Scribd
Upload
399 views3 pages

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Uploaded by

Muntaha Fawad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
399 views3 pages

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Uploaded by

Muntaha Fawad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS

Genesis
Language is a system so complex that not a single definition can be comprehensive enough to capture all
aspects of it. Questions regarding the nature of language have been deliberated since the classical period
of the ancient era of philosophy. Therefore, it is unsurprising that early linguistics was considered a part
of philosophy and intellectual history in general (Campbell, 2003).
The trends in linguistics have been changing with time. Several traditions, such as the Sumerian, Hindu,
Greek, Roman, and Arabic grammatical traditions, arose in ancient linguistics mostly in response to
religious concerns which gave prominence to prescriptive views favoring the preservation of the
languages of religious texts over language change. As linguists and historians voyaged to distant lands
and other parts of the world, they started to realize the similarities among languages, and it gave rise to
what is known as comparative-historical linguistics. In the 20th century, the tide of linguistics was
redirected by the work of Ferdinand de Saussure to a non-historical (synchronic) orientation toward the
structures and systems of living languages.
Later in 1957, Noam Chomsky shifted the contemporary trend by introducing transformational
generative grammar which emphasizes the importance of a native speaker’s knowledge (competence) in
attempts to establish the so-called universal grammar. According to Chomsky (1980), language or
grammar is an innate system that is independent of instrumental purpose/function. This view, however,
does not remain unchallenged. The functionalists, as opposed to Chomsky’s view, highlight the
significance of communicative functions of language under the general term functional linguistics or
systemic functional linguistics.

Why Systemic Functional Linguistics?


If one were to ask why humans have or acquire language, the most typical answer would likely be “to
communicate with it.” In other words, the ultimate goal of a person acquiring a language is not merely to
produce or know the “correct” linguistic structures/forms, but to get the right meaning across and
accomplish certain social purposes with that language. This kind of view is pretty much aligned with the
notion of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) which was developed by M.A.K. Halliday in1960s.
In SFL, language is considered primarily functional. The structure or form of language is important only
to serve the function. Without function, the structure would be completely pointless. As Fontaine (2013)
puts it, “Anyone who has tried to communicate with someone in an unfamiliar language or with a two–
year–old will know that being grammatically correct is almost irrelevant.” In most cases, function matters
more than structure. However, one needs to understand how language is structured in order to effectively
produce and analyze its function. In this sense, both are like two sides of the same coin.
Halliday (in Fontaine, 2013) posits that “a theory of linguistics must incorporate the functions of language
in use.” Unlike the traditionalists who tend to see grammar as an entity separate from meaning and
context of use, the systemic functionalists perceive language as a social semiotic system– that is to say, a
system in which its meaning and form are always driven by its context and the speaker’s communicative
goals.
Grammar, in Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL), and lexis are two poles of the same
continuum that combine to construe meaning. This combination is referred to as ‘lexicogrammar’.
Principles of SFL
Functional linguistics holds that:
 Language use is functional.
 Its function is to make meanings.
 These meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they are exchanged.
 The process of using language is a semiotic process, a process of making meaning by choosing.

Some Key Terms


SFL according to Halliday & Matthiessen (2004) is a broad term that covers various types of analyses,
including the analyses of expression (phonetics and phonology), the analyses of content (lexicogrammar
and semantics), and the analyses of context. Context is a pivotal concern because it significantly
contributes to the process of meaning-making.

Text
One does not speak and write in isolated sentences but in meaningful units called texts which are
produced in and influenced by contexts. A text is said to have two main essential properties: meaning and
choice. Though it seems to be made of words and clauses (written) or sounds (spoken), it is made of
meanings. Words, clauses, and sounds are just means through which the text is realized/ encoded. It is
thus a semantic unit. Secondly, a text is made of choice. It is an instance of social meaning from a set of
potential options that are available, at the paradigmatic level, to its producer.

Contextual Analysis
In analyzing a text, one should begin with its context and type (register and genre). It should be noted that
the concept of register relates language to the context of the situation, whereas that of genre relates it to
the context of culture. These aspects relate closely to three contextual variables, namely:

Variable Function
1. This has to do with what is happening in the situation and
Field the social nature of the activity that is taking place. It is
(the topic that is being talked about) reflected in the ideational metafunction. The clause is
viewed here as ‘representation’.

2. It deals with the participants who are involved in the


Tenor action that is taking place, their social status, their roles
(the relationship between participants) in the situation, and the relationship that might exist
between them. Tenor is expressed through interpersonal
metafunction. The clause is viewed here as ‘exchange’.

3. It is concerned with the role of language in the situation


Mode and what it is that language is doing for the participants.
(the channel of communication) It deals with the mode of delivery of the message and the
organization and coherence of the text. This third element
resonates with the textual metafunction. The clause is
viewed here as a ‘message’
These variables help to explain how an individual’s use of language is predominantly dependent upon
functions.

Metafunctions
Within the language itself, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004) emphasize a dimension called metafunctions,
which consist of ideational, interpersonal, and textual components.

Components Explanation
1. Ideational Metafunction The first refers to language’s ability to construe human
experience into categories (experiential) and further
configure them into complex patterns (logical). This
metafunction mostly deals with the use of transitivity, which
includes three main elements: Processes, Participants, and
circumstances; and ideational metaphors.

2. Interpersonal Metafunction Interpersonal metafunction embodies the ability of language


to negotiate social roles and attitudes. It can be analyzed by
mood, modality, and what is known as speech acts and
interpersonal metaphors.
3. Textual Metafunction Last but not least, textual function is language’s ability to
create discourse which entails theme and rheme, and the use
of cohesive devices at both lexical and grammatical levels.

Systemic Functional Linguistics for Critical Perspectives


In SFL, the goals of grammatical analysis may vary depending on the objectives of the investigation.
Those researching political commentary, media texts, etc., might employ SFL to gain critical skills in
analyzing the language. Since its development, SFL has provided an insightful basis for critical linguistic
analyses such as the so-called Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).
SFL views language as a system of systems with the meaning potential by which its users convey
meaning through making choices from a range of alternatives. The notion of choice here is very essential,
especially for critical perspectives. Within this framework, critical discourse analysts could investigate a
text by showing “the functional organization of its structure … and … what meaningful choices have
been made, each one seen in the context of what might have been meant but was not” (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004). From this point, they can further relate these choices with the existing ideology and
power exercised within the society in which the text has been (re)produced.

You might also like