This article is published by the Zamfara International Journal of Humanities.
By
Sade
Olagunju (PhD)
Department of English,
Faculty of Arts and
Social Sciences,
Ladoke Akintola
University of Technology, Ogbomoso,
Osun-Nigeria.
E-mail: boladeolagunju@gmail.com
Abstract:
The paper explicates
the systemic functional linguistics as a theory of language and its
applicability in a second language situation. The study focuses on how systemic
functional linguistics (henceforth SFL) practice by teachers and learners can
improve English learning and social practice in a second language situation.
SFL goes beyond being just an analytical tool and a source of providing learner
with language resources. It explores the values and orientations encoded in
everyday interactions to unravel some of the complexities of human language and
academic discursive practices. Context is a crucial component of meaning making
in SFL theory. SFL provides speakers and users with unlimited choice of ways of
creating meaning which is known as linguistic choice and sees language as a set
of system from which we make conscious-relevant choices. Linguistic choices are
made by learners and users in a bid to employ right language forms that are
contextually suitable for the intended message. For Halliday (1991, 1998), like
Firth and Malinowski before him, context was a crucial component in meaning
making. Halliday asked the question about why language functioned in certain
ways in specific contexts. SFL is part of the wholistic approach to
understanding the complexity of language through it metalanguage - language use
to describe language. Hasan
(2011: 338-339) states that:
A truly
functional linguistics views language as a potential for meaning, and it
relates the internal form of human language to the speakers' social contexts
within which meaning develop in the first place. In this approach to language,
the form of language is not a body of rules built into the brain, to be
followed naturally and mechanically; it is a social resource for making
meanings. [...] It is essentially this functional perspective that is relevant
to the business of language teaching, because it can provide the most effective
link between the mother tongue and the other tongue which is being learned as a
second or foreign language.
Keywords:
functional linguistics, context, meaning-making, linguistic choices, complexity
Introduction
Systemic Functional Linguistics was developed in the 1960s by M.A.K Halliday. The theory was influenced by the works of Malinowski and J.R Firth of the Prague School in the 1920s. The linguists in the Prague School were interested not only in describing the forms of certain grammatical elements, but also how the forms function in particular contexts. Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL) is concerned with language in use and meaning in all areas. It emphasises the idea that language is a system of options in the midst of a particular culture and context. SFL as a functionalist model focuses not only on increasing the interpreters’ understanding of the language of the texts to be interpreted, but also for relating the texts to contexts. SFL considers language as a social semiotic system. It maps out the choices available in any language variety using its representation tool of a ‘system network’. Systemic Functional linguists view language as systems meaning potential in human interaction that are expressed by various structures. The organising concept is not structure described by rules, but system. Halliday (1976:3) defines a system as ‘a set of things of which one must be chosen’. SFL thus accounts not only for paradigmatic relations of systems, but also for syntagmatic relations of structure and sequence.
Halliday (1978:192) notes further that:
with the notion of system we can respect language as a resource, in
terms of the choices that are available, the interconnection of these choices,
and the conditions affecting their access. We can then relate these choices to
recognisable and significant social contexts, using socio-semiotic network… the
data are the observed facts of ‘text-in- situation’: what people say in real life.
SFL
is concerned with how language, spoken or written, is used to convey purposeful
meaning in communicative events within specific social contexts. SFL is
systemic because it regards language as ‘a network of systems, or interrelated
sets of options for making meaning’ (Halliday, 1994:15). Its ‘functional’
dimension relates to its emphasis on the study of how language is used to
generate specific meanings within a certain context, rather than on formulating
a grammar of correct usage of the language at hand. SFL provides bridge
between’ form’ and ‘function’ mapping
out systematically and in detail the relationship between grammatical clauses
and the functions they perform. SFL also provides direction on how the grammar
has evolved in particular ways to construe various kinds of meanings.
Furthermore, Halliday and Mathiessen (2004) posit that language provides members of a discourse community with a system of choices to communicate meaning. In other words, the resources of language function as a network of interwoven systems, each of which has a choice point. Halliday (1990:34) states that SFL is particularly suitable for the type of investigation that:
…enables us to analyse any passage and relate it to its context in the discourse, and also to the general background of the text: who it is written for, which is its angle on the subject matter and so on.
White
(1998:51) following Halliday (1990) states that SFL is a social theory of
language where linguistic phenomena are explained in terms of social context
and rhetorical functionality.
A Review of the Previous Studies on
Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory
Studies
on Systemic Functional Linguistics have identified various ways by which the
complexities in human language can be unravelled. Some of the studies on SFL
only focused on its relationship with context and meaning making as being
central to the theory. The present paper adopted the empirical review method to
further explicate SFL theory and its applicability in ESL classroom and how
resourceful SFL theory is in the modern age of digital technology and
multimedia. The uniqueness of SFL to other theories of language is unravelled
through the diachronic study of the subject from pre-digital era to the digital
technology era. Several studies have
adopted the systemic functional linguistics’ model in analysing and describing
linguistic data. Some of their views will be subsequently discussed.
SFL,
according to Ansary and Babaii (2004:4),
does not only provide a detailed description of the rhetorical functions
and linguistic structures of English but goes further to relate the contextual
dimension of register/genre to the semantic and grammatical organisation of
language itself. It also has the potential to develop detailed specifications
of the staging structures and realisational features of different genres. SFL
also accounts for how genres can relate to and evolve into other genres, thus
providing replicable accounts of different genres in a single culture and of
similar genres across cultures. Halliday and Mathiessen (2004) state that
Systemic Functional Linguistics is a theory which allows the analyst to shed
light on just how it is that these choices interact with social context to
express meanings.
Halliday and Hassan (2006:16) state that:
SFL is
conscious of the need to provide explanations of problems
faced by
the learners, to try to develop some kind of coherent notion
of a
language, how it works, how it was learned, and so forth, in order
simply to improve the quality of the language teaching
Central to SFL is Halliday’s metafunctions. Having the knowledge of metafunctions launched by Halliday in the 1960s further shed light on all the concepts employed in SFL such as genre and register. SFL offers a means of making language explicit to learners in the form of an accessible and flexible metalanguage (i.e a language for talking about language). Therefore, one of the main assumptions of SFL is that language serves three main purposes: the experiential (ideational), through which language users express their views of the world. It is concerned with construing experience; the interpersonal, through which language users establish and maintain social contact. It is concerned with enacting interpersonal relatios; and the textual, which allows for the first two to be brought together and organised in a way that is communicatively effectives. That is, it is concerned with organising ideational and interpersonal meaning as discourse.
Halliday
and Matthiessen (2004:31) point out that:
‘function’
simply means purpose or way of using language, and has no significance for the
analysis of language itself. But the systemic analysis shows that functionality
is intrinsic in language. That is to say, the entire architecture of language
is arranged along functional lines. Language is as it is because of the
functions in which it has evolved in human species. The term ‘metafunction’ was
adopted to suggest that function was an integral component with the overall
theory.
Halliday
and Matthiessen (2004) suggest two basic functions of language in relation to
human ecological and social environment: 1. making sense of our experience, and
2. acting out our social relationships. The scholars refer to the first one as
the ‘ideational’ metafunction believing that language construes human
experience. It names things, thus construing them into categories, and then
into taxonomies, often using more names for doing so. These elements are even
configured into complex grammatical patterns. The ideational metafunction deals
with the process, some doing or happening, saying or sensing, being or having
with its various participants and circumstances. This metafunction is distinguished
into two components: the ‘experiential and the logical’. The second function of
language mentioned above deals with interpersonal metafunction, stating that
the clause of the grammar is also a proposition, or a proposal, whereby we
inform or question, give an order or make an offer, and express our appraisal
of and attitude towards whoever we are addressing and what we are talking
about. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) see this metafunction as describing
‘language as action’.
Apart
from the two basic functions of language, according to Halliday and Matthiessen
(2004), language has another mode of meaning, the third metafunction called
‘textual’. It relates to the construction of texts, and therefore, enables or
facilitates the production of the other two metafunctions through building up
sequences of discourse, organising the discursive flow and creating cohesion
and continuity. SFL does not restrict itself to the level of sentence like
other grammars. It goes to the level of texts. SFL interprets texts in relation
to context of use. The distinctions between the three meta-functions in SFL
have been made only in order to facilitate bringing each of them into unity.
“As social discourse unfolds, these three functions are interwoven with each
other, so that we can achieve all three social functions simultaneously”
(Martin & Rose, 2003:7).
Furthermore, it is very crucial to state that the meta-function model, the major communicative functions of language has to do with construing experience, enacting social relationships, and organising and communicating the message, respectively. The communicative functions operate at all strata corresponding to field, tenor and mode at the level of context and are realised at the lexico-grammatical stratum through systems that include transitivity, mood, and theme. The three meta-functions act simultaneously and not distinctly or independently in a text; in other words, mood (interpersonal), (transitivity), (ideational), and theme (textual) function interdependently in the language system. Eggins (2004:84) states that:
Describing grammatical patterns of transtivity, mood, and theme allow us to look for description of the types of meaning being made in a text: how the semantics are expressed through the clause elements; and how the semantics are themselves the expression of contextual dimensions within which the text was produced .
Haratiyan
(2011:10) states that grammatically, interpersonal metafunction at the clausal
level enjoys mood. Mood is concerned with the information given or service
rendered (giving or demanding) and the
tenor of the relationship between interactants.
Meanwhile,
Eggins (1994:156), in line with Halliday and Mathiessen, identifies two
essential functional constituents of the mood component of the clause: the
subject and the finite, and the remainder of those parts are called residue.
The subject is realised by a nominal group that the speaker gives
responsibility to for the validity of the clause (Halliday and Mathiessen,
2004), while the finite is realised by the first of the verbal group. The rest
of the verbal group is the predicator, which forms part of the residue. A
clause thus consists of mood plus residue. The mood elements can be identified
in mood tags (question tags), and is also used in short answers, the finite
being the core that is bandied about in exchanges because it carries the
validity of the proposition (Thompson, 2004).
The
mood element constituted by the subject and the finite (auxiliary and lexical verb)
and the remainder of the clause as the residue, determine the mood of the
clause as verbal group. Hence, the order - subject + finite establishes the
mood as declarative, while the order finite + subject establishes the mood as
interrogative. In a clearer term, SFL mood system bifurcates into two, that is, the imperative and the indicative.
The indicative clauses are classified into interrogative and declarative. In a
system network, a clause can be declarative or interrogative. The
interrogatives are of two types: polar interrogatives-Yes/ No questions and the
wh-interrogatives.
In
terms of finite verb, subject and tense choice, SFL helps a speaker to express
speech functions such as persuading, enticing, motivating, demanding, inviting,
ordering, proposing, recommending, confirming, persisting and denying through a
set of mood clause systems. The semantic dimensions of functions such as:
declaration, dealing with information exchange (statement), asking information
(question), and demanding service (commands) are omnipresent in every language
while the structure, organisation, degree and realisation of delicate choices
differ from one language to another.
Furthermore, the residue component
can also contain a number of functional elements: a predicator, one or more
complements, and any number of different types of adjuncts just as the mood
component contained the two constituents of subject and finite verb (Eggins
1994: 161-165). Eggins (ibid) states further that, the predicator is the lexical
or context part of the verbal group while the adjuncts are the clause elements
which contribute some additional (but non-essential) information to the clause.
They can be identified as elements which do not have the potential to become
subject, that is, they are not nominal elements, but are adverbial, or
prepositional.
Gwlliams
and Fountaine (2015:1 ) state that SFL
prioritises language use or function and offers a description of language that
is multifunctional , including three main meta functions: experiential,
interpersonal and textual. These meta-functions relate to specific strands of
meaning in the clause, reflecting the requirement of language use to express
experience, interpersonal relationships and text organisation respectively.
Halliday’s
Systemic Functional Model has been widely adopted by discourse analysts because
his classifications of different parts of clauses say something fundamental
about the function, or even the purpose behind the organisation of clauses and
sentences.
Notion
of Texts and Systemic Functional Linguistics
SFL defines a text as ‘a social exchange of meanings’
(Halliday, 1985:11) and sees its relationship with the language system as a
dynamic one.
Martin (1992:502-3) states that:
a teleological perspective on text function is set up as superordinate rather than alongside or incorporated in-field, tenor and mode. The register variables of field, tenor and mode can then be interpreted as working together to achieve a text’s goal, where goals are defined in terms of social processes at the level of genre.
Genre is represented in SFL Generic Structure Potential (GSP), specifying the potential stages through which a text belonging to a particular genre develops. SFL is a linguistic theory with a focus on the functional relationship between language and other social aspects especially the social character of texts. SFL sees texts as the instantiation of the language system in social context. Instantiation is the process whereby many options from the language are actualised in given social context. The theory is relevant to the explanation and interpretation of text.
Halliday (1978:136-137) states
that:
a text is the product of its environment and it functions in that
environment (and) the process of continuous movement through the system, a
process which both expresses the higher orders of meaning that constitute the
‘Social semiotic’, the meaning system of the culture, and at the same time changes and modifies the system itself.
Following Malinowski and Firth’s views, Halliday emphasises that the meaning of a particular communication event in SFL should be grounded in the context of culture and context of situation, that is, genre and register respectively. The relationship between text and context is two-way. Context determines what is relevant to the text and text constructs the significant variables of context.
Halliday and Hassan (1985) point out that:
The
context of situation, however, is only the immediate environment. There is also
a broader background against which the text has to be interpreted. Its context
of culture. Any actual context of situation, the particular configuration of
field, tenor, and mode that has brought a text into being, is not just a random
jumble of features but a totality – a package, so to speak of things that
typically go together in the culture. People do these things on these occasions
and attach these meanings and values to them; this is what culture is.
Halliday and Hassan
emphasise the indepensability of context of culture to context of
situation. The shared knowledge of culture helps in decoding nd meaning making
of text either spoken or written. In SFL approach, as Martin suggests, genre is
seen as a goal-oriented social activity. The SFL approach emphasises the
hierarchical relationship between language and culture and considers genre to
be the representation of the context of culture, which is the most abstract in
the hierarchy. In the SFL tradition, the concept of genre is used to describe
the impact of the context of culture on language. By exploring the staged, step
by step structure, cultures institutionalise as ways of achieving goals.
Therefore, SFL has stressed the importance of the social purposes of genres,
describing the rhetorical structures that have evolved to serve these purposes.
Application
of Systemic Functional Theory to English as Second Language Classroom
Systemic
functional linguistics is a meaning-based theory of language that sees language
as the realisation of meaning in context (Halliday and Mathiessen 2014). It is
a discourse analytical approach to language teaching and also a framework for
implementing pedagogy in the classroom. SFL is distinctive from other
linguistic theories because Halliday and other SFL theorists worked in response
to issues in applied contexts .SFL as a pedagogical approach has so much to
offer teachers and learners. It focuses on functional language skills and how
meaning is construe through texts. The systemic functional theory describes the
patterns of English in terms of three other basic concepts of units, structure
and class. It is concerned with how the organisation of language is related to
its use. SFL can be used in ESL classroom to provide students with adequate
linguistic resources and also to gain access to mainstream academic registers.
The systemic grammar is adapted to classroom use especially in its rank
concept. For example, the systemic grammar uses five units to describe the
patterns of English. Se
Sentence
–Clause- Phrase- Word- Morpheme
These
units are to each other hierarchically, sentence is the highest while morpheme
is the smallest. This concept of rank scale is useful in second language
situation (Henceforth L2). In the higher levels, the clause structure analysis
(S) P
(C) (A) enables L2 learners to
capture the knowledge of the target language and its various systemic
operations. Concepts like transitivity and MHQ structure are asset to L2
language learners. But this is not useful in primary level of education. It
will definitely be absurd teaching the concept of transitivity to primary
school pupils. Like the teacher of a native language, the teacher of English as Second Language (ESL) needs to know
something about the nature of language, something about the patterns of the
particular language he is teaching, something about different varieties of that
language. L2 teachers applying this to classroom teaching will present the
language in a context which replicates as closely as possible the one for which
the learner we determine the type and the amount of language items that will be
included in the teaching-learning process at a particular time or in a
particular situation. The additional
advantage which SFL description provides for L2 teaching is its applicability
to other modes meaning-making. The SFL theory of modality includes an
exploration of the hidden values and orientations encoded in everyday and
academic discursive practices.
However,
the Systemic functional linguistic theory is not without demerits. It
application has some difficulties in L2 situations. It is a complex theory matching the
complexity of language. Some of the demerits are:
(i)
Its
rank scale concept is counter intuitive and even inconsistent. The L1 speakers
are not involved in sentence classification and ranking. Ranking is only a
surface structure.
(ii) Also, the confusion brought about in
differentiating between sentences is confusing as seen in
a)
The
boy who came here yesterday when I was rejoicing/because of his success is
here again.
b)
He
came when I was rejoicing
In these sentences, the systemic theory
posits that sentence b is simple while sentence a is complex than the b
sentence
(ii)
The
systemic theory is good for sociological oriented studies like stylistics
analysis and register studies. In L2 learning situation, language is
ruled-governed when the systemic theory does not believe in.
According
to Steiner (2018), Halliday’s SFL is an approach that created the principle
that questions can be asked, and problems can arise in regard to the
theoretical development in socio-cultural context. SFL is part of the wholistic approach to
language teaching and learning. It used
in ESL classroom to provides adequate linguistics resources to students and
thereby enriching the teachers’ linguistic knowledge. As Quirk stated in the preface to University
Grammar of English, no one grammatical theory is capable of explaining all the
language phenomena. All the theories of language have their weak points and
strong points when it comes to pedagogical applications. It is expected that
teachers of English language to be eclectic in their approaches to teaching
most especially in the ESL classroom.
The
Systemic Functional Linguistics in the Digital Technology Era
The
impact of technology on the development of modern world cannot be over
emphasised. The age of digital technologies and multimedia have great impacts
on the linguistic resources and contexts, and meaning making process.
Technology cuts across all disciplines and all human activities including
education, science, mass communication, information, science, medicine, among
others. The influence of computer on the 21st century is enormous and this has
given rise to a new world view. The development of digital technologies allows
the utilization of multiple resources in the construction of digital multimodal
genres. SFL being a context driven theory, is crucial for researcher to consider
context along with digital interference use in the study for example, youtube
texts, youtube comments, facebook contents and comments etc. The evaluation of
the type of digital context assist a great deal in revealing the communicative
purposes of (spoken or written) texts in
virtual communicative context for example such as online chatting room or
forum. Digitality, multimodality and innovation in language studies should be
seen as interconnected developmental tools that facilitate each other. Coffin and Donahue (
2012) in their analysis of the teaching of a unit involving a video,
reframing the notion of authenticity in language teaching through the SFL
concepts of genre and register, thus providing for novel ways of focusing on
meaning using new technologies in the primary English language classroom.
Bateman
et al, (2007:110) state that:
As
communicative situations become move complex, perhaps drawing on new
technological capabilities and combinations of meaning making strategies, being
able to pick apart the constitutive contributors of material and what is done
with that material will prove crucial.
Conclusion
The
present research has a pedagogical implication for teachers and learners.
Language is understood better when there is a strong connection between theory
and practice. This work has been able to explicate the systemic functional
linguistics theory as it relates to English as a Second Language teaching and
learning. The merits and demerits of the theory were highlighted to further
illuminate the SFL. This work has been able to establish the connection of the
mentioned language theory to its practice for the purpose of clarity and how
its adoption to ESL classroom and the use of digital and multimodal resources
contributes greatly in giving a clearer understanding to applied linguistics
theory and practice.
References
Ansary,
H. & Babaii, E (2004) ‘The Generic Integrity of Newspaper Editorials: A
Systemic Functional Perspective’ Asian
EFL Journal Vol. 1. 1-28.
Bateman,
J., Delin, J. L., & Henschel, R. (2007). Mapping the multimodal genres of
traditional and electronic newspapers. In T. D. Royce, & W. L. Bowcher
(Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp.
147-172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eggins, S. (1994) An
Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers
________ (1997). Genres and registers of
discourses. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: a
multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 230-257).
London: Sage Publications.
________ (2004)
An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter. (2004)
Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
_________ (1985) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social Semiotic
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1990) Some Grammatical Problem in Scientific English .Australian
Review of Applied Linguistics Series 56, 13-37.
_________ (1993) Towards a Language-based Theory of
Learning. Linguistic and Education 5(2),
93-116.
_________ (1994) An Introduction
to Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Arnold.
Halliday,
M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989) Language,
Context and Text: Aspect of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday,
M.A.K. (1978) Language as a Social
Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language
and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
_________ (1985) Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday,
M.A.K. and Mathiessen (2004) An
Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:
Edward Arnold.
Haratiyan,
F. (2011) ‘Halliday’s SFL and Social Meaning’. IPEDR Vol. 17, 260-264,
Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Hasan,
R. (1977) ‘Text in Systemic Functional Model’ in Dressler (Ed.) Current Trend in Text Linguistics. Berlin:
Walter De Gruyter.
________ (2011).
English process, English tense: Foreign learner, foreign teacher. In J. Webster
(Eds.), Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. The
collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Volume 3 (pp. 336-379). London, UK:
Equinox.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2003) Working
With Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London & New York:
Continuum.
Thompson,
G. (2004) Introducing Functional Grammar.
London: Edward Arnold.
0 Comments
ENGLISH: You are warmly invited to share your comments or ask questions regarding this post or related topics of interest. Your feedback serves as evidence of your appreciation for our hard work and ongoing efforts to sustain this extensive and informative blog. We value your input and engagement.
HAUSA: Kuna iya rubuto mana tsokaci ko tambayoyi a ƙasa. Tsokacinku game da abubuwan da muke ɗorawa shi zai tabbatar mana cewa mutane suna amfana da wannan ƙoƙari da muke yi na tattaro muku ɗimbin ilimummuka a wannan kafar intanet.