SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS: AN OVERVIEW Diani English Lecturer of Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri Moch. Fajar English Lecturer of Universitas Darul Ulum Jombang Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) or Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a model of grammar developed by Michael A.K. Halliday in the 1960s. It is part of a broad social semiotic approach to language called systemic-functional linguistics. The term "systemic" refers to the view of language as "a network of systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning"(1994:15) The term "functional" indicates that the approach is concerned with the contextualized, practical uses to which language is put, as opposed to formal grammar, which focuses on compositional semantics, syntax and word classes such as nouns and verbs. This short discussion aims at describing the theory of SFL briefly; therefore, to make our understanding more clearly, it is organized as follows: Systemic Functional Linguistics, SFL View to Language, SFL and Critical Discourse Analysis, the Development SFL, and SFL View on Language Teaching. Key Words: SFL, functional, CDA, grammar SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is linguistics that is introduced by M.A.K. Halliday. It is functional because it explores on how language is used rather than on how language is formed as Halliday (1985b: xiv) states: It is an introduction to functional grammar because the conceptual framework on which it is based is a functional one rather than a formal one. The theory is based on systemic theory. It is a theory of language that emphasizes meaning as the fundamental element in analyzing language. This theory sees language and other systems of sign as networks of meaning that are inseparable. Halliday (1985b: xiv) states: Systemic theory is a theory of meaning as choice, by which a language, or any other semiotic system, is interpreted as networks of interlocking options. It is an approach to language that views language in its social context, as an instrument of social interaction, rather than as a formal, cognitive system which can be studied in isolation from social context. SFL is based on a descriptive, not a 1
prescriptive approach to language. It analyses samples of authentic language and describes how speakers and writers use language for communication. SFL is also defined as a theory about language as social process and an analytical methodology which permits the detailed and systematic description of language patterns (Eggins, 2004:20). Further, systemic linguistics is a theory of language centered on the notion of language function. Systemic looks at how language acts upon and is constrained by the social context in which it functions. Systemic functional linguistics is simply a result of Halliday s hard work in extending the work of Firth. Firth has developed develop a model to relate language function and context. To achieve this, he proposed a framework based on the concept of the system, defined as an "enumerated set of choices in a specific context" (Kress 1976: xiii). This concept led to the principle that SFL sees language as a resource for making meaning rather than a system of rule (Halliday, 1994). There are set of possible alternatives to express all experiences in this world. In addition, Halliday (1994:26) stated that meaning as choice, which is not conscious decision made in real time but a set of possible alternatives. Eggins (1994:2), further stated common to all systemic linguists is an interest how people use language with each other With choice as the basis of theory of language, grammar can be modeled as sets of possibilities, as a potential for making meaning. Choices of paradigmatic ( either/ or ) relations are formalized through the notion of system. A system is defined as an entry condition together with a set of mutually exclusive options or features, on of which must be selected. The entry condition of a system is itself an option in a prior system. Therefore the environment of choice is always that choices already made. In this way, systems form networks of systems organized according to the logical priority of certain options over other options (ibid, 7). In SFL, text is the basis of its analysis. The meaning of text is composed of functional meaning components and has to be understood in relation to its context. It is inseparable from its context of culture and context of situation. Semiotic system, the fundamental element in analyzing language based on SFG, starts from the abstract systems to the concrete ones. They are ideology, genre, register, text structure, texture covering cohesion and lexicogrammar, phonology and graphology. To make the understanding of systemic functional linguistics easy, the writer would like to explain a Hallidayan model of language as Social Semiotic that is based on Eggins (1994:113). CONTEXT Context of Culture Context of Situation Ideology Genre Register Field Mode Tenor Discourse Semantic Level Experimental Meaning Textual Meaning Interpersonal Meaning 2
Lexico Transitivity System Grammar Level Thematic System Mood System Expression Graphology/Phonology Figure 1. The Proposed Model of Language as Social Semiotic based on Halliday (Eggins: 1994:113). As shown on the diagram, Halliday s model divides context into Context of Culture and Context of Situation. The Context of Culture itself has two levels. At the most abstract level there is Ideology. Below Ideology is Genre. Ideology is taken here to refer not just to political ideology but to the whole set of beliefs, ideas and values that make up a person s or a society s world-view. Genre here means the culturally-appropriate, step-by-step structure for carrying out any particular goaloriented activity. The Context of Situation is defined in terms of Register. Register has three variables: Field, Mode and Tenor. Field refers to the topic, or what the language is being used to talk about, Mode refers to the role that language is playing in the social interaction, and Tenor refers to the role relationships between interactants. Moving down now from context to text, texts are viewed in Halliday s model as having three principal levels of organization. The highest level is called the Discourse-Semantic level. The unit of analysis at this level is the text as a whole. This level is concerned with the cohesion of the text (the discourse aspect) and the meaning of the text (the semantic aspect). Halliday claims that all uses of language simultaneously fulfil three semantic functions: the Experiential function, the Textual function and the Interpersonal function. The Experiential function is about relating our experience of the world, the Textual function is about organizing the information of the text, and the Interpersonal function is about creating interpersonal relationships between text producers and text interpreters. These functions realize, respectively, the Field, Mode, and Tenor aspects of the Register. The three functions at the Discourse-Semantic level are themselves realized at the level below, the Lexico-Grammar Level, by, respectively, choices in the Transitivity, Theme and Mood systems of the language. The unit of analysis at the Lexico-Grammar level is the clause. The Transitivity system concerns the Processes, Participants and Circumstances described in the text: it asks Who does what to whom, when, where and how? The Theme system involves the patterns of thematic foregrounding and continuity in the text. It asks How is the content of the text organized? The Mood concerns two interconnected sub-systems: (a) the Clause Structure (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and (b) the patterns of Modality (degrees of probability and obligation). This system asks What is the writer s attitude to himself, the reader, and the subject? Finally, the choices made at the lexico-grammatical level are realized by choices at the level of phonology and graphology. 3
A. Context of Culture (Genre) The concept of genre derives from the term genre which is usually used in literary studies, film studies, art theory and cultural studies. In systemic linguistics point of view, however, genre is used to refer to the cultural purpose of a text (Eggins, 2004:54). Fairclough (2003: 66) believes Genre is the specifically discoursal aspect of ways of acting and interacting in the course of social events: we might say that (inter)acting is never just discourse, but it is often mainly discourse. To this point, ways above may refer to the common patterns or sturcture that are usually followed by people when acting or interacting in social community. In addition, genre is a staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity in which speakers engage as members of our culture (Martin, 1984 in Paltridge). While Bakhtin considers genre as a develop patterns which is specific and relatively stable in particular context: We learn to cast our speech in generic forms and, when hearing other s speech, we guess its genre from the very first words; we predict a certain length (that is, the approximate length of the speech whole) and a certain compositional structure; we foresee the end; that is from the very beginning we have a sense of the speech whole, which is only later differentiated during the speech process (Eggins, 2004:57) So, it can be concluded that genre has a particular purpose which is cultural; it has specific stages which differentiate the beginning, the middle and the closing part; and it has a particular linguistic features. The patterns discussed above further are elaborated in a schema called schematic structure. According to Martin: Schematic structure represents the positive contribution genre makes to a text: A way of getting from A to B in the way a given culture accomplishes whatever the genre in questions is functioning to do in that culture (see Eggins, 2004:57). This schematic structure is like tips for people to be followed so that they find it easy and economical when finding the same cultural situations. As SFL has a very big influence to the teaching program, schematic structure also does the same thing. Schematic structure of the written text is used by teachers as modeling text. Here, teachers have a chance to introduce many varieties of schematic structure of different texts such as narrative, recount, expository, explanation, report, procedure, anecdote, advertisement, etc. B. Context of Situation (Register) Register or context of situation refers to the social condition to which a certain meaning is made. The existence of a text can not be separated from context. On the other hand, we can say that context is in text. Text is defined as the socially and contextually complete unit of language (Kress, 1993:24 as cited in Emilia, 2005) while context refers to something that woven together (Emilia, 2007) that this something refers to those elements that accompany text (Christie & Misson, 1998 in Emilia, 2005). It is the connection between text and its context which happen to be the concern of systemic linguistics. This is appropriate with what has been suggested by Eggins (2004:87) who states Systemic linguistics are interested in exploring just how context gets into text. That is how language use change depending upon the situation. At this point, context of situation can be classified into three variables: field, tenor and mode. 4
Field, as suggested by Gerot (1994:11), refers to what is going on or the ongoing activity (Halliday, 1975). It deals with the status of social activity and subject matter. To this, we are likely to ask in what social circumstance a certain activity occurs/ensued/comes about. Tenor is oriented to the social relationship (1994, 2000) or role relationship between interactants (Halliday, 1975; Eggins 1994). The subject to be discussed in tenor is ranging from status of power (i.e hierarchic relations), degree of affective/emotional value (i.e like or dislike) and the value of contact (i.e frequency, duration and intimacy) (Gerot, 1994: 11). Ultimately, mode has to do with the symbolic channel through which communication is carried out. That is whether the language is used in spoken (action) or written communication (reflection). The existence of context of situation results in the easiness of envisaging the meanings that are likely to be exchanged and the language likely to be used. Halliday (1994) notes that while people are communicating they make predictions by using the values of field, tenor and mode to understand register and that their assessment facilitates their own participation. The three variables of register above are contextual elements for realizing semantic meanings (metafunction) in a form of lexicogrammar wording. These three work on together to make the texture of a text. C. Meta-function Halliday thinks the procedure of text analysis can be divided into three logically ordered phrases: Analysis, Interpretation and Evaluation. The limitless practical functions can be generalized into a set of highly coded and abstract functions meta-functions, which are inherent in every language. His idea of metafunction includes the ideational function, the interpersonal function and the textual function. 1. Ideational Function The first function Halliday points out is the ideational function. What is ideational function? It is through this function that the speaker or writer embodies in language his experience of the phenomena of the real world; and this includes his experience of the internal world of his own consciousness: his reactions, cognitions, and perceptions, and also his linguistic acts of speaking and understanding (Halliday, 1971: 332). In other words, this function is to convey new information, to communicate a content that is unknown to the hearer. It reflects the events and experience in both objective and subjective worlds. The ideational function mainly consists of transitivity and voice. Hu Zhuanglin, a Chinese linguist, point out: This function not only specifies the available options in meaning but also determines the nature of their structural realizations. For Example, Kitty flies a kite can be analyzed as: the Actor is Kitty, the process is Material and the Goal is a kite. The Actor, Process, Goal, and their subcategories reflect our understanding of phenomena that come within our experience. The ideational function is mainly represented by the transitivity system in grammar. In this system,the meaningful grammatical unit is clause,which 5
expresses what s happening,what s being done,what s felt and what the state is and so on. The transitivity system includes six processes: material process, mental process, relational process, behavioral process, verbal process and existential process. 2. Interpersonal Function In the second place, language serves as interpersonal function. As Halliday observed, the speaker is using language as the means of his own intrusion into the speech event: the expression of his comments, attitudes and evaluations, and also of the relationship that he sets up between himself and the listener in particular, the communication role that he adopts of informing, questioning, greeting, persuading, and the like. (Halliday, 1971: 333). Hu Zhuanglin (1988:313) points out: The interpersonal function embodies all uses of language to express social and personal relations. This includes the various ways the speaker enters a speech situation and performs a speech act. Modality and Mood are often used to express the interpersonal function. Mood shows what role the speaker selects in the speech situation and what role he assigns to the addressee. If the speaker selects the imperative mood, he assumes the role of one giving commands and puts the addressee in the role of one expected to obey orders. For example, Pass me the book. (Hu Zhuanglin, 1988). Modality refers to the intermediate ranges between the extreme positive and the extreme negative. It is one of the most important systems in social communication. On the one hand, it can objectively express the speakers judgment toward the topic. On the other hand, it can show the social role relationship, scale of formality and power relationship. In English, except modal verbs, modal adverbs, adjectives, there are also personal pronouns, notional verbs, tense, direct and indirect speeches to express the modalization. 3. Textual Function The third role of language is called textual function. Halliday described, Language makes links between itself and the situation; and discourse becomes possible because the speaker or writer can produce a text and the listener or reader can recognize one (Halliday, 1971:334). According to Hu Zhanglin, The textual function refers to the fact that language has mechanisms to make any stretch of spoken or written discourse into a coherent and unified text and make a living passage different from a random list of sentences. Although two sentences may have exactly the same ideational and interpersonal functions, they may be different in terms of textual coherence (Hu Zhuanglin, 1988: 315). The textual function fulfils the requirement that language should be operationally relevant, having texture in a real context of situation that distinguishes a living passage from a mere entry in a grammar book or a dictionary. It provides the remaining strands of meaning potential to be woven into the fabric of linguistic structure. Information can be clearly expressed in a discourse. It can also be implicated between the lines. Therefore, all discourses are unities of explicit and implicit message (Halliday, 1971). Because language serves as a generalized ideational function, we are able 6
to use it for all the specific purposes and types of context which involve the communication of experience. Because it serves a generalized interpersonal function, we are able to use it for the specific forms of personal expression and social interaction. And a prerequisite to its effective operation under both these headings what we have referred to as the textual function, whereby language becomes text, is related to itself and to its contexts of use. Without the textual component of meaning, we should be unable to make any use of language at all (Hu Zhuanglin, 1988). D. Clause System In Systematic Functional Linguistics, a clause is the highest grammatical unit, because it expresses the meaning of text. Halliday (1985a: xxi) argues the term clause that Grammaticaly, where the action is; and within that, the fundamental unit of organization is the clause. It should be remembered that in Functional Grammar (where the terminology is on the whole more consistent), a clause is the same unit whether it is functioning alone (as a simple sentence) or as part of a clause complex (a compound/ complex sentence). This argument shows that a clause is the fundamental unit of organization where a process goes on grammatically and it also shows that a clause, in some cases, is the same as a sentence. Within Systemic Functional Grammar, a clause is divided into two, minor and major clause. 1. Minor Clause A clause with incomplete constituents, having no mood and thematic structure and no transitivity but having rhetorical function, refers to a minor clause (Santosa, 1992, 16) For instance: no smoking 2. Major Clause A clause with complete constituents, having mood, thematic structure, transitivity and rhetorical function, refers to major clause. Within a major clause, there are two kinds of clauses, simplex and complex. a. Clause Simplex Clause simplex is a clause which performs one process. Thus, it is a single clause without any expansion of meaning, interdependency, i.e. Elis studied English. The example shows one process study. b. Clause Complex In contrast, clause complex identifies more than one process. Semantically, clause complex consists of two or more clauses, i.e. Mother went to the market to buy some rice. This interprets that that there are two processes, namely, went and buy. Consequently, this clause could be classified as a clause complex. Halliday (1985a) suggests that in the clause relationship, clause complex has two distinct sets of types, namely a) Type of Interdependency and b) the Logico-semantic relation. 7
(i) The Type of Interdependency The interdependency consists of two relations, namely, modifying relation which is generally called hypotaxis or the relation between a dependent element and its dominant. They can be treated as unequal. The orther is the relation between element of equal status which is called parataxis. The hypotaxis structures will be represented by the Greek letter notation, i.e. α, β, τ whereas parataxis uses numerical notation 1, 2, 3,. (ii) The Logico-Semantic Relation In relation to this sense, Halliday suggests two fundamental relationships, namely expansion and projection. Expansion means that the secondary clause expands the primary clause, by (i) Elaboration: it could be done if one clause expands another by elaborating on it, such as, restating in other words, specifying in great detail, commentating, or exemplifying. This is represented by a particular signal as = that being equal. For example: 1 each argument was fatal to the other: 2 = both could not be true (ii) Extension: it exists if one clause expands another by extending beyond it that is adding some new elements, giving an exception to it, or offering an alternative. In paratactic relation, it is typically expressed by and, nor, but, instead, except and or. Meanwhile in hypotactic: it is introduced by the conjunctions: whereas, while, etc. Grammatically, it is represented by the signal as + which mean: is added to. For example: α 1 Tuti went to the market 2 + and Tita stayed at home β whereas Tono played football (iii) Enhancement: it occurs when one clause expands another by embellishing around it, namely, qualifying it with some circumstantial feature of time, place, cause or condition. It is typically represented by the sign x which means multiple by. The principal markers of paratactic enhancement are meanwhile, afterwards, before that, and etc. the markers in hypotactic are as, while, as far as and etc. For example: α 1 Tina could do her homework 2 + but Tini could not βx because she didn t pay attention to her teacher. Projection means that the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause. There are two types of projections, namely, (i) Locution: it implies that the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause by a construction of wording. It is typically represented by the signal (double quotes). For example: α 1 he hoped 2 + and prayed 8
β he would get there in time (ii) Idea: it is the same as locution. The difference is, idea uses an construction of meaning. It is typically represented by the signal ` (single quote). For example: α Mary thought β 1 she would fail Besides, there is another category to discuss, namely, embedded clause. The characteristic function of an embedded clause is as post modifier in a nominal group. There are two types of embedded clauses; defining clause and non-defining clause. Defining embedded clause, introduced by who, which, that or in its so-called contact clause forms without any relative marker (for example: he told in the tales he told) and it does not form a separate tone group, base there is only one piece of information not two. Whereas, the nondefining embedded clause functions as a kind of descriptive gloss to the primary clause, for example: They decided to cancel the show, which upset everybody alike, where which upset everybody alike is the non-defining embedded clause (Halliday, 1985a). Besides, the writer will explore the types of clauses according to Halliday: 1. Clause as exchange In a speech act, there are two roles involving; speaker (writer) and listener (reader). The two complete each other: if speaker asks, listener will answer. There are two types of speech functions underlying the use of language; giving and demanding something in a process of exchange. The thing that is exchanged in a clause as exchange is called as exchange commodity. It consists of two: goods-and-service and information. The combination between speech functions and exchange commodity forms speech function that differentiates clause as exchange process into offer, command, statement and question. Structure of clause as exchange consists of mood and reside elements. Mood structure consists of subject and finite elements, whereas reside consists of the elements of predicator, complement and adjunct. For example: Susan is sewing shirt S F P C mood residue a. Subject. It is the first element which forms mood structure. It can be grammatically nominal groups, or nouns. b. Finite. It is the second element of mood structure. It is a part of verbal group. It may stand by itself, such as in to be verbs; is, was, were, etc, or in modal auxillaries; will, can and etc. However, in some stances, finite and lexical verbs are conflated, c.q. eats in He eats rice. 9
Martin (1992) interprets MOOD from a discourse perspective as a resource for negotiating meaning in dialogue. He considers two central MOOD systems, which classify English clauses as the three basic types of interact, as indicated in the following diagram: a. Indicative Declarative Clause Indicative declarative clause has the mood structure of subject preceeding finite. For example: Fajar is writing a letter S F P C mood residue b. Indicative Interrogative Clause Its function is to ask something, which indicates that the speaker wants to be told something. Indicative interrogative clause is differentiated into 2 kinds. Yes or No interrogative clause, and Wh. (1) Yes/ No. This clause has the mood structure of finite preceeding subject. The meaning of this clause is I want you to tell me whether yes or no (Halliday, 1985, 47). It requires a yes/ no answer. For example: Is he here? F S Adjunt mood residue (2) Wh Interrogative. The function of the clause is to specify the entity that the questioner wishes to have supplied (Halliday, 1985). This interrogative clause may have wh-element in various places. It may be conflated with subject, complement or adjunct. It if is conflated with subject, it is part of mood element. The order must be subject preceeding finite. For example: Who wrote this letter Wh/s f/ p c mood residue If it is conflated with other than subject, it is part of the residue, and the position of finite is preceeding subject. For example: What are you doing? Wh/c f s p Res mood residue c. Imperative Clause 10
An imperative clause may have a mood structure of finite preceeding subject, finite only, subject only or no mood element at all. It also may have a mood tag. For example: Don t you eat! f s p mood residue Imperative clause is used in a verbal interaction which exchange goods and services. It is stated by Halliday the semantic function of a clause in the exchange of goods and services is a proposal (1985, 71). 2. Clause as representation Halliday (1985a: 101) defines clause as representation as a means of representing patterns experience. A fundamental property of language is that it enables human beings to build a mental picture of reality, to make sense of their experience of what goes on around them and inside them. In this sense, a clause has function as the representation of processes. The conception of reality about clause as representation is that it consists of goings-on : of doing, happening, feeling and being. These goings-on are sorted out in the semantic system of the language, and expressed through the grammar of the clause. In accordance with the conception, Halliday states that in the function of mood, expressing the active, interpersonal aspect of meaning, the clause evolved simultaneously in another grammatical function expressing the reflective, experiential aspect of meaning. This latter is the systems of transitivity (101). Transitivity specifies the different types of processes that are recognized in the language and the structures by which they are expressed (ibid, 101). The basic semantic framework for the representations of processes is very simple. A process consists potentially of three components: (i) the process itself, (ii) participant in the process, (iii) circumstances associated with the process (Halliday, 1985a, 101). 1. Type of process The systemic functional grammar divides the process into five one: material, mental, verbal, behavior and relational process. a. Material Process Material process is the process of doing. This process expresses that Some entity does something which may be done to some entity (Halliday, 1985a, 103). Participants involved here are actor and goal. Actor is the one that does the deed, and goal is the one that undergoes of suffers from the process. French company gets generator order from Japan. recipient proc. goal loc: place 11
In some instance, there are some other participants involved in material process, such as beneficiary and range. 1) Beneficiary. It is the one to whom or for whom the process is said to take place (ibid, 132). There are two types of it: recipient and client. Recipient is one that goods are given to. Meanwhile, client is the one that services are done for. Example: Ani sends tom a letter Actor process recipient goal 2) Range. It is the element that specifies that range or scope of the process. It may be an entity which exists independently of the process but which indicates the domain over which the process taken place (ibid, 134), for example, Tom plays the piano. This clause does not show doing relationship although the piano exists. The piano specifies the range of Tom s playing. Range may also not be an entity, such as, he plays tennis. Tennis refers to the net of. 2. Mental Process Mental process is the process of sensing, feeling, thinking and seeing. Participants involved here are sensor and phenomenon. Sensor is the conscious being that is sensing. The conscious being here refers to participants who can sense like a human being. It is states by Halliday that There is always one participant who is human more accurately, we should say human-line (1985, 108). The other participant, phenomenon, is that is sensed. It may be not only a thing but also a fact because fact can be sensed. For example: BI fears bank loan (concentrated on property sector) sensor proc phenomenon 3. Verbal Process It is the process of saying. It covers any kinds of symbolic exchange of meaning, either goods and service or information, which will lead to a proposal or a proposition. The participant here is called sayer, the one who says. The other participants are receiver, the one to whom the verbalization is addressed, and verbiage, the verbalization itself. For example: Ann called Jim Sayer process receiver The verbalized clause is sometimes not down ranked, but it functions as the secondary clause in a clause complex. 4. Behavioral Process Behavioral process is the process of physiological and physiological behavior. It is like the process of sensing or saying, but it functions more like one of doing, such as 12
breathing, dreaming, smiling etc. some of behavior process clauses have one participant only, i.e. behaver. Example: He offers some helps Behaver process verbiage 5. Relational Processes Relational processes are processes of being (ibid, 112). These are two modes of the relational processes: (i) attributive, (ii) identifying mode. In attributive mode, an attributive is ascribed to some entity. Structurally, this defines the two elements attribute and carrier. It must be noted that attributive clauses are not reversible. The example: It was a good consensus Carrier proc Attributive Meanwhile, in the identifying mode, the meaning is a served to define the identifying of x. Here a and x are two distinct entities, one that is to be identified, and another that identifies it. The relationship between them, therefore, is not one of class membership, since that would not serve to identify. For example: Sarah is the wise one Identified process identifier 6. Existential process It represents that something exists or happens. It typically has the verb be or others such as exist, arise etc. Furthermore, it is followed by a nominal group that functions as existent. For example: There is a book process existent in this case, existent is the participant of this process. E. Nominal Group Santosa (1994a) defines that the term group is not the same as phrase. It is a constituent which has a function as Subject and Complement. Thus, Nominal Group is a constituent which functions as Subject and Complement. In addition, he clarifies that it is constructed as a Thing preceeded by Pre-modifier and followed by Post Modifier. This is supported by Sutja.la in Kaswanti (1990). Furthermore, Halliday (1985a) argues that Pre-Modifier consists of elements, namely. Deictic, Numerative, Ephitet, Classifier and whereas post-modifier is Qualifier. 1. Deictic Deictic element indicates whether or not some specific subset of the thing is intended. It could be expressed by Specific or Non-specific Deictic. a. The Specific Deictic This kind of deictic could be Demonstrative (determinative) such as, this, that, the, or Demonstrative (interrogative) such as, which (ever), and what (ever). Besides, it 13
could be Possessive (both determinative and interrogative) such as, my, your etc. b. Non-Specific Deictic This deictic is represented by each, every, both, all and etc. 2. Numerative Numerative element shows some numerical features of subsets, either quantity or order, either exact, or inexact. The quantifying Numerative uses a cardinal number, i.e. four chicken, whereas the ordering Numerative uses an ordinal number, i.e. fourth child. 3. Ephitet Ephitet indicates some quality of the subset such as, green, clever, dull etc. This may be an objective property of the thing itself. In other words, it is experiential in function. Besides, it may be an expression of the speaker s subjective attitude towards the thing. Thus, it represents an interpersonal function, i.e. an outstanding student. 4. Classifier Classifier implies a particular subclass of the thing. Sometimes, the same words may function either as Ephitet or as Classifier with a difference in meaning. The significant difference is that Classifier does not accept degrees of comparison or intensity, whereas Ephitet accept it. Halliday (1985a) gives an example fast as in fast trains. It may mean trains that go fast ', thus it functions as Ephifcet. The other interpretation is trains which are designed for high speed, in other function of fast here is as Classifier. 5. Qualifier Qualifier is identified as Post-Modifier. Structurally, it follows the thing and it is constructed either by a phrase or by a clause, all Qualifiers are EMBEDDED, i.e. the book (in the red cover). There are two types of embedded clause, namely; defining relative clause and nondefining relative clause. Defining relative clause is embedded and functions as Qualifier in either a nominal group or an adverbial group. Whereas, the non-defining embedded clause functions as a kind of descriptive gloss to the primary clause, for example: They decided to cancel the show, which upset everybody alike, where which upset everybody is the non-defining embedded clause. Besides, Scott (1972, 85) states that Qualifier is identified as post-modifier. Structurally, it follows the thing and it follows Head of the nominal group. More ever, He states that qualifier may consist of a word, a' group or a clause. 1) Words at qualifier can be: a. Adjectives : something useful b. Particles : the examples below c. Myself-type pronouns : the man himself d. Verb forms : the man to watch 2) Groups as qualifier: a. Nominal group : a problem familiar to all of us b. Verbal group : the boy being interviewed 14
c. Prepositional groups : a boy with a girl A prepositional group as qualifier can itself be qualified, for example, the girl ((in the corner (by the window)). 3) Clauses as qualifier Clauses as qualifier can be divided into two: a. Finite clauses Clauses as qualifier may be marked by wh-words, that, or may be unmarked, or introduced by then, or as. (1) Finite clauses marked by wh-words: a) wh- at Subject Example: the man ((who was knighted)) b) wh- at Adverb Example: the place ((where we visited)) c) wh-at Complement Example: the boy ((whom I saw)) (2) That marked clause a) That at Subject Example: the answer ((that delighted the teacher)) b) That at Complement Example: the reason ((that he gave me)) c) That at Adverb Example: the train ((that. she travelled in)) (3) Unmarked Clause This can be seen when the wh-word or that is often absent, like: the boy ((I saw)) (4) As or Than clauses as qualifier This clause exist in: I look as graceful ((as she does)) b. Non-finite clauses as qualifier Scott states that clauses with non-finite verb forms at predicate may also occur at qualifier (1972). These can be: (1) Verb with to at predicate, like: The best man ((to watch last night)) is Dodik (2) Verb group at predicate, like: The best horse (.(competing last week)) was Starlight (3) Verbal at predicator, like: The last car ((sold at the auction)) was mine F. Polarity and Modality System Halliday (1985a) states that Polarity is the choice between positive and negative, as in is/ isn t, do/don t. Typically, in English, polarity is expressed in the finite element; each finite verbal operator has two forms, one positive is, was, has etc, the other negative isn t, wasn t etc. The finite element is inherently either positive or negative; its polarity does not figure as a separate constituent. It is true that the negative is realized as a distinct morpheme n t or not; but this is an element in the structure of the verbal group, not in the structure of the clause. 15
However, the possibilities are not limited to a choice between yes and no. there are intermediate degrees: various kinds of indeterminacy that fall in between, like sometimes or may be. These intermediate degrees, between the positive and negative poles, are known collectively as modality. Halliday (1985a, 75) states that Modality means the speaker s judgement of probabilities or the obligations, involved in what he is saying. Furthermore, he adds Modality refers to the area of meaning that lies between yes and no... the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity (ibid, 335). It can be concluded that modality is the value given by the speaker through his utterance, whether he supports it, denies it or stands in the middle. This will lead to the understanding whether a text is a proposition or proposal. The following discussion of modality will cover the types of modality, the modality value and the forms of modality. 1. Types of modality There are two types of modality: moralization and modulation. This distinction is made based on the exchange being carried out, whether it is information or goods and services. a. Modalization. It is the proposition modality used in a clause which gives information. Halliday (1985a, 86) states that in a proposition, the meaning of the positive and negative poles is asserting and denying; positive it is so negative it isn't so. There are two kinds of moralization: (1) probability: possibly, probably, certainly and (2) usuality: sometimes, usually, always. b. Modulation. It is the proposal modality used in a clause which gives a command or exchange. In a proposal the meaning of the positive and negative poles is prescribing and proscribing: positive, do it, negative, don't do it (ibid). There are two types of modulation: (1) in a command, the intermediate points represent degrees of obligation: allowed to/supposed to/required to? (2) in an offer: they represent degrees of inclination: willing to/ anxious to/ determined to. 2. Modality value It has been said that modality stands between the positive and negative poles. Between them, modality has value degrees; high, median and low. The higher a value degree is the closer it is to the positive pole. 3. Forms of modality Modality can be located inside or outside the mood element. The modality located inside the mood is (1) finite, modal, and the outside ones (2) modal adjunct, and (3) the expansion of the predicator a. Finite modal. It is positioned in the mood structure, before the -lexical verb. They are: can, may, would, is to, must, etc. b. Modal adjunct. It is an adverbial group functioning as an adjunct and explaining the finite. It may be located outside or inside the mood structure, such as in to my surprise, in To my surprise, the dogs put its front legs into my legs. 16
c. Expansion of predicator. It is found in a clause which contains two or more verbal groups. One of them functions as modality for the next verbal group, for example; you are supposed to help him. II. SFL VIEW TO LANGUAGE This part will briefly elaborate how language exists in a form of text and how it is much influenced by context of situation and context of culture. The discussion aims at understanding the significance of the context where language is used. In SFL tradition, language is viewed as a reality, both social reality and semiotic reality (Santosa 2003). Language is a social phenomenon employed by the speakers to interact and communicate in certain context of situation and context of culture. As a semiotic reality, language is a symbol that represents the social realities taking place in the context of situation and context of culture. In other words, SFL views language as a social semiotics, where the meaning is derived from the systemic network of socio-cultural relation between the society and the system of signs they use in common. The socio-cultural system of the society is the meaning system resource, while the language is the semiotic resources. Hasan (1989) maintains earlier that language should be understood in its relationship to social structure. In short, language is the realization of the social process taking place in the society. The meaning of the language is much determined by the immediate environment where the discussion takes place, the participants, the problems being discussed, as well as the social value working in that group of people. All these factors simultaneously determine the contextual configuration that influences the choice of the use of the language. The immediate context that directly influences or surrounds the social process realized by the language is then called the context of situation, while the language that is playing its role to express the social process is called text. That is to say, language always takes a form of text, and text always exists in a context of situation. Language, in a form of text, always bears the social functions of each process social it realizes. In that situation, text also contains the cultural norms and values adopted by the society. In other words, there is a wider context where text occurs, that is the context of culture. In Halliday s words (1989, p.6), involved in any kind of linguistic interaction...were not only the immediate sights and sounds surrounding the event, but also the whole cultural history behind the participants, and behind the kind of practices that they were engaging in.... More elaborate discussion on the relation between text and both context of situation and context of culture is given by Halliday & Hasan (1989), Martin (1992), Martin & Rose (2003). Context of situation is much related to the concept of register, defined as a configuration of meaning that is typically associated with a particular configuration of field, tenor, and mode. These three variables simultaneously construct the configuration of meaning. As an element of register, field represents the physical reality by referring to what is happening; including what, when, where, and how the social activity takes place. It is a set of activity sequences oriented to some global institution purposes (Martin 1992). The second element, tenor projects the participants taking part in the text; their status and roles, and their kind of relationship. Tenor represents the social 17
reality referring to the negotiation of social relation among the participants. The participants here include the speakers (or writers), other people involved in the text, and the hearer (or readers). The last element of register, mode refers to the role which is played by language in realizing social action. Halliday & Hasan (1985) define mode as the particular functions that are assigned to language in that situation and the rhetorical channel. So to speak, mode is much concerned with the role the language is playing in a certain situation and the nature of channel used by the users of the language. The term channel in this context refers to whether the text uses spoken or written language. Also important in this aspect is the media in which the language is expressed. The language used in a printed medium will be different from the one used using audio-video media, for example. These three variables of register also simultaneously realize three metafunctions of language: ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions. (Halliday 1985, Martin 1992, Martin & Rose 2003). Referring to similar point, Halliday calls ideational metafunction as experiential metafunction. SFL recognizes three general social functions that we use language for: 1. To represent our experience to each other: ideational function, 2. To enact our social relationships: interpersonal function, and 3. To organize our representations as a meaningful text: textual function. The following diagram shows how text exists as the realization of social process. Context of Situation Culture Mode Tenor Text Field III. SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS and CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Given that SFL relates the social to the linguistic, its operation becomes transdisciplinary and so it can be appropriated to other theories. In the case of CDA, based upon the theoretical framework proposed by Fairclough (1992, 2003), a text not only simultaneously involves ideational, interpersonal (identity and relational) and textual functions, but its meanings can be seen from three dimensions: action, representation and identification. In fact, Fairclough (2003:27) states that he prefers to discuss these three major meaning types in semiosis rather than functions. He explains the following: 18
Representation corresponds to Halliday s ideational function; Action is closest to his interpersonal function, though it puts more emphasis on text as a way of (inter)acting in social events, and it can be seen as incorporating Relation (enacting social relations); Halliday does not differentiate a separate function to do with identification most of what I include in Identification is in his interpersonal function. I do not distinguish a separate textual function, rather I incorporate it within action. In considering the ideas presented above, we are led to take up Halliday s position (1975) for whom the textual element is distinct from the other two (experiential and interpersonal) precisely because it is directly related to language in use. In this sense, Fairclough s decision to incorporate the textual function with actional meaning is understandable. At the same time, the identity function suggested involves a link with modes through which social identities are established, whilst the relational function implies the manner in which social relations among discourse participants are negotiated and represented. Fairclough explains that identities in society indicate their operation in terms of power relations, reproduction and social change. For Fairclough, separating Halliday s interpersonal function is necessary given that it allows for proving the importance of discourse in constituting, reproducing, contesting and restructuring identities. As can be perceived, Fairclough (2003) considers texts as multifunctional, differently, however, from Halliday, that is, based upon the distinction between genre, discourse and style. According to the former s explanation, genres, discourses and styles are relatively stable modes of acting, representing and signifying. They are also responsible for linking the text to other social elements as well as for linking internal text relations to external ones. In terms of the three meaning types, actional meaning, linked to genre, propitiates the perception of the text as a mode of inter(action) in social events. Representational meaning, associated with discourse entails representing aspects of the world (physical, mental and social) in texts, whilst identification meaning, related to style, involves constructing and negotiating identities in discourse. From this perspective, embedded in all discourse orders are characteristic discursive genres that articulate styles and discourses in a relatively stable manner in a specific socio-historic and cultural context. Thus, in reformulating his theoretical proposal for discourse analysis (critical), particularly textual analysis geared towards social research, Fairclough (2003) acknowledges, based upon Halliday s proposal, that each utterance is multifunctional and hence the reason why he suggests a combination of meanings that come together with ideational, interpersonal (identity and relational) and textual functions. Thus, it can understood that utterance in a given text can be seen as a semiotic production (textual function) that constructs the world (ideational function) and establishes social relations among its producers as well as among other participants that occupy this world (relational function) so that the social thread is tied into to the grammatical fabric of language. This implies the internalisation of language in other moments of social practice. 19
b. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SFL M.A.K. Halliday, a British linguist, is the developer in the 1960s of the theory of systemic-functional grammar. He developed his grammatical theories out of work begun by his former tutor, the British linguist J.R. Firth. His systemic grammar put emphasis on the role of meaning in a theory of grammar. In addition, his approach to any field of linguistic study links social context with language. Furthermore, his functional approach is also applied to other disciplines including discourse analysis and stylistics, phonology, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, language education, and language acquisition. To understand Halliday s significance, it is useful to make comparisons with Noam Chomsky, a highly influential linguist with very different perspective on language. The first thing to say here is that where Chomsky is indifferent to the social aspect of language, Halliday sees it as crucially important. Chomsky believes that linguistics should be concerned with grammars internalised in the human mind and the universal linguistic principles which he believes we are programmed with by our human genes. He does not think that social uses of language are of any serious academic interest, and he does not concern himself with texts, discourse or communication. Indeed, he argues that language is not essentially a medium of communication; it just something we are born with. Furthermore, Chomsky believes that linguistics is a sub-branch of psychology, whereas Halliday investigates linguistics as it were sub-branch of sociology, therefore pays much attention to pragmatics and discourse semantics. In fact, Chomsky emerged from the American Structuralist tradition in many respects, though one cannot deny its revolutionary impact. In fact, Systemic-Functional theory has its origins in the main intellectual tradition of European linguistics that developed following the work of Saussure. Like other such theories, both those from the mid-20th century (e.g. Prague school, French functionalism), it is functional and semantic rather than formal and syntactic in orientation, takes the text rather than the sentence as its object, and defines its scope by reference to usage rather than grammaticality. Its primary source was the work of J.R. Firth and his colleagues in London. In addition, it also draws on American anthropological linguistics. The name systemic derives from the term system, in its technical sense as defined by Firth (1957); system is the theoretical representation of paradigmatic relations, contrasted with structure for syntagmatic relations. In Firth s systemstructure theory, neither of these is given priority. In systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms. Syntagmatic organization is interpreted as the realization of paradigmatic features. Another major influence on Hallidays thinking is the Prague School, a group Czechoslovak, Russian and Austrian linguists (mainly Czech), founded in Prague in 1926. These include the founding fathers, Mathesius, Trubetskoy, and Jakobson, and contemporary figures such as Firbas and Danes, to name but a few. The concept of thematic structure, which is very important in Halliday s grammar, is a gift from Prague. 20
Halliday s work cannot usefully be spilt up into historical periods as it is fairly consistent throughout. There are some differences in the way he describes similar phenomena at different times, but they do not obviously represent major changes in the model. Halliday is very concerned with the uses to which linguistic description can be put. He writes that his grammar is functional in the sense that is designed to account for how the language is used, and he immediately goes on to talk about text: Every text that is, everything that is said or written unfolds in some context of use (Halliday, 1985: xiii). Halliday, like the Prague School linguists, sees function as the explanatory principle of language. Of course, function is a notoriously difficult term, and as used by Halliday it means more than what it means in, say, Wilkins functional-notional syllabuses, i.e. it does not mean only function as speech act (persuading, defining, eliciting information, etc). This is included, but by calling his grammar functional, Halliday also refers to the fact that the fundamental components of meaning in language are functional components (Halliday, 1985: xiii). Thus, these functional components ideational (to understand the environment), interpersonal (to act on other people in the environment), and textual (which breathes relevance into the other two). Even further from what language teachers usually mean by function is Halliday s third specification: Each element in a language is explained by reference to its function in the total linguistic system... In other words, each part in interpreted as functional with respect to the whole. (Halliday, 1994: xiii-xiv) Halliday approaches language not from whitin but from inside. In fact, he approaches language from above, from below and from roundabout, but not from a distance. He begins with the question: Why is the language structured in the way it is and not in some other way? And his answer is: Because it reflects the function which the language is required to the serve as a mean of social communication. In other words, Halliday approaches language from the vantage point of the meaning and purpose, and provides a sound theoretical framework for dealing with question about how and why we can to use language as we do for being and becoming who we are. To understand Halliday s Function Grammar better, it is useful to make comparisons with Fillmore s Grammar. Fillmore does not talk about the basic constituents of his deep structure in term of function component of the language. His grammar emerges from a study of the international working of the linguistic system. Halliday, on the other hand, approaches language not from within but from outside. He distinguishes three major function. In addition, Halliday (1970:143) state language serve for expression of content : that is of the speaker s experience of the real world, including the inner world of his own consciousness, and he calls this the ideational function. In serving this function, language also gives structure to experience, and help determine our way of looking at things, so that it requires some intellectual effort to see them in any way that which our language suggests to us. 21
It is the ideational function that both expresses and contrains our concept of reality. In addition, it is mean by which we impose order on our experience by recognition of cause and effect relation and so on. Halliday touches here on the question of how far our view or reality is in correspondence with the structure of our language. What we are concern with here is how Halliday sees this ideational function to be reflected in linguistic structure. According to Halliday (in Downing, 2002:4), there are three ways of interpreting clause structure. In fact, the basic unit for the expression of interpersonal and experiential meanings is the independent clause, equivalent to the traditional simple sentence. Furthermore, there is also a third type of component, the textual, which enable the experiential and interpersonal component to cohere in a message, not simply as a sentence in isolation, but in relation to what precedes it in the linguistic co-text. Each kind of meaning is expressed by its own structure. To summerise, there are three kinds of meaning and structure derive from the consideration of a clause as: (a) the linguistic representation of our experience of the world, (b) a communicative exchange between persons; and (c) an organised message or text. V. SFL VIEW ON (LANGUAGE) LEARNING Since language is the realization of social process, language learning should be viewed as a social process as well. The environment in which educational learning takes place is the environment of a social institution, whether in the form of classrooms and school, other social institutions, or even in the more abstract sense of the educational process as it is conceived in the society. Hasan (1985) asserts that knowledge including language proficiency is transmitted in social contexts through relationships, like those of parent and child, of teacher and pupil, or classmates; that are defined in the value systems and ideology of the culture. The words that are exchanged in these contexts get their meaning from activities in which they are embedded which are social activities. Martin (2000) and Butt et al (2001) then develop a teaching/learning cycle. The cycle comprises three stages: text deconstruction, joint construction of the text, and independent construction of the text. In this model, setting up social context and building knowledge of the field are generalized across all stages. The point of the cycle is to emphasize the instrumentality of shared understandings about the disciplines/institutions in their cultural contexts so that scaffolding can proceed effectively. 22
(Adapted from Martin 2000, and Butt et al, 2001) The model is then applied in the so-called genre-based approach. This approach begins with the whole text as the unit in focus, rather than the sentence. So to speak, there is a higher level of order and patterning in language rather than just the sentence. That is not to say, however, that sentence-level grammar is not important. Rather, the discussion should be focused on how the grammar plays important role in the overall patterning of the whole text (e.g. what sorts of sentence patterns dominate a particular genre). Again, text here refers to a piece of language in use, which is a harmony of meanings appropriate to the context. Halliday & Hasan (1985) define genre as the language doing the job appropriate to that class of social happening. It has certain function and meaning produced through a particular social process. Therefore, genre-based approach is much concerned with social macropurposes of language. From this point, we can see a line of Halliday s and Martin s as well as Butt s views with that of Vygotsky with his socio-constructivism theory. To Vygotsky, learning takes place more effectively in a zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is the zone between actual development (what learners can achieve independently) and potential development (what learners can do in the future, with the help of others now). In order to establish effective ZPD, the knowledge that teachers (or more expert peers) and learners can all assume is vital. Working for secondary school students in Australia, Martin (2000) designs a pathway beginning with various recount genres designed to reconstruct personal and vicarious experience, moving on through genres concerned with explaining cause and effect, arguments, and finally culminating with Foucauldian genealogy. Meanwhile, at the university level in Japan, Lin (2006) starts with information reports, factual recounts, instructions, explanation, and exposition. Both Martin and 23
Lin find that students achievement is impressive, being able to adapt the features exposed for their own communicative purposes. CONCLUSION SFL can be applied in different disciplinary, both analyzing texts and language learning. Text is a basis of its analysis. Each text (genre) whether spoken or written has its social objective that is unique from one text to another. To obtain the objective, the speaker then chooses the appropriate linguistic phenomena, and goes through stages so that the social process can take place effectively and the objective is gained. REFERENCES: Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, 2a ed. Londres: Continuum International Publishing Group. Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Londres: Routledge. Halliday, M.A.K. & Facett, R.P. 1987. New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. London: Frances Pinter Halliday, M.A.K. & Hassan R. 1985. Language Text and Context: Aspects of Language in Social Semiotic Prespective. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. Systemic Background. In J. D. Benson, & W. S. Greaves, Eds. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Volume 1. Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop (pp. 1 15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Halliday, M.A.K and Matthiesssen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3a ed. Londres: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985b. An Introduction To Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hu Zhuanglin.1988. A Course of Linguistics. Peking: Peking University Press. 24
Lin, B. 2006. Genre-based Teaching and Vygotskyan Principles in EFL: The case of a University Writing Course. Asian EFL Journal. Vol 8 No. 3. 226-248 Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Martin, J.R 2000. Design and Practice: Enacting Functional Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 20. 116-126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, J.R & Rose, D. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum Santosa, R. 2003. Semiotika Sosial: Pandangan Terhadap Bahasa. Surabaya: JP Press. 25