in linguistics. Toronto: Groupe de recherche en études francophones (GREF). Steiner, E., & Veltman, R. (1988). Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some systemically-inspired approaches. London: Pinter. Steiner, E., & Yallop, C. (Eds.). (2000). Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ‘Taboada, M. (2000). Cohesion as a measure in generic analysis. In A. Melby & ‘A. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS Forum XXVI (pp. 35-49). Fallerton, CA: The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 73 ‘Taboada, M. (in press). Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study. In C. L. Moder & A, Martinovie-Zie (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Teich, E. (1999). Systemic functional grammar in natural language generation: Linguistic description and computational representation. London: Cassell, Unsworth, L. (1998). “Sound” explanations in school science: A functional linguistics perspective on effective apprenticing texts. Linguistics and Education, 92), 199-226. Unsworth, L. (Ed.). (2000). Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives. London: Cassell. van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and Pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman. van Leeuwen, T. (1991). Rhythm and social context. In P, Tench (Ed.), Studies in systemic phonology (pp. 231-262). London: Pinter. van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. Caldas- Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-70). London: Routledge. van Lecuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan. van Leeuwen, T., & Humphrey, S. (1996). On learning to look through a ‘gcographer’s eyes. In R. Hasan & G.Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 29-49). van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. 161-195). London: Pinter. Veel, R. (1998). The greening of school science: Ecogenesis in secondary classrooms. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 114-151). London: Routledge. Vel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in schoo! mathematic. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp. 185-216). London: Cassell. Veel, R., & Coffin, C. (1996). Learning to think like an historian: the language of secondary school history. In R. Hasan & A. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 191-231). London: Longman. Ventola, B. (1987). The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter. Ventola, B. (Ed.). (1991). Functional and systemic linguisties: Approaches and uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ventola, E. (1998). Interpersonal choices in academic work. In A. Sanchez~ Macarro & R. Carter (Eds.), Linguistic choices across genres (pp. 117-136). Amsterdam: Benjamins Ventola, E. (1999), Semiotic spanning at conferences: Cohesion and coherence in and across conference papers and their discussions. In W. Bublitz, U. 74 3.R MARTIN Lenk, & E, Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp. 101-125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ‘Ventola, E. (Ed.). (2000). Discourse and community: Doing functional linguistics. ‘Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A. (Eds.). (1995). Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, Watt, D. L. E. (2001). Intonational cohesion and tone sequences in English. In Stainton, R., & Devilliers, J. (Eds.), Communication in linguistics (pp. 361-378). Toronto: Groupe de recherche en études francophones (GREF). Webster, J. (1995). Studying thematic development in on-line help documentation using the functional semantic processor. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 259-271). London: Pinter. Webster, J., & Kit, C. (1995). Computational analysis of Chinese and English texts with the functional semantic processor and the C-LFG Parser. Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing, 10, 203-211. White, P. (1997). Death, disruption and the moral order: The narrative impulse in ‘mass ‘hard news’ reporting. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and instizutions (pp. 101-133). London: Pinter. White, P, (1998). Extended reality, proto-nouns and the vernacular: Distinguishing the technological from the scientific. J. R. Martin & R. Vel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 266-296). London: Routledge. White, P. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (Eds.), Working with dialogue (pp. 67-80). Tubingen: Neimeyer. Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1990). The discourse of geography: ‘Ordering and explaining the experiential world. Linguistics and Education, 1, 359-392. Williams, G. (1995). Joint book-reading and literacy pedagogy: A socio-semantic examination, Volume 1. Current Original Resources in Education (CORE), 193). Fiche 2 BOI-Fiche 6 BO1. Williams, G. (1996). Joint book-reading and literacy pedagogy: A socio-semantic examination, Volume 2. Current Original Resources in Education (CORE), 20(1). Fiche 3 BOL- Fiche 8 E10. Williams, G. (1999). The pedagogic device and the production of pedagogic discourse: A case example in early literacy education. In P. Christie (Fa.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp. 8-122). London: Cassell Williams, G. (2001). Literacy pedagogy prior to schooling: Relations between social positioning and semantic variation. In A. Morais, 1. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 17-45). New York: Peter Lang.

You might also like