Theorizing and Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics: Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen [1 ed.] 9780367484897, 9781003041238, 9781032610986

Citation preview

Theorizing and Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics

This collection reflects on developments in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as embodied in the work of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, highlighting his diverse contributions to the field in theoretical and applied perspectives. The book surveys Matthiessen’s academic career and illustrates the myriad ways in which his work has reverberated through to current innovations in SFL research. The book also exhibits his theoretical contributions to major linguistic topics and his influence on the development of SFL. Written by some of the world’s foremost scholars in the field,  chapters cover such topics as theories of SFL and its applications in different domains as well as the developmental trajectories of SFL in major geographic areas. Addressing the key issues in SFL through the lens of Matthiessen’s career, this book is an accessible resource for students and scholars in SFL, as well as those interested in the systemic functional approach in related research areas within linguistics. Bo Wang is Research Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Macau. Yuanyi Ma is the co-author of several books on Systemic Functional Linguistics, such as Translating Tagore’s Stray Birds into Chinese, Systemic Functional Translation Studies, Systemic Functional Insights on Language and Linguistics, and Introducing M.A.K. Halliday.

Routledge Studies in Linguistics

35 Cross-cultural Genre Analysis Investigating Chinese, Italian and English CSR reports Danni Yu 36 Significance in Language A Theory of Semantics Jim Feist 37 Two Dimensions of Meaning Similarity and Contiguity in Metaphor and Metonymy, Language, Culture and Ecology Andrew Goatly 38 Researching Metaphors Towards a Comprehensive Account Edited by Michele Prandi and Micaela Rossi 39 The Referential Mechanism of Proper Names Cross-cultural Investigations into Referential Intuitions Jincai Li 40 Discourse Particles in Asian Languages Volume I East Asia Edited by Elin McCready and Hiroki Nomoto 41 Discourse Particles in Asian Languages Volume II Southeast Asia Edited by Hiroki Nomoto and Elin McCready 42 The Present in Linguistic Expressions of Temporality Case Studies from Australian English and Indigenous Australian languages Marie-Eve Ritz 43 Theorizing and Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Edited by Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/RoutledgeStudies-in-Linguistics/book-series/SE0719

Theorizing and Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Edited by Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma

First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma individual chapters, the contributors The right of Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Wang, Bo (Professor of translation studies), editor. | Ma, Yuanyi, editor. Title: Theorizing and applying systemic functional linguistics: developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen / edited by Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma. Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge studies in linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023026270 | ISBN 9780367484897 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003041238 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. | Systemic grammar. | Functionalism (Linguistics) | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC P85.M2948 T46 2023 | DDC 410.1/833—dc23/ eng/20230724 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023026270 ISBN: 9780367484897 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032610986 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003041238 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238 Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Michael Halliday (front) and Christian Matthiessen (back) in Hong Kong

Contents

List of figures xiii List of tables xvi List of contributors xviii Acknowledgements xxi Abbreviations xxii Introduction xxiv BO WANG AND YUANYI MA

PART I

Christian Matthiessen and systemic functional theory

1

1 Navigating in semiological space: Theory and Matthiessonian cartography, from typology to register and artificial intelligence

3

DAVID G. BUTT AND ANNABELLE LUKIN

Preface 3 1.1 Introduction  3 1.2 An international troubadour of linguistics  5 1.3 A “magnum opus”  8 1.4 Matthiessen and the challenge of linguistic categories 10 1.5 Grammars, and the centrality of the maps to sciences of society and mind  12 1.6 Typological and multilingual work  15 1.7 Realizational systems: Probabilistic, adaptive systems 25 1.8 Teaching theory  27

viii Contents 1.9 Managing complexity amid semiotic evolution: Semogenesis 28 1.10 Conclusion: Linguistics for grown-ups  31 Notes 32 References 32 2 Christian Matthiessen and register

39

ERICH STEINER

2.1 Introduction  39 2.2 Register – situating the concept  39 2.2.1 Register – origins in Firthian linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics  40 2.2.2 Register – its place in SFL architecture  41 2.2.3 Register – its place in other linguistic traditions 41 2.3 Matthiessen and register  43 2.3.1 Conceptual overviews  43 2.3.2 Context related to other semiotic systems and individuation/affiliation 47 2.3.3 A comprehensive research programme: Field-based maps of registers of one language (English)  49 2.4 Empirical claims and future development  56 Notes 62 References 63 3 Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English: Some insights inspired by Halliday and Matthiessen’s systemic functional linguistic architecture GERARD O’GRADY

3.1 Introduction  70 3.2 What would a systemic phonology look like?  71 3.3 Japanese syllables and English onsets compared and contrasted 78 3.4 Conclusion  94 Appendix 95 Notes 96 References 97

70

Contents 

ix

PART II

Christian Matthiessen and applications of systemic functional theory

101

4 Systemic Functional Linguistics – language description, comparison and typology: Key characteristics

103

CHRISTIAN M.I.M. MATTHIESSEN

4.1 Introduction: SFL and language description, comparison and typology  103 4.2 Key characteristics of systemic functional language description, comparison and typology  104 4.2.1 Key characteristics covered in some detail here 105 4.2.2  Key characteristics only mentioned here  107 4.3 Theory of language and descriptions of languages  109 4.3.1 Theory and description: Hjelmslev, Firth, Halliday 109 4.3.2 Theory of modern language, description, comparison and descriptive generalizations  111 4.3.3 The theoretical architecture of language: Dimensionality and basis for comparison  116 4.4 The primacy of systemic organization  123 4.4.1 An illustration of the primacy of systemic organization: Modern Standard Arabic  123 4.4.2 Axis: Paradigmatic (systemic) and syntagmatic (structural) 129 4.4.3 The systemic composition of languages as systems of system  132 4.4.4 Reinterpretation of implicational “universals” 134 4.4.5 Frequency in representative typological samples 135 4.4.6 Multilingual systems networks  135 4.5 The cline of instantiation and the probabilistic nature of the linguistic system  139 4.5.1 Probabilistic profiles  139 4.5.2 Babies taking statistics  142 4.6 The inherent variability of the linguistic system  143 4.6.1 Three kinds of variation  143 4.6.2 Registerial variation  147

x Contents 4.6.3 Registerial variation in context: Field of activity 150 4.6.4 Variation around the languages of the world seen “from above” and “from below”; and also “from roundabout” 153 4.7 The content plane: The metafunctional spectral organization of language  156 4.7.1 The status of the metafunctions  156 4.7.2 Metafunctional modes of meaning: Complementarity and variation  157 4.7.3 Logical and experiential complementarity  159 4.7.4 Examples of diversity in the experiential construal of the “Umwelt” of speakers  163 4.7.5 Metafunctional modes of meaning, modes of expression and media of expression  167 4.7.6 Variation in metafunctional combinations  174 4.8 Semogenesis: Lexicogrammaticalization  175 4.8.1 “Grammaticalization” in the descriptivetypological literature  175 4.8.2 Towards a systemic functional account of lexicogrammaticalization 177 4.8.3 Hierarchy of axis – paradigmatic: decrease in delicacy; rank: descent in rank  179 4.8.4 Cline of instantiation: Increase in frequency  180 4.8.5 The spectrum of metafunction: Experiential to interpersonal and textual  183 4.9 A personal angle  184 4.10 Conclusion  191 Notes 195 References 208 5 On language and linguistics in health: Christian Matthiessen and health communication research 230 NEDA KARIMI

5.1 Text generation and health reports  230 5.2 A socio-semiotic framework for conceptualizing patientcentered care  232 5.2.1 Patient-centered care  232 5.2.2 Matthiessen’s (2013) socio-semiotic model  234

Contents 

xi

5.3 The patient journey and communication load  237 5.4 Building research capacity and mentorship  240 5.5 Final remark  241 Note 242 References 242 6 Christian Matthiessen and verbal art

247

DONNA R. MILLER

6.1 Introduction  247 6.2 Building on the Halliday–Hasan verbal art cornerstone 249 6.3 Amplifying and enriching the SFS legacy  253 6.3.1 Trinocularity  254 6.3.2 Verbal art from the vantage point of the field of activity 257 6.3.3 The stratal dispersal of literature  261 6.3.4 The spectrum of metafunction  265 6.3.5 The cline of instantiation, meaning potential and register vis-à-vis verbal art  266 6.4 Parting thoughts  270 Acknowledgements 271 Notes 271 References 272 PART III

Christian Matthiessen and the global influences of Systemic Functional Linguistics

277

7 The impact of Christian M.I.M Matthiessen on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Australia

279

ERNEST S. AKEREJOLA

7.1 Introduction  279 7.2 Matthiessen in the Australian SFL context  280 7.3 Matthiessen’s crucial role in SFL advancement in Australia 281 7.4 Matthiessen’s professional commitments  281 7.4.1 Professor of Linguistics  281

xii Contents 7.4.2 The provision of tools for modelling SFL description 282 7.4.3 The foundation of systemic linguistic typological research groups across and beyond Australia  283 7.4.4 The Matthiessonian approach  284 7.4.5 The successful building of the SFL community 288 7.4.6 An all-round linguistic scholar and his mentoring strategies 289 7.4.7 The Matthiessonian teaching and supervision 289 7.5 Matthiessen’s humane intellectualism  290 7.5.1 The Matthiessonian modus operandi  290 7.5.2 Postlude to Matthiessen’s mentorship  291 Notes 292 References 292 8 Matthiessen in the Latin American SFL community

296

JESÚS DAVID GUERRA LYONS

8.1 Introduction  296 8.2 Methodology  297 8.3 Findings  299 8.3.1 Quantitative indicators  299 8.3.2 Qualitative indicators  301 8.4 Concluding remarks  308 Notes 309 References 309 9 Christian Matthiessen and Systemic Functional Linguistics in Europe

315

JORGE ARÚS-HITA

9.1 Introduction  315 9.2 Early years: Matthiessen in Sweden  317 9.3 Influence of Matthiessen’s research  319 9.4 Specific collaborations  322 9.5 Christian and Michael  326 9.6 Conclusion  329 Acknowledgments 331 References 331 Index 339

Figures

1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3

2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2

Michael Halliday (front) and Christian Matthiessen (back) in Hong Kong v Metafunctional unification – variation within medium of expression and rank 17 Comparison of ‘mental’ clauses in English, Tagalog and Japanese 19 Partial map of traditions in the study of functional variation in relation to which “register” in SFL can be located 46 The eight primary fields of activity and their subtypes 51 Registerial cartography – filling in gaps (i) along the cline of instantiation (content-based variation) and (ii) along the hierarchy of stratification (context ↘ [semantics ↘lexicogrammar]) (cf. Halliday, 2002) 54 Registerial ranges of three school subjects specified in terms of field of activity 55 Registerial map of medical discourse based on field of activity and mode (turn and medium) 57 Field of activity and tenor relations in contexts of “medical discourse” 58 Spectrograph of “goodnight” 75 Schematization of particle, wave and field 77 Japanese syllable onset network 81 Tench’s (2014) network of English onsets 83 English single onset + head network 85 Two consonant clusters 86 Three consonant clusters 87 The distinction between the general theory of language and descriptions of particular languages 112 Rough visualization of the “level” (stratum, rank) of description and the number of languages in samples as the 115 basis for descriptive generalizations

xiv Figures 4.3 Systemic fragment of the interpersonal clause grammar of Modern Standard Arabic 124 4.4 Examples of verbal modes (jussive, subjunctive) serving as realizations in different clausal environments (together with negative polar particles) 128 4.5 Comrie and Keenan’s accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted as a generalization about systemic elaboration 134 4.6 In a sample of 244 languages: 180 languages without elaboration in resonance, 64 with elaboration in resonance 136 4.7 Systemic mood typology – the primary common system of mood and possible elaborations in delicacy in different languages 138 4.8 Kinds of variation in language: dialectal, codal and registerial 145 4.9 Fields of activity within context and example of areas of grammar “at risk”, and thus likely to be investigated productively 152 4.10 Variability viewed “from above” – the dispersal of meaning over cultural space, and “from below” – the dispersal of sounding and wording over space 154 4.11 Examples of construal of motion in Akan and in English 163 4.12 Ad-hoc systemic functional analysis of a Warlpiri example with a discontinuous nominal group (example taken from Hale, Laughren & Simpson 1995: 1434) 173 4.13 Aspects of grammaticalization in terms of (i) the cline of delicacy – move from more delicate items in open sets to less delicate items of higher frequency in closed systems; and (ii) the hierarchy of rank – move from items operating at higher ranks to items operating at lower ranks (words to 180 clitics to affixes) 4.14 Examples of grammaticalization of items involving descent 181 in rank (see Matthiessen, 2004a) 4.15 The cline of instantiation and the relationship between systemic probabilities and text frequencies 182 5.1 Encounters for Dulcie 239 5.2 The location of a situation type in relation to a hospital as a 240 cultural institution of healthcare 6.1 Viewing “literature” trinocularly in terms of the hierarchy of stratification – stratal dispersal of literature 256 6.2 Literary texts located contextually within the “recreating” field of activity; stratal features characteristic of literature as 258 verbal art 6.3 “Recreating” contexts (outer) and recreated contexts (inner) 260

Figures  6.4 Literature and discourses about literature – the location of literature as verbal art, of literary criticism and of analysis, classification and explanation of literature as verbal art in a context-based typology of texts 6.5 A work of verbal art as a work of semantic art, located at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation as an instance of verbal art 6.6 Verbal art as a (putative) register located midway along the cline of instantiation within “recreating” contexts 7.1 Christian Matthiessen at the introduction of IFG3 during ISFC 2005 7.2 Christian Matthiessen expounding IFG3 in April 2005 7.3 Dimensions of language 8.1 Matthiessen’s geographic citation network 9.1 Matthiessen’s westward lifelong journey 9.2 Influence of Matthiessen’s research in Europe (1 = computational modelling; 2 = translation studies; 3 = functional descriptions of the grammar of English; 4 = language typology and multilinguality; 5= miscellaneous) 9.3 Matthiessen’s collaborations in Europe (GT = general theory; TS = translation studies; TG = text generation; LT = language typology; MM = multimodality; P = projection; PM = processes of motion)

xv

262 268 269 280 282 286 300 316

323

327

Tables

0.1 Relating chapters in this volume to Matthiessen’s publications and interviews with Matthiessen xxv 1.1 Function-rank matrix 16 2.1 Terms in the system of socio-semiotic process (field) and “genres” described in Martin and Rose (2008) and Eggins and Slade (2005) 52 2.2 Examples of representative register studies in SFL 60 3.1 Rank in five languages 73 3.2 Japanese open syllables 79 3.3 Onset and vowel particles in terms of the functional significances 80 3.4 The 20 most frequent onsets and their following vowels 89 3.5 Primary functional differences 90 3.6 The strength of associations between onsets 91 3.7 Probability of selected occurring with a particular vowel 93 3.8 Output of network presented as a wave 95 4.1 Key characteristics and selective references to relevant publications 106 4.2 Fragment of the interpersonal clause grammar of Modern Standard Arabic, as a table based on the systems of mood type, aspect and polarity 125 4.3 Illustration of different realizations in English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) of primary systemic distinctions in indicative mood type 130 4.4 Five language levels in Cairo according to field, tenor and mode parameters of context 148 4.5 Examples of combinations of metafunctional patterns at the beginning or end of clauses 156 4.6 The logical vs. experiential modes of construing our 160 experience of the world

Tables  4.7 Metafunctional mode of meaning, mode of expression and medium of expression 4.8 PhD thesis focused on comprehensive clause grammar descriptions supervised by Christian Matthiessen 6.1 Comparing views of verbal art contexts 9.1 Christian Matthiessen’s research interests 9.2 Christian Matthiessen’s collaborations with SFL researchers in Europe

xvii 169 190 252 319 324

Contributors

Ernest S. Akerejola obtained his doctoral degree in Linguistics from Macquarie University in 2006. He is a lecturer/tutor of Linguistics and Academic English at Macquarie University. His research interests include Systemic Functional Linguistics, language description, and typological study of African languages, grammar, and discourse analysis. Jorge Arús-Hita, PhD in English Linguistics (2003), has been teaching English language and linguistics at Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), since 1997. His teaching includes the areas of computational linguistics, contrastive linguistics, e-learning, and EFL. He has been copy editor of the English studies journal Atlantis and coordinator of blended-learning at the School of Philology, UCM, where he is currently Associate Dean for Innovation and Technologies. David G. Butt is currently Honorary Associate Professor in Linguistics in the Faculty of Medicine, Health, and Human Sciences at Macquarie University in Sydney. Under the mentorship of Ruqaiya Hasan (and M.A.K. Halliday), David applied the methods of Systemic Functional Linguistics to discourse problems in literary studies; surgical safety; psychiatry-psychotherapy; historical accounts; contested evidence at law; process philosophy; semiotics; and brain and complex systems science. Along with Christian Matthiessen (then head of Linguistics), David codirected the Centre for Language in Social Life for more than ten years. Jesús David Guerra Lyons holds a PhD in Language Sciences from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2021) and currently works as Assistant Professor at the Department of Spanish of Universidad del Norte in Colombia. His research covers the areas of functional linguistics, language pedagogy, and critical literacy. Neda Karimi holds a PhD in Linguistics from Macquarie University. She is a Research Fellow at the ANU Institute for Communication in Health

Contributors 

xix

Care and an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of New South Wales. Neda’s research focuses on communication between healthcare providers and consumers including adults and adolescents and young adults in different health-related contexts such as medical consultations and digital health settings. Annabelle Lukin is A/Professor in Linguistics at Macquarie University. Her research interests include media discourse, political discourse, legal discourse, and healthcare. Her major publication is War and Its Ideologies (2019, Springer). She is currently working with legal scholars investigating the language of international laws, of war, and with clinical and linguistic researchers on communication dynamics in consultations of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen is Distinguished Professor at University of International Business and Economics in China and Professor at Complutense University of Madrid. His research has covered a wide range of areas (all informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics), including analysis of many kinds of discourse, corpus compilation and corpus-based studies, register analysis and context-based text typology, the development of Rhetorical Structure Theory (jointly with Bill Mann and Sandy Thompson), the description of English and other languages spoken around the world, language typology and comparison, translation studies, multisemiotic studies, institutional linguistics, computational linguistics, the evolution of language, and systemic functional theory. Donna R. Miller is Alma Mater Professor at the Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures of the University of Bologna (retired since July 2019). Her corpus-assisted investigations have regularly explored the grammar of evaluation in institutional text types and verbal art, this last being the central focus of her recent work, in a Hasanian perspective (Miller, 2021). Gerard O’Grady is Professor at Cardiff University. He currently coedits the book series Key Topics in SFL and was one of the co-editors of The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics 2017. His chief research interest is the study of spoken information structure. Erich Steiner studied English and German Philology in Freiburg, Saarbrücken, Cardiff, Reading, and London, and held academic posts in Saarbrücken, Luxembourg, and Darmstadt. He served as Head of Department, ProDean, and Dean at the University of Saarland in Saarbrücken, and has received calls from several other universities. Between 1990 and 2020, he was Chair of English Linguistics and Translation Studies, later Chair

xx Contributors of English Translation Studies, Department of Language Science and Technology, University of Saarland, Saarbrücken. His major research interests include functional linguistics, translation theory, comparative linguistics, as well as empirical linguistics more generally. He retired from his university chair in April 2020.

Acknowledgements

During the process of editing this book, we have been encouraged and assisted by many people, to whom we would like to express our gratitude. We would first like to thank the contributors of this book for their trust and patience. We are also grateful to Dr. Kazuhiro Teruya, Prof. Huang Guowen, Prof. Chang Chenguang, Prof. Yu Hui, Dr. Pattama Patpong, and Prof. Akila Sellami-Baklouti for their continued support. We thank Louisa Semlyen, Andrea Hartill, Elysse Preposi, Jasmine Erice-Harling, Eleni Steck, and Iola Ashby from Routledge and Bryan Moloney from Deanta Global for their generous help.

Abbreviations

AAAS ACL ADA ALSFAL

American Association for the Advancement of Science Association for Computational Linguistics appliable discourse analysis Asociación de Lingüística Sistémico-Funcional de América Latina (Latin American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association) AMH Anatomically Modern Human AP Andhra Pradesh CIIL Central Institute of Indian Languages CLSL Centre for Language in Social Life DSTG Defence Science and Technology Group DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organization ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean GPSG Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar GSP generic structure potential IC immediate constituent IE Indo-European IFG Introduction to Functional Grammar IMDB Internet Movie Database IRCCH International Research Centre for Communication in Healthcare ISDL The International School of Dravidian Languages ISFC International Systemic Functional Congress ISFLA International Systemic Functional Linguistic Association ISI Information Sciences Institute LACUS Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States LFG Lexical-functional Grammar LMH Linguistically Modern Human Linguistic Society of America LSA MDA multidimensional analysis

Abbreviations  MSA NLP PCCM SAE SAL SFL SFS SIL TAM UCB UCLA WALS WER WHO WMAP

Modern Standard Arabic natural language processing Patient-Centered Clinical Model Standard Average European systemics across languages Systemic Functional Linguistics systemic functional stylistics Summer Institute of Linguistics tense, aspect, and modality University of California, Berkeley University of California, Los Angeles The World Atlas of Language Structures Weekly Epidemiological Report World Health Organization Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

xxiii

Introduction Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma

Christian Matthias Ingemar Martin Matthiessen is a Swedish-born linguist, a leading scholar in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and a long-time collaborator with M.A.K. Halliday. Like Halliday, who was a generalist that worked on different aspects of language as well as different areas of linguistics, Matthiessen also has various research interests, ranging from the expression plane of language (phonetics and phonology), the content plane of language (lexicogrammar and semantics), and context to the different areas of linguistic application (e.g. computational linguistics; language description, comparison and typology; translation studies; educational linguistics; discourse analysis; healthcare communication). Known as the “de facto cartographer”, Matthiessen succeeds in the continuous extension and development of Systemic Functional Grammar, producing numerous works of exceptional depth and breadth. This edited volume, originally named A Companion to Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (also known as “the Xian Companion” project), is designed to be an essential resource of Christian Matthiessen’s academic career, his theoretical contributions to the major linguistic topics, and his work that has influenced the development of SFL. The book consists of three parts: (i) theories of SFL (Chapters 1–3), (ii) applications of SFL in different domains (Chapters 4–6), and (iii) developmental trajectories of SFL in some major geographical areas (Chapters 7–9). In Parts I and II, by addressing the key issues in SFL, the chapters serve as accessible guides for both researchers and students of SFL. In addition to the comprehensive surveys in each chapter, directions for future studies are pointed out, which will be an inspiration for researchers interested in SFL. Part III, on the other hand, serves as a historical record of Matthiessen’s life and work in different parts of the world. In sum, we hope the book can achieve the following goals: • to present comprehensive surveys of Christian Matthiessen’s work on different topics; • to introduce and summarize Christian Matthiessen’s theories;

Introduction 

xxv

Table 0.1 Relating chapters in this volume to Matthiessen’s publications and interviews with Matthiessen Chapter

Topic

Related publication Related by Christian chapter in Matthiessen the interview books

Chapter 1 Navigating in semiological space: Theory and Matthiessonian cartography, from typology to register and artificial intelligence

SFL theory

Chapter 2 Christian Matthiessen and register Chapter 3 Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English: Some insights inspired by Halliday and Matthiessen’s systemic functional linguistic architecture Chapter 4 Systemic Functional Linguistics – language description, comparison and typology: Key characteristics Chapter 5 On language and linguistics in health: Christian Matthiessen and health communication research Chapter 6 Christian Matthiessen and verbal art

Register

Caffarel, Martin, and Matthiessen (2004); Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, 2014); Matthiessen (1993, 1995, 2004, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2019, 2020) Matthiessen (1993, 2015c, 2015d, 2019, 2020) Halliday and Matthiessen (2014); Matthiessen (1987a, 2007, 2021)

Phonology

Volumes 1 and 2

Chapter 4, Volume 2 Forthcoming

Matthiessen (1987b, Chapter 7, Language Volume 1; 1995, 2004, description, Chapter 9, 2018, 2023); comparison, and Volume 2 Matthiessen, typology Teruya and Wu (2008) Healthcare communication

Forthcoming Matthiessen (2013a); Matthiessen et al. (1998); Slade et al. (2015)

Verbal art

Matthiessen (2013b, 2013c, 2015e, 2017); Matthiessen and Veloso (2023)

Forthcoming

(Continued )

xxvi Introduction Table 0.1 (Continued) Chapter

Topic

Related publication Related by Christian chapter in Matthiessen the interview books

Chapter 7 The impact of Christian Matthiessen on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Australia

Christian Matthiessen in Australia

Chapter 8 Matthiessen in the Latin American SFL community

Christian Matthiessen in Latin America

Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004); Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, 2014); Matthiessen (1995, 2007); Matthiessen and Halliday (2009) Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004); Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, 2014); Matthiessen (2001, 2004, 2009, 2012, 2013a, 2014); Slade et al. (2015) e.g. Matthiessen (1983, 1995, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2014a); Matthiessen and Bateman (1991)

Chapter 9 Christian Christian Matthiessen and Matthiessen in Systemic Functional Europe Linguistics in Europe

Chapters 1–3, Volume 1

Chapters 1–3, Volume 1

Chapters 1–3, Volume 1

• to illustrate the applications of SFL theories in different domains, e.g. language typology, translation, and text generation; • to report on the history and the status quo of SFL development in some major geographical areas of the world; and • to discuss the directions for future research in SFL. In Table 0.1, we relate the chapters in this book to Matthiessen’s works and the interviews we conducted with him since 2016. Please also note that the interviews will so far be published as two books titled Systemic Functional Insights on Language and Linguistics (Matthiessen et al., 2022) and Systemic Functional Insights on Language and Linguistics: Halliday, Theory and Application (Matthiessen et al., forthcoming). For the sake of convenience, we have respectively referred to them as Volume 1 and Volume 2 in the table. Other interview papers and collections of interviews are at the planning stage and will be published in the future.

Introduction 

xxvii

Given that Matthiessen has a large number of research interests, not all of them are covered in this book, such as educational linguistics, discourse analysis, and computational linguistics. Hence, a second volume of Theorizing and Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics – a sequel to the current volume – is planned and will be published in the future. References Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Cassell. Reprinted as M.A.K. Halliday & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2006. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987a. “Notes on Akan phonology: A systemic interpretation.” Unpublished manuscript. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987b. Notes on Akan lexicogrammar: A systemic interpretation. Manuscript. To appear in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. forthcoming. Volume 3 of the Collected works of Christian M.I.M Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya. Sheffield: Equinox. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. “Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter. 221–292. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publisher. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004. “Descriptive motifs and generalizations.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 537–664. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007. “The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional theory: Developments since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (volume 2). London: Equinox. 505–561. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009. “Multisemiosis and context-based register typology: Registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems.” In Eija Ventola & Jesús A. Moya Guijarro (eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 11–38.

xxviii Introduction Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2012. “Systemic Functional Linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches.” DELTA (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 28: 435–471. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013a. “Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics in healthcare contexts.” Text & Talk 33: 437–466. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013b. “Analysing and interpreting works of verbal art as acts of meaning instantiating the meaning potential of language in context.” 1–58. MS. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013c. “Talking and writing about literature: Some observations based on Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 39(2): 5–49. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “Halliday on language.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 137–202. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 222–287. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Halliday’s conception of language as a probabilistic system.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 203–241. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015c. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015d. “Modelling context and register: The longterm project of registerial cartography.” Letras, Santa Maria 25(50): 15–90. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015e. “Subliminal construal of world order clause by clause: Hierarchy of control in Noah’s Ark.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11(2–3): 250–283. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2017. “Talking and writing about literature: Some observations based on Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Leila Barbara, Adail Sebastião Rodrigues-Júnior & Giovanna Marcella Verdessi Hoy (eds.), Estudos e pesquisas em Linguística Sistêmico Funcional [Studies and research in Systemic Functional Linguistics]. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras. 9–51. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2018. “The notion of a multilingual meaning potential: A systemic exploration.” In Akila Sellami-Baklouti & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 90–120. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2019. “Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Register Studies 1(1): 10–41. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2020. “Trinocular views on register: Approaching register trinocularly.” Language, Context and Text 2(1): 3–21. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2021. “The architecture of phonology according to Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Sheffield: Equinox. 288–338. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2023. “Afterword: Describing languages systemicfunctionally.” In J.R. Martin, Beatriz Quiroz & Pin Wang (eds.), Systemic

Introduction 

xxix

Functional Grammar: A text-based description of English, Spanish and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 382–401. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Bilingual edition, with introduction by Huang Guowen. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Francisco O.D. Veloso. 2023. “‘Real’ and imaginary worlds in children’s fiction: The Velveteen Rabbit.” Semiotica. 1–31. http://doi.org/10/1515/sem-2002-0047 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Wu Canzhong. 2008. “Multilingual studies as a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies. London & New York: Continuum. 146–220. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru. 2022. Systemic functional insights on language and linguistics. Singapore: Springer. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru. forthcoming. Systemic functional insights on language and linguistics: Halliday, theory and application. Singapore: Springer. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Zeng Licheng, Marilyn Cross, Ichiro Kobayashi & Canzhong Wu. 1998. “The Multex generator and its environment: Application and development.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON: Association for Computational Linguistics. 228–237. Slade, Diana, Marie Manidis, Jeannette McGregor, Hermine Scheeres, Eloise Chandler, Jane Stein-Parbury, Roger Dunston, Maria Herke & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. Communicating in hospital emergency departments. Heidelberg: Springer.

Part I

Christian Matthiessen and systemic functional theory





1

Navigating in semiological space Theory and Matthiessonian cartography, from typology to register and artificial intelligence David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin

Preface Troubling as it was to see my next-door neighbour circle from letterbox to pedestrian crossing, and back; stop; turn-about; and then not cross. Has he had a minor stroke? I thought. Does he need assistance? “Michael!” I called, “Are you in any difficulty?” Abstracted still, he replied: “I am just still absorbing the brilliance of Christian’s chapters1… in the new Companion volume”. Relieved, I then recalled that, decades before, Ruqaiya Hasan had also said to me: “Have you ever seen such a combination of brilliance and prolific output.”

It was not a question. The expository brilliance has always been unquestionable: there in the extraordinary volumes that demonstrate Christian Matthiessen’s ability to encompass and explain the connections within complex social, technological, and semiological domains – from the subtle grammar of Halliday’s Token to Value to the distinctions we must draw between realizational and causal systems across sciences and vital institutions. 1.1 Introduction In the following blend of personal and theoretical observations, the emphasis will be on certain areas of linguistic thought over which Christian Matthiessen has developed a forensic clarity and for which, we argue, his theoretical contributions merit greater understanding and recognition. Despite his status as “the de facto cartographer of Systemic Functional Grammar” (Matthiessen et al., 2018: 2), we argue that the co-ordinates of his cartographic expositions derive from a distinctive, higher-order, theoretical stance. He has achieved a clarity about an embodied, empirical linguistic theory by developing the linguistic subdisciplines to a weight of illustration and evidence that matches the structure of other natural sciences, sciences that do not have the mercurial character of sign systems and the prejudices, DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-2

4  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin both academic and popular, that often misdirect the discussion of meanings. His approach confronts the profound relativities of “units” and categories of language. He explains his inclusive methodology with evidence “at scale”. And he extends the reach of linguistics into the experience of the community through detailed semiotic profiles of technology; of health institutions (see Chapter 5 in this volume); of education; of computation and AI; and in the complex issues around translation (see Wang & Ma forthcoming). We can take this further and argue that the cartography turns out to be derived from professional co-ordinates that include: 1) Matthiessen’s ability to manage the relational, relativistic, character of language comparisons (explored below); 2) his theorizing of a semogenic culture in which the realizational and the material become the semiotic “alloy” by which humans create experience without apparent limits (to be discussed in relation to Halliday and Matthiessen’s 1999 work); 3) his ability to be explicit about cross-stratal connections in register analysis (i.e. from above: context and semantics to lexicogrammar, or from below, from prosody “up”) (see also Matthiessen, 2019, 2020; see Chapter 2 of this volume); 4) his familiarity with the linguistic “cross-currents” of logic and cognitive sciences (from the Vienna Circle and the work of Carnap, to the syntactic formalism of Chomsky); 5) the understanding he demonstrates in the details, and potential of, so many recent grammatical models (e.g. the “family of grammars” explained in Matthiessen (2015a: 148); 6) his command of corpora and related tools in pursuing and presenting quantitative and predictive evidence; 7) his ease of transition into the goals and potential of AI (note here, the valued contribution of the Penman project along with Rhetorical Structure Theory [RST] in computational research, and the success of work in the Scamseek project); 8) his allegiance to evaluating the history of linguistic ideas, both for offering credit to important under-recognized contributions (e.g. like that of Hippolyte Taine, 1828–1893, who approached topics scientifically) and for the practical critique of theories that straitjacket linguistic theory and descriptions (viz. the assumptions of Cartesian linguistics and derogatory influence of “armchair philosophers”); 9) the balance of methods pertaining to translation (described in Steiner, 2005: 488 as what could be “the most comprehensive statement of an SFL-view and, indeed, programme for theorizing translation”), along with the development of multilingual computational tools; and, most fundamental to linguistic theory; 10) how the systemic resources of human languages can be represented as changing, that is dynamic, always adaptive, and subject to both the small events of personal choice and identity (the effect of a single expression: e.g. “fleek” eyebrows) and the dramatic shifts that can occur on different scales of time and across the different levels of language (viz. motifs which capture the “drift” and “certain cut” of Sapir [1921], and the “characterology” of the Prague School [Mathesius, 1964]).

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  5 The theoretical domain that Christian Matthiessen has made distinctively “Matthiessonian” draws on all of these: it is the point of convergence of the theoretical enquiries cited above. They are all necessary vectors to a theory of language as a probabilistic system. Such a system may be named by many, but its accurate depiction and its activation as a model for semiotic research require a control of theory that one expects only in a team of scholars. Matthiessen operates with that control of theory. Consequently, our aim is to direct readers – whether new to SFL or wellread in its literature – to investigate the theoretical refinements without which Christian Matthiessen’s cartography could not emerge. In this account, emphasizing theory, our discussion will, for practical reasons, focus primarily on interpreting six sources: 1) the work with Halliday – Construing Experience through Meaning (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999); 2) and 3) Matthiessen’s two chapters in The Bloomsbury Companion to M.A.K. Halliday: “Halliday on Language” (Matthiessen, 2015a) and “Halliday’s Conception of Language as a Probabilistic System” (Matthiessen, 2015b); 4) Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems (Matthiessen, 1995); 5) recent revisits to his notion of “Register in the Round” (Matthiessen, 1993; see also Matthiessen, 2015c, 2015d, 2019, 2020; Chapter 2 of this volume); and 6) Language Typology: A Functional Perspective (Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen, 2004a) – particularly the introductory chapter on mapping by the editors (Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen, 2004b), and the 140-page Chapter 10 by Matthiessen (2004a) on “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations”. 1.2 An international troubadour of linguistics Matthiessen’s development as a linguist has its own geographical or mapping idiosyncrasies. It was remarkable to us how early the pursuit of “linguistics” began with Christian Matthiessen: on the one hand, many scholars follow a passion for language and languages, and Christian credits his mother Christine Matthiessen for encouraging the pursuit of language as an object of study (see the opening dedication in Matthiessen [1995] and on p. vii). But, on the other hand, Christian Matthiessen is the only scholar we have met who had, from his early teens, a commitment to linguistics: linguistic theory as an activity “in itself”. This is evident in his actual journey in the 1970s from Lund and other European centres with luminaries of linguistic theory (for example, Malmberg, 1959; Ellegård, 1971) to the high energy of campuses in the United States, with their novel psycholinguistics, which had transmogrified into a form of theoretical doctrine with a high voltage of prescriptivism (see Matthiessen et al., 2022: Chapters 1–3). Matthiessen continued his pursuit of the best-trained and the most insightful linguists then active.

6  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin In contrast to the many piecemeal presentations of theory and description that characterized the discipline in the 1960s/1970s, Christian’s linguistic peripetia was a quest for linguists whose ideas captured the character and breadth of language as well as offering greater depth of consequential insights – linguistics that makes a difference. Ultimately, the opportunity to hear and speak with Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan is recounted in an interview (Matthiessen et al., 2018, 2022). Furthermore, Christian and John Bateman attended a symposium at Claremont in East Los Angeles at which linguists (Michael Halliday, Sydney Lamb, and John Regan – see Halliday et al., 1988) were sharing ideas with leaders of Whiteheadean process philosophy. Christian recognized in Halliday’s approach a theory that offered insights and then guidance in practical extensions of linguistics. One such extension was soon realized by a collaboration with Michael Halliday, across the Pacific, on developing a text generation system for the Penman Project, led by Bill Mann. Christian always spoke of Bill Mann as one of the truly innovative minds with whom he had worked (Matthiessen, 2005). This project in California pushed the polysystemic representation of English out to 1,100–1,200 systems. This was duly in evidence as a “Tektronic” map showing the metafunctional affinities (i.e. dependencies) across white sheets of networks on the wall in the Information Sciences Institute in Los Angeles, and similarly around the walls of Michael Halliday’s office at the University of Sydney. It was an exciting map within which to be sitting, for instance, as we heard visitors like Umberto Eco (on St Augustine as semiotician); Igor Mel’čuk (on 54 semantic primes); or Jay Lemke (e.g. on the contrast between causal and realizational systems: Lemke, 1995). Continuing this peregrination from the United States to Australia, Matthiessen joined Halliday, Hasan, James Martin, Clare Painter, and their professional networks of linguists putting SFL to work in education, health, computational linguistics, child language development, and translation. Matthiessen also invested much of his own energy in conferences across India, China, Singapore, and South American centres – in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil (see Part III of this book) – before resettling in the world’s incipient “mega polis” – the Pearl River Delta – as Chair Professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (“polytechnic” being a strangely fitting classifier concerning Matthiessen!). In responding to theoretical problems in semiotic discourse, what is so remarkable about Christian Matthiessen’s use of theory is the way he worked through and beyond the fashionable alternatives and denials of linguistic theorizing that buzzed about academia during his formative years. These ideas included claims that a science of language was a modernist illusion – as in post-structuralist critiques and Derrida’s deconstruction; and even from Vološinov and the Bakhtinian group of linguists.

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  7 There was also the academic tide of “platonic” idealism and Cartesian dualism (e.g. Chomsky, 1965; Fodor, 1975; Katz & Fodor, 1963). These offered extremely few actual instances of any analysis, even of artificial sentences (e.g. the 24 instances that comprise the data of Chomsky, 1965; see McEnery & Hardie, 2012: 13). Generative linguistics veered towards “armchair philosophy” with an inflation of technicalities and neologisms yet few basic clarities (e.g. What was a sign in a meaning-preserving series of transformations? What was the neuroscientific evidence for a syntacticspecific mental organ? What was the evidence for a very recent mutation in human evolution? Are recursive relative clauses really the essence of human creativity in language? Is language usefully summarized as a potentially infinite collection of sentences?). In methods, generativists sometimes positively discussed their work as requiring only “the back of an envelope” (viz. small operations, particularly in phonology). Such theorizing could not deliver the scope and depth that Christian Matthiessen sought. Nor did it address Christian Matthiessen’s focus on natural language, the langue and parole of European theorists; and it was not fit for purpose when, in the near future, Matthiessen would be challenged by the demands of natural language processing (NLP). The genetic promissory note of Chomskyan theory (one had to accept the dictum of a mental organ specifically for syntax) could not be scientifically modelled except by universalist assumptions in the form of possible constraints or parameter settings (Chomsky, 1975, 1993). Significantly, such innatism and the search for non-functional constraints (i.e. characteristics that could not be explained by usefulness: see the Russell Lectures [Chomsky, 1972]) discouraged other subdisciplines important to Christian Matthiessen – for instance, how one learned language, how one learned another language, and the problem of how a brain and its knowledge base might be modelled in the change that was having the single greatest effect on the world after WWII: computation; artificial intelligence; the accumulations of data in various forms; and machine learning. The inimical attitude to the wider scope of linguistics was on show, for instance, in the debate at Tufts University in 1988 on the future of developing artificial intelligence between the duos of Schank and Winograd defending such enquiry and Chomsky and Fodor on the other, lampooning the effort. Christian Matthiessen recognized the opportunities (and, critically, specific limitations) of the new era in which he was educated and socialized – an era in which the electronic extension of human capacities, and the systems approach to complexity together, would multiply and modify the meaning potential in both humans and technologies. Such had been the prediction in The Human Use of Human Beings by the mathematician Norbert Wiener (1950). But many linguists turned away from the anthropological and technical capacities that had characterized American post-war universities;

8  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin and, as pointed out by Richard Leakey (1994), became paradoxically the last defenders of an exclusion line between humans and other primates in evolution. On meeting Christian Matthiessen, it was clear to us that, unlike many in linguistics, he was prepared and open to the inheritance of the new movements to unify sciences, open to the potential of the spirit and thoughts inaugurated by, for instance, the Macy Lectures (which actually ran intermittently from 1941–1960). The presentations by Walter Pitts and Warren McCulloch had included the first accounts of how Boolean logic, biophysics, and neurosciences could be integrated in a mathematical and electrical modelling of a neuron. Along with – for instance, the anthropology of Gregory Bateson (see the “news of difference” [Bateson, 1979]); the biolinguistics of Roman Jakobson (the syntax of DNA) (Jakobson, 1973); the teleonomics of Norbert Wiener (Rosenblueth, Wiener & Bigelow, 1943); and the information theory of Claude Shannon (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) – these meetings, over years, created cross-overs and disciplinary analogies (Dupuy, 1994: 22–26, and Chapter 4 examines the promise, and some lost opportunities, concerning the meetings). Jakobson (1973) later produced a cross-disciplinary publication for UNESCO, based on aspects of “goal directedness” in biology and in linguistics. Jakobson’s emphasis on “functional dialects” was in concord with the emphases of Firthian and later Hallidayan views that one started in linguistics with social variation (see Laver’s 1980 introduction to a Firthian systemicizing of the tone of voice; and also Miller [2021: Chapter 3]). With a well-established vision of language, augmented by his commitment to new technological horizons, Matthiessen was not to be misdirected by the institutional hegemonies of generative theory, nor by the artificiality of modularity assumptions in cognitive “philosophy” (Fodor, 1975) or in the later, “breezy” cortical generalizations of the Lakoff version of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). 1.3 A “magnum opus” After moving to Sydney in 1988, Christian Matthiessen produced the magnum opus Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems (Matthiessen, 1995). Across its 1,000 pages, Matthiessen brought together the first single volume – a detailed exposition of the semiotic dimensions proposed by Halliday. Important introductions to SFL had been available alongside Halliday’s introductions to the grammar (Halliday, 1985, 1994). There were the collection of relevant papers from 1978 (Halliday, 1978) and the edition by Kress (Halliday, 1976). Formative papers in SFL were edited by Halliday and Martin (Halliday & Martin, 1981), and Martin’s (1992) English Text presented an elaboration of what he theorized as “discourse semantics”. Other preceding outlines and demonstrations of the principles

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  9 of SFL included the two volumes of Berry (1975, 1977); a volume by Eggins (2004) and Butt et. al (1994); and the variety of publications produced by Fawcett (e.g. 2000, 2008), Butler (1985) and a network of colleagues across the UK, Australia, and in some centres, in Germany – professorships held by Steiner, Teich, and Bateman; and in North America e.g. Fries in Michigan; Benson, Greaves, and Cummings in Toronto; and various members of the Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States (i.e. the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States [LACUS] forum) who, with Sydney Lamb, extended Halliday’s network representation and inaugurated a “cognitive linguistics” (e.g. Lamb, 1992) in a key quite in contrast to the psycholinguistic imperatives of Chomsky (1975). Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems (Matthiessen 1995) delivers understanding far beyond the scope of its title. Yes, one finds the grammar of English set out by tabulations of systems and examples, all directed by the theoretical architecture of the vital terms: instantiation; metafunction; stratification; rank scale; axes of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. But these theoretical requisites for any linguistic description are set out in a 70-page introductory chapter, which elucidates how the lexicogrammatical task relates to many of the more general, necessary demands of a linguistic model: for instance, how grammar relates “up” to semantics and rhetorical structures; how “context of situation” can be allocated parameters that narrow down the expectations in the grammar; how the diversity of languages (dialect, register, and code) are managed by the theory; how the perspectives of ontogenesis, phylogenesis, and logogenesis assist in understanding change and probabilities; and, crucially, how the SFL approach to English bears on the typological problems of comparing the grammar of one language with the meanings and grammars of others. While Matthiessen notes that his Lexicogrammatical Cartography is not a book of justifying arguments, one is nevertheless impressed by the way the model interrelates the theoretical moves in SFL with such surety as to the contribution of each theoretical component, and how the whole confirms the internal connections in the theory as well as SFL’s extralinguistic relevance. These characteristics can be seen even in the succinct section “English and Other Languages” (beginning at p. 57) and which recurs as a motif of theory in each discussion of a major system (viz. the subsections referred to as “Typological Outlook”) – on clause complexing, transitivity, mood, theme, groups and phrases, and systems like polarity and its interactions with mood forms, tags, and the difficult characterization of imperatives across world languages. The perennial typological issue around Subject is raised after the theory has been outlined. We can see how the properties of form become an issue of “best fit” with discoursal evidence (p. 118– 119): how the co-ordinates of metafunction and rank permit an empirical

10  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin determination as to the role that best accounts for the properties of what is the effect of Subject in English (we are directed also to Section 5.1.1.1 in Matthiessen, 1995, then out to Chapter 4 in IFG; and then to the setting out of the evidence in Matthiessen, 2004a: 624). The evidence motivates the allocation of Subject to an interpersonal role. This mapping avoids the reification of Subject as a universal element that must be found, or another extreme sometimes mooted: namely, that Subject is “purely syntactic” and cannot be assigned any semantic value. 1.4 Matthiessen and the challenge of linguistic categories The initial point of theoretical clarity in linguistics is confronting the conundrum over meaning and the relativism of descriptive categories: How do we settle on a language for describing language? How should one proceed in turning “language back on itself” when there is no semiologically neutral system for navigating across the extremes of areal, cultural, and historico-genetic distances? So too, generalizations need to be corroborated by evidence. And in Matthiessen’s SFL, following Halliday’s goals of a functional theory, findings should be put to work in an “appliable linguistics” in which “theory” is the most practical element of a linguist’s analytical resources. These issues arise as epistemological challenges: Saussure had written that linguistics was unique among intellectual endeavours in that it did not have a set of naturally “given” units of analysis. He was wrong in this early 20th-century assumption – the physical and biological sciences were discovering their own deep problems with electrons, cells, populations, and space and time (Einstein’s initial papers were in the same year that Saussure began to teach the course of lectures that led to the “Geneva School”). Nevertheless, Saussure was correct in emphasizing the lingering ambiguities that linguists would need to negotiate in order to progress in linguistics and semiology. Halliday argued (in a talk to the LACUS forum in 1983 – Halliday 1984) that the glosses on grammatical categories had become semantic tautologies (for instance, the term “onoma” becomes “name” becomes “noun” becomes “nominal group” [noun phrase] becomes “person or thing as named”). This differs from an earlier practical purpose: namely, the means by which a category is manifested and hence recognized in the actual flow of unconscious speech: e.g. nominative/noun can be identified by a declension form, -us. Using the covert passive in the grammar of identifying processes (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: Chapter 5), Halliday illustrated what was a value to token relationship (i.e. from abstract role in the scheme of things to that which is actual or manifested) has become the narrow, unhelpful, notional circularity cited above. The circular nominalism bedevils “grammatics” and hides the “solidary” relation between semantics and grammar: i.e. that they are both content levels, and so if you

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  11 modify one, you change the other (iconicity of the relations in Halliday; and the recent loss of levels between pragmatics, semantics, and syntax in Lakoffian “cognitive linguistics”). This solidary theory, so strange to some formal linguists, has had many defenders, even in the United States. These included Dwight Bolinger who held to the view that every form contributes meaning: “linguists are not logicians, and we surrender our birth right if we turn away from the very kinds of meaning that we are best equipped to deal with” (Bollinger, 1979: ix). This natural or iconic relation between semantics and grammar leaves Saussure’s line of arbitrariness in the linguistic sign between lexicogrammar (form) and phonology (sound system). Halliday uses the controversies over the analysis of Subject to show that, ultimately, each function needs to be applied to the differences it offers in a paradigm of agnate forms, just as a child learns how to make a difference “in context”. In English, a child uses the patterns that conform most directly with the pattern of relations in the interaction and extended discourse into which he or she is drawn, that is, by the habitual patterns of community experience. Citing the 2,500 examples as background to his own study of semogenesis (Learning How to Mean), Halliday (1975) argues that, given an exposure to c. 200 instances per day in early childhood (a modest estimate on his data), there is no “mystique” about the child’s command of the unconscious patterning in the familial and social context. The typological issues of comparison and categorization were dramatically presented by two complementary talks at a forum organized by J.R. Martin at the University of Sydney: the opening presentation by Christian Matthiessen gave a mesmerizing account of how the system-function matrix can be set and reset for establishing cross language congruence and contrast (see the references to “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations” [Matthiessen, 2004a]). This was followed by an intriguing account by Randy LaPolla of a previous forum he had attended in which the basis of typological categories was debated – with the arguments unresolved due to the various extreme, even polar, views concerning cross-linguistic analysis: the question of grounding cross-linguistic comparison seemed to bedevil agreement and debate. It is important to note that LaPolla is a leading authority on typology and a specialist on Sino-Tibetan languages. His coauthored Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function presents a “communication and cognition perspective” that shares much with SFL and with an increasingly wide range of theorists (see, for example, those listed in Van Valin and LaPolla [1997: 11–12]). It too offers a 700-page framework and exemplification for language descriptions. The opening and closing arguments of the work address the fact that all the syntactic structures described can be accommodated in terms of linguistic functions and learning within the general cognitive capacities of humans. This is to emphasize that the

12  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin syntactic processes encompassed in no way need to invoke an autonomous, species-specific, syntactic mental organ (viz. the Chomskyan “syntactocentric” view) (Van Valin & LaPolla, 1997: 12, 640–649). With his recent four-volume compendium of the most important papers on Chinese languages, LaPolla (2018) works at a scale like that of Matthiessen. It was moving to hear his view of Halliday’s description of English: namely, that Halliday teaches you “what the grammar is, AND why it is the way it is” (LaPolla, ISFC plenary address at Sun Yat-sen University in 2013). Two points from this interlude are particularly pertinent to elaborating the work of Matthiessen’s career. First, there is the debate at the core of linguistic theory – how does one conduct a rational description of languages (as Van Valin and LaPolla [1997: 14] state the goal) so that speakers of Lakhota, Tagalog, or Dyirbal are able to see their point of view represented, that is, looking back at a language like English? This first question resonates with the directions from Halliday’s mentor, J.R. Firth, that linguists had to de-Anglicize themselves and look back at English from a distant linguistic system (Firth, 1968). (Peter Strevens, who knew Firth well, informed me in conversation that those working with Firth were under contract not to publish on English!) The second point, and following from the first, is the fluid situation of linguistic theories. In the works of various leading scholars – Givón (1984) and Dik (1978) – there is now a wide front of scholars who have returned, like Van Valin and LaPolla, to take inspiration from the functional emphasis of the Prague School, although with different approaches to accounting for diversities and the basis of “system” and the importance of functions in the “characterology” (see Givón, 1984: 1–28, and van Valin and LaPolla, 1997: various, and 263–285 – common with paragraphs in Halliday, 1976). Sapir (1921) similarly referred to “that certain cut” when arguing for consistency in the way a language is organized and maintained (Halliday, 2014). Matthiessen has been, then, part of a movement in linguistic research when the deepest strengths of theory before 1965 – for example, the pan-optical views of Sapir, of Prague School theorists, and of Firth – are being refreshed by new descriptions; upscaled technology; greater efforts in modelling variation across communities of speakers; and in relation to advanced imaging of brains “in process”. We are now ready to ask: how have Matthiessonian linguistic methods met this moment? And why is a map so central to theories and the practical applications of sciences? 1.5 Grammars, and the centrality of the maps to sciences of society and mind Maps are complex fictions that we propose to arrive at the better management of our experience of real-world conditions. To share the degree of Matthiessen’s theoretical achievements – his forensic clarifications

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  13 – readers may have to bear with us to reflect on the concept of mapping. Besides “theory”, which provides the crucial co-ordinates in cartography, there is also Matthiessen’s multimodal “ingenuity”, namely, the clarity with which he has been able to graph relations of meaning on a page or on a dynamic screen. Like the innovations of the Bauhaus movement in the 1920s, and with Halliday’s use of networks, the rendering of complexity by analogical diagrams should not be ignored as important means of provoking fresh understanding (consider the practicality of “simple” diagrams in physics and various key uses of iconicity: Barrow, 2008). The metaphor of mapping, as an image of connections, is crucial to theory in general. It is a cognate of the word “model” and is widely applied across forms of knowledge, particularly from the 1980s and 1990s, when the visualization of cells, brains, and complex systems was revolutionized by new scales of the large, of the small, and of new degrees of abstraction (viz. the age of the universe from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe [WMAP] map of cosmic microwave background). For instance, in the 1990s, neuroscience turned to analogues of the networks of neurons, hand drawn by Cajal (c. 1908; see Newman, Araque & Dubinsky, 2017; Rita Carter, 2000 and others). So too, new forms of scans produced dynamic brain imaging (fMRI; MEG; PET; D.). Such views of brain activity (Posner & Raichle, 1994) ran contrary to the narrow modularity that had dominated linguistics and psychology since 1965. Despite the feeble evidence for Broca’s original claims, textbooks had reiterated them uncritically for decades and this unchallenged paradigmatic “example” of modularity played to the “language acquisition device” claims of Chomsky and psycholinguists. Although attempts have been made to explain away the contradictory drift of evidence (e.g. Anderson & Lightfoot, 2002: see concluding chapter), new maps lead to Popperian refutations and revisions; or they should do. The metaphor of map, then, deserves an enduring status (e.g. MIT Atlas of Knowledge [Börner, 2015]; Maps Are Territories [Turnbull, 1989]: Deakin Uni Press and the two uses in the current titles of Nautilus Science: e.g. Brian Cox on mapping the invisible in subatomic particles). In the influential theories of consciousness from Damasio (2010; 2021) and Solms (2021), the key organizing principle is the mapping of homeostatic maintenance at sub-cortical levels (around the mid-brain and in the brain stem) in the layered systems of evolution over 520 m. years. Mapping is, like language, a melding of natural processes and arbitrary conventions. Reflect on the case of global positioning: conventions are imposed, from an earth-based point of view, around some relatively reliable natural phenomenon – viz. the poles; significant stars from Polaris in the 26,000-year precession of the star background; the ecliptic of the sun’s apparent “travel” with earth’s 23.5-degree “tilt”; and Greenwich in London.

14  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin This “melding” is not a simplex of addition: as in language, the process is the creation of a new experience of reality. Semiotic creation becomes our experience; and this is the fundamental theme of Construing Experience through Meaning, in which Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) offer a textual and grammatical interpretation of ideational construction (see Section 1.9 – “Managing complexity amid semiotic evolution: Semogenesis”). We can establish an address system for ourselves in relation to all others who are willing to observe the conventions employed. Interpreting the tool power of maps as a series of “fictions” presented in different codes (of coordinates, scales, etc.), and even on different surfaces (flat, spherical) does create illusions and will mislead those who are not mindful of the cartographic options and the semiotic “cost” of the choices made. For instance, “orientation” once meant just that – placing China and Japan – the Orient – at “the top”. The little countries of European empires changed that. The Mercator’s projection exaggerates the size of all the landforms further north and further south (Greenland is five times smaller than Australia, not wildly bigger as in a Mercator projection; the Peters projection restores the relative continental size of Africa’s 54 countries while losing some accuracy about “shape”). This perhaps laboured interregnum on maps hopefully reminds us of the relativities of space and time, and the arbitrary ways in which we learn our cosmic address – there are natural indices that are given a conventional role, and there are ideological consequences to the arbitrariness we adopt (even how big a national state “looks”). But we can establish our “locus”; and we are not lulled into thinking that King’s Road in Chelsea must be just like King’s Street in Hammersmith, or King Street Newtown, in Sydney, just because they have shops, restaurants, and some elements of a stylish or raffish history, and are similar in length. Knowing one’s semiotic address may be more challenging in that the natural indices are not as fixed as the slow-moving star background, or not available at all. Space and time are involved as coefficients of enquiry in linguistics, but the relativity of purpose in the material events of cultures (as highlighted by the canoe race illustration used by Malinowski [1923]) is the confounding problem. There does seem to be a fluid basis for scaling meaning, for instance, how a situation is changed by the linguistic expression under examination. Linguists need to turn to the contextual “quantum of change”. This may seem to be a tricky, top-down, anthropological method, but given the current Byzantine cluster of semantic, then pragmatic, caveats “from below”, the fashion in linguistics has itself taken a resemblance to the artificial epicycles of the earth-centred, Ptolemaic models of the solar system! It is this cluster of linguistic formalisms (syntactic; semantic; pragmatic) that Matthiessen’s work transcends.

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  15 1.6 Typological and multilingual work Matthiessen cuts through the problems of relativity across languages and across meta-languages by offering a theory in which the responsibility for representation of meaning is negotiated by a metafunction to system and to rank matrix (see Table 1.1), a scheme in which all levels of language contribute in a trinocular enquiry – from above; from below; and from around. Figure 1.1 also makes use of “quanta of change” in terms of (a) the number of exchange options; (b) the quantum of events or processes represented; and (c) the quantum of textual/intonational units as information. The issue of typological co-ordinates is perhaps not as distant from the levels in physics as popularly conceived – physics projects its co-ordinate systems for the cosmos and selects another perspective for the study of populations of particles in quantum mechanics. Even the wave or particle conundrum bears some analogical relationship to the weighing up of clausal arguments that suggest accusative clause patterns (based on an A to B transitive mechanism) and the ergative absolutive perspective (which heightens the perspective of who/what was causal in the process, and whether that agent has an ergative case marking or not). Matthiessen (2004a: 605–607) sets out this accusative: ergative issue succinctly. It is reasonable to urge that more work needs to be done at the level of context in order to cut down the use of logico-pragmatic patchwork, but Matthiessen has addressed this need by his focus, particularly over the last two decades, by giving “industrial strength” accounts of registers – the meanings on call, or “at risk” – in cultural transactions of high significance. In Chapter 2 of this volume, Erich Steiner examines Matthiessen’s approach to register theory; and in Chapter 5, Neda Karimi investigates Matthiessen’s exploration of medical and health discourses. The attention that Matthiessen gives to register description (e.g. 2020, and back to 1993) can be mentioned here, but left to elaborations in the chapters cited. With the various dimensions of theory as a check on the consistency of semiotic comparisons, it becomes less likely that one will be beguiled by any illusion created by claims of similar translation – viz. “Aha! another King Street”. As Matthiessen takes up this issue, a description requires reference to the total value system that motivates a community, not just the “bits” of linguistic form that move about and/or change shape. The anthropological challenge raised by Malinowski has been variously neutralized or even dodged in universalist discourse around language comparisons. There is a short excerpt below on the approaches of other typological specialists, prodigious scholars certainly, but scholars who skirt the ineffability problem by deferring to a generalized set of semantic/pragmatic or “notional” bases for proceeding with standard generalizations. But the problem of semiotic address persists. And ideological consequences

Rank

phonology

tone group

morpheme

word

group/ phrase

info. unit

lexicogrammar clause

Stratum

complexes

simplexes

DERIVATION

–

prepositional phrase

DENOTATION

minor TRANSITIVITY

MODIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCE TYPE

EVENT TYPE, ASPECT

adverbial

TONE SEQUENCE; TONE CONCORD

TRANSITIVITY KEY

MOOD

Interpersonal

TONE

CONNOTATION

minor MOOD

POLARITY, MODALITY COMMENT TYPE

MODIFICATION THING TYPE, nominal MOOD, CLASSIFICATION, PERSON, EPITHESIS, ASSESSMENT QUALIFICATION

–

–

Experiential

TENSE

TAXIS & LOGICOSEMANTIC TYPE

Logical

verbal

nominal

Class

Table 1.1 Function-rank matrix (adapted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 87)

TONICITY

CONJUNCTION TYPE

CONTRAST, VOICE

DETERMINATION

INFORMATION

THEME

Textual

16  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  17

Figure 1.1  Metafunctional unification – variation within medium of expression and rank (adapted from Matthiessen, 2004a: 543)

can be illustrated, for instance, by the assumptions of Pro-drop / Subject deletion: a number of generative theorists used the insistent, but unusual, fixed pattern of subject in English as if it were a pattern to which other languages must be held to account. An absence of the English pattern was construed as a “deletion”, not as an alternative positive pattern (a more typical one, in fact). There is force in Wittgenstein’s warning about how we establish a translation – rather than an imposition – of our notions (e.g. the example of “chief” in Philosophical Investigations first published in 1953 [Wittgenstein, 1974]).

18  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin The use of a function and system matrix is the initial way of establishing a “co-ordinate system”. This is then refined by considering any comparison against the “architecture” of theory: stratification, rank, paradigmatic, and syntagmatic axes, as well as the explicitness of sampling and the analyst perspective (i.e. Is analysis directed to the global system of the language or to the particularities of the instance?). These dimensions, explained by Matthiessen and his colleagues in a range of publications (e.g. Matthiessen, 1995, 2015a, 2015b; Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen, 2004b; Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999) are a set of steps for comparative scaling of meaning options. They provoke methodical enquiry like: Are the exponents of the similarities at the same stratum? At the same rank? With what “valeur” in the number of oppositions (i.e. the contrasts in the paradigm)? These questions, along with the issue of sampling, create benchmarks for responding to the “ineffability” problem raised by Halliday – which is, in fact, a version of the Firthian notion of the positive “ad hoc” status of linguistic scaffolding (see Henderson, 1987: 67–68; Butt, 2001, 2015). The command of theory that such semiotic cartography requires might be thought of as the Matthiessonian project – the appliability of theory from typology to registerial profiles to AI and multilingual language generation (for the latter, see various publications with Bateman: Bateman et al., 1991, 1999). Matthiessen and his colleagues (Martin; Cafferel; Teruya; Wu; Steiner; Teich…) focus on the universality of the architecture of human languages and leave open the likelihood of dramatic variations across the actual meanings created by communities at different scales. As explained by Christian Matthiessen, there is the scale of what is referred to as a natural language, and then there is codal variation within the putative language (Matthiessen, 1995: 44–46). Again, crucial at both scales is the concept of “valeur”, Saussure’s warning that systems or choices operating in different environments are not the same, no matter how much the form or their translations suggest similarity (consider here Firth’s injunction to be attentive to the phonetic contextualization of “phonemes” as inherent, significant aspects of languages and that such contexts need to be related to their grammatical or lexical consequences [Henderson, 1987: 60]). This notion of locus in systems is illustrated in relation to mental processes in Tagalog, Japanese, and English in Figure 1.2. At the scales of codal variation and registerial differences (what Firth called “restricted languages”), there may not be manifest differences in the lexicogrammatical “forms” on call in the meaning potential. Rather, one might find that the ways the resources of the language are prioritized and deemed appropriate to contexts (e.g. of learning; of familial solidarity; and of ideological values) constitute a “codally” based semantic variation that works to “advertise” and/or limit forms of identity and participation in social

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  19

Figure 1.2   Comparison of ‘mental’ clauses in English, Tagalog and Japanese (adapted from Matthiessen, 2004a: 597)

20  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin processes. The probabilities of take-up and use of the options become necessary conditions to understanding the phylogenetic or evolutionary direction of meaning-making – Sapir’s (1921: 154) drift. The probabilistic system as conceptualized and graphed by Matthiessen can be seen below (in Section 1.7). Matthiessen represents the meaning potential from “topdown” textual systems and from registerial and codal variants building “up”. In relation to sampling, one might set out by grouping texts on various forms of extrinsic criteria – viz. the participants; the purport of interaction as nominalized by the culture (weddings; work interviews; school sport events…). But this grouping process can be optimized according to a principle, namely, the continuum of perspectives one can adopt as an analyst. At one pole, the perspective adopted is to focus on the particularizing features of the instance. More broadly, there is the analysis of texts with strong semantic affinities related to purpose – a mid-continuum perspective. At the other pole, there is analysis for the purpose of mapping the semiotic reach – the potential – that different persons in the range of situations can call up from the system. The continuum, or the “cline of instantiation”, assists by highlighting the generic and registerial “locus” of texts under investigation as well as by setting out the range of texts that supports the more global description. Typologists mention but rarely manage to present such textual environments as motivation for their claims of empirical support (see examples offered below). Semiotic cartography can begin when the depth of field and social locus provide “rough” social co-ordinates as to the provenance and the motivation behind the selection of the data. As Hasan (e.g. 2014, 2016) has shown, field, tenor, and mode networks can be introduced to establish more precise discriminations about this “cline”. When the texts are “located” in a preliminary way, the proposal of metafunctions makes the enterprise manageable on the basis of graphical tracking of the separate contributions of interpersonal, ideational, and textual meanings. The graphological representation can be regarded usefully at this point with Halliday’s metaphor of polyphony: interwoven relations between distinguishable contributions. Along with the generic structure of an unfolding text, there is guidance provided by the clustering of choices. Consider here the differences between a Christian church “wedding” and a Hindu “wedding” ceremony. Among the many factors in play is the structural sequence of the church process: a single, linear focus on the bride, attendants to the bride and groom, and the eligible Christian authority. There is, as the Greek word for climax suggests, a “ladder” of steps to be taken. By contrast, there are many centres of activity in many Hindu ceremonies. The Christian church structure is centrifugal, and the key event is signalled in a semantics of authority and legal pronouncements. The Hindu ceremony is centripetal, with many points of interest

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  21 and custom, including perhaps a diverting, playful hunt into a bucket of ghee, even if the couple are adults. So, the generic structure and the metafunctional orientations across a text must permit some approximate grouping of similarities as well as divergences in nominal situation types. Matthiessen’s (2004a) chapter “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations” presents a monograph-length depiction of results. In Chapter 4 of this present volume, Matthiessen sets out the method and results of his typological approach himself. But some further discussion here is needed to balance the discussion to this point. It is important to note that, in the introductory chapter of Caffarel, Martin, and Matthiessen (2004a), the editors stressed how “word order” and “case marking” had been reflective of perspectives “from below” (Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen, 2004b: 58). The metafunction-rank matrix offers a means of “knowing where one is” within a language and in a comparison with other languages. Matthiessen sets out the critical zones of typical function: setting out from the usual expectation of syntagmatic relations in clauses, he shows how the syntagm is utilized quite differently as a resource – the zones of concern for interpersonal, then textual, and experiential distinctions. By examining sequence in a wide set of languages, Christian Matthiessen shows how limited it is to appeal to SOV, SVO, and VOS characterizations when it is not clear how responsibility or semiotic work is deployed. Consequently, one finds the misleading notion of free vs fixed word order (Matthiessen, 2004a: 553) obscuring the fact that experiential meanings are not always the dominant principle for sequence: in particular, free has hidden the textual motivations so important in many languages; and some theorists have addressed this issue by another “add on”, namely “pragmatic word order” vs. “grammatical word order”. Yet this “post hoc” ploy hides the interpersonal/experiential contrast which also needs to be distinguished, as Matthiessen (2004a) demonstrates with lucid comparisons between Arabic, Tagalog, Japanese, English, German, Swedish, Danish, and French, along with observations on Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, and a number of languages in which finite and predicator are separated: Estonian and languages of some subgroups of Nilo-Saharan and NigerCongo languages. Mode of expression (e.g. prosody), and then rank scale, provide further ways of systemicizing and tabulating the resources by which crucial meanings are differentiated within a language and across languages. This resource-based perspective emphasizes consistencies in the architecture of natural languages, not the sameness of their productions. Still, Matthiessen goes on to explore the issues arising from what typologists have characterized as the major systems of world languages. He notes that one of “the findings of systemic typology is that languages tend to be more congruent in terms of systemic organization than in terms of structural organization”

22  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin (Matthiessen, 2004a: 656), and, as expected perhaps, more varied as greater delicacy of description is applied (see Figure 1.2). By contrast to the cartographic analogy worked through by Matthiessen, there seem to have been different strategies followed by experienced typologists to escape the lacunae of using a language to describe itself, or to describe similarities and differences with other languages in different language families. Aligned with the issue of reflection is the cognate problem: which “language”, or formal framework, or classical grammatical system, or suite of cognitive claims, affords the most reliable basis for comparisons and descriptions? We should remember that the terms of a metalanguage are themselves subject to the Saussurean complication of “valeur”. Consequently, the units of a language and the units of a language for describing language are interpreted relationally by what it is with which they contrast: they are not just correspondences to determined semantic territories. Comrie (1989) appears to accommodate the problems of linguistic descriptions and comparisons by an additive method that followed the “mainstream” approach in, and against, the era of Chomskyan dominance. This was the staged introduction of more than the sequences of morphological items. Gradually, in the 1970s, function terms, semantic and then pragmatic levels, and an array of logical terms (presuppositions; implicatures; maxims; quantifiers) were added like caveats to smooth over the semantic shortcomings of decontextualized syntax and morphology (see Levinson’s [1983: xii, 15] comments on pragmatics as a “remedial discipline”). Levinson goes on to claim the inevitability of a “hybrid or modular” account of meaning as he believes this hybrid would lend more coherence than any global approach to meaning; and that such a view reflected the direction of most practitioners of the era. Levinson’s position – adding on a (re)newed pragmatics – was also urged by some systemicists, generally by those that also claim a strong, unequivocal boundary between semantics and grammar (e.g. see Butler, 1988). As noted by Levinson (1983), this additive strategy was in step with the decade-by-decade shifts in linguistics since 1968 with the (re)turn to case grammars (see the regard given to the Hallidayan and case-based grammar of Filmore by the computationist Winograd (1983: Chapter 6, including the quote “the systemic mode of analysis has deep cognitive significance” on page 278); and the extraordinary animosity in rhetorical, rather than technical, disputes between Chomsky and those proposing generativist alternatives. In particular, consider the experience of proponents of a semantic deep structure. Seuren offers a detailed account and comparison of theoretical and academic-political issues; and he arrives at the conclusion that the debate was decided by rhetorical intensity and institutional power, not by the comparison of alternative grammars (Seuren, 1998: Chapter 7; 459–527

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  23 and the epilogue on page 527; see a lucid, succinct survey of historical developments concerning “syntax” in Van Valin & LaPolla, 1997: 1–16). In his “Theoretical Prerequisites”, Comrie (1989: Chapter 3) illustrates his approach to cross-linguistic generalizations by showing why he believes that Indirect Object has little claim to being widely or universally recognized as a “distinct grammatical relation” (Comrie, 1989: 66). We suggest that more attention by Comrie to a matrix in which emphasis was given to metafunction and process types, including the transitivity of verbal/speech processes, would multiply the positive instances of indirect object and diminish the force of his counter example from English: Comrie states that “to” cannot be transferred from “I attribute our failure to his malevolence”. That is, one cannot switch to “I attribute his malevolence to our failure”. This atomistic counter argumentation can ensue through a predominantly sentence-based exemplification in typology. It is easy to be misled. For example, in arguments on languages with agreement patterns of primary and secondary objects, Croft (1990: 103) notes that English seems to observe both a direct/indirect pattern as well as the primary/secondary object pattern. More central, perhaps, are Comrie’s (1989: 67–70) arguments for subject and direct object. The argument is ultimately based on the similarity or overlap “across the translation equivalents in other languages”. This seems reasonable but leaves the whole enterprise susceptible to a reliance on elicitations and a competition between sentences and counter sentences. In Palmer’s Grammatical Roles and Relations, there is an attempt to arrive at a simple “framework” which accommodates terminological differences between practitioners by distinguishing between notional roles and the more specific grammatical relations that apply to a particular language (Palmer, 1994: 5–20 and 25–29). This suggestion and its tidying up of uses of roles between accusative and ergative languages seems motivated by the goal of practical consistency, perhaps within a Firthian background of the importance of “meaning in context” (see Palmer [1968: 7] on Firth’s use of Saussure’s “valeur” with respect to abstract relations rather than segmented units). To his charge that Halliday’s approach is monosystemic and that it uses the un-Firthian concept of the “phoneme”, it needs to be said that, by “phoneme”, Halliday is referring to the description of the smallest bundle of relations that it appears rational to discuss for that specific language (not the phoneme of the IPA, see Halliday [1992] on “Peking syllable finals”). The charge against Halliday’s use of Firthian principles really does need to be “laid to rest”: we argue below that Matthiessen’s uses of Halliday’s framework (illustrated in Matthiessen’s Figure 1.1 above) offer a far more effective means of explicating the particularities of linguistic variation than the schema presented by Palmer (1994) in Roles and Relations, and the separate arrangements arrived at

24  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin in Palmer’s (2001) Mood and Modality. We suggest that Palmer’s undeniable experience does not produce the positive “ad hoc” approach recommended by Firth. Palmer’s theory seems to be a way of sidestepping a stratal difference between semantics and grammar by substituting a move in “depth of field” (i.e. as in a camera lens): notional roles are there to provide a crosslinguistic perspective in order to allow a benchmark from which eventrelated similarities and differences might emerge; relations, on the other hand, are the same comparison with attention to added detail, thereby offering differentia. Without “notional” discrimination of subject, theme, and actor (and without utilizing process types as a consistent rather than an incidental specification), Palmer’s framework appears more like one of instantiation rather than one of semantic agency variously expressed by grammatical relations. In a related method, in his study of Mood and Modality, Palmer (2001) says he uses notional roles as a way of referring to evidence which does not force him to enter into arguments about what is semantic and what is pragmatic (p. 18–23). In a discussion of grammar and morphology in a pre-print (extended abstract) to the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (Halle, 1962), Palmer describes his own approach as “linguistic” by contrast with Halliday’s use, which he refers to as “metalinguistic”, and therefore, by implication, non-Firthian (1962: 237). This charge is difficult to accept when Halliday’s “framework”, from context to the polysystemic character of systems within different generalized functions and at various levels and ranks, maximizes the linguist’s opportunities for capturing differences, for establishing similarities of “valeur”, and for displaying the variant interdependencies of roles of grammatical significance across languages (a concern stressed by Palmer in relation to mood and modality). By contrast to the Hallidayan networks elaborated by Matthiessen, the alternative “frameworks” proposed by Palmer, with their caveats and double use of terms (Palmer, 2001: 1–23), do appear to be “metalinguistic” or universalistic, but without a benefit of any gestalt, or clarity in the shifts of what might be called the semiotic address of a system (i.e. from pragmatics down to the grammar and exponents in phonetics). A feature of Matthiessen’s work has been exactly how skillfully he has been able to bring both explanatory and figurative/diagrammatic clarity to typological questions through systems and networks (demonstrating polysystemic “valeurs”; as in Figure 1.2). Matthiessen demonstrates how Halliday’s framework expedites Firth’s “statements of meaning”, which are particular to languages, at the same time giving some evidence about the more general architecture of semiotic processes (viz. the title of Halliday, 1978). Even with the impressive range of examples from the decades of Palmer’s scholarship, the result of the roles to relations approach leads to a form of

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  25 “business as usual”, with the categories “from below” that are general to European classical studies, although made more consistent between accusative and ergative language descriptions. The span of typological work is prodigious, and Matthiessen finds connections and significance across various researchers and theoretical approaches. There are others who emphasize discourse and function as a basis for their work (Hopper & Thompson, 1982; and, as mentioned above, Givón, 1984). Furthermore, as with the other typologists already cited, Croft (1990) presents an enormous weight of scholarship and regimentation of detail. He addresses questions that include the forces that shape the history of an ecological niche or even a single species, a drift of a culture, or an historical movement. We are used to such theory carried on through debate about causation (e.g. in the works of Jared Diamond [2005] on the “Collapse” of specific communities over distant times). The test of this scale of theory is in setting out the consequential interactions – the conditions or contexts in which weight of detailed evidence prevails. The issue that characterizes knowledge in relation to meaning systems, however, is whether the process can be set out at all, and in forensic detail. Matthiessen’s idiomatic expression “at industrial strength” suggests that the demand he makes of theory includes how the theory will “work” in diverse activities: artificial intelligence; computational linguistics; profiling the semantic variation across registers; translation. Christian Matthiessen has met this challenge in modelling and detail despite the fact that epistemological debate, in its tendency to focus on representational meaning (i.e. claiming correspondence to physical realia), has been strongly preferred by philosophers with the neglect of entry into meaning through humanities: rhetoric; grammar; linguistics; literature; ethics; theology; law; and latterly after WWII, management. These all involve human values: how humans have coded the material manifestations of lived experience according to preferences, and on to priorities in their responses as human actions. Grammar, rhetoric, and logic were called the trivium, with the epithets “trivial” and “rhetorical” now carrying predominantly negative overtone: i.e. referring to a distinction of no consequence. One can see in Christian Matthiessen’s work an attempt to turn institutions away from the trivialization of meaning, and towards the recognition that we are, at all times, constructing our cultures through realizational systems: multiple recodings of matter and meanings through our legacy of “rhetorical structures” (viz. RST). 1.7 Realizational systems: Probabilistic, adaptive systems Matthiessen emphasizes that value-driven connections in human communication are better described as realizational systems as distinct from causal systems. This distinction and its emphasis, we can, like most aspects

26  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin of SFL, credit to the insights of M.A.K. Halliday, and to the conversations with the physicist semiotician Jay Lemke. But the issue is then: How does one make use of this insight? How can we put it to work? And how does it suggest the need we might face for reconstruing the role of language in personal and social evolutions (ontogenetic and phylogenetic change)? Even more challenging may be how we relate our semiologically constructed experience to the material cosmos and its causal transactions. It should be noted that, since Boltzman (c. 1895; see Boltzman, 1974), even the physical systems of contemporary sciences have become, at their foundations, probabilistic, at least in the ways in which humans interact with them and with their predicted outcomes. There is a widening distance, then, between our experience of the natural world, on the one hand, and our deeper understanding, on the other. We all now rely, to differing degrees, on interpretations drawn from expert reports, whether using a smartphone, accepting a vaccine, or flying in a plane. With the novel and varied semiological encodings of reality, the role of natural language – as an “alloy” of the material and the mental – has an even more important role than in eras when it was assumed that language had a reliable correspondence to facts, that it was simply a “mirror to nature” (Rorty, 1979). Matthiessen’s approach to probabilities and more general quantitative aspects of languages, and language use (i.e. in registers), are also clear evidence of how high he takes theory, and how varied are the sources from which he draws insights. His chapter on language as a probabilistic system (Matthiessen, 2015b) sets off from a keen historical account of the fate of quantitative enquiry after a surge of interest in the work of Claude Shannon. Sampling and corpora were well enough established in empirical linguistics in the 1950s, that is, before Chomsky denigrated probabilistic and corpus-based enquiry (see the quotations in Matthiessen, 2015b: 204–208, especially the lampooning comment by Chomsky that “I live in New York” was more frequent than “I live in Dayton Ohio”). Shannon’s theory was based on alternatives – a selection from those available options – and was therefore in concord with Halliday’s (1956) work on Chinese (see quotation in Matthiessen, 2015b: 204), and with the later work which focused on “meaning potential” (Halliday, 1973: 49–51). Through intricate diagrams (networks and “maps”) and detailed explanations, Matthiessen (2015b) illustrates the ways in which frequency and probabilities are crucial to linguists. Schematically simplified and listed, these ways include: • Halliday’s early criteria of sampling (to ensure less frequent terms were captured) and counts of system choices (e.g. choices of process types); • probabilities of repeated choices; simultaneous choices (intrastratal); and those choices conditioned by code and register (differences from

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  27 “above”, including from social class, for instance, between past tense and present tense in interview data) (Matthiessen, 2015b: 225–226); • differences between skewed and equi systems – e.g. polarity is skewed to positive, while past vs. present is around equal, and this means that a choice in the equi system carries more information in the sense of Shannon and Weaver (1949) (i.e. it predicts in a 50% chance whereas positive polarity can be assumed c. 90% of the choices a speaker of English makes – i.e. positive polarity tells us less than a past tense); and • the trade-off between lexical items per clause and grammatical items (with the latter increasing as the number of items increases overall). 1.8 Teaching theory The vectors of Matthiessen’s work, and the maps, contribute to an environment of theory which has rewarded colleagues and students for over four decades. Many of us have been better prepared for this academic era of “complexity theory” because of the systemic modelling that Matthiessen has set out, and the formal details he has been able to bring in support of the function-system matrix of linguistics. As expressed by Professor José Luiz Meurer, a year-long visitor to our activities and classes at Macquarie: “If I had come all the way from Brazil for that presentation alone, it would have been worth it!” It was a presentation by Christian Matthiessen on the hierarchy of systems from physical/material to semiotic. The ferment of staff, postgraduate students, visitors, and grammatically prepared undergraduates led to years of research in diverse contexts – for instance, 11 worked on a Eureka prize-winning project to filter out the scam emails of that era (with Jon Patrick at the University of Sydney and Christian Matthiessen from Macquarie); and a similar number provided the text linguistic foundations to an artificial intelligence company, Appen (now merged with American companies as Appen Butler Hill), which began in 1993 by the Macquarie trained phonetician Dr. Julie von Willa, and which now has over 350 employees and is a company valued c. $300 million. In the early 2000s, at the Centre for Language in Social Life, in which Christian Matthiessen and I (i.e. David Butt) were directors, we had c. 150 professionals working with us on problems for which we were petitioned, and in some cases, funded. It was in this vortex of activity that Christian Matthiessen’s theoretical range was so much in evidence: suggesting the possibilities and any likely limitations as to what could be done across fields of knowledge – computation; translation; surgical care; risk analysis; corpora; network tools; language descriptions… Added to the required “appointments” each week for such research projects in the Centre, there was also the completion

28  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin between us of over 40 doctoral theses (see also Matthiessen, Wang & Ma, 2020, 2021 for Matthiessen’s own reflections on teaching SFL). 1.9 Managing complexity amid semiotic evolution: Semogenesis It is in the conjunction of epistemological ambiguities and practical consequences of using language, and in the competitive complexities of many disciplines of learning, that Christian Matthiessen is such a dominant theoretician. Working in this zone, one needs to command a form of “insider” experience across a range of challenging fields – for instance, from natural language processing to artificial intelligence and the current tools for dealing with expanding data. An “appliable linguistics”, the stated goal of Halliday and Matthiessen (along with others in SFL), is not only a problem of mapping predetermined territory. Christian Matthiessen has taken the systemic to another level, transforming an orientation to open, probabilistic system into a detailed model that addresses the semiological frontiers in a number of specialist enquiries. Appliability at this higher semiotic level demands “critical abstraction” – the ability to recognize isomorphic and analogical “fit” even when the problems under description appear poles apart. Certainly, the career-long insights of M.A.K. Halliday provided, and continue to be, a pioneering guide as to how functionalism can be logically connected to different dimensions of semiotic behaviour, and then how Halliday’s networks can represent the exponents of paradigms of “what one can do/what one can mean” (Halliday’s 2009 talk at Tsinghua University on “choice”). Colwyn Trevarthen, one of the world’s leading neuropsychologists over the last 50 years, began his address at Sydney’s Westmead Hospital with a portrait of Halliday, and with an account of value in different ways in which functionalisms are developed. His discussions with me, a co-speaker, included: “I have to tell you how much I learned about functionalism from Michael” (see Trevarthen, 1979). Both Halliday and Matthiessen turned more to Hjelmslev’s work than to Saussure’s “Cours” for direction. This was in part due to Saussure’s insistence on a synchronic fiction – namely, how to capture the specific “valeurs” within the realities of language change. While across decades, a lineage of gifted linguists argued against the static implications of descriptions (Mathesius; Volosinov; Sapir; Halliday; Hasan), demonstrating the evolutionary process (that linguists championed a century before Darwin (see Joseph & Janda, 2003: 1–183 and Campbell, 2021). We claim that Matthiessen has represented the variationist position in practical detail. Furthermore, the Hjelmslevian multi-stratal theory made it more straightforward to represent Saussure’s line of arbitrariness below the lexicogrammar, with both lexicogrammar and semantics being “content” levels in a solidary relationship – namely, a change at one level involved some change

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  29 at the other (contrary to the trivializing speech act fiction that there were different ways of saying the “same thing”). While a number of leading linguists present findings and techniques that move linguistics forward, Matthiessen details aspects of the macro and micro vision of what is demanded of a probabilistic model of languages. He has demonstrated how to reconcile the metastability of myriad events in a community with the variation we note at the dynamic core of linguistic evolution or adaptation. This is a theoretical achievement in parallel with the variationist problems that have challenged the work of biologists and geneticists (e.g. Lewontin, 1995; Shapiro, 2011): namely, how does one reconcile the manifest forms of “species” (viz. of registers) with the intricate machinery on display in collective and instantial data? Both Jakobson (e.g. 1973, the “syntax of the DNA chain” referred to earlier; and “neutralization” – see pages 49–51) and Halliday (e.g. 2005, on the relation between matter and meaning) draw our attention to an isomorphism between forms of information and codings of value across natural systems. We predict that Matthiessen’s navigation of theory is soon to take the construal of experience to levels adumbrated by Jakobson and Halliday – two figures in 20th-century linguistics who were masters of both linguistic detail and of transdisciplinary analogy. From semiotics to artificial intelligence, Matthiessen brings insight and returns new tool power in appliable linguistic models. This role involves data at a plausible scale, and diagrams that resolve complex issues into cartographic clarity. This kind of academic “wingspan” is, for each decade, re-novated by his transdisciplinary developments and his craft of presentation. One can witness this directly in his “The Evolution of Language: A Systemic Functional Exploration of Phylogenetic Phases” (Matthiessen 2004b).2In what was originally a monograph-length “flight” over this transdisciplinary topic, Matthiessen calibrated the phases of ontogenetic development from Halliday’s work against evidence from neurological evolution of primate histories, from typological inferences, and from the material evidence that grounds human cultures in the hyper-deixis of locations and eras. The version published, after editing by Lukin, ensured the argument could be part of an edited volume and brings the systemic complexity of evolution into an exemplary discourse: it brings out the co-dependency of changes across material, biological, social, and semiotic conditions. This is in contrast to the “mutation” theory in the then-current Chomskyan version of human distinctiveness. Looking over his work on page and screen (when colour and dynamism are straightforward), we can see the presentation of linguistics is fully the equal of other sciences, sciences that receive funding at a scale linguists might never expect (we suggest readers make this observation for themselves by inspecting Christian Matthiessen’s work

30  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin on registers of health and any apex publication like the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS). Working with Matthiessen, we used to regard his totalizing tables and expository energy as “linguistics for grown-ups”. Our work together on “Grammar: The First Covert Operation of War” is a further case in point: this article – that presaged what was to come in the Russian invasion of Ukraine just as it described so much of the ideology behind the US-led invasion of Iraq (see Lukin, 2019) – sets out how expeditionary wars are “sold” to citizens who are at a distance from the violence of aerial bombing and artillery. As we taught in turn our various classes at Macquarie University, the authors could return each to their office to find that the article had “progressed” in scope and detail (again the published version being less than half the original analysis). Ultimately, the publication in 2004 (Butt, Lukin & Matthiessen, 2004) was included in volume two of the four-volume collection on linguistics and politics (edited by J.E. Joseph in 2010). More works on systemic hierarchies, neurosemiotics, typology, and register analysis are on the Matthiessonian workbench. The methods and modelling around these themes contribute to a semiotic core that is emerging across many studies. This core is evident, for instance, analogically when we see discussions of (the oddly named) “degeneracy”: the potential of systems to provide various means to achieve similar goals: Edelman and Gally (2001) list 22 examples of this essential evolutionary phenomenon including languages; Lisa Feldman Barrett (2017) cites it as the “one to many” and the “many to one” functioning of neurons. It is, of course, the reason why functional linguists observe stratification and meta-redundancy (i.e. that all levels are co-dependent and not autonomous). It is central to the architecture of theory laid out by Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) in Construing Experience through Meaning. They offer a gestalt of our world of realizational systems, namely, how our “experience” – we can think of it from primordial, eukaryotic behaviour to human cultural interactions – is now realized by value, and it can be mapped by “choice”. Support for this semiotic nub to human faculties can be read from the motifs of Damasio’s (2010) book: Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Damasio emphasizes that “the human brain is a born cartographer” (p. 64). Damasio writes of “biological value” (p. 49 ff.) and the “biological idiom” and “leitmotifs” that extend to “cultural instruments”, along with “trade union” like the behaviour of a simple worm: the nematode “C elegans” (p. 57). By construing experience through Token to Value constructions, Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) found a way to integrate how feeling, thought, and material phenomena create a form of what we see as an “existential fabric”. This is a profound step: it shows that, ultimately, there is “nothing more practical than theory”.

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  31 1.10 Conclusion: Linguistics for grown-ups Consequently, we look forward to the next phase of Matthiessen’s systemic integration as linguists, neuroscientists, and sociologists bring feelings and meaning into a practical science of human experience, that is, how humans work with different notions of valence to manage, if never totally resolve, the perplexities we endure as societies and human institutions take on scales that few could have imagined within a lifetime. We can try to infer how such existential complexity can be managed by seeking further evidence from Matthiessen’s remarkable explications of the meaningful choices that humans have available – their dynamic, cultural resources. The vectors in Matthiessen’s publications and teaching suggest there may be an incipient integration. Consider here: 1. the emphasis on register studies complements the strong efforts on systemic representations that dominated his earlier focus on AI and typology – so instantiation both tests and refines the claims about the system; 2. the explorations of grammar in relation to projections and emotion broaden the experiential range of the seminal work of Halliday and Matthiessen (1999): Construing Experience; 3. the evolutionary perspective (e.g. of Matthiessen, 2004b) becomes more detailed in its focus on the semiotic brain and co-evolution with changing selectional pressures from contexts of culture (e.g. as suggested in the work of James Flynn, 2007, and by Damasio’s [2010: 49ff] emphasis on biological value, derived from cultural tools that construct the conscious self); 4. the continuing innovations of corpora, with electronic and statistical methods – for example, the suite of tools gathered together as packages under the heading R, in particular, the multinomial approaches to grammar and lexicology (see Matthiessen, 2015b and Levshina, 2015: Chapters 12 and 13). We can expect functional linguistics to create more powerful statements of meaning through more sophisticated techniques of quantification and measurement. This should assist in moving linguists further away from platonic idealisms and untestable claims concerning universals and innate structures, perspectives that tend to cut our connection to an evolutionary past (Leakey, 1994). Christian Matthiessen’s career shares another feature with the vectors of linguistic effort explicit in the words and work of M.A.K. Halliday – he is “a grammarian and a generalist”. But the notion of a “generalist” had a specific force: essentially, with any important question that can be

32  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin asked about language and human speakers, the linguist should do his or her utmost to address the issue in a useful, evidence-based response. That is, by not waving the question off as unscientific or uninteresting, nor by turning language into a logic or mathematics that natural language is not. By holding to improved “statements of meaning”, we arrive at the current stage of “appliable linguistics”. Notes 1 The relevant chapters to this story are Matthiessen 2015a and 2015b. 2 Christian Matthiessen presented the paper “Language Evolving: Notes towards a Semiotic History of Humanity” at the 37th ISFC. The presentation is available at the following link: http://www​ .youtube​ .com​ /watch​ ?v​ =U15qHWJcfT4.

References Anderson, Stephen R. & David W. Lightfoot. 2002. The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barrett, Lisa Feldman. 2017. How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Boston, MA & New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Barrow, John D. 2008. Cosmic imagery: Key images in the history of science. London: Bodley Head. Bateman, John A., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Keizo Nanri & Licheng Zeng. 1991. “Multilingual text generation: An architecture based on functional typology.” In the Proceedings of the Computational Linguistics Conference, Penang, Malaysia, June 91. Bateman, John A., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Licheng Zeng. 1999. “Multilingual language generation for multilingual software: A functional linguistic approach.” Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal 13(6): 607–639. Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Glasgow: Fontana/ Collins. Berry, Margaret. 1975. An introduction to systemic linguistics 1: Structures and systems. London: Batsford. Berry, Margaret. 1977. An introduction to systemic linguistics 2: Levels and links. London: Batsford. Bollinger, Dwight. 1979. Meaning and form. London: Longman. Boltzmann, Ludwig. 1974. Theoretical physics and philosophical problems: Selected writings. Edited by Brian McGuinness. Dordrecht & Boston, MA: Reidel. Börner, Katy. 2015. Atlas of knowledge: Anyone can map. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Butler, Christopher S. 1985. Systemic linguistics: Theory and applications. London: Batsford. Butler, Christopher S. 1988. “Systemic linguistics, semantics and pragmatics.” In Erich H. Steiner & Robert Veltman (eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some systemically-inspired approaches. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 13–27.

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  33 Butt, David G. 2001. “Firth, Halliday and the development of systemic functional theory.” In Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds.), History of the language sciences: An international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from the beginnings to the present (volume 2). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1806–1838. Butt, David G. 2015. “The ‘history of ideas’ and Halliday’s natural science of meaning.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 17–61. Butt, David, Annabelle Lukin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. “Grammar – the first covert operation of war.” Discourse and Society 15(2–3) (Special 9/11 volume, edited by John Edwards, B. Hawkins & J.R. Martin): 267–290. Butt, David, Rhondda Fahey, Susan Feez, Sue Spinks & Collin Yallop. 1994. Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004a. Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004b. “Introduction: Systemic functional typology.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–76. Campbell, Lyle. 2021. Historical linguistics: An introduction. 4th edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Carter, Rita. 2000. Mapping the mind. London: Phoenix. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Problems of knowledge and freedom. London: Fontana/ Collins. Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Books. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Language and thought. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Damasio, Antonio. 2010. Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon. Damasio, Antonio. 2021. Feeling & knowing: Making minds conscious. New York: Pantheon. Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking. Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Dupuy, Jean-Pierre. 1994. On the origins of cognitive science: The mechanization of the mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Edelman, Gerald M. & Giulio Tonoli. 2000. A universe of consciousness: How matter becomes imagination. New York: Basic Books. Edelman, Gerald M. & Joseph A. Gally. 2001. “Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems.” PNAS 98(24): 13763–13768.

34  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2nd edition. London & New York: Continuum. Ellegård, Alvar. 1971. Transformationell svensk-engelsk satslära. Lund: Gleerupe. Fawcett, Robin P. 2000. A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fawcett, Robin P. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Equinox. Firth, J.R. 1968. “Descriptive linguistics and the study of English.” In F.R. Palmer (ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959. London & Harlow: Longmans. 96–113. Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Flynn, James R. 2007. What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (volume I). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halle, Morris (ed.). 1962. Preprints of the papers for the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. Unpublished manuscript. Halliday, M.A.K. 1956. “Grammatical categories in modern Chinese.” Transactions of the Philosophical Society 1956: 177–224. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in Chinese language. Volume 8 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 209–248. Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. “Categories of the theory of grammar.” WORD 17: 241–292. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 37–94. Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1976. Halliday: System and function in language. Edited by Gunther Kress. Oxford University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1984. “On the ineffability of grammatical categories.” In Alan Manning, Pierre Martin & Kin McCalla (eds.), The Tenth LACUS Forum 1983. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. 3–18. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 291–322. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992. “A systemic interpretation of Peking syllable finals.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London & New York: Pinter. 98–121. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in Chinese language. Volume 8 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 294–320.

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  35 Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 2005. “On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(1): 59–82. Halliday, M.A.K. 2014. “That ‘certain cut’: Towards a characterology of Mandarin Chinese.” Functional Linguistics 1(2): 1–20. Halliday, M.A.K. & J.R. Martin (eds.). 1981. Readings in systemic linguistics. London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Cassell. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Halliday, M.A.K., Sydney M. Lamb & John Regan. 1988. In retrospect: Using language and knowing how. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2014. “Towards a paradigmatic description of context: Systems, metafunctions, and semantics.” Functional Linguistics 1(9): 1–54. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2016. Context in the system and process of language. Volume 4 in the Collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Equinox. Henderson, Eugenie J.A. 1987. “J.R. Firth in retrospect: A view from the eighties.” In Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (volume 1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 57–68. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1982. Syntax and semantics: Studies in transitivity. New York: Academic Press. Jakobson, Roman. 1973. Main trends in the science of language. London: George Allen & Unwin. Joseph, John E. (ed.). 2010. Language and politics vols I–IV. London: Taylor and Francis. Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Katz, Jerrold J. & Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. “The structure of a semantic theory.” Language 39(2): 170–210. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press. Lamb, Sydney M. 1992. Outlines of a cognitive theory of language. Mimeo. LaPolla, Randy J. (ed.). 2018. Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Laver, John. 1980. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leakey, Richard. 1994. The origins of humankind. London: Phoenix. Lemke, Jay. 1995. Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

36  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin Lewontin, Richard C. 1995. Human diversity. New York & San Francisco, CA: Scientific American Library. Lukin, Annabelle. 2019. War and its ideologies: A social-semiotic theory and description. Singapore: Springer. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. “The problem of meaning in primitive languages (supplement 1).” In C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards (eds.), The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. 296–336. Malmberg, Bertil. 1959. “Bemerkungen zum schwedischen Wortakzent.” STUF – Language typology and universals 12(1–4): 193–207. Martin, J.R. 1992. English text: Systems and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mathesius, Vilém. 1928. “On linguistic characterology with illustrations from modern English.” In Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à La Haye, du 10-15 Avril, 1928. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff. 56–63. Reprinted in Vilém Mathesius. 1964. A Prague School reader in linguistics. Edited by Josef Vachek. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1–32. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. “Register in the round, or diversity in a unified theory of register.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter. 221–292. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publisher. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004a. “Descriptive motifs and generalizations.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 537–674. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004b. “The evolution of language: A systemic functional exploration of phylogenetic phases.” In Geoff Williams & Annabelle Lukin (eds.), The development of language: Functional perspectives on species and individuals. London & New York: Continuum. 45–90. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2005. “Remembering Bill Mann.” Computational Linguistics 31(2): 161–171. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “Halliday on language.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 137–202. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 222–287. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Halliday’s conception of language as a probabilistic system.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 203–241. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015c. “Modelling context and register: The longterm project of registerial cartography.” Letras, Santa Maria 25(50): 15–90. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015d. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2019. “Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Register Studies 1(1): 10–41.

Theory and Matthiessonian cartography  37 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2020. “Trinocular views on register: Approaching register trinocularly.” Language, Context and Text 2(1): 3–21. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Bilingual edition, with introduction by Huang Guowen. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma. 2020. “Some reflections on teaching Systemic Functional Linguistics (part I): An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” 教育语言学研究 2020年 [Educational Linguistics Studies 2020]: 1–23. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma. 2021. “Some reflections on teaching Systemic Functional Linguistics (part II): An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” 教育语言学研究 2021年 [Educational Linguistics Studies 2021]: 1–11. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru. 2022. Systemic functional insights on language and linguistics. Singapore: Springer. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Isaac N. Mwinlaaru & Yuanyi Ma. 2018. “The ‘axial rethink’ – Making sense of language: An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” Functional Linguistics 5(8): 1–19. McEnery, Tony & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory, practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, Donna R. 2021. Verbal art and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Sheffield: Equinox. Newman, Eric A., Alfonso Araque & Janet M. Dubinsky (eds.). 2017. The beautiful brain: The drawings of Santigo Ramón y Cajal. New York: Abrams. Palmer, F.R. 1962. “Grammatical categories and their phonetic exponents.” In Horace G. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings from the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 338–344. Palmer, F.R. 1968. “Introduction.” In F.R. Palmer (ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959. London & Harlow: Longmans. 1–11. Palmer, F.R. (ed.). 1970. Prosodic analysis. London: Oxford University Press. Palmer, F.R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Posner, Michael I. & Marcus E. Raichle. 1994. Images of mind. New York: Scientific American Library. Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenblueth, Arturo, Norbert Wiener & Julian Bigelow. 1943. “Behavior, purpose and teleology.” Philosophy of Science 10(1): 18–24. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace. Seuren, Pieter A.M. 1998. Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

38  David G. Butt and Annabelle Lukin Shapiro, James A. 2011. Evolution: A view from the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science. Solms, Mark. 2021. The hidden spring: A journey to the source of consciousness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Steiner, Erich. 2005. “Halliday and translation theory – enhancing the options, broading the range, and keeping the ground.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language (volume 1). London: Equinox. 481–500. Trevarthen, Colwyn. 1979. “Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity.” In Margaret Bullowa (ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 321–348. Turnbull, David. 1989. Maps are territories: Science is an atlas. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wang, Bo & Yuanyi Ma. forthcoming. “Christian Matthiessen and translation viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma (eds.), Theorizing and developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Wiener, Norbert. 1950. The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press. Winograd, Terry. 1983. Language as a cognitive process: Syntax. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1974. Philosophical investigations (Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

2

Christian Matthiessen and register Erich Steiner

2.1 Introduction The development of the notion of “register” will initially be traced historically and with a focus on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It will then be explored systematically, that is to say by locating its place within the evolving architecture of SFL. This will involve debating two variants of this architecture: one of these is associated with Christian Matthiessen, M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, where context is treated without internal stratification, and the other with Jim Martin, David Rose and Peter White, who argue for a modelling of context with two internal strata of “register” and “genre”. Yet beyond SFL as well, “register” must be related to some relevant developments, because it has become a frequently used concept in studies on variation in language and text. This discussion of the concept of “register” will be followed by an outline of the specific contributions made by Christian Matthiessen to a model involving a stratum of context without internal stratification. As we shall see, his very elaborate model offers an intricate environment for studies within SFL but also serves as a point of contact to developments in other frameworks. Finally, an attempt will be made to explore the potential of the notion of “register” as a decisive conceptual interface between language, context and text. As part of this, we shall explore a range of empirical claims between different versions of SFL and the specific empirical claims made by SFL differently from other approaches in the area of register studies. 2.2 Register – situating the concept As a starting point, an attempt will be made to situate the concept of register by sketching its origin, clarifying its place in the overall architecture of SFL, and briefly indicating some relevant usages in other approaches to language. It will be seen that register is a focal point in studies of variation generally, but that its more intricate conceptual structure and its embedding in a wider theory of language need to be recognized if we want to go DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-3

40  Erich Steiner beyond simply using it as a simple non-technical term meaning “text type” or “variety” – the latter usage would not be completely wrong but underdeveloped for advanced linguistic investigations.

2.2.1 Register – origins in Firthian linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics

The term “register” can be traced to the works of Malinowski, Firth and other proponents of functional and Firthian linguistics, variously referred to as “London School of Linguistics” or “British Contextualism” throughout the earlier parts of the 20th century (for early accounts cf. Robins, 1967: 198–240; Steiner, 1983: 25–76). Malinowski’s early notions of “context of situation” (Malinowski, 1923: 307; 1935: 52) and “context of culture” (Firth, 1957: 108), and of the functions of language in these contexts, were developed for anthropological analyses and were thus, in a linguistic perspective, somewhat underspecified. Firth’s (1950: 182) more linguistically oriented but still programmatic framework was built on Malinowski’s earlier insights and included the following categories: A. The relevant features of participants: persons, personalities (i) The verbal action of the participants (ii) The non-verbal action of the participants B. The relevant objects C. The effect of the verbal action Firth’s programmatic stipulation was that “contexts of situation and types of language function can then be grouped and classified” (Firth, 1950: 1982). This is a foreshadowing of the assumed co-classification of contextual configurations in terms of field, tenor and mode and “registers” as semantic choices as we find it in the later work of Halliday, Hasan and Matthiessen (e.g. Halliday et al., 1964: 18, 87ff; Halliday, 1975: 131, Hasan, 1977: 229ff; Matthiessen, 2015a, 2015b). Firth’s notion of context of situation was still programmatic rather than elaborated in detail, a task that was taken up again in later work by Halliday, who used the term “register” for the semantic choices in a given “contextual configuration”, the semiotically relevant components of the “material situational setting”.1 The notions of context and register developed into the analytic interface between situations, linguistic meaning and form, as we see it in a great variety of SFL studies later on. The SFL-internal variant for an interface between context and language working with a stratified model of context will be briefly characterized in the following section.

Matthiessen and register  41 2.2.2 Register – its place in SFL architecture

As Matthiessen’s contributions to the non-stratified context variant, which treats “register” as semantic realization (see Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4), will be highlighted later on, let us briefly characterize the stratified variant proposed by Jim Martin (1992, 2019, pursued later on as “Sydney Architecture” of SFL, or as a “genre-based approach”, cf. Tann, 2017). In Martin’s architecture of SFL, the interface between language and context is modelled as a hierarchy of abstractions seen inside-out as phonology, lexicogrammar, discourse semantics, register, and finally, genre. It is in terms of the latter that linguistic activities are interfaced with non-linguistic components of situations. The level of context is thus stratified into “register” and “genre”2. In the outside-in direction, register is realized by discourse semantics, the latter being a re-interpretation of “cohesion” in the Halliday and Hasan (1976) sense. In this view, register itself is systematized in terms of “field, tenor and mode”, which in turn are realizations of “genre”. The latter models linguistic activities, presumably as a special case of activities in contexts. The scale or hierarchy of abstraction, as we have briefly summarized here, has to be seen in the neighbourhood of and in interaction with scales of individuation and instantiation, which we cannot go into here (but cf. Steiner [2021] for discussion). Moving over to the architectural variant represented in the work of Halliday, Hasan and Matthiessen, we find “register” not as a level of its own, but as the semantic realizations of contextual configurations, which are classified along the dimensions of field, tenor and mode of discourse (cf. e.g. Matthiessen, 1993: 233, 236). There is co-variation between contextual configurations and registers, but the latter are not a level in the architecture of language systems. We shall come back to this line of development, which is often referred to within SFL as the model with a nonstratified context, in Section 2.3. 2.2.3 Register – its place in other linguistic traditions

The notion of “register” is not unique to SFL among approaches to language. Elsewhere it is sometimes used as simply meaning “type of text”, even in non-technical parlance. In a slightly more technical, yet not theory-internal sense, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al., 1985: 23ff) treats register under the label of “field of discourse” (fn. p.24) and alongside the parameters of “medium and attitude”, clearly reminiscent of the SFL “field, tenor, mode” subdivisions. It is also one of the key organizing concepts in the Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999: 4; 29ff), yet here again as a loose parallel to (macro-) text type.

42  Erich Steiner Empirical studies of variation in language have a long and successful tradition in multidimensional analysis (MDA) in the sense of Douglas Biber and his associates. Biber and Conrad (2009) in a textbook-type account clarify their notions of register, genre and style. In a very clear and transparent way, they relate situational characteristics, register features and their functional motivation to each other (Biber & Conrad, 2009: 40ff). Their situational characteristics relate participants, their relations, the channel of communication, production circumstances, setting, communicative purposes and topic to each other. The typical linguistic characteristics of registers include a rich set of lexicogrammatical features, both for quantitative and qualitative analysis. The functional association between linguistic characteristics and situational characteristics receives due attention (Biber & Conrad, 2009: 68). The quantitative analysis in the form of an MDA is worked out in great refinement, yielding major parameters of register distinctions such as oral vs. literate discourse, procedural vs. content-focused or reconstructed account of events, which are all characterized by different proportionalities of positive and negative frequencies of co-occurring linguistic features. Any given text type, or even individual text, can be located in specific areas along these dimensions of variation (Biber & Conrad, 2009: 228). This MDA has been applied to spoken vs. written language (Biber, 1988), the study of scientific English as a register (Biber & Gray, 2016), the study of English on the web (Biber & Egbert, 2016) and a range of other types of linguistic variation. “Register”, as used in these other linguistic traditions, captures aspects of the more general notion of “text type”, alongside notions such as “genre” and “style” (cf. Biber & Conrad, 2009: 55). It is related outwards to socio-cultural and to some extent intuitive notions of “situation”, and it is related inwards to proportionalities of positive and negative frequencies of co-occurring lexicogrammatical features. Register studies in the tradition of multidimensional analysis (MDA) have a well-developed methodology of statistical evaluation, yet they do not theorize the notion of register in an overarching linguistic model such as SFL. To a lesser extent, this is also true of some SFL-oriented corpus-based studies of varieties of language, including Hansen-Schirra, Neumann and Steiner (2012), Neumann (2014) and Kunz et al. (2017a, 2017b, 2021, 2023), although here the difference between text type and register is usually acknowledged. Outside of Anglophone register studies, the fundamental embeddedness of discourse and text in context and hence linguistic variation had also been acknowledged in Romance linguistics as “diatopic, diastratal, diaphasic variation” (Coseriu, 2007; Österreicher, 2001), however, embedded in a very different overall model of language. These three types of variation correspond to regional, social and functional, i.e. registerial variation in English usage. Somewhat surprisingly, there has until now been little

Matthiessen and register  43 contact between Romance traditions and SFL, as indeed between English and Romance linguistics altogether. So far, then, we have briefly considered the history of the concept of register, and its usage within and outside of SFL. It is against this background that we shall now turn to the continuous and influential contributions that have been made by Matthiessen to the concept. 2.3 Matthiessen and register The concept of “register”, as a crucial concept of SFL, has played an important role in Matthiessen’s work throughout (cf. e.g. Matthiessen & Batemann, 1991: 20ff, 254ff). Gradually, it has shifted towards the centre of his work (Matthiessen, 1993; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: xv, 71ff, Matthiessen, 2015a, 2015b, 2016, 2019, 2020), increasingly becoming a key organizing concept. Compared with non-systemic usage, Matthiessen’s notion of “register” is deeply embedded in an overall theory of language and also substantially more complex – however, because of that, it is not easy to fully appreciate outside the overall SFL architecture. The present chapter will attempt a discussion of key characteristics, discussing in turn: • Matthiessen’s conceptual overviews and exemplifications of work on register related to SFL (Section 2.3.1), • the notion of “context” related to other (semiotic) systems (Matthiessen, 2016) and to individuation/affiliation (Section 2.3.2), • an illustration of a comprehensive research programme based on “register”: field-based maps of registers of one language (Matthiessen, 2015a, 2015b) (Section 2.3.3). 2.3.1 Conceptual overviews

In Matthiessen’s (1993: 221ff) overview, the notion of register is initially related to its history in and partly also outside SFL. Major intellectual sources are Firth’s notions of “restricted languages” and “polysystemicness”, both of which amount to saying that the overall “system of a language” – to the extent that we want to use that notion – in reality consists of contextually constrained and determined subsystems or “registers”. Matthiessen goes on to emphasize that relative to its origins, the notion of “register” later became semanticized and further enriched through the notions of ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions and their projection into context as field, tenor and mode of discourse. The modelling of subsystems of language has also become intrinsically probabilistic rather than categorical even by 1993. Matthiessen also acknowledges

44  Erich Steiner the development, by then, of the two variants of SFL architecture already pointed out in Section 2.2, and, of course, non-SFL usages of the term. Turning to the semiotic space in which register is located, Matthiessen outlines its global and fractal dimensions contrasting the concept of register to its use in Martin (1992). By “global dimensions” he means stratification, metafunctional diversification and instantiation, and by “fractal dimensions” he means intra-stratum axis, delicacy and rank. Register can thus be investigated on all strata (Matthiessen: 1993: 226), with a certain preference for “semantics” as the interface to “context”. Importantly, all strata from context to lexicogrammar are metafunctionally diversified in terms of ideational, interpersonal and textual modes of organization, yielding the variables of field, tenor and mode of discourse for context. And along all of these dimensions, linguistic investigations can be oriented more towards the system-end, or to the instance-end (the text), or, indeed, to the process itself, which he calls “instantiation”, as in psycholinguistic or computational research (Matthiessen, 1993: 229)3. The discussion proceeds to register and stratification, more specifically to context of situation, semantics, lexicogrammar, and to congruence vs. metaphoricity as possible relationships between expressions on these strata. Starting from the top of the hierarchy, semantics is seen as a repertoire of situation-specific semantic systems (Matthiessen, 1993: 252). These are then related to lexicogrammar, which in turn can be seen as a repertoire of situation-specific lexicogrammatical systems. “The collection of preselections from semantics into lexicogrammar constitutes the projection of a register image or view onto lexicogrammar” (Matthiessen, 1993: 257). This view could in principle be extended to cover phonology and graphology as well. Realizations of expressions between these levels can be “congruent” or “metaphorical”, and degrees of congruence or metaphoricity are important distinctive properties of registers, differentiating spoken and written modes, or high-expertise from low-expertise modes, to construct just two possible examples. Matthiessen (1993: 265ff) continues proceeding to register variation and semohistory. Registers vary not only between strata (lexicogrammatical, semantic), as shown above, but also along three historical axes: logogentic, ontogenetic and phylogenetic. “Logogenesis” refers to the fact that register changes as texts unfold along their time axes, providing an important environment for whether or not the grammatical metaphoricity of encodings changes, or for lexical development of items (introduction, definition, abbreviation, technicalization of meanings). “Ontogenesis” is the developmental process within which human individuals develop additional, refined and extended registers along the time path of personal development. Finally, “phylogenesis” refers to language change throughout the socio-cultural history of the human species.

Matthiessen and register  45 Within this overall perspective, “potential” vs. “instance” are two dialectically related viewpoints, mirrored in pairs of terms such as “linguistic system vs. text” or “(context of) culture” and “(context of) situation”. And as we said above, there is a process in going from the system to the instance, referred to by Matthiessen (1993) as “instantiation”, and with respect to language use as text understanding and production/generation. Finally, Matthiessen (1993: 274) outlines a map for existing and especially future register studies at that time. Registers can be described from a range of different standpoints: by stratum, by metafunction, by delicacy (subclassification), by axis (syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic), by potentiality (system vs. instance) or by semohistoric slicing (historical, developmental, text-unfolding). We also find a discussion of computational resources which appeared helpful and even necessary for the detailed register descriptions envisaged. In a summary assessment, Matthiessen’s (1993) “Register in the Round” presented a thorough exploration of the notion of “register” with respect to the intricate SFL architecture. A range of existing register studies at that time are placed within the SFL framework, and finally, a programme of work is developed towards more systematic and mutually complementing studies of language variation in an SFL perspective. Looking back at this very comprehensive discussion 30 years later, we can see how the notion of “register”, although not unknown to other views on linguistic variation (cf. Sections 2.2.3 and 2.4), takes on a fairly central and organizing role within Matthiessen’s view on language. This specific orientation to register is well-positioned in SFL as a contextual theory of language, a kind of theory that must give a central place to the embedding of discourse in context, and hence to the fundamental existence of linguistic variation. More than two decades later, we find another and updated overview of register studies in Matthiessen (2019), where he gives an overview of the place of register analysis along the lines of earlier publications, with particular regard to its relationship to major research goals in SFL and to some work in non-SFL traditions (see Figure 2.1), yet this time covering, in particular, the period after 1993 up until 2019. With respect to work around and in contact with SFL, he particularly discusses the role of empirical corpus-based methodologies (2019: 28ff), something which is all too often neglected in SFL work on register. He goes on to mention and characterize some typical examples of SFL-based register studies in the past before giving an outlook on future work. Matthiessen (2020), finally, explains the notion of a “trinocular vision” in linguistic analysis,4 and, in particular, as applied to the analysis of register. This perspective essentially means linguistic analysis of a particular phenomenon, say register, from the stratum “above” (context), the stratum “below” (lexicogrammar), but also within its own stratum (in terms

Figure 2.1  Partial map of traditions in the study of functional variation in relation to which “register” in SFL can be located (adapted from Matthiessen, 2019: 26)

46  Erich Steiner

Matthiessen and register  47 of semantics). Once again Matthiessen (2020) makes the point that perspectives of analysis can be taken not only in terms of stratification as above, but also in terms of other dimensions offered by the overall SFL model. We have thus outlined some main lines of theoretical development in Matthiessen’s work on register over something like 30 years. What becomes clear in such a perspective is that the essentials of the concept have been preserved and built upon in Matthiessen’s work. However, the embedding of “register” in the overall architecture of SFL has been significantly elaborated and clarified both theoretically and with a view to application in various areas. In the following sections, I would like to trace two developments that have received particular attention recently and may unfold their full potential in the near future. 2.3.2 Context related to other semiotic systems and individuation/ affiliation

On several occasions, Matthiessen pursues issues of particular current relevance to register, further developing them. Here I would like to highlight two of them: • Context and other (semiotic) systems • Context and individuation/affiliation The first of these is important for multimodal work and the second highlights the place of the individual language user and his/her ideological stance. Starting with a consideration of semiotic systems other than language, we note that Matthiessen (2016; 2019: 13), following Halliday, places “context” in a hierarchy of systems, a clarification that sheds light on the relationship between the social and the semiotic, and which allows us to clarify the notion of “situation”. At the same time, he is more explicit about how semiotic systems other than language enter – or are at least visible in – the architecture of SFL. Let us take up each of these clarifications in turn. Matthiessen assumes four major orders of systems in science: physical, biological, social and semiotic. “Meaning” and “context” are located on the semiotic plane, and it is in a language-based approach to context that we find the notion of “contextual configuration” stratified into “field, tenor and mode” of discourse. This three-dimensional stratification derives from the multifunctional nature of language along ideational, interpersonal and textual dimensions. In other words, it is a perspective from language (by the linguist) which sees contextual configurations along these three dimensions. “Register” is a realization of context (contextual

48  Erich Steiner configurations) in a multifunctionally dispersed semantics. Looking outwards from context and language, for example in sociolinguistic work, we can create interfaces to the social order of systems on the one hand, and to other modalities of semiotic systems on the other: There are social systems as “manifestations” of semiotic ones, as in Hasan’s (1977) notion of “material situational setting” or as in my own notion of “situation” (Steiner, 1991: 35ff)5. And within semiotic systems, there are other modes of meaning like music, gesture, visualization, etc.6 To sum up: “context” and “register” as its semantic realization in SFL are semiotic notions, but they are related both to the social plane of systems on the one hand, and within semiotic systems to other modes of meaning on the other hand.7 Proceeding with context and individuation/affiliation (Matthiessen, 2016; 2019: 14ff), we find the question of instantiation discussed with more focus than had been the case in most earlier SFL accounts (with the notable exception of Martin [2010] and Tann [2017]). Matthiessen (2016) schematizes this as “[potential:] context of culture > [subpotential:] institutional domain > [instance type:] situation type > [instance:] (context of) situation”. At each point of this cline of instantiation, we find corresponding versions of “register” ranging from “global semantics” of a language through institution- and situation-type specific sub-semantics to finally the semantics of one text in one instantiated context of situation.8 However, seen in the individual language user’s perspective, each individual (person, personality in Firth’s 1950 early terms?) has only a subset of the overall semantics of a language available and/or chooses to align (“affiliate”) him or herself dependent on his/her place in the overall social structure and/or ideological stance (on which see in particular Martin [2010]). As we have pointed out above, integrating a perspective on other semiotic systems into modelling context and register is essential for the very active field of multimodal work both in language studies and in applications of these. Beyond this, highlighting the place of the individual language user and his/her ideological stance in linguistic analyses is crucial for a socially committed model of language (Steiner, 2018), such as SFL, because the individual is a site where alignment with or crucially opposition to cultural ideologies needs to be modelled if we want to capture “choice”, one of the core notions of SFL: the interactants are, in a very real sense, iconic of the intimate relationship of language and society in that they are at once social agents and semiotic beings. And above all they constitute the most active element of the social situation. … It is the speaker as a social agent who alone has the capacity to recognize the particular kind of social practice called for by the occasion. Thus the interactants represent the only element of context to which can be attributed consciousness, the capacity to judge, plan and decide – attributes which presuppose the

Matthiessen and register  49 existence of belief systems and which are relevant to the evaluation of the ongoing activity … Interactants represent that awesome category called “individual”. (Hasan, 2009: 27f)

2.3.3 A comprehensive research programme: Field-based maps of registers of one language (English)

Matthiessen’s (2015a) proposals in his paper will be summarized and discussed in considerable detail here because they comprehensively formulate a research programme in the area of register for the present and into the future. Matthiessen’s (2015a: 1) paper “focus(es) on a field-based map, more specifically one based on a typology of fields of activity – a characterizations of different goings-on in context. This typology differentiates eight primary types of field of activity, ‘expounding’, ‘reporting’, ‘recreating’, ‘sharing’, ‘doing’, ‘enabling’, ‘recommending’ and ‘exploring’, and their secondary and tertiary subtypes.”9 So, in terms of instantiation, he considers subtypes of context (field of activity only) topdown. In terms of stratification, he relates contextual patterns to realizations one stratum downwards (semantics), and potentially through this to lexicogrammar, yet another stratum further down. The categories of field above are institution-specific subtypes of fields of activity. “We can identify semantic subsystems or registers within subcultures or institutional domains, characterizing a register as language functioning in an institutional domain” (Matthiessen, 2015a: 5). As Matthiessen’s (2015a) paper is programmatic in that it specifies a research programme, but at the same time provides a fairly detailed and careful exemplification of the major steps of this programme, it seems worth summarizing its major steps. Matthiessen (2015a) sets out by explaining the metaphor of a “cartography” with respect to register, in particular, he points out where his paper is situated on the SFL-scales of instantiation and stratification: in terms of instantiation, it models situation types intermediate between the entire cultural system and the individual situation with an individual text embedded in it. In terms of stratification, it relates contextual patterns (features of field, tenor and mode) to semantic patterns, but also to their intra-level syntagmatic realizations (generic structures). In some passages, we even go yet another stratum further down into lexicogrammatical realizations. It is a further important achievement of this article that Matthiessen (2015a) engages in detail with the relationship between his cartography and the

50  Erich Steiner genre approach to context (cf. Martin, 1992, 2019), a stratified approach to context as mentioned in Section 2.2, which models the area addressed by Matthiessen’s (2015a) field of activity in detail. The paper is, to my knowledge, one of the clearest and most detailed elucidations and comparisons of these two main variants of SFL. Illustrating his central notion of a context-based registerial cartography, Matthiessen (2015a) singles out one field parameter, that of field of activity, which together and in parallel with field of experience constitutes the field of discourse of a contextual configuration.10 Field of discourse, in turn, varies in parallel with tenor and mode of discourse, all of which are addressed by examples in various parts of the paper. His altogether eight sub-parameters of field of activity (‘expounding’, ‘reporting’, ‘recreating’, ‘sharing’, ‘doing’, ‘enabling’, ‘recommending’ and ‘exploring’) derive from an unpublished manuscript by Jean Ure. He further specifies them into secondary and even tertiary steps of delicacy (see Figure 2.2; but also see Figures 4, 5, 14 and 24 in Matthiessen, 2015a), intersecting them with the mode and tenor of discourse. In a typological perspective, the eight sub-parameters can be classified into two classes: social activity: doing vs. semiotic activity: remaining seven types. After explaining the basic ideas of his cartography, Matthiessen (2015a) moves on to extending his eight sub-parameters of field of activity in delicacy (p. 7ff), relating these eight types to the contextual structures they create (Hasan’s “generic structures”, Martin’s “schematic structures”). So, for example, the “expounding” type can in one further step of delicacy be sub-classified into “explaining” vs. “categorizing (or documenting? p. 8)”, and “explaining”, in turn, can be “sequential” vs. “factorial”11. Based on this tertiary degree of delicacy, structural realizations can be usefully predicted, and it is also on such a more delicate level that relationships to the genre approach (see Table 2.1) and to areas of application (e.g. education or healthcare, cf. Matthiessen, 2015a: 38ff) are discussed in some detail. The suggested types and subtypes are of a prototypical, rather than a categorical character, as is brought out more clearly in the topological rather than the typological perspective. The intra-stratal realization statements associated with the types in Figure 6 (in Matthiessen, 2015a) specify fragments of the situational (generic/schematic) structure associated with the types. The other type of realization is inter-stratal, relating contextual categories one stratum downwards to semantics.12 The next section accordingly is concerned with patterns of semantic realization (Matthiessen, 2015a: 12ff). It starts with a text on Physical Weathering taken from Veel (1997), a “factorial explanation” in contextual terms. The sample analysis by Matthiessen proceeds in terms of rhetorical complexes based on Rhetorical Structure Theory (cf. Mann, Matthiessen & Thomson, 1992). The building blocks are rhetorical

Matthiessen and register  51

Figure 2.2  The eight primary fields of activity and their subtypes (adapted from Matthiessen, 2015b: 57)

relations or logico-semantic relations, as Matthiessen (2015a: 14) says. They are almost isomorphic to clause combining relations in grammar, but additionally include the “orientation-system” (external vs. internal) from cohesion. It is an overriding aim of this type of analysis to identify semantic strategies that are used in different text types in situation types.13 Importantly for the understanding of relationships between strata further down from semantics, Matthiessen (2015a: 20) explains: The rhetorical complexes that realize elements of the contextual structure are, in turn, realized lexicogrammatically, at the stratum

52  Erich Steiner Table 2.1  Terms in the system of socio-semiotic process (field) and “genres” described in Martin and Rose (2008) and Eggins and Slade (2005) (adapted from Matthiessen, 2015a: 9) Socio-semiotic process

Martin and Rose (2008): “Genre model”

expounding

explaining

(Chapter 4 Reports and Explanations) explanations

categorizing

(Chapter 4 Reports and Explanations) reports

chronicling

(Chapter 3 Histories) recounts, biographies (Chapter 5 Procedures and procedural recounts) procedural recounts

reporting

Eggins and Slade (2005)

surveying inventorying recreating

[narrating, dramatizing]

(Chapter 2 Stories) stories: narratives

sharing

[experiences, values]

(Chapter 2 Stories) stories: anecdotes, exempla

doing

[directing, coordinating]

recommending

promoting advising

enabling

exploring

instructing

(Chapter 5 Procedures and procedural recounts) procedures

regulating

(Chapter 5 Procedures and procedural recounts) protocols

arguing

(Chapter 3 Histories) expositions, discussions

chat; opinion, teasing, gossip

Matthiessen and register  53 below semantics … They are realized congruently either by cohesive sequences of structurally unrelated clauses or by clause complexes of tactically related clauses. Longer passages tend to rely on cohesion. In case of incongruent realizations, grammatical units further down the rank scale (clauses, groups/phrases, words…) are selected. The functional motivations for choosing either congruent or incongruent realizations are very much dependent on factors of tenor of discourse (e.g. level of expertise) and of mode of discourse (e.g. spoken-written) (Matthiessen, 2015a: 22ff), which opens an important interface to variation theory. Yet even as seen from field of activity, reporting contexts are less favourable to grammatical metaphor than expounding contexts. The following larger section focuses on fields of activity and types of rhetorical relation. Here we find exemplifying analyses of four types of fields of activity (Matthiessen, 2015a: 23ff): ‘expounding’, ‘reporting’, ‘recommending’ and ‘exploring’,14 initially by reference to logico-semantic relations in clause complexes that realize “local” rhetorical complexes. The first example is an additional expounding example (Matthiessen, 2015a: 27ff), a “sequential” rather than a “factorial” one (as before), and one which shows the basic structure of a multi-nuclear complex rather than that of a nucleus-satellite complex as in the case of the factorial one. The paper then moves on to the analysis of a news report as an example of ‘reporting’ contexts, once more highlighting the interaction between contextual, semantic and grammatical levels of analysis, and also illustrating the claim that there are motivated interrelationships between these different levels of organization. The next example is that of a ‘recommending: promoting’ type, an advertisement (Matthiessen, 2015a: 29). This type is characterized by internal relations of motivation, thus negotiating tenor of discourse, rather than building field. Again, we find the assumption of a motivated relationship between structures on different levels of organization. Moving on, we find an ‘exploring: reviewing’ text (a product review). The dominant rhetorical relation is “evidence: internal”, showing traces of registerial hybridity (Matthiessen, 2015a: 34), and again negotiating tenor more than building field of discourse. The next section on “nuclearity and orientation” (Matthiessen, 2015a: 34ff) classifies altogether six field-of-activity-types of texts including those analysed above in terms of two dimensions of semantic organization: nucleus-satellite vs. multi-nuclear and external vs. internal rhetorical complexes. More generally, these are contextual types and their registerial realization. This section also draws connections to the textual organization of these field of activity (i.e. logical) patterns in terms of macro-Theme and macro-New (an aspect of mode of discourse?).

54  Erich Steiner

Figure 2.3  Registerial cartography – filling in gaps (i) along the cline of instantiation (content-based variation) and (ii) along the hierarchy of stratification (context ↘ [semantics ↘lexicogrammar]) (cf. Halliday, 2002)

Very characteristically for SFL as a form of “appliable linguistics”, there follows a chapter on the application of this type of contextual analysis, taking education and healthcare communication as two examples (Matthiessen, 2015a: 38ff). This is a valuable demonstration of what Matthiessen (2015a: 5) means when he says: “The task in registerial cartography is thus to map out a region of semantic space in such a way that the features of this region reflect the diversification of context into institutions and, within these, situation types” (see Figure 2.3). The previous section has prepared the ground with very detailed samples of semantic analyses of text types, and the following section shows how this can be mapped onto institutions and situation types. In the area of education, registerial cartography (field of activity in the case at hand) can show us relevant discourse differences between different schools (and to some extent university) – subjects on the one hand, but also differences in different stages of progression within a subject, giving us an interesting SFL-based understanding of “progression” within a subject or a scientific discipline. Figure 2.4 compares English, history and science (chemistry) as to their registerial ranges. Matthiessen briefly reviews the work of SFL scholars both in the genre-based tradition and in his own tradition, which is a very helpful step for people working with SFL and wanting to relate these two strands of work to each other. The paper then turns to the application of a registerial cartography to areas of healthcare communication and medical discourse studies

Figure 2.4  Registerial ranges of three school subjects specified in terms of field of activity (adapted from Matthiessen, 2015a: 39)

Matthiessen and register  55

56  Erich Steiner (Matthiessen, 2015a: 42ff; see also Chapter 5 of this volume). An important methodological step here is his attempt at linking primary field of activity distinctions to distinctions in mode (spoken/written and dialogic/ monologic) as in Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6 then intersects field of activity distinctions with distinctions in tenor (Matthiessen, 2015a: 43) such as institutional role (agentive role), status role and sociometric role. What this illustration of application shows very clearly is the complexity of different contexts that participants enter into within the institution (i.e. education, medical care), but also the complexity of interactions between field, tenor and mode parameters of contextual configurations and through these of registers. In this paper, which we have summarized in some detail here, Matthiessen (2015a) takes a major step towards making registerial analyses (in interaction with contextual analysis and on the other side lexicogrammatical analysis) a cornerstone of the whole SFL enterprise. As so often in his work, this step in itself does not in any way mark a re-orientation in his writing. However, it constitutes a summary and a further development in a long theoretical development, based on theoretically guided application, thus opening clear perspectives for the short- and long-term future of the field in SFL-oriented register studies. 2.4 Empirical claims and future development So far, we have primarily discussed the conceptual and largely theoryinternal developments, making a few connections to areas of application on the way. This allows us to focus on internal consistency and breadth of coverage. However, models of textual variation and register should also be evaluated in terms of the empirical claims that they entail and in terms of ways of testing these claims. Hence the present section will discuss differences in empirical claims between different versions of SFL, but also the specific empirical claims that are made by SFL differently to other approaches in the area of register studies more widely. Starting with different empirical claims made in the tradition of Matthiessen in comparison with those arising out of the variant proposed by Jim Martin (1992, 2019, pursued later on as the genre-based approach of SFL, cf. Tann, 2017) and others, it appears that none of these two variants would subscribe to a very strict notion of “empirical work” as exemplified in more quantitatively oriented linguistics (cf. Levshina, 2015; De Sutter et al., 2017; Evert & Neumann, 2017), or in psychology, sociology or economics for that matter. On the other hand, both of these intra-SFLvariants have developed their frameworks out of rich areas of application in education (Christie & Martin, 1997), child language development (Hasan, 2009: 75ff, originally 1990), healthcare communication and to some extent in computational applications (Matthiessen, 2015a: 42ff).

Figure 2.5  Registerial map of medical discourse based on field of activity and mode (turn and medium) (adapted from Matthiessen, 2015a: 42)

Matthiessen and register  57

Figure 2.6  Field of activity and tenor relations in contexts of “medical discourse” (adapted from Matthiessen, 2015a: 43)

58  Erich Steiner

Matthiessen and register  59 The genre-based approach is generally not very interested in quantification; hence the plausibility of models and sample analyses is usually argued for on the basis of the interpretation of the human analyst. Matthiessen’s work shows more inclination towards quantitative testing (see his summary on methodological approaches to register studies in his 2019: 27ff), yet he points out the trade-off between manual and automated analysis in relation to corpus size and “level” (rank, stratum) of analysis (in 2019: 30). Most register studies in his version of SFL to date have been qualitative (2019: 32–33, Table 2.2) and explorative, like the study discussed in Section 2.3.3 in some detail. At the same time, quite a number of more quantitatively oriented studies have taken inspiration from the Matthiessen-version of register theory, at least as motivating background for research hypotheses (Hansen-Schirra, Neumann & Steiner, 2012; Neumann, 2014; Kunz et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2021, 2023; Teich, 2003; Teich et al., 2016; Steiner, 2001, 2008a, 2008b, 2020). So, in a comparison of the two versions of register theory in SFL referred to above, it would seem that both would ultimately argue that claims for empirical validity of models of register variation have mainly to be evaluated against plausible applications in areas such as education, healthcare communication or, especially but not exclusively in earlier periods, computational text generation. Martin’s work does not show a history of empirical validation in a stricter sense of the empirical social sciences, whereas Matthiessen (e.g. 2019) would in principle have a place for this kind of empirical validation. Moving outside of SFL-internal comparisons, we are interested in how the specific empirical claims that are made by SFL are different from those of other approaches in the area of register studies (e.g. Biber & Conrad, 2009; Biber & Gray, 2016; Biber, 2019; Hiltunnen, McVeigh & Saïly, 2017; Szmrecsanyi, 2019 and the journal Register Studies since 2019 more generally). A very brief comparison will be attempted in terms of the levels of phenomena investigated, the refinement of empirical methodologies and in terms of the potential as an interface to cultural, social and psychological studies. Levels of phenomena: research traditions usually subsumed under “variationist register studies” (Szmrecsanyi, 2019) and under “text-linguistic approaches to register variation” (Biber, 2019) so far have strongly tended towards studying lexicogrammatical phenomena. The main difference between the two is that variationist studies focus on “different ways of saying the same thing”, whereas text-linguistic approaches focus on “different ways of saying things depending on socio-cultural context”, i.e. on functional variation. SFL approaches on register would fall more clearly under text-linguistic approaches in that sense. SFL-based work, especially in the architecture exemplified in Matthiessen’s work, would however add to the range of levels of phenomena studied phenomena of cohesion (still

From below (lexicogrammar) From below (lexicogrammar)

Matthiessen The Construal of Space in Different and Kashyap Registers (2014)

The Linguistic Construal of Disciplinarity: A Data-Mining Approach Using Register Features

Systemic Text Generation as Problem Solving

Constraining the Deployment of Lexicogrammatical Resources during Text Generation: Towards a Computational Instantiation of Register Theory

Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents

Multisemiotic and Context-based Register Typology: Registerial Variation in the Complementarity of Semiotic Systems

Teich et al. (2016)

Patten (1988)

Bateman and Paris (1991)

Bateman (2008)

Matthiessen (2009)

Analysis: automated

Analysis: manual

Analysis: manual

Qualitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Qualitative & quantitative

Qualitative

Qualitative & quantitative

Qualitative

From above (context) Description – Qualitative illustration: pictorial semiotic systems

From above (context) Modelling to Qualitative & from below support analysis (layout)

From above (context) Modelling: generation

From above (context) Modelling: generation

From below (lexicogrammar)

Halliday (1988) On the Language of Physical Science

Analysis: manual

From below (lexicogrammar)

Sentence and Clause in Scientific English

Huddleston et al. (1968)

Approach From above (context) Description

Title

Halliday (1972) Towards a Sociological Semantics

Authors

Table 2.2 Examples of representative register studies in SFL (adapted from Matthiessen, 2019: 32–33)

Synchronic

Synchronic

Synchronic

Synchronic

Diachronic

Synchronic

Diachronic

Synchronic

Synchronic

Timeframe

60  Erich Steiner

Matthiessen and register  61 within linguistic form, cf. e.g. Kunz et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2021, 2023) and semantics. And it would work with a theoretically more strictly motivated notion of context, in comparison with the social categories of variationist linguistics and even the situational categories of the Biber tradition. Yet, while there thus seems to be a wider range of phenomena that can be covered in SFL-based research, this potential inherent in SFL architectures can only be realized if inter-level relationships are more clearly defined than they often are now in SFL work. And it remains to be shown how much of the extravagant SFL architecture is strictly needed to derive research hypotheses for empirical work. Refinement of empirical methodologies: empirical methodologies are more developed in both variationist and general text-linguistic register studies than in SFL (cf. Matthiessen, 2019; but see also Neumann, 2014; Teich et al., 2016; Evert & Neumann, 2017; Kunz et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2021, 2023; Steiner, 2020 for using advanced empirical validation with SFL-inspired research). Matthiessen (e.g. 2019), different from Martin, identifies an area of necessary development here, although making that strictly dependent on prior theoretical development. In my view, fully convincing testing of empirical claims made by SFL in the future depends on further refinement of empirical methodologies if the significant potential of the model in terms of levels of phenomena is to be fulfilled. Paths of development here are already indicated by Biber-type multi-dimensional analysis (Biber, 2019: 55ff) and by multivariate analysis such as logistic regression analysis or conditional random forest analysis (Szmrecsanyi, 2019: 83). Interface to cultural, social and psychological neighbouring disciplines: here SFL offers a very elaborate interface to cultural studies, slightly less directly to social studies and maybe less still to psychological studies. There has so far been little contact with empirical social studies in the stricter sense, such as sociology, although SFL has been a socially committed theory of language since its beginnings. The reason for this relative lack of contact is probably the strong semiotic leaning of SFL, in Matthiessen’s work as much as in other variants, which speaks only to the more semiotically inclined variants of social theory. And finally, there has so far been little contact between SFL and psychological language processing studies (see e.g. Alves et al., 2010), something which can again be strengthened through efforts at improving empirical methodologies. On the other hand, SFL’s extravagant architecture has frequently led to interdisciplinary work with translation studies (see Wang & Ma, forthcoming), literary studies (see Chapter 6), multimodal studies and critical discourse analysis (for these see articles in Bartlett & O’Grady, 2017; Thompson et al., 2019 and other handbooks on SFL). All of these areas of cultural studies need models of language with a rich and multi-stratal architecture in order to

62  Erich Steiner make contact with their own high-level categories of theorizing. SFL here provides a wealth of categories and operationalizations relevant for socioculturally relevant interpretation. Future developments, at this point as elsewhere, are a wide-open field, but based on the history of work on register by Matthiessen and others, some expectations may not be too far-fetched: in more strictly (and narrowly?) empirical work on (automatic) classification and diachronic change of registers, a heavily structured and scaled architecture such as SFL may not be strictly needed. Work of the type of, say, Biber or Szmrecsanyi on variationist and registerial studies can derive meaningful hypotheses and deliver valid results on the basis of “leaner” linguistic models, and accordingly any version of Occam’s Razor might “prune” a framework such as SFL considerably. However, in research or applications where we are interested in socio-cultural explanations as to why and in which contexts re-classifications and other types of synchronic and diachronic changes in register are happening, a highly structured functionalist model seems to be essential. This, I believe, is what the work by Matthiessen is offering and where it has its unique place in language studies. Notes 1 See also earlier work by Ure (1971). Representative and comprehensive accounts can be found in Cloran (1999: 178ff); Lukin et al. (2008); Bartlett and O’Grady (2017: Part IV), Bowcher (2019), see also Section 2.3.1. 2 For the later treatment of the 1992 notion of “ideology” within a scale of “individuation”, cf. Martin (2010). 3 For combinations of product- and process-base investigations using SFL notions, see Alves et al. (2010). 4 Cf. Halliday since the 1970s, but also and in particular in Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2014) application to lexicogrammar. 5 In my view, historically, it is the semiotic which arises out of the social, rather than the other way round. However, once the semiotic plane exists (through language or other modes), it allows (and forces?) humans to interpret social structures through their semiotic conceptual grid. 6 Different languages, in my understanding, will all be organized metafunctionally. However, non-linguistic semiotic systems such as music usually specialize in one or two metafunctions, or areas within them. 7 Hence, Biber et al.’s (2009: 40ff) notion of “situational characteristics” are probably closer to “social situation” in an SFL sense, than to SFL context. And relative to other multimodality studies, SFL-oriented notions of multimodality tend to have an orientation towards metafunctional interpretations because they project outwards from language-based semiotics. 8 And possibly “reading” in the sense of Martin (2010) or Steiner (2021). 9 A methodological question here arises as to how we arrive at these eight types. Matthiessen gives as sources of the primary (and secondary?) ones an early manuscript of Ure, of the tertiary ones the Sydney/genre-based architecture. Yet it would aid the transparency of the model if a method for deriving such

Matthiessen and register  63 types were made explicit, other than the fact that they have been set up by other researchers. 10 In my own work, I have, alongside some other SFL accounts, distinguished between three sub-parameters: experiential domain, activity, and goal-orientation. 11 Or one of the seven further subtypes (cf. Figure 5 in Matthiessen 2015a); for a more systemicized and allegedly more informative version by Matthiessen (2015a), cf. Figure 6. 12 As Matthiessen (2015a) says in his footnote e, “If they are not realized semantically in language, they may be realized through some other semiotic system; or realization may bypass semiotic systems and be stated directed (sic!)”. 13 The two-layered analysis in terms of “text types in situation types” (bottomup?) in addition to “registers in institutions” (Figure 2.3) would gain from some more justification in my view. (How) do they map onto each other? 14 On p. 25 of Matthiessen (2015a) we find “report” as a subtype under ‘expounding’, but also as a primary type ‘reporting’. Is this possibly the clash between “text type” and “register” (bottom-up, top-down), or how else is this motivated?

References Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner & Silvia HansenSchirra. 2010. “Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of product- and process-based translation research.” In Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone (eds.), Translation and cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 109–142. Bartlett, Tom & Gerard O’Grady (eds.). 2017. The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Bateman, John A. 2008. Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bateman, John A. & Cécile Paris. 1991. “Constraining the deployment of lexicogrammatical resources during text generation: Towards a computational instantiation of register theory.” In Eija Ventola (ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 81–106. Bhatia, Vijay K. 2004. Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum. Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas. 1994. “An analytical framework for register studies.” In Douglas Biber & Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on registers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 31–56. Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas. 2019. “Text-linguistic approaches to register variation.” Register Studies 1(1): 42–75. Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas & Jesse Egbert. 2016. “Register variation on the searchable web.” Journal of English Linguistics 44: 137–195.

64  Erich Steiner Biber, Douglas & Bethany Grey. 2016. Grammatical complexity in scientific English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johannsson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Bowcher, Wendy L. 2019. “Context and register.” In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 142–170. Christie, Frances & J.R. Martin (eds.). 1997. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell. Cloran, Carmel. 1999. “Context, material situation and text.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 177–218. Coseriu, Eugenio. 2007. Sprachkompetenz: Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. De Sutter, Gert, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabel Delaere (eds.). 2017. Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Eggins, Suzzane & Diana Slade. 2005. Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox. Evert, Stefan & Stella Neumann. 2017. “The impact of translation direction on characteristics of translated texts: A multivariate analysis for English and German.” In Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabel Delaere (eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 47–80. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. “Diglossia.” WORD 15: 325–340. Firth, J.R. 1950. “Personality and language in society.” Sociological Review 42(1): 37–52. Reprinted in J.R. Firth. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. 177–189. Firth, J.R. 1957. “Ethnographic analysis and language with reference to Malinowski’s views.” In Raymond Firth (ed.), Man and culture: An evaluation of the work of Bronislaw Malinowski. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 93–118. Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). 1988. Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. London: Pinter. Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). 1993. Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Frances Pinter. Gregory, Michael J. 1967. “Aspects of varieties differentiation.” Journal of Linguistics 3: 177–198. Gumperz, John J. 1961. “Speech variation as an index in the study of South Asian civilization.” American Anthropologist 63(5): 976–988. Halliday, M.A.K. 1972. “Towards a sociological semantics.” Working Papers and Prepublications (series C, no. 14). Università di Urbino: Centro Internazionale di Semiotica e di Linguistica. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. 64–94. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected

Matthiessen and register  65 works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 323–354. Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1988. “On the language of physical science.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. London & New York: Pinter. 162–178. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2004. The language of science. Volume 5 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 140–158. Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. “Computing meanings: Some reflections on past experience and present prospects.” In Guowen Huang & Zongyan Wang (eds.), Discourse and language functions. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 3–25. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Computational and quantitative studies. Volume 6 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 239–267. Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Pinter. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Halliday, M.A.K., Angus McIntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner. 2012. Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair English– German. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1973. “Code, register and social dialect.” In Basil Bernstein (ed.), Class, codes and control: Applied studies towards a sociology of language (volume 2). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 253–292. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1977. “Text in the systemic-functional model.” In Wolfgang Dressler (ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 228–246. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2009. Semantic variation: Meaning in society and in sociolinguistics. Volume 2 in the Collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Equinox. Hiltunen, Turo, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily. 2017. “How to turn linguistic data into evidence?” In Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and explorations. University of Helsinki. Vol. 19. https://varieng​.helsinki​.fi​/series​/volumes​/19​/introduction​.html. Huddleston, Rodney D., Richard A. Hudson, Eugene Winter & Alick Henrici. 1968. Sentence and clause in scientific English: Final report of O.S.T.I. programme. University College London: Communication Research Centre. Hymes, Dell (ed.). 1964. Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology. New York: Harper & Row.

66  Erich Steiner Hymes, Dell. 1972. “Models of the interaction of language and social life.” In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 35–71. Hyon, Sunny. 1996. “Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL.” TESOL Quarterly 30: 693–722. Kunz, Kerstin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, José Manuel Martínez-Martínez, Katrin Menzel & Erich Steiner 2017a. “Shallow features as indicators of English-German contrasts in lexical cohesion.” Languages in Contrast 18(2): 175–206. Kunz, Kerstin, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, Katrin Menzel, & Erich Steiner. 2017b. “GECCo – an empirically-based comparison of English-German cohesion.” In Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer & Isabel Delaere (eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 265–312. Kunz, Kerstin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, José Manuel Martínez Martínez, Katrin Menzel & Erich Steiner. 2021. GECCo – German-English contrasts in cohesion: Insights from corpus-based studies of languages, registers and modes. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kunz, Kerstin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, Katrin Menzel & Erich Steiner. 2023. “Lexical cohesion: Dimensions and linguistic properties of chains in English and German.” In Elissa Asp & Michelle Aldrige (eds.), Empirical evidences and theoretical assumptions in functional linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 98–124. Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Longacre, Robert E. 1974. “Narrative vs other discourse genres.” In Ruth Brend (ed.), Advances in tagmemics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 357–376. Longacre, Robert E. 1996. The grammar of discourse. 2nd edition. New York: Plenum. Lukin, Anabelle, Alison Moore, Maria Herke, Rebekah Wegener & Canzhong Wu. 2008. “Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 4(2): 187–243. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. “The problem of meaning in primitive languages.” In C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards (eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 296–336. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1935. Coral gardens and their magic: A study of the methods of tilling the soil and of agricultural rites in the Trobriand Islands. New York: American Book Company. Mann, William C., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson. 1992. “Rhetorical Structure Theory and text analysis.” In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 39–78. Martin, J.R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Martin, J.R. 2010. “Semantic variation – modelling realisation, instantiation and individuation in social semiosis.” In Monika Bednarek & J.R. Martin (eds.),

Matthiessen and register  67 New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation. London & New York: Continuum. 1–34. Martin, J.R. 2019. “Discourse semantics.” In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 358–381. Martin, J.R. & David Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London & Oakville: Equinox. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. “Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter. 221–292. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009. “Multisemiotic and context-based register typology: Registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems.” In Eija Ventola & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro (eds.), The world shown and the world told. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 11–38. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Modelling context and register: The longterm project of registerial cartography.” Letras, Santa Maria 25(50): 15–90. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2016. “Context: Theory, modelling, description and analysis.” The First Halliday-Hasan International Forum on Language and Inaugural Lecture Series Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China, Dec 3–4, 2016. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2019. “Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Register Studies 1(1): 10–41. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2020. “Trinocular views on register: Approaching register trinocularly.” Language, Context and Text 2(1): 3–21. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & John A. Bateman. 1991. Text generation and systemic-functional linguistics: Experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Abhishek Kumar Kashyap. 2014. “The construal of space in different registers: An exploratory study.” Language Sciences 45: 1–27. Neumann, Stella. 2014. Contrastive register variation: A quantitative approach to the comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Oesterreicher, Wolfgang. 2001. “Historizität – Sprachvariation, Sprachverschiedenheit, Sprachwandel.” In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals (vol. 2). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1554–1596. Patten, Terry. 1988. Systemic text generation as problem solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Reid, Thomas B.W. 1956. “Linguistics, structuralism, philology.” Archivum Linguisticum 8: 28–37. Robins, R.H. 1967. A short history of linguistics. London: Longman.

68  Erich Steiner Serbina, Tatiana, Sven Hintzen, Paula Niemietz & Stella Neumann. 2017. “Changes of word class during translation – insights from a combined analysis of corpus, keystroke logging and eye-tracking data.” In Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo & Sascha Hofmann (eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting. Berlin: Language Science Press. 177–208. Steiner, Erich. 1983. Die Entwicklung des Britischen Kontextualismus. Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Steiner, Erich. 1991. A functional perspective on language, action and interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Steiner, Erich. 2001. “Translations English-German: Investigating the relative importance of systemic contrasts and of the text type ‘translation’.” Papers from the 2000 Symposium on Information Structures across languages, in SPRIK-Reports No.7. Reports from the Project “Languages in Contrast”, University of Oslo. http://www​.hf​.uio​.no​/ilos​/forskning​/prosjekter​/sprik​/ sprikreports​.html. Steiner, Erich. 2008a. “Explicitation: Towards an empirical and corpus-based methodology.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies. London & New York: Continuum. 234–277. Steiner, Erich. 2008b. “Empirical studies of translations as a mode of language contact – ‘explicitness’ of lexicogrammatical encoding as a relevant dimension.” In Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language contact and contact languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 317–346. Steiner, Erich. 2018. “Choice as a category of human activity – and some of its contextual constraints.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11(1–2): 158–177. Steiner, Erich. 2020. “Models – predictions – data: An (un)problematic relationship?” In Gordon Tucker, Guowen Huang, Lise Fontaine & Edward McDonald (eds.), Approaches to Systemic Functional Grammar: Convergence and divergence. Sheffield: Equinox. 315–337. Steiner, Erich. 2021. “Textual instantiation, the notion of ‘readings of texts’, and translational agency.” In Mira Kim, Jeremy Munday, Zhenhua Wang & Pin Wang (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics and translation studies. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 35–63. Swales, John M. 2011. “Worlds of genre – metaphors of genre.” In Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini & Débora Figueiredo (eds.), Genre in a changing world. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. 3–16. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2019. “Register in variationist linguistics.” Register Studies 1(1): 76–99. Tann, Ken. 2017. “Context and meaning in the Sydney architecture of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 438–456. Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Teich, Elke, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Peter Fankhauser, Hannah Kermes & Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski. 2016. “The linguistic construal of

Matthiessen and register  69 disciplinarity: A data-mining approach using register features.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(7): 1668–1678. Thompson, Geoff, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.). 2019. The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ure, Jean N. 1971. “Lexical density and register differentiation.” In G.E. Perren & J.L.M. Trimm (eds.), Applications of linguistics: Selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguists, 1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 443–452. Veel, Robert. 1997. “Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school.” In Frances Christie & J.R. Martin (eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell. 161–195. Wang, Bo & Yuanyi Ma. forthcoming. “Christian Matthiessen and translation viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma (eds.), Theorizing and developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

3

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English Some insights inspired by Halliday and Matthiessen’s systemic functional linguistic architecture Gerard O’Grady

3.1 Introduction More years ago than I want to remember, armed with a shiny MA in applied linguistics with a dissertation in phonetics, I was hired by a Japanese University to teach an undergraduate course on English pronunciation. In class, I showed the students IPA charts and spent much time discussing and practising differences in the place and manner of consonant phoneme articulation between English and Japanese. And while it is true to say, that to a limited extent at least, I succeeded in raising theoretical knowledge, I most definitely failed in the stated aim of teaching English pronunciation by illustrating how the sound systems differed.1 At the time, despite having some familiarity with Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) through work such as Halliday (1994) and Martin, Matthiessen and Painter (1997), I did not see the relevance of a systemic approach to the matter at hand. Specifically, I failed to grasp the importance of rank in describing the cut of individual languages. Nor did I understand the necessity of viewing the sound wave as the expression plane of a semiotic system. Had I done so, I would have been able to more accurately describe the phonemes from below, as constellations of articulatory gestures, from roundabout as motivated expansions and from above as choices whose difference makes a difference (Matthiessen, 2007). Why was I so blind to the descriptive breath and theoretical power of SFL? Partly, I suspect it was because I had insufficient knowledge of systemic thinking, but it was also because there were and still are very few works on systemic phonology with the exception of intonation (see Halliday, 1967; Halliday & Greaves, 2008; Tench, 1996; O’Grady, 2017; Bowcher & Debashish, 2019 for representative examples of SFL work on intonation). The prevailing assumption seemed, at least to me, to be that in a stratified theory of language that systems need only be developed on the content plane. This, I hope to show, should not be the case. Accordingly, I will, in Section 3.2, outline what a potential model of a systemic phonology would look like. Then I will illustrate how syllables DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-4

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  71 and syllable onsets in English and Japanese differ before attempting to demonstrate that a systemic perspective offers a more rewarding insight into the formation of syllables and syllable onsets in both languages than a universalist one does. 3.2 What would a systemic phonology look like? In this section, I will discuss the contributions of the all too few works that have outlined the distinctive description of a systemic phonology. Prior to doing so, I will briefly review the principles underlying Firthian prosodic phonology and traditional Chinese phonology (Halliday, 1981),2 which are the theoretical underpinnings of the subsequent studies in systemic phonology. In a series of publications, Firth (1934, 1946, 1948) argued that each and every language needed to be considered in its own terms (see Tench, 1992, for a discussion of how prosodic phonology differs from but laid the ground for systemic phonology). He especially opposed the view that phonologies consisted of universal features. A typological study by Mielke (2008), which examined distinctive features across 547 languages, provides important empirical support for Firth’s claim. Mielke argued that rather than considering distinctive features as innate and hence grounded in human sounding potential, they appear to represent abstract categories based on generalizations that emerge from perceptions of phonological patterns. In other words, they are culturally dependent. Firth though went further and argued in favour of “polysystemicity”: different systems operate in specific locations. For instance, the systems governing consonant phones function differently before vowels than they do after vowels. To illustrate in English, the phonotactic sequence /sp/ can only be found in a word initially and finally, while /ps/ cannot be found in a word initially. If the sequence /ps/ is found not at the end of a word, it signals a juncture, e.g. and .3 Firth, noting that our phonology would be very different if our writing was not based on the Latin alphabet,4 rejected the concept of phonemes and argued instead in favour of phonematic units which served two functions: (i) a major function on the syntagmatic axis of being used in an individual context5 and (ii) a minor function which is the establishment of paradigmatic opposition. Here we can see that by prioritizing structure over system, Firthian prosodic phonology differs significantly from systemic phonology. Firth viewed his phonematic material/phones as signs, and with the exception of phonaesthesia to be discussed later, accepted that the relation between content and expression was arbitrary. Tench (1992), finding much to agree with in Firth, notes that the only universals in phonology are systems and structures, although, as a systemic phonologist, he prioritizes systems over structures.

72  Gerard O’Grady The second theoretical underpinning for systemic phonology was Halliday’s interpretation of the Chinese phonological tradition. While Chinese can be written with alphabetic characters, it has not been written so. As such the Chinese tradition provides an example of the type of nonalphabetic phonology that Firth imagined. The fundamental linguistic unit, as Halliday (1981: 123) reports, is “the complex made up of morpheme/ syllable/character [which] is referred to in Modern Chinese as zì”. Halliday reports that the initial motivation for the study of Chinese linguistics came from a desire to preserve the intelligibility of ancient texts. This resulted in a classification of Chinese characters into six types with type three which consisted of a blend of a head semantic character followed by the phonetic element the most numerous. The first character served as an indicator of meaning while the second was an indicator of sounding and referred to the fact that the complex was sounded out in a manner similar to other complexes containing the same phonetic final character. This systematic use of homonymy was eventually superseded by an even more abstract system known as fǎnqiè, which Halliday (1981) describes as “countersegmentation” or the fusing of the first sound of the first character and the final sound of the final character. Such a system led to the segmentation of the syllable into initial and final equivalent to onset and rhyme respectively in English. The introduction of Buddhism into China led to an interest in the Indian phonological tradition which led to the incorporation of a more systematic, segmental analysis based on articulatory gestures. This, as Halliday (1981: 137) notes, does not imply that Chinese phonology should be based on the segment6 but allows for a more concrete interpretation of the syllable in terms of initial and final elements. For instance, initials were classified by place and manner, while finals were classified by vowel grade, tone and labialization. It is clear that Chinese phonology grounded as it is in the syllable is very compatible with Firthian prosodic phonology. Neither theory demands the segmentation of speech into phonemic segments. Both systems theorize abstract systems based on the individual characterology of the language, and both adopt a polysystemic stance. Tench (1992: 8) notes that the principles underlying Firthian prosodic phonology, namely non-universality, the highlighting of the syntagmatic as well as the paradigmatic dimensions of the speech signal in relation to structures and systems, polysystemicity in relation to syntagmatic positioning and the reflection of grammatical categories have all been incorporated into systemic phonology. But, as he notes and as we will see, systemic phonology includes more.7,8 Tench identifies two major advances of systemic phonology, namely rank and networks. In a series of publications Halliday (e.g. 1963/2005, 1967, 1994; Halliday & Greaves, 2008) has proposed the following rank scale for English:

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  73 tone group foot syllable phoneme with the higher units in the scale being filled by the lower ones. So, in English, tone groups consist of one or more feet, feet of one or more syllables and syllables of one or more phonemes. At the same time, there is also a functional relationship, so that a phoneme has a certain function in a syllable, a syllable a certain function in a foot and a foot a certain function in a tone group (Halliday, 1967: 12–15). While for Halliday, the tone group is the highest element in the phonological rank scale. Others, including early Halliday (e.g. 1963/2005) himself, allow for higher unit (paraphone/paratone), while Tench (1976) argues against the existence of the foot. In accordance with the non-universality of phonological categories, Table 3.1 illustrates the rank scales proposed by a number of scholars for different languages: Halliday (1992a) and Tench (2017) did not develop rank scales for Mandarin and Etwen, choosing instead to focus on developing systems at particular ranks. Nonetheless (lower) elements of the rank scale can be reconstructed to an extent, although it is not entirely clear to me if Tench (2017) refers to words or phonological words in his rank scale (see Selkirk, 2011, for more details on phonological words). Tench (2014) hints that within English, a rank of word is required, which would render the position of the foot in the rank scale theoretically untenable as words are not formed out of a complete number of feet. To sum up, while the concept of rank within the theory is firmly established, details of what the actual ranks are in individual languages remain to be worked out. Table 3.1 Rank in five languages Akan

Etwen

Gooniyandi

Mandarin

Telugu

Tone group

?

Tone group

Tone group

Tone group

Word

Word

Phonological word

Word

Piece

Syllable

Syllable

Syllable

Syllable

Foot

Phoneme

Phoneme

Phoneme

Hemi-syllable

Formative Syllable Segment

Matthiessen (1987)

Tench (2017)

McGregor (1992)

Halliday (1992a)

Prakasam (1992)

74  Gerard O’Grady Turning now to SFL’s other major improvement on Firthian prosodic phonology, namely networks, there have been a number of studies that have demonstrated quite clearly the strengths of a network approach. For instance, Halliday’s (1992a) networks at syllable rank in Mandarin clearly describe and ground prosodic processes such as labialization and velarization in different parts of the syllable. Tench (2014, 2017), also operating at syllable rank, describes syllable patterning in monomorphemic words in English and Etwen. Matthiessen (1987) produces networks for Akan both at phoneme and syllable rank. At phoneme rank, he illustrates that by treating articulatory features, such as manner and place as preselections higher in the system, we can explain how differences between citation and connected forms are generated. At syllable rank, he is able to demonstrate that the syllables in Akan are divided into two parts: with the nucleus being formed by the onset and vocalic peak and followed by an optional coda consisting of nasals and glottals. In English, by comparison, the syllable is cut into an optional onset followed by the rhyme, which itself contains a vowel followed by an optional coda. This again clearly demonstrates that each language must be examined in its own terms. Matthiessen (2021) notes that systemic phonology cannot be a series of rules or constraints but must instead be a sounding potential. This entails that systemic phonology consists of a network of sounding options; certain languages will not choose some options,9 while other options and combinations of options may become routinized within particular languages. In other words, it is not biology alone that determines the actualized sounding potential of a language. Systemic phonology is to be interpreted semiotically rather than cognitively: thus, phonemes are not posited to be mental categories but are rather the smallest phonological unit whose difference makes a difference.10 Systemic phonology as interpreted semiotically is part of a stratified system and exists as expression-form on the expression plane (Hjelmslev, 1953). The relation between the expression-form (phonology) and the content-form is arbitrary and realizational (Saussure, 1959; Halliday, 1992b). Therefore, we see the emergence of redundancy relationships between the content plane (semantics ↘ lexicogrammar) and phonology as expressionform. Such relationships may form into tighter or looser content (signified)/sounding (signifier) pairs. It is the tightness or looseness of these pairs which enables us to understand how phonological features may both change and remain part of a metastable system. Each act of human sounding is a series of material gestures that we can represent in a spectrograph/ waveform illustrating the disturbances caused by the vibrating molecules (as illustrated in Figure 3.1). The speaker’s sounding out of the English word goodnight resulted in an imperceptible physical disturbance to the extra-linguistic environment

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  75

Figure 3.1  Spectrograph of “goodnight”

in which I as the speaker found myself. The airstream being pushed up from my lungs set my vocal folds vibrating which itself initiates vibration of the airstream away from the point of rest as seen on the waveform. It is noticeable that the waveform is most energetic during the production of the stressed vowel in the final syllable and that the disturbance in the air molecules is least during the articulation of the stop consonants /g, d, t/ with the nasal /n/ consonant in between. The spectrograph provides evidence for the resonances produced by the air molecules interacting with the shape of my

76  Gerard O’Grady vocal tract and the presence of the regular formant structure for the vowels indicates such sounds are more periodic than the consonant sounds, with the partial exception of the nasal, which again is in between the vowels and stop consonants. But what is most noticeable about Figure 3.1 is that it is impossible to identify a precise location where a phone begins and where it ends; it extends for a duration and has permeable boundaries. Like all physical elements, phones can be analyzed either as particles, waves and fields (Pike, 1967). Figure 3.2 schematizes a sound wave such as that visualized in Figure 3.1 as (1) particles, (2) waves and (3) fields. There are six particles in the spoken utterance goodnight. At the same time, the entire word can itself be classed as a particle which itself represents a difference that makes a difference; note the essential unity of the word regardless of how it is sounded, e.g. [gʊd̚naɪtʰ], [gʊʔnaɪt] or [gʊdnaɪʔ]. Thus, the continuous waveform can be interpreted as a discrete element or a series of discrete elements that form part of a chain of similar elements and one which is used to represent our experience of the world. Simultaneously, as Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate, the sound sequence can be interpreted as a wave with local peaks of prominence that represent nuclei. In the word goodnight, the vowel in the final syllable represents the peak prominence and hence the focus of the sounding is on the temporal reference of the greeting. It would be a mistake though to only focus on the prominence peaks and ignore the troughs. For instance, the final stop /d/ in the first syllable is sounded out at the same place of articulation as the following consonant and thus there is no possibility of it assimilating to the immediately following consonant. In goodbye and good morning, by contrast, there is a likely assimilation of the /d/ to the immediately following bilabial place of articulation. The non-assimilation of the /d/ in the case of goodnight helps the hearer anticipate the content of the speaker’s sounding out. At the same time, all linguistic elements are produced in fields, where each item has value only in the context it was uttered. So, for instance, goodnight can be sounded out with any of the five primary tones (Halliday, 1967; Halliday & Greaves, 2008) and realize different speech functions ranging from a brisk dismissal to a friendly greeting. To summarize the architecture of systemic phonology is capacious and not minimal as otherwise it would not be capable of describing the sounding potential. It is a resource shared by a speech community. It is a system that when viewed as a particle expresses experiential meaning, when viewed as a wave expresses textual meaning and when viewed as a field expresses interpersonal meaning (see Cléirigh, 1998; Thibault, 2004). It is the expression plane (signifier) of a stratified social-semiotic system that is itself stratified into an expression-form (phonology) and an expression-substance (phonetics) that interfaces with the external world. The relationship between strata is realizational and between content and

Figure 3.2  Schematization of particle, wave and field

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  77

78  Gerard O’Grady expression is arbitrary. This means that certain content/sounding combinations will over time be favoured and spread through the community. Finally, the phonological system will have a rank order but the order may differ between varieties. In the next section, we will compare the systems of syllable onsets in English and syllables in Japanese.11 While Japanese can be analyzed in terms of phonemes (International Phonetic Association, 1999), the fact that it is traditionally written as a syllabary either in hiragana or katakana script is evidence against so doing. If we exclude marginal syllables closed with nasals and geminates, the Japanese syllabic system only contains open syllables and thus the description is effectively one of the entire Japanese syllable system. English, by comparison, contains closed and open syllables and so the description applies only to English onset consonants. 3.3 Japanese syllables and English onsets compared and contrasted Table 3.212 presents the Japanese syllabary in hiragana with phonemic transcription and Roman glosses. Table 3.2 illustrates the potential for a dynamic wave description of Japanese phonology in contrast to the more common particle-like list of phonemes. Each hiragana character encodes a syllable which itself is the product of a single initiating gesture with an energy pulse continuing until the end of the syllable. The network below reconceptualizes the list of hiragana characters as a series of choices at syllable rank. The functionally significant units of phonology in Japanese, which allow us to explicate the choices available in the articulation of Japanese syllable onsets + vowels, are: • Voice: Is the phone produced with vocal fold vibration? • Place of articulation: Is the stricture in the front, middle or back of the oral cavity? • Nasal: Is the soft palate raised or lowered? • Secondary articulation: Is the primary stricture accompanied by a secondary articulatory gesture such as palatalization or labialization? • Manner of articulation: Is the stricture, a stop, fricative, approximant or vowel? • If the manner of articulation is a vowel, is the tongue above or below the place of rest? Table 3.3 tabulates onset and vowel particles in terms of the functional significances addressed above. Figure 3.3 schematizes the functional options needed to produce syllable onsets ^ vowels in Japanese (the symbol ^ means followed by). The initial input is a pulmonic egressive airstream mechanism. The network is not a

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  79 Table 3.2 Japanese open syllables a

i

u

e

o

Zero

あ /a/

い /i/

う /ɯ/

え /e/

お /o/

k

か /ka/

き/ki/

く/kɯ/

け /ke/

こ /ko/

g

が /ga/

ぎ /gi/

ぐ/gɯ/

げ /ge/

ご /go/

s

さ /sa/

し /ɕi/

す /sɯ/

せ /se/

そ /so/

z

ざ /za/

じ /ʑi/

ズ /zɯ/

ぜ /ze/

ぞ/zo/

t

た /ta/

ち /tɕi/

つ /tsɯ/

て /te/

と /to/

d

だ /da/

ぢ /dʑi/ づ /dzɯ/

で /de/

ど /do/

n

な /na/

に /ni/

ぬ /nɯ/

ね /ne/

の /no/

h

は /ha/

ひ /çi/

ふ /ɸɯ/

ヘ /he/

ほ /ho/

p

ぱ /pa/

ぴ /pi/

ぷ /pɯ/

ぺ /pe/

ぽ /po/

b

ば /ba/

び /bi/

ぶ /bɯ/

べ /be/

ぼ /bo/

m

ま /ma/

み /mi/

む /mɯ/

め /me/

も /mo/

y

や /ja/

n/a

ゆ /jɯ/

n/a

よ /jo/

r

ら /ra/

り /ri/

る /rɯ/

れ /re/

ろ /ro/

w

わ /wa/

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

ky

きゃ /kja/

n/a

きゅ /kjɯ/

n/a

きょ /kjo/

gy

ぎゃ/gja/

n/a

ぎゅ /gjɯ/

n/a

ぎょ /gjo/

sh

しゃ/ɕa/

n/a

しゅ/ɕɯ/

n/a

しょ /ɕo/

j

じゃ/ʑa/

n/a

じゅ/ʑɯ/

n/a

じょ/ʑo/

ch

ちゃ /tça/

n/a

ちゅ/tçɯ/

n/a

ちょ /tço/

my

みゃ /mja/

n/a

みゅ /mjɯ/

n/a

みょ /mjo/

ry

りゃ /rjo/

n/a

りゅ /rjɯ/

n/a

りょ /rjo/

hy

ひゃ /ça/

n/a

ひゅ/çɯ/

n/a

ひょ /ço/

py

ぴゃ/pja/

n/a

ぴゅ /pjɯ/

n/a

ぴょ /pjo/

by

びゃ/bja/

n/a

びゅ /bjɯ/

n/a

びょ /bjo/

flow chart showing how the syllables are articulated, it is a representation of the functional options available in Japanese phonology. The output is presented in Table 3.8 in the Appendix and it is to be read using the numbers/ symbols which follow the options in the network. So, to give an example, / pi/ is [1αiiva4ε]. It can be seen that not all relevant options are chosen; the

Neutral /e, o/

/a/

/i, ɯ/

/w, j, r, rj/

Low

tç, dʑ, ts, dz/

Approximant

High

/ ɸ, ʑ, ɕ, s, z/

/m, p, n, b, g, k, t, d, pj, bj, mj, gj ,kj /

Affricate

/i, e, a, o, ɯ/

Vowel

a

Please note that the labels front, mid and back represent phonological functions and not physical locations in the mouth. Front vowels such as /i/ are actually produced at the hard palate.

Tongue height

Fricative

Stop

/w, o/

/ bj, mj, rj, gj , kj /

Manner

Labialization

Palatalization

Secondary Articulation

/g, j, w, gj , o, ɯ, k, kj /

/m, mj, n/

/n, z, s, d, ʑ, r, rj, a, t, ɕ, tç, dʑ, dz/

/m, p, b, bj, mj, i, a e, ɸ, pj /

Back

Nasal

Middle

/m, n, b, d, g, z, d, ʑ, r, ç, w, j, bj, rj, mj, gj , dʑ, dz, i, e, a, o, ɯ/

Front

/p, t, k, s, t, ɕ, ɸ, tç, pj , kj /

Voiced

Voice

Place

Voiceless

Particles

Functional choices

Table 3.3 Onset and vowel particles in terms of the functional significances

80  Gerard O’Grady

Figure 3.3  Japanese syllable onset network

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  81

82  Gerard O’Grady network in other words leaves open the possibility of latent options being available as a reserve resource. For instance, /wi/ is not an actual outcome, but it is certainly a possible outcome. Thus, in order to be fully operationalized, the network needs to include probability weightings of the likelihood of an option being chosen. Currently, /wi/ would have a probability of 0 while /mjɯ/ would have a probability of slightly above 0 (see Note 20). In English, the primary cut in the syllable is between onset and rhyme. There is a more natural unity between the consonants in the onset than there is between the onset consonants and the vowel nucleus. Conversely, there is a much closer unity between the vowel nucleus and any closing consonants. Thus, English syllable structure can be schematized as: (1)

[(c ^ c ^ c)] [v^ (c ^ c^ c^ c)] Onset Rhyme

The round brackets signify optionality while the square ones signify structural unity. A syllable in English can contain between one and seven phonemes with a minimum of zero phonemes and a maximum of three phonemes in the onset, for example:13 (2)

eye wry try strive

/aɪ/ /ɹaɪ/ /tɹaɪ/ /stɹaɪv/

Young (1992) and Tench (2014) have produced system networks of English consonant clusters. While there is much merit in both works, I will not adopt either description in its entirety. Young’s (1992) network does not explicate how the phoneme-like particles that form his clusters were themselves realized and consist of choices between phonemes. As with the Japanese network above, my intention is to produce a network that shows the functionally motivated choices of the language. Young (1992: 52) argues convincingly that onset clusters are structured and contain a head and “accretions”. He identifies the head as the element which has the lowest sonority (for a further discussion of sonority, see O’Grady, 2012: 130–131). Thus, the voiceless alveolar stop is the head in onset clusters, e.g. try in Example 2 and logically the structure of three consonant clusters is a string represented as β ^ α ^ γ, e.g. strive, though note the marginal exception /smj/, which will be examined below. Tench (2014: 283) does not adopt Young’s (1992) notion of structure in the cluster and instead argues for an option between single, double and triple clusters. His network is presented in Figure 3.4. I do not follow Tench’s network for a number of reasons. First, while there is no doubt that Tench elegantly and comprehensively captures a description of English consonant onset clusters, his network options are unmotivated

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  83

Figure 3.4  Tench’s (2014) network of English onsets

and purely descriptive. As argued above, a network must represent options between functionally meaningful options within a particular language. For instance, terms such as sibilant, labial/velar and apical are descriptive labels that represent choices in the functionally motivated systems of manner and place of articulation. Second, Tench’s (2014) network implicitly appears to reject the reality of particle-like units in favour of units more akin to Firth’s (1948) phonematic units. While there is evidence that at times phonematic units such as phonaesthemes function to convey meaning, e.g. /gl/ is frequently found initially in words that construe meanings related to light or the absence of light, e.g. gleam, glitter, glint, glacier, glade, glare, glass, glimmer, glint, glisten, gloom, gloaming (see Willett [2015] for more details), it is also true that such clusters appear to function as expansions of phonemes. And thus, it seems more sensible to adopt Young’s (1992) suggestion that consonant clusters have structure. This decision means that we do not need to posit a rank between phoneme and syllable on the rank scale. Additionally, it has the advantage that we are able to respect the spirit of Firth’s (1948) polysystemic principle by illustrating that the choices available may not be identical at different locations within the syllable. In English, the following phoneme onset clusters are possible, although some of them are not frequent. In the clusters, the head phoneme is emboldened and infrequent ones are italicized.

84  Gerard O’Grady Single cluster /p, t, k, b, d, g, m, n, f, v, s, z, θ, ð, ʃ, ʒ, h, tʃ, dʒ, l, ɹ, w, j, / Double cluster /pl, bl, fl, kl, gl, pɹ, bɹ, fɹ, kɹ, gɹ, vɹ, pw, bw, kw, gw, vw, tɹ, dɹ, θɹ, tw, dw, θw, sp, st, sk sf, sm, sn, sl, sw, ʃm, ʃn, ʃl, ʃɹ, ʃw, pj, bj, tj, dj, kj, gj, fj, vj, θj, sj,14 zj, hj, mj, nj/ Triple cluster /spl, spɹ, stɹ, skl, skw, sfɹ, spj, stj, skj, smj/ Figure 3.5 illustrates the functional options available in English for producing (i) simple English onsets and (ii) the head of onset clusters. The simple onset choice interacts with other independent choices in the vowel system. Three onset phones /ɹ/, /w/ and /j/ do not re-enter the network as either the head of an onset cluster or as a phoneme that can form a palatalized cluster. As can be seen, once the head of a cluster is generated, it then re-enters the network which produces the second consonant in the cluster. As seen in Figure 3.5, not all single consonants are chosen as heads of onset clusters as they are constrained by their relatively higher sonority. This results in only the oral stops and fricatives being available to function as head. The voiced dental and alveolar fricatives /ð/ and /ʒ/ and the two affricates15 while options are not chosen. As heads, the phonemes /p, t, k/ realize two distinct units: (i) voiceless stops and (ii) fortis stops (see O’Grady, 2012: 11–12 for a discussion of the theory of archiphonemes).16 Figure 3.6 illustrates the functional options in English for choosing two consonant initial clusters. The network produces a number of options both as two clusters onset and as the entry point for a three-cluster system that English does not allow. And while it would be a relatively trivial matter to introduce constraints to the networks to disallow homorganic clusters such as /tl/, I have not attempted to do so. My reasoning is that as a network represents a system of probabilities, it should encode both low-frequency options and latencies. Figure 3.6 shows that there are three distinct sets of two consonant clusters. The first consists of single consonants which form palatalized clusters. The second cluster consists of stops and fricatives in head positions and followed by approximants. The final cluster contains a fricative followed by the head. Figure 3.7 shows which clusters re-enter the network and are available to form into three consonant clusters. There are two subsystems, with the first representing output from the palatalized system. It can be seen that there is no option here as only /s/ is available as the initial consonant in the cluster. The second system comprises a two cluster with a stop or in extremely rare case /f/ as head and the final expanded consonant is an approximant. The shading once again indicates the latency in the system. The networks presented in Figure 3.7 are lacking in detail in that while they present onset clusters that are available in onset formation, they create the false impression that onset systems and rhyme systems are independent rather than interdependent, e.g. palatalized consonant onset clusters are restricted to syllables with rounded back vowel nuclei. This suggests that the final /j/ phone has entered into a redundancy relation with rounded

Figure 3.5  English single onset + head network

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  85

Figure 3.6  Two consonant clusters

86  Gerard O’Grady

Figure 3.7  Three consonant clusters

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  87

88  Gerard O’Grady back vowels in English despite there being no biological constraint on the pronunciation of segments such as /nji:/, /mjəʊ/, /smjɔː/ or /spjɑː/, etc. Conversely, there may be a dispreference for /j/ followed by front unrounded vowels as the articulatory gestures required are very similar. The inclusion of probability relations between segments in the onset and between the onset and rhyme results in a different perspective; that of the wave rather than that of particles. It is no longer the case that options are privileged but rather that the links or pathways joining the particles come into focus and instead the overall sound shape of the onset ^ rhyme emerges. In O’Grady and Bartlett (forthcoming), we have quantified the relationship between English onsets and vowel nuclei. We examined instances of onsets found in stressed syllables in lexical items as recorded by John Wells’ Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. In order to ensure that, we had a manageable sample of data and we excluded a number of entries on theoretical and logistical grounds: • Words of recent foreign borrowing that have not (yet) been integrated into English. Thus, we included babushka but not babiroussa. • We excluded all zero onsets. • Where words appeared twice because of variant spellings, e.g. jail and gaol, we only counted once. • We excluded all lexical items commencing with capital letters such as place, brand and personal names. This left us with a data set of 35,629 lexical items comprising 90 different onset combinations. The frequency of the onsets ranged from the most frequent onset /s/, 2592 occurrences or 7.3% of the entire data set to single occurrences such as /vɹ / or /smj/. The mean number of occurrences per onset was 396 with a median value of 94. The data is distributed in a manner in accordance with Kretzschmar’s (2009) reformulation of Zipf’s law as referring to situations where roughly 20% of the tokens do 80% of the work. Table 3.4 lists the 20 most frequent onset clusters, which amount to 80.7% of the data set, and shows the frequency of the following vowel. Predictably, the most common onsets are single onsets with only four two consonant clusters appearing in the 20 most frequently occurring onsets. Unsurprisingly, there were no three consonant clusters in the list. The most commonly occurring three consonant cluster was /spɹ/, which was the 32nd most frequent onset in stressed syllables occurring 57 times. It can also be seen that onset and vowel systems are not independent; the choice of the onset constrains the occurrence of the following vowel by either raising or lowering the probability of a particular vowel choice occurring. For instance, the onset ^ vowel combination /tɹɪə/ does not occur, although both /ɹɪə/ and /tɪə/ do not occur. The current probability of /tɹ/ being followed by /ɪə/ is 0.17 In order to investigate the strength of associations between each of the 20 onsets, we conducted a series of Spearman rho tests. This was

122

53

46

/st/

206

87

61

38

47

/tɹ/

/pɹ/

Total

92

19

/z/

85

7

52

/g/

/dʒ/

131

74

43

/w/

80

149

234

/v/

103

54

/n/

/h/

103

/d/

308

219

86

108

/f/

/b/

203

198

/ɹ/

228

257

106

133

367

/p/

134

/l/

78

331

455

ɪ

/t/

93

55

/m/

/k/

233

/s/

iː

109

40

66

203

56

85

131

82

205

136

272

97

167

315

306

252

246

43

326

489

ɛ

29

113

36

40

130

63

95

20

184

142

106

175

151

232

205

299

245

318

367

196

æ

5

4

14

4

45

52

18

4

113

30

38

80

44

62

28

119

69

112

95

43

ɑː

2

46

12

63

82

8

19

26

64

69

165

149

61

116

75

132

81

296

149

226

ʌ

2

4

30

9

30

51

29

87

50

38

61

79

222

27

98

114

49

158

90

102

ɔ

99

43

16

27

79

55

34

143

89

189

113

95

108

122

155

225

213

463

186

146

ɒ

0

0

31

36

9

24

133

113

5

27

18

74

94

2

130

130

17

62

60

148

ɜː

Table 3.4 The 20 most frequent onsets and their following vowels

0

0

2

0

18

4

0

67

4

3

0

66

55

4

12

54

13

25

2

3

ʊ

38

34

8

47

30

13

1

9

11

18

36

52

23

94

63

27

134

55

40

79

uː

0

0

7

1

2

21

8

5

20

20

21

3

10

27

29

25

10

1

8

19

ɪə

2

0

2

0

2

9

23

20

29

34

9

19

18

12

31

27

9

14

8

5

ɛə

2

1

0

11

3

0

0

0

1

0

5

4

0

2

7

1

8

0

5

4

ʊə

15

42

190

18

90

121

75

68

56

212

120

75

108

275

247

138

239

237

171

115

eɪ

39

46

23

28

12

27

98

95

108

118

88

61

127

99

142

61

184

32

109

207

aɪ

71

26

13

9

73

45

32

12

83

118

46

46

74

147

96

120

111

121

73

86

əʊ

10

7

5

2

7

5

11

2

53

71

53

27

22

37

22

28

25

79

102

31

aʊ

0

2

1

25

3

0

22

0

7

14

3

16

5

15

10

25

10

15

7

8

ɔɪ

28749

531

533

567

660

731

751

903

1033

1216

1491

1491

1534

1594

1989

2046

2111

2164

2164

2222

2595

All

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  89

90  Gerard O’Grady Table 3.5 Primary functional differences Front

Middle

Back

Stop

/p, b, m, pɹ/ /t, d, n, st, tɹ/

/k, g/

Fricative

/f, v/

/h/

/s, z/

Affricate

/dʒ/

Approximant

/l, ɹ,/

/w/

done in order to see if certain onsets or sets of onsets were more closely linked with individual vowels. The onsets were divided into the following categories based on the primary functional differences set out in Table 3.5. In the case of two consonant clusters, they are classed according to their heads. A rho value of 0 indicates that there is no association between the variables and a value of 1 indicates that the variables are identical. Thus, if onsets and vowel relationships are independent, we would expect that as each onset is free to enter a relationship with any vowel all the onsets would roughly show the same relationship between themselves. If on the other hand functional choices serve to cluster onsets, then we would expect to find clusters of higher rho values. In order to check this, Table 3.6 details the strengths of associations between the onsets. As Table 3.6 indicates, I have divided the associations based on the rho value into very strong, strong, moderate and weak. For instance, a rho value equal to or greater than 0.8 indicates a very strong correlation. This suggests that the two onsets realize very similar choices in the vowel network. Conversely, a rho score of lower than 0.4 indicates a weak correlation, indicating that the two onsets realize different choices in the vowel network. There is a strong correlation between the choices the onsets realize in the vowel systems: onsets are by and large free to associate with any of the vowel choices. In other words, there is clear evidence that all possible onset vowel combinations are realized in similar proportions. That said, there are stronger associations between onset ^ vowel combinations where the onsets realize the same primary choices in the consonant system (see Figure 3.4), so the pairs /p, b/, /t, d/, /k, g/, /s, z/ and /m, n/ all very strongly associate in how they combine with the vowel system. Thus, there is a degree of unpredictability in the system; the pair /p, g/ is very strongly associated, while the pair /f, v/ is only strongly associated. Thus, we can see that the association between onset and vowel is culturally and not, at least exclusively, biologically determined. There are only weak associations between the onsets /k/ or /g/ and the onsets /w/, /v/

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  91 Table 3.6 The strength of associations between onsets Very strong 1 – 0.8

Strong 0.79 – 0.6

Moderate 0.59 – 0.4

Weak 0.39 – 0.2

/p/

/b, m, g, z, f, t, l/

/s, k, ɹ d, n, h, w, v, st tɹ/

/pɹ, dʒ /

/b/

/p/

/s, m, k, l, t, ɹ, f, d, n, h, w, st, g, dʒ, z, t/

/v, pɹ/

/m/

/s, l, p, t, ɹ, d, n, h, tɹ/

/k, f, b, v, z, g, st, pɹ/

/w, dʒ/

/pɹ/

/l, ɹ/

/s, m, t, d, n, h, st, tɹ/

/k, p, f, b, v, g, dʒ, z/

/f/

/p, t, w, z/

/s, m, l, ɹ, b, d, n, h, v, /k, pɹ, ɹ st, g, tɹ/

/v/

/t, z/

/s, m, l, p, f, n, w, st/

/dʒ, ɹ, b, d, h, tɹ, pɹ/

/k, g/

 

 

 

 

 

/t/

/s, m, l, p, f, d, n, v, z/

/ɹ, b, h, w, st, g, dʒ, tɹ, pɹ/

/k/

/d/

/s, m, l, t, ɹ, n, tɹ/

/k, p, f, b, h, v, st, g, dʒ, z, pɹ/

/w/

/n/

/m, l, t, ɹ, d/

/s, k, p, f, b, h, v, st, g, z, tɹ, pɹ/

/w, dʒ/

/st/

/z/

/s, m, l, p, t, ɹ, f, b, d, n, h, v, g, pɹ/

/k, w, tɹ/

/tɹ/

/m, l, ɹ, d/

/s, k, p, t, f, b, n, h, g, dʒ, z, pɹ/

/w, v, st/

/s/

/m, l, t, d, dʒ, z/

/p, ɹ, f, b, n, h, w, v, st, tɹ, pɹ/

/k, g/

/z/

/s, l, p, t, f, v, st/

/m, ɹ, b, d, n, h, w, g, tɹ/

/k, pɹ, dʒ/

/dʒ/

/s/

/l, t, b, d, tɹ/

/m, p, ɹ, f, n, w, v. g. z, pɹ/

/l/

/s,m,p,t, ɹ, d, n, z, tɹ, pɹ/

/f, b, h, v, st, g/

/k, w, dʒ/

/ɹ/

/m, l, d, n, h, tɹ, pɹ/

/s, p, t, f, b, st, g, z/

/k, v, dʒ/

/w/

/dʒ/

/k, h, st/

/w/ (Continued )

92  Gerard O’Grady Table 3.6 (Continued) Very strong 1 – 0.8

Strong 0.79 – 0.6

Moderate 0.59 – 0.4

Weak 0.39 – 0.2

 

 

 

 

 

/k/

/g/

/m, p, b, d, n, tɹ/

/s, l, t, ɹ, h, st, pɹ, z,/

/w, v, dʒ/

/g/

/k, p/

/m, l, t, ɹ, f, b, d, n, h, st, z, tɹ/

/ s, pɹ, dʒ/

/w, v/

/w/

/w/

/s, p, t, b, v, z/

/m, l, d, n, st, dʒ, tɹ/

/k, ɹ, h, g, pɹ/

/h/

/m, ɹ/

/s, l, p, f, t, b, d, n, st, g, z, tɹ, pɹ/

/k, v/

/w, dʒ/

and /dʒ/, indicating that the distribution of such onset ^ vowel combinations are at best marginally overlapping. In other words, English does not make use of all the possible meaning-generating options. Adopting a wave-like view allows us to glean a deeper understanding of the patterning of English onset syllable structure. Rather than focusing on particles, our attention is turned to the patterns which emerge from the linear unfolding of the particles. For instance, using as an example the alveolar onsets /s/, /t/, /ɹ/, /st/, and /stɹ/, we can map out the probability of their occurring with various vowels. Table 3.6 has shown us that /s/ and /t/ are very strongly associated as are /ɹ/ and /stɹ/ in their choices with the vowel system, while the other pairs are strongly associated with the exception of /st/ and/ stɹ/, which were moderately associated. In Table 3.7, the numbers indicate the probability of a particular vowel following the onset. So, for instance, there is a 19% chance that the onset /s/ will be followed by the vowel /ɛ/ and a 0.1% chance that it will be followed by /ʊ/. We can see that not all the options are realized, ensuring that there is latency in the system. Looking at the wave pattern of English onset and vowel co-occurrences enables us to see which options are actually chosen in what proportions. A third way of looking at onsets is as charged fields. Firth (1935/1957: 44) noted but did not develop the idea of a phonaestheme such as the onset cluster /stɹ/ in words such as strip, stipe, strap, string, streak, strand, etc, realizing meanings related to objects that are long, thin, narrow, stretched out, etc. Firth claimed that there were 37 phonaesthemes in English with nine being formed from the rhyme, e.g. /æʃ/ in words such as bash, crash, mash, smash, etc., which refer to quick and violent actions.

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  93 Table 3.7 Probability of selected occurring with a particular vowel s

t

ɹ

st

stɹ

iː

0.09

0.07

0.1

0.06

0.11

ɪ

0.18

0.13

0.1

0.16

0.08

ɛ

0.19

0.15

0.16

0.11

0.08

æ

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.08

0.13

ɑː

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.07

0.02

ʌ

0.09

0.04

0.06

0.01

0.22

ɔ

0.04

0.05

0.01

0.07

0.03

ɒ

0.06

0.08

0.06

0.07

0.06

ɜː

0.06

0.06

0.001

0.03

0

ʊ

0.001

0.006

0.002

0.005

0

uː

0.03

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.03

ɪə

0.007

0.01

0.01

0.03

0

ɛə

0.002

0.02

0.006

0.001

0

ʊə

0.02

0.003

0.001

0

0

eɪ

0.04

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.14

aɪ

0.08

0.07

0.05

0.04

0.06

əʊ

0.03

0.05

0.07

0.06

0.03

aʊ

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.007

0.003

ɔɪ

0.03

0.004

0.01

0

0.01

There is a considerable amount of work in Japanese phonology on the importance of sound symbolism (e.g. Hinton, Nicols & Ohala, 1994; Kanero et al., 2014), where mimetic meanings are ascribed to the repetition of various syllables. Some examples follow: (3)

どきどき ぐズぐズ にこにこ きらきら ぬるぬる ぴかぴか がらがら

/dokidoki/ /gɯzɯgɯzɯ/ /nikoniko/ /kirakira/ /nɯrɯnɯrɯ/ /pikapika/ /garagara/

doki-doki guzu-guzu niko-niko kira-kira nuru-nuru pika-pika gara-gara

anxiousness slow smile glitter, slimy bright empty

While these ideophones (the signifiers) are considered by native-Japanese speakers to create sensory impressions (signified) of an iconic nature: the

94  Gerard O’Grady association is perceived to be natural, and it is obvious that the sensory impression generated for non-Japanese speakers is not natural. What is natural in one language is not in another.18 The concept of ideophones may seem quirky to speakers of English or other European languages, but in fact ideophones are widely found as a resource within non-Indo-European languages (Alpher, 1994; Tucker Childs, 1994). Indeed, when we think in terms of rank, it can be seen that ideophones that function at syllable rank in Japanese do much the same work as phonaesthemes functioning at phoneme rank in English. Recently, there has been an upsurge of interest in studying how sound symbolism fosters language acquisition even in languages such as English (e.g. Monaghan et al., 2012; Asano et al., 2015). In other words, the culturally specific field is functionally motivated to assist learning. 3.4 Conclusion To conclude our short descriptive surveys of Japanese syllables and English onset clusters, we have seen the importance of recognizing that each language is a resource appropriate to its own functional niche. We have seen that while it is possible to transcribe Japanese phonemically, the lowest functional rank is the syllable and that syllables in Japanese are elementary particles that function akin to phonemes in English. Onset clusters in English represent phoneme complexes and, in the networks presented earlier, I have proposed that they are structured with heads and expansions. We further saw that simply representing onsets as particles was insufficient to describe the operation of English syllables. Instead, by examining the relatively independent choices existing between onset and vowel nucleus, we were able to describe the associations between various onsets in their interactions with vowel systems. We also examined a small subset of onsets in order to illustrate the probability of an onset interacting with a vowel. Finally, we moved beyond a wave and examined onsets in terms of charged particles in a field by comparing phonaesthemes at phoneme rank in English with ideophones at syllable rank in Japanese. Adopting a systemic functional architectural standpoint grounded in the ideas of Halliday and Matthiessen allowed us to explicate points of contact and points of difference between two languages. In the specific comparison of English and Japanese, we have seen the crucial importance of the rank scale (Halliday, 1963/2005), the need to adopt a trinocular vision (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) and the recognition that language should be modelled as a dynamic probabilistic system of shifting frequencies (Matthiessen, 2006). Such a vision allows us to explicate the character of an individual language and hence provides the footing for us to explore where the languages converge and diverge. Finally, were I to find a Tardis and get the opportunity to advise my younger self. What advice would I give? The first is that viewing language in terms of

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  95 segmental particles is but part of the story. The second, a natural consequence of the first, is to adopt a trinocular view from above, roundabout and below. The third is to examine data and focus on the probability of occurrence and try to teach the patterns that are most frequently occurring. Appendix Table 3.8 Output of network presented as a wave あ [6ζ]

い [4ε]

え [5ε]

お [5ζ]

か [3αiivb6ζ]

き [3αiivb4ε] く[3αiivb4ζ]

け[3αiivb5ε]

こ[3αiivb5ζ]

が [3αiiva6ζ]

ぎ [3αiiva4ε] ぐ[3αiiva4ζ]

げ[3αiiva5ε]

ご[3αiiva5ζ]

さ [2βiivb6ζ]

し [2βiiiib4ε] す[2βiivb4ζ]

せ[2βiivb5ε]

そ[2βiivb5ζ]

ざ [2βiiva6ζ]

じ[2βiiiia4ε]

ズ[2βiiva4ζ]

ぜ [2βiiva5ε]

ぞ[2βiiva5ζ]

た [2αiivb6ζ]

ち[2γiiiib4ε]

つ [2γiivb4ζ]

て[2αiivb5ε]

と[2αiivb5ζ]

だ [2αiiva6ζ]

ぢ[2γiiiia4ε]

づ [2γiiva4ζ]

で[2αiiva5ε]

ど [2αiiva5ζ]

な [2αiiiva6ζ]

に[2αiiiva4ε] ぬ[2αiiiva4ζ]

ね[2αiiiva5ε] の[2αiiiva5ζ]

は [3βiivb6ζ]

ひ[3δiivb4ε]

ふ[iβiiiib4ζ]

ヘ [3βiivb5ε] ほ [3βiivb5ζ]

ぱ [1αiivb6ζ]

ぴ[1αiivb4ε]

ぷ[1αiivb4ζ]

ぺ[1αiivb5ε]

ば [1αiiva6ζ]

び [1αiiva4ε] ぶ [1αiiva4ζ]

べ [1αiiva5ε] ぼ [1αiiva5ζ]

ま [1αiiiva6ζ]

み [1αiiiva4ε] む [1αiiiva4ε]

め [1αiiiva5ε] も[1αiiiva5ζ]

や [3δiiva6ζ]

n/a

ゆ [3δiiva4ζ]

n/a

よ

ら [2δiiva6ζ]

り 2δiiva4ε]

る [2δiiva4ζ]

れ [2δiiva5ε]

ろ [2δiiva5ζ]

わ [3δiivaa6ζ]

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

きゃ[3αiiiib6ζ]

n/a

きゅ[3αiiiib4ζ]

n/a

きょ[3αiiiib5ζ]

ぎゃ[3αiiiia6ζ]

n/a

ぎゅ[3αiiiia4ζ]

n/a

ぎょ[3αiiiia5ζ]

しゃ[2βiiiib6ζ]

n/a

しゅ[2βiiiib4ζ]

n/a

しょ[2βiiiib5ζ]

じゃ[2βiiiia6ζ]

n/a

じゅ[2βiiiia4ζ]

n/a

じょ[2βiiiia5ζ]

ちゃ[2γiiiib6ζ]

n/a

ちゅ[2γiiiib4ζ]

n/a

ちょ[2γiiiib5ζ]

みゅ [1αiiiib4ζ] n/a

みょ[1αiiiib5ζ]

みゃ [1αiiiib6ζ] n/a

う[4ζ]

a

ぽ [1αiivb5ζ]

りゃ[2δiiiib6ζ]

n/a

りゅ[2δiiiib4ζ]

n/a

りょ[2δiiiib5ζ]

ひゃ[3βiiiib6ζ]

n/a

ひゅ[3βiiiib4ζ]

n/a

ひょ[3βiiiib5ζ]

ぴゃ[1αiiiib6ζ]

n/a

ぴゅ[1αiiiib4ζ]

n/a

ぴょ[1αiiiib5ζ]

びゃ[1αiiiia6ζ]

n/a

びゅ[1αiiiia4ζ]

n/a

びょ[1αiiiia5ζ]

In theory there can be up to four consonant phones in the coda. The only syllable I can think of that contains three consonants in the onset and four in the coda is /stɹɛŋkθs/ and even here the presence of the /k/ in the coda is controversial.

a

96  Gerard O’Grady Notes 1 The issue as to whether it is desirable (see Jenkins, 2000) or possible (see the debate in Birdsong, 1999) to teach adults native-like second language pronunciation is a topic I will not address as it did not concern me then. Nor does it concern me now. But what does concern me is whether a segmental approach based on universal features can adequately be employed to contrastively describe the two phonologies. And my answer will be, as you are likely to have guessed, a resounding no. 2 Or as I have no access to the original Chinese sources, I will necessarily have to base my discussion on Halliday’s (1992a) description. 3 /pst/ is not a legal sequence in English. The syllable boundary must consequently lie between /p/ and /s/ or between /s/ and /t/ in the word capstan. 4 MacNeilage (2008) in his book on the evolution of speech similarly argues that phonemes are but an artefact of our alphabetic writing system. He claims that for pre-literate societies, syllables and not phonemes are the basic units of speech. Yet, this view ignores the reality that some languages are more naturally written using alphabets and others using syllabaries. I will discuss the issue in terms of rank. 5 This is akin to SFL’s cline of instantiation. 6 The fact that Chinese can be written in pinyin demonstrates that it can be analyzed phonologically at the segmental level. But this of course does not imply that it ought to be. 7 In a very real sense, systemic phonology is prosodic phonology squared. 8 In Prakasam’s (1992) rank scale of Telugu, he identifies a minimal unit of segment that includes what might be traditionally thought of as a phone as well as features such as length and nasalization. These form into and function as paradigmatic choices within syllables. The syllables themselves form into and function within a higher unit known as the formative which itself form into and function within the next highest-ranked unit of foot. Feet themselves form into and function within a higher-ranked unit known as the piece which itself forms into and functions with the highest-ranked unit of the tone group. It is not clear to me, however, from reading Prakasam’s (1992) descriptions whether or not formatives and pieces could be analyzed as syllable complexes and feet complexes. 9 Recall that /ps/ is not an option in English onsets or indeed in the coda of words not containing suffixes. But it is a viable option in Greek onset codas as seen in the words ψωμί /psomi/ (bread) and ψάρι /psaɾi/ (fish). 10 In other words, we can say that /p/ and /b/ are phonemes in English because exchanging them leads to a difference that results in a difference in meaning, e.g. pet/bet tap/tab. It is immaterial whether the phones realize any psychological reality. 11 The concept of an onset syllable in Japanese will be shown to have no functional value and hence does not represent a choice for Japanese speakers. The fact that Japanese syllables can be broken down into onset and nucleus is no more than an artefact of imposing English structure on Japanese. 12 The list of hiragana characters in Table 3.2 is not complete as I have not included the character for the post-vocalic nasal ん. 13 The cluster /sj/ is currently only found non-initially in words such as issue /ˈɪsju/. Historically, it was found initially in words such as suit. 14 The affricates represent a theoretical quandary. I have chosen to consider them as single elements, but had I decided to treat them as consonant clusters, they

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  97 would have represented two clusters with the stops as heads and the fricatives as expansions. 15 Briefly, an archiphoneme is where there is no choice available in the context between two phonemes and the contrast is neutralized. For example, /p/ and /b/ contrast initially in the words pot and bot, but the contrast between them is neutralized in spot. In fact, there are no principled grounds for deciding beyond convention that the second phone in spot is /p/ and not /b/. 16 There is one exception which is the English pronunciation of the German city Trier /tɹɪə/. The exception though illustrates the fact that the onset ^ vowel sequence /tɹɪə/ is a latent option in the English system. 17 Consider that Japanese represents dog barking as [wanwan], while English dogs make the sound [baʊwaʊ]. 18 Japanese readers will have noted that みゅ is not commonly, if at all, present in Japanese writing. But the synonymous katakana characterみゅis found in borrowed words such as みゅんヘん (Munchen/Munich) and みゅゅズ (the Muses).

References Alpher, Barry. 1994. “Yir-Yiront ideophones.” In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 161–177. Asano, Michiko, Mutsumi Imai, Sotaro Kita, Keiichi Kitajo, Hiroyuki Okada & Guillaume Thierry. 2015. “Sound symbolism scaffolds language development in preverbal infants.” Cortex 63: 196–205. Birdsong, David. 1999. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bowcher, Wendy L. & Meena Debashish. 2019. “Intonation.” In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171–203. Clérigh, Chris. 1998. A selectionist model of the genesis of phonic texture: Systemic phonology and universal Darwinism. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Firth, J.R. 1934. “The word ‘phoneme’.” Le Maître Phonétique 46: 44–46. Reprinted in J.R. Firth. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. 1–2. Firth, J.R. 1935. “The use and distribution of certain English sounds.” English Studies XVII(1). Reprinted in J.R. Firth. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. 34–46. Firth, J.R. 1946. “The English school of phonetics.” Transactions of the Philological Society 1946: 92–132. Reprinted in J.R. Firth. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934– 1951. London: Oxford University Press. 92–132. Firth, J.R. 1948. “Sounds and prosodies.” Transactions of the Philological Society 1948: 127–152. Reprinted in J.R. Firth. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. 121–138. Halliday, M.A.K. 1963. “The tones of English.” Archivium Linguisticum 15(1): 1–28. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in English language. Volume

98  Gerard O’Grady 7 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 237–263. Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, M.A.K. 1981. “The origin and the development of Chinese phonological theory.” In R.E. Asher & Eugenie J.A. Henderson (eds.), Towards a history of phonetics: Papers contributed in honour of David Abercrombie. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 123–140. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in Chinese language. Volume 8 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 275–293. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992a. “A systemic interpretation of Peking syllable finals.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Cassell. 19–34. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in Chinese language. Volume 8 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 294–320. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992b. “How do you mean?” In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice. London: Pinter. 20–35. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 352–368. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. & William S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.). 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1953. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Translated by Francis J. Whitfield. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. International Phonetic Association. 1999. “Japanese.” In Handbook of the international phonetic association: A guide to the use of the international phonetic alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 117–119. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kanero, Junko, Mutsumi Imai, Jiro Okuda, Hiroyuki Okada & Tetsuya Matsuda. 2014. “How sound symbolism is processed in the brain: A study on Japanese mimetic words.” PLoS ONE 9(5): e97905. Kretzschmar, William A. 2009. Language and complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacNeilage, Peter F. 2008. The origins of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J.R., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Claire Painter. 1997. Working with functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987. “Notes on Akan phonology: A systemic interpretation.” Unpublished manuscript.

Syllable and syllable onsets – Japanese and English  99 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2006. “Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report.” In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections. London: Equinox. 103–142. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007. “The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional theory: Developments since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (volume 2). London: Equinox. 505–561. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2021. “The architecture of phonology according to Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Sheffield: Equinox. 288–338. McGregor, William B. 1992. “Towards a systemic account of Gooniyandi segmental phonology.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Cassell. 19–34. Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Monaghan, Padraic, Karen Mattock & Peter Walker. 2012. “The role of sound symbolism in language learning.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38(5): 1152–1164. Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Prakasam, V. 1992. “Length in Telegu.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Cassell. 70–76. O’Grady, Gerard. 2012. Key concepts in phonetics and phonology. London: Palgrave. O’Grady, Gerard. 2017. “Intonation and SFL.” In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 146–162. O’Grady, Gerard & Tom Bartlett. forthcoming. The language dynamic. Sheffield: Equinox. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in general linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: Columbia University Press. Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 2011. “The syntax phonology interface.” In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. 435–485. Tench, Paul. 1976. “Double ranks in a phonological hierarchy.” Journal of Linguistics 12: 1–20. Tench, Paul. 1992. “From prosodic analysis to systemic phonology.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Cassell. 1–17. Tench, Paul. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell. Tench, Paul. 2014. “Towards a systemic presentation of the word phonology of English.” In Wendy L. Bowcher & Bradley A Smith (eds.), Systemic phonology: Recent studies in English. Sheffield: Equinox. 267–294.

100  Gerard O’Grady Tench, Paul. 2017. “The phoneme and word phonology in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 233–250. Thibault, Paul J. 2004. Brain, mind and the signifying body: An ecosocial semiotic theory. London: Continuum. Tucker Childs, G. 1994. “African ideophones.” In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 178–205. Willett, Michael. 2015. A study of the productivity of twelve English onset phonaesthemes. PhD thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff. Young, David. 1992. “English consonant clusters: A systemic approach.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Cassell. 44–69.

Part II

Christian Matthiessen and applications of systemic functional theory





4

Systemic Functional Linguistics Language description, comparison and typology – Key characteristics1 Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

4.1 Introduction: SFL and language description, comparison and typology The approach to language description, comparison and typology that has been developed within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) draws on insights articulated already by J.R. Firth (e.g. 1957) and by M.A.K. Halliday in his early pre-SFL work (e.g. Halliday, 1959–60), which was just before what Nikolaeva (2018: 2) characterizes as the second period in the development of language/linguistic typology. These Firthian–Hallidayan insights include

empiricism: an emphasis on an empirical approach to description, comparison and typology, as far as possible based on texts in contexts – so resonant with anthropological linguistics in the United States as it was developed by Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, B.L. Whorf and other pioneers in the first half of the 20th century.



polysystemic nature of language: the recognition that languages are very complex so typologies must focus on particular systems such as transitivity, mood, tense/aspect, modality/evidentiality – now allowing for the possibility of syndromes of properties (“characterology”, as proposed for Chinese by Halliday, 2014), rather than on whole languages (as in the 19th-century typologies of whole languages based on word grammar [morphology]).2



relativism: a general wariness of claims about universals (more recently articulated in another tradition by Evans and Levinson, 2009), both more traditional assumptions implicit in the generations of missionary linguists and the more recent ones articulated within Chomsky’s generative linguistics.



descriptivism: a deep commitment to the development of comprehensive descriptions of particular languages doing justice to them in their own terms (sui generis – rather than in terms foisted upon them from a well-described language such as Latin, English or Chinese), DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-6

104  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen with a recognition of what we can now characterize as “appliable descriptions”. As SFL has developed since then, Halliday and other systemic functional linguists have constructed a theory of language as a meaning potential, a resource for making meaning in context (e.g. Halliday, 1973) – more specifically, as a higher-order semiotic system in an ordered typology of systems, viz. semiotic > social > biological > physical systems (e.g. Halliday, 1996, 2005; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Matthiessen, 2007a). This theory has been designed in such a way that it provides considerable dimensionality in the “architecture” of language (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen, 2007a, 2015a, 2023b, forthcoming) to guide typological generalizations and this holistic theory has guided the development of comprehensive description of a growing number of languages from different families and with varied typological characteristics (e.g. Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin, Doran & Figueredo, 2020; Martin, Quiroz & Wang, 2023; Teruya et al., 2007; Teruya & Matthiessen, 2015; Kashyap, 2019; Matthiessen, 2023a). For example, the theory guides us in the development of the description of a particular language to investigate the grammatical resources of the clause as an interactive move in the exchange of meaning in dialogue, but it does not posit the existence of interpersonal functions such as Subject or Predicator – let alone Mood and Residue. Such functions will be hypothesized in the description of the particular language based on empirical evidence from text in context – starting with dialogue in the case of the description of interpersonal systems. The SFL approach to language typology is thus empirical, grounded in large representative samples of comprehensive descriptions of languages, where typological databases like WALS can play an important part. In this respect, it is broadly resonant with the empirical tradition developed by Prague School linguists, Joseph Greenberg, Bernard Comrie and other functional-typological descriptive linguists (cf. Shibatani & Bynon, 1995). At the same time, SFL has several key characteristics that set it apart from, or at least give it a somewhat different orientation from, the mainstream of this tradition – including the methodological principle that generalizations need to be distilled from the careful examination of registerially varied texts in context and of course the theoretical principles of systemic and metafunctional organization. 4.2 Key characteristics of systemic functional language description, comparison and typology I will illuminate certain key characteristics of SFL relevant in work on language description, comparison and typology in this chapter. They can all be derived from systemic-functional theory and meta-theory (cf.

Language description, comparison and typology  105 Matthiessen, 2004a) but I will expand on a selection of them. Let me first list them here, grouping them into characteristics that I will be able to cover in some detail in this chapter and ones I can only mention, with references to relevant work (see Table 4.1).

4.2.1 Key characteristics covered in some detail here

The distinction between theory and description: the theory of language as a general human (semiotic) system that evolved its modern “architecture” around 150,000–250,000 years ago – the architecture of modern as opposed to archaic language (and by another evolutionary step, as opposed to protolanguage), and the descriptions of particular languages that have evolved, genetically with human migrations but also in contact situations (Section 4.3). The primacy of systemic organization along the paradigmatic axis over structures along the syntagmatic axis: the systemic functional theory of language is based on the image of it as a resource for making meaning – a meaning potential and this conception foregrounds the paradigmatic axis of organization of language as a vast network of interrelated systems with two or more alternative terms (options in meaning), specifying syntagmatic patterns as realizations of such systemic terms (Section 4.4). The cline of instantiation and the probabilistic nature of the linguistic system: language is extended along the cline of instantiation from the potential pole, the system of language in the context of culture, to the instantial pole, texts in contexts of situation, with intermediate patterns of variation according to use, i.e. registerial variation. The system of language, and of any given language, is fundamentally probabilistic in nature: the terms in systems are selected (instantiated) in text with a certain degree of probability, one that can be investigated in corpora of texts by recording the relative frequency of the systemic terms, and languages vary not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, i.e. probabilistically; and probability profiles vary considerably in terms of registers (the functional varieties that make up any given particular language); and languages are learned by as probabilistic systems, with even infants “taking statistics” on the language(s) spoken around them (Section 4.5). The inherent variability of the linguistic system: as a probabilistic system, language is inherently variable; there are three kinds of possible variation (at least as they have been identified so far): dialectal, registerial and codal variation.3 Dialectal variation has, of course, been taken account of in different approaches to language

106  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Table 4.1 Key characteristics and selective references to relevant publications Key characteristic

Section

In Matthiessen’s work

In other SFL work

The distinction between theory and description

Section 4.3

Matthiessen (1995, 2004a, 2007a, 2023b, forthcoming)

Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004b); Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, 2014); Matthiessen and Halliday (2009)

Section 4.4 The primacy of systemic organization along the paradigmatic axis over structures along the syntagmatic axis

Matthiessen (1995, 2014a, 2018); Matthiessen et al. (2018)

Halliday (1966; 1969; 2010a; 2013); O’Grady, Bartlett and Fontaine (2013); Martin (2013)

The cline of instantiation and the probabilistic nature of the linguistic system

Section 4.5

Matthiessen (2006, 2015b)

Nesbitt and Plum (1988); Halliday (1991a, 1991b)

The inherent variability of the linguistic system

Section 4.6

Matthiessen (1993; 2015c; 2019); Matthiessen and Teruya (2016)

Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964); Gregory (1967); Hasan (1973; 2009); Halliday (1978); Ghadessy (1993)

The metafunctional spectral organization of language

Section 4.7

Matthiessen (1991, 2004a: Sections 10.3– 10.5)

Halliday (1978; 1979); Halliday and Matthiessen (2014)

The power of comprehensive descriptions

–

Matthiessen (1995)

Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004a); Halliday and Matthiessen (2014); for overviews of descriptions of various languages, see Mwinlaaru and Xuan (2016); Teruya and Matthiessen (2015); Kashyap (2019) (Continued )

Language description, comparison and typology  107 Table 4.1 (Continued) Key characteristic

Section

In Matthiessen’s work

In other SFL work

Trinocular vision

—

Matthiessen (2007a, 2023b, forthcoming)

Halliday (1978, 2008); Martin (1983); Halliday and Matthiessen (2014)

Language comparison and typology as part of multilingual studies

—

Matthiessen, Teruya and Wu (2008)

Taking a step back: language in an ordered typology of systems

cf. Section 4.9

Matthiessen (2007a, 2023b, forthcoming)

Halliday (1996, 2005); Halliday and Matthiessen (1999)

description, comparison and typology, but registerial variation and codal variation have often not been given a great deal of weight in language description, comparison and typological generalizations, and yet they are of central concern in language typology, in particular, registerial variation (Section 4.6). The metafunctional spectral organization of language: the system of language is organized metafunctionally; more specifically, as a meaning potential, language is organized into different modes of meaning (metafunctions: ideational [with two models of construing experience: logical and experiential], interpersonal and textual), realized by distinct modes of expression, manifested through different media of expression and unified, or mapped onto one another, in typologically variable ways in clauses and other grammatical units (Section 4.7). 4.2.2  Key characteristics only mentioned here

The power of comprehensive descriptions: language is a complex, adaptive system made up of a vast network of systems (of choice, of contrast; of options in meaning/wording/sounding in spoken language) – the primacy of the paradigmatic mode of organization, and any subsystems we want to compare and typologize, systems like theme, voice, mood, modality, evidentiality, transitivity, must be studied ecologically within their particular systemic environment in comprehensive descriptions of languages. Comprehensive descriptions

108  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen also make it possible for us to identify fractal patterns, i.e. patterns that are manifested in different environments in the content system of a language (i.e. semantics and lexicogrammar) – patterns such as the logico-semantic types of projection and expansion, the interpersonal types of assessment, the textual principles of thematicity and of newsworthiness. Systemic functional descriptions are developed with comprehensiveness as a central goal with attention being given to the different dimensions of the theoretical architecture of modern language: linguists describing a given particular language gradually fill in the multidimensional semiotic space defined by the intersection of these dimensions, e.g. gradually increase the delicacy of the account once the overall territory has been covered. Here Halliday’s function-rank matrix is a very helpful cartographic tool (see Table 1.1 in Chapter 1, this volume), as illustrated in a number of the descriptions in Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004a), with general observations about what systems to expect in Matthiessen (2004a). Trinocular vision: because language is organized relationally along different intersecting semiotic dimensions (such as the hierarchy of stratification [semantics > lexicogrammar > phonology > phonetics], the spectrum of metafunction [ideational [logical – experiential] – interpersonal – textual], the cline of instantiation [continuum from potential to instance], the hierarchy of axiality [paradigmatic > syntagmatic], the hierarchy of rank [e.g. clause > group/ phrase > word > morpheme), any phenomenon being examined in language description, comparison and typology can and must be viewed from different vantage points – Halliday’s (e.g. 1978) trinocular vision (“from below”, “from above” and “from roundabout”) – so that we take all aspects into account and arrive at a balanced picture. Traditional grammar in the West foregrounded the view “from below”, being an account first of words (“accidence”) and then of their role in clauses (“syntax”). This approach still dominates many language descriptions and is reflected in the typological literature in contributions concerned with patterns that can be seen “from below”, e.g. “word order”, “marking” (including dependent marking such as case marking and head marking) and “agreement”. Language comparison and typology as part of multilingual studies: language typology informed by SFL is pursued as part of multilingual studies (Matthiessen, Teruya & Wu, 2008), so it can take into account findings from other fields within multilingual studies, e.g. comparison of languages based on corpora of texts sampled from a range of representative registers. One area where different strands of multilingual studies have been woven together is the study of how languages

Language description, comparison and typology  109 construe motion through space – a phenomenon illuminated by typological and comparative studies and by translation studies, e.g. basing comparison both on systems and on texts from similar registers (both parallel and comparable texts; see Wang & Ma, forthcoming); cf. Matthiessen (2015d) and references therein (for comparison based on the analysis of parallel texts, see Matthiessen, Arús-Hita & Teruya, 2021). Taking a step back: language is located in an ordered typology of systems – language is a higher-order (or “grammatico-semantic”) semiotic system in an ordered typology of systems (semiotic > social > biological > physical), and the general architecture of language reflects its properties not only as a semiotic system but also those properties “inherited” from lower-order systems and properties that characterize complex adaptive systems in general. Similarly, descriptive generalizations and differences based on comprehensive descriptions of particular languages may be properties derived from the social, biological or physical manifestations of language, e.g. shared sensory-motor systems and diversified social systems. Rounding off my discussion of this list of key characteristics, I will then say something about my own personal angle on language typology and my journey of engagement with the field (Section 4.9). 4.3 Theory of language and descriptions of languages 4.3.1 Theory and description: Hjelmslev, Firth, Halliday

Following Hjelmslev and Firth, systemic functional linguists make a clear fundamental distinction between the general theory of (modern) language as a higher-order human semiotic (in the ordered typology of systems operating in different phenomenal realms) and the descriptions of particular manifestations of this semiotic, i.e. of particular languages (e.g. Halliday, 1992b, 1996).4 This distinction ensures that categories posited in the descriptions of “major” languages (including ones Whorf, 1956, called “Standard Average European”) such as tense, case, voice, number, Agent, Subject, and Theme are not foisted upon other languages without ample empirical evidence (ideally drawn from corpora composed of texts from a selection of different registers, supplemented by the probing of potential paradigms, for example, by elicitation). The theory is holistic in its coverage of the “architecture” of modern language (among other denotative semiotic systems) in context,

110  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen treating it as a higher-order semiotic system (e.g. Matthiessen, 2007a, forthcoming; Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009) – the semiotic dimensions and the relations defined in terms of them that constitute this architecture: the hierarchy of stratification, the spectrum of metafunction, the cline of instantiation, the hierarchy of axiality, the hierarchy of rank (rank scale). But, as noted above, it does not include descriptive categories such as subject, predicate, object, topic, tense/aspect, case, number – categories that are often included as part of the general framework of other theories even though they are only grounded in the description of particular languages. Guided by the holistic theory as a “template”, descriptions are developed to be comprehensive in nature, encompassing all the systems of a given stratum (for lists of languages that have been described so far, see Caffarel, Martin & Matthiessen, 2004; Teruya & Matthiessen, 2015; Mwinlaaru & Xuan, 2016; Kashyap, 2019), so that languages can be interpreted as complex adaptive systems, making it possible to develop a characterology of a given language (Halliday, 2014), and to identify fractal patterns manifested throughout stratal subsystems. Descriptions of the systems of different languages are located at the potential pole of the cline of instantiation, and they are grounded empirically in registerially varied corpora of authentic texts in context, supplemented where necessary by the probing of paradigms posited in the course of description, e.g. through elicitation of examples from native language consultants. Thus, while the general theory of language differentiates modern language as it must have emerged together with Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs, i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens) on the order of 150,000–250,000 years ago from archaic language (and, by another step, from protolanguage), it does not differentiate the large number of diverse languages that have evolved since then – perhaps as many as half a million distinct languages according to one method of calculation offered by Pagel (2000), and certainly many more than the around 7,000 languages still spoken around the world today. The theory identifies the dimensions in terms of which languages vary, e.g. experiential recursion (downranking or “embedding”) vs. logical recursion (tactic serialization), experiential elaboration in delicacy (taxonomic differentiation) vs. logical chaining; but it is the task of descriptions of particular languages to specify the systems and structures that are located within the theoretical architecture or blueprint of language5 based on extensive empirical evidence in the form of text in context. The complementarity between the general theory of language and the descriptions of particular languages is designed to ensure that each language is treated in its own right rather than as a twisted version of another

Language description, comparison and typology  111 well-described language (cf. in the Boasian descriptive tradition, Tozzer’s, 1921, preface to his description of the grammar of Maya) – cf. terms such as “scrambling”, “pro-drop” and “non-configurational”.6 This means among other things that the theory should empower linguists to discover potentially unique features in the languages under description – the theory should enhance their imagination rather than restrict or constrain it; and it should help us recognize the rich diversity among the languages still spoken around the world (and also among languages that have disappeared, in particular during the last 10,000 years). For example, while not predicting nominal tense systems in addition to the well-known verbal ones encountered initially in the description of what Whorf (1956) called “Standard Average European” languages, the theory should help us imagine them since they exist in various languages spoken around the world, fairly commonly in indigenous languages of the Americas: e.g. Nordlinger and Sadler (2004). Together with descriptive generalizations, the theory should then help us interpret “nominal tense” as concerned with the relationship between the discourse referent of a nominal group and the description construed by it (cf. English ex-president, president-elect, husband-to-be [lexicalized as fiancé]). If we trace the appearance of descriptions of “new languages”, i.e. languages without previous descriptions (perhaps except sketchy field notes based on a day’s fieldwork or an hour’s monolingual of the kind pioneered by Ken Pike), then we find a steady stream of additions to the descriptive categories linguists working empirically have gradually begun to recognize the need for – for example (among many): ergativity (1910s7), serial verb constructions (Stewart, 1963),8 evidentiality (1980s, e.g. Chafe & Nichols, 1986; Aikhenvald, 2004; 2014 – although the phenomenon had been noticed in reference to Kwakiutl by Boas, 1911), mirativity (DeLancey, 1997) and associated motion (2010s, e.g. Guillaume & Koch, 2021, the term having been introduced by Koch, 1984). There are many other such milestones in the broad tradition of descriptive linguistics – contributions reflecting the rich diversity around the world of the manifestations of modern languages and enriching the resources of linguists engaged in language description, comparison and typology. As the linguistic database of empirical descriptions continues to grow, we will learn much more about the diversity of our collective linguistic heritage, and we will be reminded of the extraordinary value of each new description of a particular language.9

4.3.2 Theory of modern language, description, comparison and descriptive generalizations

The distinction between the general theory of language and descriptions of particular languages is shown in Figure 4.1. The general theory of

Figure 4.1  The distinction between the general theory of language and descriptions of particular languages

112  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Language description, comparison and typology  113 language differentiates language from other semiotic systems, bringing out its properties as a higher-order semiotic system. In this way, the general theory of language also makes it explicit how modern language, as it must have emerged around 150,000–250,000 years ago with AMHs (i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens), differs from what we might call archaic language – the extended evolutionary transition from human protolanguage to modern language (cf. Matthiessen, 2004b).10 Thus, as noted above, the “architecture” of languages referred to here spells out organizational features that differentiate modern language from archaic language, and by another evolutionary transition, from protolanguage. These organizational features include the organization of modern language as quadri-stratal,11 with the two stratal planes further stratified (content into semantics and lexicogrammar; expression into phonology and phonetics), and as metafunctional, with the metafunctional organization transcending the macro-functional organization of archaic language. Figure 4.1 represents the distinction in SFL between the general theory of language as a distinctively human system (specifically modern language as it must have evolved out of archaic language, and earlier protolanguage) and the descriptions of particular languages. In addition, it also represents descriptive generalizations that can be distilled from the ongoing development of new descriptions of particular languages. For example, the general theory of language provides an architectural “template” or “blueprint”, indicating that all particular languages will have an interpersonal system for exchanging meaning in dialogue, but it is the responsibility of descriptive generalizations to indicate recurrent patterns in the interpersonal systems and structures of particular languages, as shown by Teruya et al. (2007) for mood systems in a small sample of languages (cf. also Mwinlaaru, Matthiessen & Akerejola, 2018, and Martin, Quiroz & Figueredo, 2020). Thus, the function of Subject is a descriptive one based on empirical evidence from dialogue in a particular language, not a theoretical one; we may have good empirical reasons for positing it in our description of certain languages, interpreting it as the interpersonally elevated element of the clause, as in the descriptions of English (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) and Spanish (Lavid, Arús & Zamorano-Mansilla, 2010) and Japanese (Teruya, 2007); but we may have very good empirical reasons for not positing it in the description of many other languages, the case for Tagalog being a very strong one, as shown by Martin (1990, 2004) and anticipated in the discussions outside SFL of the status of “Subject” in Philippine languages (Schachter, 1976, 1977, 1996; cf. also Evans & Levinson, 2009). In a sense, because the category of Subject, once it had been posited by traditional grammarians and then elaborated by Modistic grammarians in the late Middle Ages (e.g. Matsumoto, 1991; cf. Covington, 1984: 69; Seuren,

114  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen 1998: 123), it has been so prominent. It is an obvious and easy one to dismiss; but when we explore the interpersonal grammar of a wide range of languages in systemic functional terms, we need to recognize that alongside experiential cryptogrammar and experiential reactances, there are also interpersonal ones in interpersonal cryptogrammar, which is brought out very clearly by Teruya (2004, 2007) in his description of the interpersonal clause grammar of Japanese. He shows that in the modal structure of the Japanese clause one element is “elevated” interpersonally, sensitive to tenor-based distinctions in the mood grammar (“honorification”), and it also held modally responsible, and can thus be interpreted as “Subject”. (Such interpersonal reactances may also emerge when we examine (referential) ellipsis across clauses, reflexives, and orientation in modulation, the “target” in ‘imperative’ clauses. A number of such patterns were discussed in the 1970s as part of the exploration of the status of Subject – or lack of it, e.g. Schacter, 1976, 1977, 1996; Keenan, 1976a, 1976b; but while non-systemic functional linguists explored Subject as a grammaticalization of textual topic or of experiential actor, they did not have a clear notion of interpersonal modal responsibility, which was Halliday’s characterization of Subject alongside the “nub of the argument” – arrived at through the analysis of dialogue.) When we compare languages, using samples ranging in size from a few languages to many, as in language typology, we can establish descriptive generalizations about linguistic patterns. When we generalize beyond comparative generalizations involving a fairly small number of languages and push towards typological generalizations, ones that make claims about languages in general, we need to pay even more attention to the criteria for compiling a representative sample of languages, such criteria include not only genetic families but also various other considerations such as linguistic areas (diffusion areas, convergence areas, Sprachbund, e.g. Hickey, 2017; e.g. South-East Asia, South Asia, the Balkans, Mesoamerica, Amazonia), other forms of extended contact and processes of creolization. It is clearly the case that linguists have been able to expand sample sizes considerably since Greenberg’s (1966) pioneering list of universals based on a sample of around 30 languages to the current samples in WALS (Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013), which range from a few hundred languages to around 1,400 languages.12 Thus, using a much large sample of languages than Greenberg (1966) was in a position to do, Dryer (2013) found that certain of Greenberg’s (implicational) “word order” universals were supported, but others were not – in particular the correlation between the sequence of “O” and “V” in the clause and of “A” and “N” in the nominal group13 (see also Munro, 2013, for a review of “word order” studies). But even samples of 1,400 languages are not large and varied enough to make claims about “universals” – certainly not if Pagel (2000) is right that the largest number of

Language description, comparison and typology  115 languages spoken may have been around half a million. Evans and Levinson (2009) show how purported “universals” of different kinds have been refuted as the number of languages examined has been increased. And from a systemic functional point of view, the descriptions of particular languages on which generalizations are based should ideally be comprehensive meaning-oriented text-based descriptions, not descriptive fragments or “mini-grammars”. At various points in the discussion below, I will illustrate systemic functional descriptive generalizations, e.g. in terms of the elaboration of mood systems (Section 4.4) and in terms of the unification of the clause as message, move and figure (Section 4.7). But these are tentative generalizations, not universals; they can serve as guides as linguists develop new descriptions and should be ongoingly revised or replaced as our library of comprehensive descriptions is expanded. Viewed in systemic functional terms, descriptive generalizations are subject to a trade-off between the “level” of description and the number of languages in the sample (sampled according to genetic, areal and typological considerations): see Figure 4.2. This figure is a visualization based on my very rough sense of sample sizes and descriptive “levels” – based on the “features” included in WALS. But I think there is a general tendency: the lower the “level” of description, the larger the number of languages it is possible to include for a couple of reasons. (1) Lower “levels” tend to involve smaller and thus more manageable systems; thus while phonological systems vary considerably in “size”, they are much smaller than any content systems, and more likely to have been described fairly

Figure 4.2   Rough visualization of the “level” (stratum, rank) of description and the number of languages in samples as the basis for descriptive generalizations

116  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen comprehensively in accounts such as reference grammars (cf. Halliday 1979 [2002: 197]: “By any usual definition of linguistic units, units of speech sound are both smaller than and fewer than units of form; and units of form are both smaller than and fewer than units of meaning”). (2) Lower “levels” tend to be more exposed and thus easier to observe and more likely to be included in descriptions. There are, of course, further complications: within phonology, there would appear to be many more full-fledged accounts of the articulatory domain (like phoneme inventories) than of the prosodic domain (e.g. rhythm and intonation). And when we ascend from lexicogrammar to semantics, and by another stratal step, to context, the number of languages included in samples shrinks dramatically. And there are, of course, other considerations that can be derived by systemic functional theory, including metafunction and axis. Returning to Figure 4.1, I note that it also suggests that when we undertake the description of a “new” language (i.e. one that has not previously been described in terms empowered by SFL or not been described at all, except perhaps in terms of short field notes), we are guided both by the general theory of language and by previous descriptions of particular languages. Previous descriptions can serve as the basis for descriptive generalizations, thus providing typological guidance. They can also provide descriptive models of languages that are similar in one way or another to the new language being described. The limiting case is transfer comparison (Halliday, 1959–1960/1966: 39; Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens, 1964: 120–123), the value of which is articulated by Teich (1999): In the comparison of languages we may take advantage of the fact that […] there are always several different ways of describing the same linguistic phenomenon; it is thus possible to adopt the description of one language to that of another. The aim of this “transfer comparison” is to draw attention to the resemblances between the two languages. By examining previous descriptions, we can also get useful methodological guidelines, for example, with respect to the compilation of a multiregisterial corpus (as in Isaac Mwinlaaru’s, 2017, work on Dagaare, and Abhishek Kashyap’s description of Bajjika [Kumar, 2009]). 4.3.3 The theoretical architecture of language: Dimensionality and basis for comparison 4.3.3.1 Basis for comparability: Environments where systems may be comparable

When we compare the systems that collectively make up languages (e.g. phonological systems such as resonance and tone; lexicogrammatical

Language description, comparison and typology  117 systems such as theme, mood, and transitivity; semantic systems such as progression, speech function, and figuration) so that we can characterize similarities and differences or develop descriptive generalizations, we need to determine the basis for their comparability.14 This point has been part of the work by Halliday since the 1950s (e.g. Halliday, 1959–1960); Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964: 113) specify three steps in the development of “comparative statements”: What can be done in comparative linguistics, then, is to make detailed and useful comparisons of particular patterns in two or more languages once these have been described. Every comparative statement presupposes three steps: first, the separate description of the relevant features of each language; second, establishment of comparability; third, the comparison itself. The second step is worth making explicit: before comparing the nominal group in English with the nominal group in French it is desirable to establish that they are comparable. They illustrate how to establish comparability by reference to possessive determiners in English, French and Russian, discussing how the basis for comparison can be specified. Now, almost 60 years later, we can see that the development of the theoretical architecture of language in context in SFL enables us to reason quite exhaustively about the basis for comparability. In principle, we can use any of the global or local semiotic dimensions that define the multidimensional semiotic space of language as a resource for making meaning (its “architecture”). We can focus on one or more dimensions and view them trinocularly (e.g. Halliday, 1978, 2008; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) – “from above”, “from below” and “from roundabout”. If we are setting out to compare systems within the lexicogrammatical stratum of different languages, the general principle would be to locate the comparison first within the maximal environment in order to have at our disposal as much information as possible when we begin to compare the systems (cf. the manifestation of this principle in my discussion of the environments of translation: Matthiessen, 2001), and this will very likely take us to the stratum above, to semantics (cf. Martin, 1983). Using the multidimensionality of systemic functional theory, we can thus identify environments where systems may be comparable, i.e. where systems may be similar enough that we can consider them as particular variants of the same system – e.g. taxis, transitivity, mood, theme, tense, aspect, modality, evidentiality, voice. But the fundamental question of how we argue that they are comparable is always with us, and when we explore this question, we need to maintain trinocular vision. Here, as already noted, the view “from above” is crucial when we examine and compare lexicogrammatical systems since different languages may achieve similar semantic tasks such as establishing and tracking discourse

118  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen referents in different ways (Martin, 1983, discussed immediately below in Section 4.3.3.2). Thus, we are well advised to keep lists of systems that may be common across languages, but which represent only one possible grammatical strategy for achieving some semantic task, the system of voice being a good example. It is far from “universal”, and it needs to be interpreted as (among other things) just one possible grammatical strategy for assigning different textual statuses to participants in the transitivity configuration of a clause (cf. Steiner, 1988, on diathesis). Another important consideration is the ineffability of grammatical categories, as shown by Halliday (1984). We cannot rely only on linguists’ attempts to name and gloss grammatical categories in particular languages15, but need to examine the categories ecologically, viewing them not as things in themselves but rather as nodes in relational networks and we need to consider the grounding of the categories that have been posited in the description of any particular languages in empirical studies, i.e. in the analysis of naturally occurring texts in contexts. (For example, instead of trying to compare the category of Subject across languages, we should rather investigate the grammatical resources of negotiation and exchange in samples of dialogue in each language; cf. Teruya et al. [2007]. How do speakers deny a claim, refuse a command, reject an offer and so on? These are interpersonal concerns and need to be distinguished from textual ones like topic continuity.)

4.3.3.2 The “architecture” of language in context: Global semiotic dimensions

First, I will consider the global semiotic dimensions of stratification, instantiation and metafunction, beginning with stratification. In his study of “participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte”, Martin (1983: 46–47) discusses the problem of assuming descriptive categories derived from one language or a set of languages, categories like subject and topic, and then using them as a basis for comparison (with references to the debate about subject in the 1970s): The crucial point here is that questions about the presence or absence of a category or process lead directly to questions about the function of that category or process. This suggests an alternative methodology, one starting with functions rather than categories, which is less open (though not immune) to the dangers of ethnocentrism and vagueness of resolution discussed above. As indicated, this alternative methodology would start with function rather than a category or process, and seek to compare languages in

Language description, comparison and typology  119 terms of the way their categories and processes accomplish certain identifiable tasks. These tasks are of course not given, any more than the processes and categories which realise them. But if languages differ more in the way they accomplish things than in what they have to accomplish (and this “if” is open to attack), then it would seem a promising tack. […] In the remainder of this paper this latter methodology will be illustrated with respect to one general and apparently universal (cf. Callow 1974) function of language, participant identification, across three languages which realise these functions rather differently: English, Tagalog and Kâte. Lexicogrammatical systems provide the resources for creating meanings as wordings. Here Martin identifies a semantic concern, “participant identification” – the creation and tracking of referents in texts as units of meaning operating in contexts of situation, which is located within the textual metafunction. He then shows how three very different languages, viz. English, Tagalog and Kâte, accomplish or realize this semantic task using distinct textual grammatical resources. They use different systems: roughly, English uses reference, Tagalog uses focus supported by theme and transitivity, and Kâte uses subject-switching supported by conjunction; but these can be treated as comparable grammatical strategies on the grounds that they achieve the same semantic task. Here the comparability is thus established in reference to the hierarchy of stratification by ascending from the lexicogrammatical stratum to the semantic one. Significantly, this represents a textual “slice” of the metafunctional organization of the content plane of language. (We can compare this to research outside SFL such as the speech act realization project – based on an interpersonal “slice” through the content plane in reference to a tenor setting, reviewed in its current research context within cross-cultural pragmatics by House & Kádár, 2021.) At the same time, the cline of instantiation is also directly involved in the determination of the basis for comparability when we compare two or more languages. Traditionally, the point of comparison has been located at the potential pole of the cline, viz. the comparison of systems – systems such as number, case and tense; but as corpus-based methodology has become more powerful and sophisticated, the point of comparison can be shifted to the instantial pole, to texts in their contexts of situation. And it is also possible to locate it mid-range between the two poles, focusing on registers (which can be approached from the potential pole of the cline of instantiation as sub-systems, i.e. functional varieties of a language, and from the instance pole as text types; cf. Teich, 1999; Lavid, 2000; MurciaBielsa, 2000). The notion of registerial comparability is thus very important, especially since the registerial composition of different languages

120  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen may be quite varied, and languages evolve over time precisely in terms of their registerial composition: registers may emerge and disappear as part of the continuous adaptation of a given language to its changing context (cf. Halliday, 1988, 1993a, on the evolution of the register family of science, and cf. his, 2010b, comments on the great time-depth of narrative texts). Thus Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964: 123–124) point out that translation equivalence (at the instantial pole of the cline of instantiation) can in fact be used as evidence for comparability:16 If one says that a text is a special case of a linguistic description, in the sense that it is a description of itself, this is thought-provoking but in fact trivial: it is rather like saying that Beethoven’s Fifth is a special case of a description of a symphony. But if one pursues the analogy, to say that a pair of texts in translation is a special case of a comparison, this ceases to be trivial, for this reason: the textual translation equivalence is itself one way of establishing comparability. That is to say, the occurrence of an item or pattern in language A, and of another item or pattern in language B, in actual use and under conditions that allow us to refer to these items as ‘equivalent’, is a piece of evidence of a kind that is crucial to useful comparative studies. The nature of this equivalence is not formal but contextual. It is not formal correspondence that we accept as translation: if we are assessing whether an English text is an acceptable translation of a French one we do not judge it by whether each grammatical category has been replaced by its nearest formal equivalent, one clause always being rendered by one clause or an active verbal group always by an active verbal group. We regard translation as the relationship between two or more texts playing an identical part in an identical situation. But this, like synonymy, is a ‘more or less’ not a ‘yes or no’ relation, since ‘identical part’ and “identical situation” are not absolute concepts. Here contextual comparability can be established by the analysis of parallel texts, original (source) text and translated (target) text (cf. Matthiessen, Arús-Hita & Teruya, 2021). We can extend this to include the analysis of comparable texts (i.e. all original in the languages being examined), referring to comparable contexts of situation. Significantly, in the comparison of systems within the lexicogrammatical strata of different languages, the approach based on instantial comparison has implications for the location of the basis of comparison along the hierarchy of stratification – the ascent from lexicogrammar to semantics in context. Thus, if we were to translate texts from (say) Tagalog into English or Kâte into English at the instantial

Language description, comparison and typology  121 pole of the cline of instantiation, this task would invite or actually even force us to ascend the hierarchy of stratification from lexicogrammar to semantics and context since as a process translation can be characterized as the recreation of meanings in context (cf. Matthiessen, 2001).17 In the last two decades, systemic functional linguists have made a growing number of contributions to the design, compilation and use of multilingual corpora involving both parallel and comparable texts, e.g. Teich (2003), Hansen-Schirra, Neumann and Steiner (2012) and Kunz et al. (2021). Such advances put us in a very good position to extend the framework of multilingual corpora to enable us to move gradually from language comparison towards language typology – even though the task of compiling multilingual corpora that include principled selections of texts from enough languages to support typological generalizations is quite daunting! 4.3.3.3 The “architecture” of language in context: Local (fractal) dimensions

The semiotic dimensions just discussed (stratification, instantiation and metafunction), and the relations that have them as their domains, are global in the sense that they define the overall “architecture” or organization of language in context; that is why I have referred to them as global dimensions. The hierarchy of stratification organizes language in context into stratal subsystems within the overall system, and each stratal subsystem is organized internally by the local dimensions of axis (axiality) and rank (the rank scale). The basic theoretical assumption is that all strata are organized internally in terms of these local dimensions, so they can be interpreted as fractal patterns of organization that are manifested in different stratal environments.18 Both axis and rank have fundamental implications for how we investigate, describe and compare different languages and develop descriptive generalizations for typology. Both are used in SFL to explore patterns “ecologically” within the overall system of a language – in a way that ensures that they are always located in the environments in which they operate, as nodes in networks of relations, and that we have access to the maximally informative environment (cf. the discussion of comparability in relation to global dimensions). In terms of axis, this means that the paradigmatic axis has been theorized as the primary dimension of axial order, with syntagmatic patterns specified in the environment of paradigmatic features. This is represented by means of system networks with realization statements. Syntagmatic typological generalizations may get re-represented as “deeper” paradigmatic ones (cf. Halliday, 1966).19 See Section 4.4.

122  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen In terms of rank, this means that descriptions of particular languages are developed and presented “from above”, starting with the highest rank – the most extensive unit, typically (perhaps always) the clause (the “sentence” posited in many grammatical descriptions being interpreted as a clause complex in SFL, with the term “sentence” being reserved for the orthographic sentence in the expression system of graphology). This contrasts with the approach “from below” characteristic of traditional grammar, a descriptive move starting with the word.20 Similarly, comparison of specific systems such as polarity, mood, tense, and aspect starts with the most extensive environment in which they operate. This will vary across languages, but one important point is that all syntagmatic realizations need to be taken into account, not only those that operate at word rank. This is clearly crucial in languages where systemic realizations may be spread across ranks, as in the case of tense in English.21 Obviously, the descriptive, comparative and typological literature outside SFL includes paradigms, but they tend to be the kinds of paradigm developed in traditional grammar, i.e. word paradigms (e.g. number, gender and case intersected) rather than group, phrase or clause paradigms. But paradigms at word rank must be viewed in the context of higher-ranking paradigms. One reason that paradigmatic organization tends to be backgrounded in descriptions, comparisons and typologies of systems in languages is arguably that it is implicate order in Bohm’s (1979) sense and thus covert in nature, whereas syntagmatic organization is explicate order and thus more overt in nature (for further discussion, see Matthiessen, 2023b). He characterizes the distinction as follows: In chapter 6 we go further to begin a more concrete development of a new notion of order, that may be appropriate to a universe of unbroken wholeness. This is the implicate or enfolded order. In the enfolded order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the explicate or unfolded order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders. (p. xviii)

Language description, comparison and typology  123 Now, we are proposing that in the formulation of the laws of physics, primary relevance is to be given to the implicate order, while the explicate order is to have a secondary kind of significance (e.g. as happened with Aristotle’s notion of movement, after the development of classical physics). (p. 190) Since explicate order is more overt, more exposed, it is more likely to be observed, described and theorized (as in the case of “word order”, “case marking”, “agreement” or “alignment” systems). But implicate order – i.e. systemic organization – is primary. 4.4 The primacy of systemic organization As noted above, in SFL, since language is theorized as a resource for making meaning – a meaning potential (e.g. Halliday, 1973),22 the primary mode of organization in terms of axiality (the hierarchy of axis: paradigmatic > syntagmatic) is the paradigmatic mode of organization rather than the syntagmatic mode (e.g. Halliday, 1966, 1969; Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009; Martin, 2013; Matthiessen, 1995, 2015a; Matthiessen et al., 2018) – in Bohm’s (1979) introduced immediately above, it is the implicate mode of organization rather than the explicate mode. The paradigmatic mode of axial organization is the systemic organization of language as a vast network of options in making meaning (and by further steps, in making wordings, in making soundings), represented by system networks (see Matthiessen, 2023b). In these system networks, syntagmatic patterns are specified in the context of systemic options in such system networks by means of realization statements, as illustrated in the descriptive fragment of the interpersonal clause grammar of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) in Figure 4.3.23 To develop this systemic description, I have drawn on various sources, including Holes (2004), Ryding (2005), Bardi (2008), Versteegh and Versteegh (2014) and Badawi et al. (2016). 4.4.1 An illustration of the primacy of systemic organization: Modern Standard Arabic

The system network in Figure 4.3 shows part of the interpersonal grammar of ‘major’ clauses in MSA. Terms (features, options) in the systems have realization statements associated with them. Quite a few of the realization statements are located in systemic “gates”, with entry conditions consisting of conjunctions of terms from the systems of mood type (and aspect)

124  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Figure 4.3   Systemic fragment of the interpersonal clause grammar of Modern Standard Arabic

and polarity. I have also set out these realization statements in Table 4.2, where mood type, aspect and polarity are intersected. The systemic term ‘major clause’ contrasts with ‘minor clause’ (not shown in the system network), and has one realization statement associated with it, viz. +Predicator, Predicator: verbal group. (This is in fact an oversimplification since the Predicator may be structurally absent in its experiential guise as Process in certain ‘relational’ clauses that are unmarked in terms of aspect [‘imperfective’] and polarity [‘positive’]; these clauses have no structurally present Process/ Predicator; but if the clause is marked in terms of either system, there will be a verb present serving as Predicator, and as Process.24) In ‘major’ clauses, there are two simultaneous interpersonal systems (i.e. of the same degree of delicacy), viz. freedom (‘free’/‘bound’) and polarity (‘positive’/‘negative’). The systemic term ‘free’ in the system of freedom leads to the system of mood type, the core region of the grammar that serves to realize options

imperative

indicative

↘︎ ↘︎

↘︎

↘︎

negative

positive

polarity

↘︎

aspect

imperfective

Predicator: Predicator: imperfective: imperfective imperative

perfective

imperfective Polarity: negative: laa ^ Predicator: imperfective: jussive

perfective

Predicator: Predicator: Polarity: Polarity: perfective imperfective: negative: lam negative: laa indicative ^ Predicator: ^ Predicator: imperfective: imperfective: jussive indicative Polarity: interrogative polar #^ negative: laa +Negotiator: ^ Predicator: hal imperfective: subjunctive

elemental +Q; Q/ Theme

declarative

type

indicative

Realization statements are located in the cells of the table.

free

freedom mood type

Table 4.2 Fragment of the interpersonal clause grammar of Modern Standard Arabic, as a table based on the systems of mood type, aspect and polarity

Language description, comparison and typology  125

126  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen in the semantic system of speech function – the clause in its guise as a move in the dialogic exchange of meanings. The most basic systemic distinctions are very similar to those we find in many other languages (cf. below and see Teruya et al., 2007).25 The primary system is the distinction between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’; in terms of congruent realizations of speech function, this is the contrast between the exchange of information (‘indicative’) vs. the exchange of goods-&-services (‘imperative’), with the rider that I have only included ‘imperative’ clauses with the addressee as the (implicit) Subject, i.e. commands, setting aside other subject persons. The systemic term ‘indicative’ in the clausal system of mood type is the entry condition to the system of aspect, the contrast between ‘perfective’ and ‘imperfective’, realized by different forms of the verb.26 I would interpret this as an experiential system whose environment is defined by interpersonal clause grammar (like the system of primary tense in English). That is, while ‘indicative’ clauses select for aspect, ‘imperative’ ones do not (i.e. there is no systemic contrast between ‘perfective’ and ‘imperfective’). Combinations of terms in the systems of mood type, aspect (in ‘indicative’ clauses) and polarity are realized by forms of the verbal group serving as Predicator and in the case of ‘negative’ clauses by negative polar particles preceding the Predicator. These syntagmatic realizations are specified by means of realization statements that are associated with (i.e. located in the paradigmatic environment of) combinations of systemic terms from these three systems. I have represented these combinations as “gates” and given them names that reflect the combinations of features, e.g. “positive perfective” and “negative imperative”. The realization statements involve the different modes of the verb (verbal group) in MSA and the different negative polar particles.27 Here the ranked organization of the interpersonal resources of MSA is crucial to an understanding of how the grammar of MSA is organized (and this applies to other languages as well, of course): at clause rank, the system of mood is located as a resource for enacting different semantic speech functions as mood types i.e. ‘indicative’ vs. ‘imperative’ and more delicate distinctions – this is the clause as a move in the development of dialogue as the exchange of meanings; at group rank, within the verbal group, the system of mode is located as a resource for realizing different interpersonal features of the clause – of both ‘free’ and ‘bound’ clauses; at word rank, within the verb, the system of verbal forms is located, with conjugational paradigms of “prefix verbs” (called “p-stem” by Holes, 2004; involved in the realization of ‘imperfective’ aspect, and the node in the differentiation of verbal modes [indicative, jussive, imperative])

Language description, comparison and typology  127 and “suffix verbs” (called “s-stem” by Holes, 2004; involved in the realization of ‘perfective’ aspect28), and also with derivational paradigms (the “measures” of the verb in Classical and Modern Standard Arabic, I-X or I-XV depending on the descriptive criteria29). Thus, systemically, there are three ranks of patterns of agnation (within the stratum of lexicogrammar), not one – three ranks of systemic organization represented by system networks, and by realization statements linking them. For example, in terms of mood, a clause may be ‘imperative’; but in terms of mode, the verbal group realizing the Predicator is ‘jussive’ (rather than ‘imperative’) when it is ‘negative’ in polarity. The relationships across ranks are illustrated for the jussive and subjunctive modes in Figure 4.4. It shows that the lower-ranking verbal modes are distributed across a number of clausal environments in ‘free’ and ‘bound’ clauses; and when they are ‘negative’ in polarity (not shown for “bound” clauses), they “colligate” with different negative polar particles. If we scan the image in Figure 4.4 from below, starting with the verbals, we can see that they operate in different systemic environments in the clause – corresponding to the uses of the verbal modes that are listed in descriptive grammars based on or influenced by traditional grammar. But it is the view from above, starting with the systems of the clause, that will give an integrated understanding of how the systems serve as an interpersonal resource. Thus, when this interpersonal region of the grammar shown in Figure 4.3 is described “from below” (as in Ryding, 2005 [one of the few current “reference grammars” of MSA in English]: Chapter 34 “Moods of the verb I: Indicative and subjunctive”, Chapter 35: “Moods of the verb II: Jussive and imperative”, Chapter 37: “Negation and exception”), the picture will very likely be fragmented. Descriptions will take the form of lists of uses of the different verb forms together with different “particles” like the polar particles (la, lam, lan) and the temporal particles (qad, sawfa), and it will be well-nigh impossible to get a sense of the higher-ranking systems whose terms they serve as realizations of. In a way, it is like approaching living organisms as specimens displayed in glass jars in a museum rather than as participants in ecosystems. The ecosystem of the verb in its various forms is the verbal group, the ecosystem of the verbal group is the clause and the clause is the lexicogrammatical gateway to the text as a unit of meaning in the semantic system of a language. Thus Bardi’s (2008) systemic functional description of MSA is very different from those presented by the standard reference grammars. As is clear from the system network in Figure 4.3, the description does not cover ‘bound’ clauses. In addition, the realization statements provided do not cover ‘relational’ clauses where the Process is implicit together with the Predicator. In general, the structural absence of the Process/Predicator is merely the unmarked case, the combination of ‘imperfective’ aspect and

Figure 4.4  Examples of verbal modes (jussive, subjunctive) serving as realizations in different clausal environments (together with negative polar particles)

128  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Language description, comparison and typology  129 ‘positive’ polarity. In the Western tradition of descriptions of Arabic, the basic distinction is based on this view “from below”: clauses where the verbal group serving as Process/Predicator is absent have been called “nominal clauses”, whereas clauses where the verbal group serving as the Process/ Predicator have been called “verbal clauses”. But, as noted, this constitutes a view “from below”, in terms of both rank [verb, verbal group] and axis [syntagmatic]).30 (The same is true of many traditional descriptions of other languages where unmarked ‘relational’ clauses of certain types are realized without the presence of the Process in the structure of the clause; see e.g. Martin & Cruz, 2019, on ‘relational’ clauses in Tagalog, and on ‘relational’ clauses in various languages, see Matthiessen, 2004a: 595–600.) The systemic fragment in Figure 4.3 of the interpersonal clause grammar of Modern Standard Arabic illustrates the significance of treating the paradigmatic axis as primary, foregrounding the systemic organization modelling language as a resource (rather than as an inventory of structures and items). In the discussion based on this descriptive fragment, I have also made the point that the systemic description needs to be extended like a telescope from one rank to two or more, in this case from word via group to clause. In this way, we achieve multiple patterns of agnation across ranks (just as we do across strata when we network both speech function [semantics] and mood [lexicogrammar], and even tone [phonology] – in the semiotic environment of contextual distinctions in tenor31). This approach based on system and rank is crucial in the description of particular languages, as Bardi’s (2008) systemic functional description of MSA shows; but it is also crucial when we engage with research into language comparison and typology (generalized comparison). The same principle applies to many categories that traditionally have tended to be described only at word rank (as part of “accidence”, or morphology); in addition to (verbal) mode, we find e.g. case, number, person, tense, aspect, transitivity, voice, focus. And when we view such realizational resources “from above”, from the vantage point of the clause (in terms of the rank scale), other alternative realizational resources come into view when we compare and contrast clausal systems (or systems at group rank). For example, when we compare and contrast clausal transitivity systems, we can see that transitivity roles can be marked either in terms of participants and circumstances or in terms of the process – dependent marking vs. head marking in Nichols’ (1986) terminology.

4.4.2 Axis: Paradigmatic (systemic) and syntagmatic (structural)

As an illustration of comparison based on axis, I have presented the interpersonal systems of mood in English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Arabic (MSA) in Table 4.3 (see Teruya et al., 2007). In the case of

+ Q-element; Q-element ^ Finite; Q-element/ Theme

Finite ^ Subject

elemental

polar

Subject ^ Finite

in English

realization

[tone: rising]

+ Q-element; Q-element/ Theme

in Spanish

+ Q-element [in situ]

+Negotiator: ka; Predicator ^ Negotiator

in Japanese

+Q-element [in situ]

in Chinese

+Negotiator: hal; # ^ Negotiatora

+Q-element; Q-element/ Theme

in MSA

a

There is an alternative form of realization, a verbal pre-clitic ʔa; but its paradigmatic distribution is more restricted. However, according to Badawi et al. (2016: 546), this particle is used in negative polar interrogatives.

interrogative

declarative

systemic terms

Table 4.3 Illustration of different realizations in English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) of primary systemic distinctions in indicative mood type

130  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Language description, comparison and typology  131 this illustration, the systems are comparable in the five languages (viz. [for ‘indicative’ clauses:] ‘declarative’/‘interrogative’; [for ‘interrogative’ clauses:] ‘polar’/‘elemental’)32, but they differ in how the terms in the systems are realized. For instance, all four languages have a system contrasting the two primary types of interrogative clause, ‘elemental’ vs. ‘polar’; and all four languages realize the ‘elemental’ type by the presence of an interrogative element, the Q-element (the Wh-element in descriptions of English), although they vary with respect to the unmarked textual status of this element (in English and Spanish, Theme, but in Chinese and Japanese, no distinctive textual status [the element appearing in situ]). However, the ‘polar’ type is realized in different ways: in English, it is realized sequentially: the Finite precedes the Subject (Finite ^ Subject); in Spanish, it is realized intonationally: the clause is realized by a tone group with a rising tone ([tone: rising]); in Japanese, it is realized segmentally by a clause final particle (Negotiator: ka, which follows the interpersonally significant Predicator at the end of the clause) although it is common to both types of ‘interrogative’ clause; and in Chinese, the nature of the realization depends on a more delicate interrogative system concerned with the speaker’s expectation as to the response (positive or negative). Consequently, paradigmatic organization is foregrounded in systemic functional language description, comparison and typology. Language typology is thus system-based typology in the first instance (cf. Section 4.1): a language is a system of systems, and comparison and typology can proceed one system at a time, e.g. mood type, tense/aspect, modalization/evidentiality, number, person. Then it will be possible to investigate whether certain combinations are more likely to occur in particular languages than other combinations (as with combinations of different textual statuses: Matthiessen, 2004a: 437 ff) – i.e. whether there are syndromes of features (cf. Halliday, 2014, articulating and illustrating the notion of systemic characterology using Mandarin as an illustration). In the general typological literature, including the incredibly valuable database WALS, typological generalizations tend to be focused on syntagmatic patterns – an obvious example being studies of “word order”, including syntagmatic markers of systemic terms (e.g. case markers, question particles). Typological generalizations oriented towards the paradigmatic axis tend to be focused on lower-ranking paradigms of the kind familiar from traditional grammar. It is much harder to find clause paradigms or even group paradigms as a basis for comparison and typological generalization. And this clearly depends on what is covered by the descriptions of particular languages that comparison and typology are based on. Such descriptions tend to be syntagmatically oriented, certainly at the higher ranks. One interesting and very important exception in the typological

132  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen literature is Hopper and Thompson’s (1980, 1982) transitivity hypothesis. They identify ten transitivity parameters and show that values of high transitivity and of low transitivity tend to go together. I would interpret these parameters systemically as paradigmatic parameters.33 Why do typological studies generally tend to focus on the syntagmatic axis? One way of exploring this question is to interpret the axial distinction between paradigmatic patterns and syntagmatic axis in terms of Bohm’s (1979) distinction between implicate order and explicate order, referred to above: paradigmatic order can be interpreted as implicate, and syntagmatic order can be viewed as explicate. Bohm was of course a fascinating physicist with an unusual career path (where he faced challenges related to political biases during the anti-intellectual destructive McCarthy era in the United States) and lifeline (centrally including his dialogues with Jiddu Krishnamurti, e.g. Krishnamurti & Bohm, 199934), but his characterization of the two orders is, I think, one that is relevant to the account of all kinds of system in an ordered typology of systems (cf. Matthiessen, 2023b). When we study systems, explicate order is, obviously, much easier to observe, being more exposed and thus easier to study, so early accounts in the history of investigations of different systems are likely to be based on explicate rather than implicate order. This relates directly to Michael Halliday’s observations about what traits are exposed and thus easy to observe in different languages (cf. Halliday, 1977, 1981). In many (though of course not all) languages, exposed, easy-to-observe traits are located within word grammar (morphology) and lexis (the delicate zone within lexicogrammar); but the location of the exposed traits is, obviously, subject to considerable typological variation. 4.4.3 The systemic composition of languages as systems of system

Since a language is a system of systems, languages can be seen to vary in their systemic compositions, i.e. in terms of the aggregates of systems they are composed of within any of the four strata that constitute a language. For example, the phonological system of one language may include within its systemic make-up a system of tone with the syllable as its domain, but another language may not include such a system but a system of resonance (“nasalization”) with the syllable at its domain. Not surprisingly, certain combinations of systems are more likely to occur than other combinations in samples of languages around the world; but this is a matter of typological characterizations of systemic profiles, or syndromes, based on reliable and representative samples of languages. (When non-systemic functional linguists investigate such correlations, they may couch them in what we would regard as pre-systemic terms, for example, the investigation of correlations between the size of phoneme inventories and the phonotactics of syllables.)

Language description, comparison and typology  133 If we focus on lexicogrammatical systems, we can view this variation in terms of two dimensions, viz. the spectrum of metafunction and the compositional hierarchy of rank (“rank scale”). We can compare and contrast function-rank matrices for particular languages to determine what systems are more likely to be part of the systemic make-up of many or all languages and what systems tend to be expansions found only in a subset of the world’s languages. For example, the system of polarity is likely to be part of the description of all languages,35 but the systems of tense, aspect, and evidentiality are much more variable. Such variation is often areal in nature. For example, across Eurasia, tense languages are found in the west, aspect languages in the east and mixed tense/aspect systems in between (e.g. in Slavic and Indo-Aryan languages; and, in my interpretation, also in Modern Standard Arabic). This is the kind of distribution we can expect to find with complementary systemic models. Thus, investigations that explore the systemic compositions of different languages enable us to identify complementary systemic models within certain regions of the lexicogrammar, e.g. the complementarity of transitive and ergative models within systems of transitivity, the complementarity of tense and aspect models within systems of temporality, the complementarity of modalization (probability) and evidentiality models within systems of validity assessment (see also Section 4.7.2 on metafunctional complementarity and Section 4.7.3 on the complementarity of the experiential and logical modes of the ideational metafunction). And such complementarities may also exist within the lexicogrammatical continuum, for example, with respect to systems of personal pronouns – highly grammaticalized as in English or more towards the lexical zone of the continuum as in Thai (cf. Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom, 2005: Chapter 3 on “personal reference terms”). Investigations of the systemic make-ups of different languages will also help identify similarities and differences in how the systems that make up a particular language relate to one another. If we consider any two systems, the relationship may range from one where they are completely simultaneous (thus independent variables) to one where one system is completely dependent on another in terms of ordering in delicacy. For example, in certain languages, systems of “politeness” may be confined to one or two terms in the system of mood (e.g. the ‘imperative’ mood) or the system of person (typically ‘addressee’ person [i.e. “second person”]), but in other languages they may be completely simultaneous, as with mood and “speech level” in the interpersonal clause system of Korean or as with person and “politeness” in the interpersonal system of pronouns in Indonesian. However, systems are related not only qualitatively but also quantitively; there are probabilities attached to terms in systems that are (partially) independent of one another, and these are likely to change over

134  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen time: see Halliday (2004). This is one aspect of the importance of the probabilistic theory of language in language typology: see further Section 4.5. (By another step, we also need to consider the complementary contributions by a given language and other semiotic systems that accompany it, as shown by Lantolf, 2010, for English and Spanish in face-to-face interaction, where the semiotic labour of construing experience of motion through space is divided in different ways between the lexicogrammatical and gestural systems in these two languages.) 4.4.4 Reinterpretation of implicational “universals”

Since SFL treats the paradigmatic axis as primary – as a representation of language as a resource for making meaning, i.e. a meaning potential, typological generalizations are stated not only structurally but also systemically, in fact, they are stated systemically in the first instance. Thus, typological generalizations of the implicational type (the implicational universals introduced by Greenberg, 1966) can usually be reconceptualized as generalizations about the patterns of elaboration of comparable systems across languages such as accessibility hierarchies, number systems and phoneme systems. Let me use a simple example that I have also used elsewhere since it makes the point: a very schematic systemic restatement of Comrie and Keenan’s well-known accessibility hierarchy for the choice of the relative element in relative clauses (Keenan & Comrie, 1977; Comrie & Keenan, 1979). Their typological generalization about the options in relativization of roles in relative clauses can be interpreted as a generalization about the ordered elaboration of the systems specifying the choice of the role of the relative (or “Wh”) element, as shown in Figure 4.5. Thus, languages may only allow the Subject to be selected as the relative item; but if there is another option, it will be the Complement; and if there is a further differentiation, it will be between the Complement and obliques (i.e. likely circumstantial Adjuncts). Many of the “universals” proposed in linguistic typology have been of the implicational type, based on Greenberg’s pioneering work; but when linguists increase the size of the sample of languages upon which the generalizations are based, such “universals” turn out to be tendencies, as shown

Figure 4.5   Comrie and Keenan’s accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted as a generalization about systemic elaboration

Language description, comparison and typology  135 by Evans and Levinson (2009). But the point I have made here is still valid: they constitute generalizations about the elaboration in delicacy of systems around the languages of the world. 4.4.5 Frequency in representative typological samples

If quantitative information is available based on a genetically and typologically balanced sample of languages, we can add counts of languages in the sample, or “population”, for each term in the system under investigation. For example, in Hajek’s (2013) phonological study of the presence of resonance (“nasalization”) in a sample of 244 languages, he found that in the majority of languages (180), there is no contrast, but in 64 languages, there is further systemic elaboration in terms of resonance: ‘nasal’/‘nonnasal’ (although the inventory of nasal vowels tends to be smaller than that of non-nasal ones). I have represented his findings systemically together with a bar chart in Figure 4.6. In the same way, many findings in the typological literature can be interpreted as generalizations about tendencies in the elaboration of systems towards greater delicacy, including phonological systems (e.g. vowel rounding), grammatical systems (e.g. number, tense, tenor-based distinctions [“politeness”] in personal pronouns) and lexical systems (i.e. the degree of elaboration of lexical distinctions in different lexico-semantic fields). 4.4.6 Multilingual systems networks

The primacy of the paradigmatic axis in SFL opens up further possibilities for the development of comparison and typology. Generalizations across languages can be explored and stated by means of multilingual system networks (e.g. Bateman, Matthiessen & Zeng, 1999; Matthiessen, 2018), as illustrated for the experiential system of transitivity by Matthiessen (2004a) and for the interpersonal system of mood by Teruya et al. (2007). Such networks make it possible to capture the potential that is shared by one or more languages – where they are congruent with one another – and at the same time to bring out systemic areas where they differ from one another, i.e. language-specific partitions. Based on the exploratory work involving multilingual system networks, we can present two tentative principles: Axis: systemic organization and structural realization One of the findings emerging from such systemic typologies is that while languages may vary considerably syntagmatically, e.g. with respect to the rank of syntagmatic “markers” of systemic options,36 they may still be paradigmatically fairly congruent (as illustrated by

136  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Figure 4.6  In a sample of 244 languages: 180 languages without elaboration in resonance, 64 with elaboration in resonance

the fragment in Table 4.3). While the syntagmatic realizations vary across languages, the systemic valeurs may still be maintained. Axis: systemic delicacy Another finding is that less delicate, more general options in system networks tend to be more congruent across languages while more delicate ones tend to vary across a wider spectrum, as illustrated in Figure 4.7. This principle extends to apply to the full extent of the continuum of lexicogrammar along the cline of delicacy from the grammatical zone to the lexical zone. (Thus, patterns of lexicalization of a particular field of experience such as motion through space, as in [to take an example outside the SFL literature but compatible with it] Talmy’s [1985] pioneering study, may turn out to reflect more general less delicate lexicogrammatical schemata, as argued by Beavers, Levin

Language description, comparison and typology  137 and Thao [2010]. This is precisely what we would expect based on the theoretical modelling of lexis and grammar as the continuum of lexicogrammar.) Figure 4.7 illustrates the point about elaboration in systemic delicacy with respect to the interpersonal clause grammar of mood. The general options concerned with negotiation in dialogic exchanges are similar across languages: the choice between exchanging goods-&-services (‘imperative’) or information (‘indicative’), and the direction of the exchange of information – giving (‘declarative’) or demanding (‘interrogative’). This is hardly surprising since this system is based on the general principle of human interaction involving exchange and reciprocity. But when we investigate elaborations in delicacy among these basic types in a large number of languages, we find considerable variation in what interactive strategies they have grammaticalized. Thus, with ‘declarative’ clauses, we find ranges of options having to do with the validity of the information being given (the validity of the statement) – evidential systems, the force of or commitment to the statement and the elicitation of confirmation on the part of the addressee. With ‘interrogative’ clauses, we find options enabling the speaker to position the addressee in terms of his/her expectations of the polarity of the answer (polar interrogatives); and in the case of elemental interrogatives, there is variation with respect to which experiential roles can be queried (e.g. participants and circumstances in English, but also processes in Tagalog: Martin, 2004). In contrast with this mood grammar of the exchange of information (propositions), the mood of the exchange of goods-&-services tends to be restricted to the demand for this type of commodity – ‘imperative’ clauses, but further elaborations we can expect to find around the languages of the world have to do with tenor considerations related to imposing demands for goods-&-services (commands) on the addressee, including the enactment of the addressee, the expected compliance with the command and distinctions based on polarity. While tenor considerations may be “spliced in” as more delicate systems within the mood system, in particular in the case of ‘imperative’ clauses, languages may also have grammaticalized them as a system of “speech level” that is simultaneous with, and thus intersects with, the system of mood type. One well-known example is Korean, where it is possible to identify a complete paradigm of combinations of mood type and “speech level”, as in S.E. Martin (1992). Similar considerations apply to other interpersonal systems, viz. the system of person, reflected in personal pronouns (cf. the classic non-SFL illumination of the pronouns of power and solidarity by Brown & Gilman, 1960, referred to above), and

Figure 4.7  Systemic mood typology – the primary common system of mood and possible elaborations in delicacy in different languages

138  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Language description, comparison and typology  139 the system of address (cf. Ervin-Tripp, 1969, discussed and systemicized in Matthiessen, 2023b). 4.5 The cline of instantiation and the probabilistic nature of the linguistic system Systems in system networks consist of two or more terms or options, e.g. (semantics) ‘information’ vs. ‘goods-&-services’, (lexicogrammar) ‘indicative’ vs. ‘imperative’, (phonology) ‘falling’ vs. ‘rising’ and ‘spread’ vs. ‘rounded’. They are located at the potential pole of the cline of instantiation in the description of a language, and each term includes a specification of the probability that it will be instantiated in text (Halliday, 1959, 1991a; Matthiessen, 2006, 2015b), this quantitative aspect of the description of a language being based on the analysis of relative frequency in texts at the instantial pole of the cline of instantiation in a multi-registerial corpus just as qualitative aspects are induced from instantial patterns. Probability and relative frequency are simply different manifestations of systemic quantitative information along the cline of instantiation: relative frequencies in texts at the instantial pole of the cline and probabilities at the potential pole of the cline. Thus, systemic probabilities are simply distillations of relative frequencies in text, and they change over time as relative frequencies change, just as they vary across registers as relative frequencies vary in repeated texts in contexts similar enough to form a particular register. 4.5.1 Probabilistic profiles

The important point in this context is that probabilistic profiles (e.g. Halliday, 1959, 1991a) are part of language comparison and typology, just as qualitative descriptions are. The significance of this point has also been made in the functional-typological literature outside SFL, already within the functional-typological tradition by Givón (1979). And, of course, much earlier, informed by his Prague School functionalism, Vilém Mathesius made insightful observations about the relative frequency of voice options in languages spoken in Europe. Vachek (1980: 9) summarizes some key points made by Mathesius that have also been important in systemic functional thinking; discussing a talk Mathesius gave in The Hague in 1929, he writes: What he himself had in mind is very clearly demonstrated in the third part of his Hague talk. In it Mathesius produces evidence for an important difference that can be found between Modern English on the one hand and modern Slavonic languages (including Czech) on the other, concerning the

140  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen different function of the grammatical subject in these two types of languages. While in Modern Czech it still denotes, essentially, the doer of the action (as it clearly did in ancient Indo-European languages), in Modern English its function has been altered into one denoting the theme of an utterance (in the terminology of some scholars, the topic, as opposed to the comment). In Mathesius’ opinion, this alternation accounts for the frequent use in Modern English of the passive voice as opposed to the active found in comparable sentences in Modern Czech (e.g. I haven’t been allowed to meet any of the company – Ani mi nedovolili jen se setkat s někým z té společnosti [“They didn’t even let me just meet someone from that company”, CMIMM.]. Admittedly, in sentences of this kind the speaker who experiences the content of the utterance is the most feasible starting point in wording such experience. (See further Mathesius, 1929, 1975: 100-103.37) In other words, following Mathesius, we can posit a system of voice in the description of both English and Czech, with the terms ‘active’/‘passive’. In both languages, the ‘passive’ option is the marked one (as Mathesius, 1975, points out, it evolved later than the active pattern in Indo-European languages, and it is expressed “periphrastically” [thus also being syntagmatically marked]). This marked status is both qualitative and quantitative in nature, and the difference between English and Czech can be characterized quantitatively: the choice of ‘passive’ (as opposed to ‘active’) is more probable in English than in Czech, which can be determined by the analysis of the relative frequency of selections in texts38 (for English, cf. Svartvik, 1966). The differences between English and Czech are, as Mathesius notes, not restricted to the system of voice. They are (in our terms) related to textual systems in general, importantly to the system of theme (cf. Steiner, 1988, and his account of diathesis as a way of comparing the textual systems and strategies different languages deploy to achieve comparable discursive effects in the flow of information). We must take a step back to ensure that we view the relevant systems holistically, which is possible if the comparison is based on comprehensive descriptions. Probabilistic profiles are, in the first instance, systemic (i.e. stated in terms of the paradigmatic axis): probabilities are probabilities of one term in a system being instantiated (selected) rather than another – in the overall system, or in a registerial subsystem (cf. Halliday’s, e.g. 1978, account of registerial resettings of systemic probabilities). However, systemic probabilities are as it were also realized syntagmatically. For example, the systemic contrast between probabilistically unmarked and marked terms in a system will be reflected in syntagmatic realizations. Thus, the probabilistically

Language description, comparison and typology  141 unmarked term in a system is likely to be realized by “nothing”, whereas the probabilistically marked term is likely to be realized by additional syntagmatic material – obvious examples being the systems of indicative type (declarative/interrogative), polarity (positive/negative), and voice (active/passive).39 This principle of syntagmatic realization of probabilistic systemic markedness extends to items – the “length” of grammatical items (high frequency) and of lexical items (lower frequency), high-frequency items being more likely to be phonologically reduced. While he did not state the principle in these terms, this is the kind of phenomenon Zipf (1936) drew attention to (cf. also Zipf, 1949). Outside SFL, Levshina and Moran (2021) review the effects of efficiency as a universal principle based on multilingual corpus evidence. Let me give one further comparative example illustrating the point about the relationship between categoricality and probability. Both English and Chinese have two systems of what we may call “nuclear transitivity” (as opposed to “circumstantial transitivity”), viz. process type and agency. If we posit them in our descriptions of Chinese (Halliday & McDonald, 2004) and English (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) as simultaneous systems, we predict that all combinations of terms from the two systems will be possible. It turns out that clauses of ‘behavioural’ and ‘existential’ process types are fundamentally ‘middle’ rather than ‘effective’ in both languages (setting aside here the possibility of “analytical” effective clauses such as she made him laugh). However, they differ with respect to ‘mental’ clauses: in English, there are both ‘middle’ mental clauses (e.g. I like calypso music) and ‘effective’ ones (e.g. calypso music pleases me), but in Chinese, there are only ‘middle’ ones (see Halliday & McDonald, 2004). In purely qualitative terms, this would appear to be a very significant difference; but if we add quantitative considerations, this difference is put into a new perspective. While ‘material’ clauses in English are roughly evenly distributed between ‘middle’ and ‘effective’, over 90% of ‘mental’ clauses are ‘middle’ and thus less than 10% are ‘effective’ in my exploratory counts (see Matthiessen, 1999, 2006). The orientation to the construal of our experience of ‘sensing’ – our processes of consciousness – towards sensing as emanating from the senser is thus the general principle in both English and Chinese, one that would be obscured if we compared the systems of transitivity in the two languages only in qualitative terms (cf. Matthiessen, 2023b). The general principle would seem to be that skewed probability systems and categorical absence of a term are likely to be common when we compare languages: absence is merely the limiting case of low probability, and language change may involve a move from one to the other (cf. Halliday, 1991a, and the discussion of Ellegård, 1953, in Matthiessen, 2023b). But this important principle is only possible to explore if we

142  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen base language comparison and language typology (as well as descriptions) on the analysis of texts from registerially varied corpora. 4.5.2 Babies taking statistics

The conception of language as a probabilistic system also relates powerfully to the study of early language development by Patricia Kuhl and her group (e.g. Kuhl, 2010; Garcia-Sierra, Ramírez-Esparza & Kuhl, 2016), demonstrating how infants “take statistics” based on their exposure to the language, or languages, spoken around them. Their brains are being tuned by their semiotic environment from a very early stage, and they engage in statistical learning (e.g. Erickson & Thiessen, 2015) starting in their first year of life (when they are learning how to mean through protolanguage before making the transition into the mother tongue(s) spoken around them in their second year of life: Halliday, 2003a). In her TED talk “The linguistic genius of babies”,40 Kuhl discusses the findings based on their studies of young children being monitored as they are listening to the language they are exposed to: During the production of speech, when babies listen, what they’re doing is taking statistics on the language that they hear. And those distributions grow. And what we’ve learned is that babies are sensitive to the statistics, and the statistics of Japanese and English are very, very different. English has a lot of Rs and Ls. The distribution shows. And the distribution of Japanese is totally different, where we see a group of intermediate sounds, which is known as the Japanese “R”. So babies absorb the statistics of the language and it changes their brains; It changes them from the citizens of the world to the culture-bound listeners that we are. But we as adults are no longer absorbing those statistics. We are governed by the representations in memory that were formed early in development. So what we’re seeing here is changing our models of what the critical period is about. We’re arguing from a mathematical standpoint that the learning of language material may slow down when our distributions stabilize. Later she emphasizes that infants only attend to actual speakers addressing them. This is part of the reason she characterizes our brain as the social brain: “The social brain is controlling when the babies are taking their statistics”.41 The findings from Kuhl’s studies of early language learning resonate powerfully with Halliday’s pioneering longitudinal account of early language learning – learning how to mean, and his assessment of how

Language description, comparison and typology  143 much rich contextualized language children are exposed to. Halliday (1993b/2003a: 342–343) emphasizes the significance of the volumes of text children are likely to have been exposed to by the age of five: Grammatical probabilities are no less part of the system of a language; and they are more powerful than lexical probabilities because of their greater generality. Children construe both kinds from the very rich evidence they have around them. By five years of age, a child is likely to have heard between half a million and a million clauses, so that, as an inherent aspect of learning the principal grammatical systems of the language, he has learnt the relative probabilities of each of their terms. An important corollary of this is that children are able to sequence their learning of the grammar, beginning with those options that stand out as being the more frequent. The longitudinal data suggest clearly that this is what they do, and examples will be found throughout. As part of our lifelong process of ontogenesis, we keep encountering new functional varieties of language – i.e. new registers – in new institutional settings, each with different probabilistic settings; and they become part of our changing personal registerial repertoires. 4.6 The inherent variability of the linguistic system The instantiation of terms in systems as selections in texts is thus probabilistic; in other words, language is a probabilistic system. This is directly related to the nature of languages as inherently variable systems, and the property of variability needs to be part of language description, language comparison and language typology. 4.6.1 Three kinds of variation

There are three different kinds of variation in language (e.g. Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens, 1964; Gregory, 1967; Hasan, 1973; Halliday, 1978, 1994), all relevant to the tasks of language description, comparison and typology: (i) dialectal variation, (ii) registerial variation and (iii) codal variation. The role they play in a particular language is part of what a description of that language needs to take into account; for example, some languages include part of dialectal variation as “mother-in-law languages” and other types of “avoidance speech”, which play a central role in the life of a speech fellowship (e.g. Halliday, 1978: 35). The three kinds of variation identified here based on the systemic functional literature can be contrasted in terms of (1) the location of the variation (in terms of linguistic

144  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen strata and ranks) and (2) the absence or presence of a constant (and if present, where): see Figure 4.8 (cf. also Halliday, 1994). (i) Dialectal variation is “low-level” variation, viz. variation in phonology within the expression plane and morphology and lexis within the content plane against the background of a semantic constant (and thus also a contextual one); dialects are essentially different ways of saying the same thing.42 Dialectal variation is probably the best-known of the three kinds of variation, and systematic dialect studies began to be pursued in the 19th century (often using the crowdsourcing of the time: for example, asking teachers to provide local dialect variants). It was of course an area of investigation adjacent to the exploration of genetic language families and the divergence of dialects into distinct languages over time, and linguists pursuing language description, comparison and typology carefully note which dialect or dialects of a language are in focus. There is now a growing body of work relevant to dialect variation and language typology: see Röthlisberger and Szmrecsanyi (2020). Dialectal variation is variation according to language user, and thus covers not only geographic considerations but also social and temporal ones (e.g. Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens, 1964; Gregory, 1967; Halliday, 1978). Descriptive linguists will usually specify which dialect of a particular language they have worked on (see e.g. Halliday’s, 1992a, specification of the dialect of Mandarin that his description of the syllable is based on, and Zhang’s, 2020, focus on the interpersonal resources of Khorchin Mongolian). (ii) Registerial variation is “high-level” variation within the content plane; it is semantic variation in the first instance but since lexicogrammar stands in natural (rather than conventional) relation to semantics, it can also be detected and analysed lexicogrammatically. It is semantic variation without a higher-stratal constant. Semantics varies with context; registers are different ways of saying different things. While dialectal variation is variation according to language user, registerial variation is variation according to the use of a language – variation according to the context of use – the contextually varied demands placed on language. This kind of variation has in a way also been recognized for a long time, under the heading of “genre” [i.e. “kind”]; but this tended to focus on highly valued varieties, literary genres (cf. the analogues in accounts of genres of painting, music, and film), so to steer clear of this association, Halliday and his colleagues adopted the term “register” from Reid (1956). But while this kind of variation has been recognized in certain areas for a long time, the focus on it as a phenomenon to be accounted for in linguistics in general is actually fairly recent. The journal Register Studies was only launched in 2019 (for the systemic approach, see Matthiessen, 2019). Since registerial variation is crucially important to language description, comparison and typology, I will expand on it further below.

Figure 4.8  Kinds of variation in language: dialectal, codal and registerial

Language description, comparison and typology  145

146  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (iii) Codal variation is also semantic variation, like registerial variation; but it is variation against a contextual constant: codes are different modes of meaning adopted by distinct “groups” within a community for pursuing comparable contextual goals such as regulating children’s behaviour. Codal variation is almost surely the most recently recognized kind of variation and arguably still the kind of variation that is the least prominent in linguistics in general, partly because the recognition of it was resisted for a long time in sociolinguistics on ideological grounds (see Halliday, 1994). The pioneering insight into codal variation is due to Basil Bernstein, going back to his own experience as a teacher in London in the 1950s, observing students from certain social backgrounds failing. His exploratory work on codes was taken up and theorized within SFL – for reviews, see Hasan (1973) and Halliday (1994). Codal variation is relevant to language description, comparison and typology in various ways, especially as interpreted as semantic variation with different coding orientations in meaning, as in Hasan (1989, 2009). Importantly, the degree and nature of variation in coding orientation will differ across communities of speakers, varying with social structure, as noted by Bernstein (e.g. 1971) and explored further by the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1970) in relation to cosmology, social structure, family control system (positional vs. personal) and ritual (interpretable as restricted code?). In Douglas’s (1970: 31) diagram “General cosmological ideas” (based on discussions between herself and Bernstein), she intersects “family control system”, “positional” vs. “personal”, and coding orientation, “speech socially restricted” vs. “speech elaborated”. This takes the form of a four-cell matrix, each cell being characterized in terms of four properties (“cardinal values”, “cardinal sins”, “the idea of the self” and “art form”). She locates different cultures within these cells, e.g. “primitive cultures” at the intersection of “speech socially restricted” and “positional family control system”; and “ourselves”, our own contemporary culture, at the intersection of “speech elaborated” and “personal family control system”.43 The different kinds of variation obviously operate within the overall semiotic space of a community (speech fellowship), and this extends to “dialects” that have drifted apart to the point where they are from a standard version of a language as in the case of Arabic – characterized as diglossia by Ferguson (1959). In any speech fellowship from Iraq to Morocco, there will be (at least) three “dialects” of Arabic: Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic and the regional “dialect”, e.g. Gulf Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Maltese Arabic or Moroccan Arabic. These variants have different registerial ranges (as was the case for Latin, Norman French and early English before English expanded registerially to cover the whole range).

Language description, comparison and typology  147 Referring to Halliday’s characterization of context, Holes (2004: 281– 282) uses the field, tenor and mode parameters of context to characterize five language levels in Cairo (Cairene Arabic, based on Badawi, 1973); I have adapted the table where he sets out the levels as Table 4.4.44 When we describe, compare and typologize particular languages, we need to take account of all possible kinds of variation in instantiation along the cline of instantiation; and when we do, we may need to recognize the complementarity not only of different dialects but also of different languages within a speech community, exploring their complementary registerial compositions. 4.6.2 Registerial variation

Registerial variation is variation according to contexts of use, characterized in terms of ranges of the contextual variables of field, tenor and mode values (e.g. Halliday, 1978; Matthiessen, 2019); a register is thus a functional variety of a language – a reflection of the fact that languages are adaptive systems, adaptive to their contexts of use (while at the same time influencing these contexts; the relationship is a dialectic one). A language is thus an aggregate of registers, and this has two general implications for language description, comparison and typology: As languages evolved adaptatively over time, their registerial makeups will change, as has been documented e.g. with respect to the emergence of the macro-register of science in English and also Chinese (e.g. Halliday, 1988, 1993a); and such changes are quite likely to be reflected in changes in its typological profile. This applies to evolution of standard languages as they emerged from chosen and privileged dialects, with the registers that are necessary resources for the operation of modern nation states (see Halliday, 2003b) – including registers of science and technology that are likely to be fairly international or even global in nature (contrasting with very culture-specific registers). At any period in time, particular languages will vary considerably in their registerial make-ups – correlating with the contexts of culture that they operate in. This variation in registerial make-up across languages naturally reflects the considerable diversity in contextual demands that languages are subject to. Certain registers are likely to be very common across languages, like casual conversation in contexts where members of a community share their personal experiences and values and narrative in contexts where they make sense of their experiences and values through stories, myths and the like (cf. Rose, 2005; Halliday, 2010b). But other registers are likely to be more specific to

Typical programmes on television and radio

Relation to the Koran; dramatic recreation of events in Islamic history

Political speech to the nation, read from a prepared text; news bulletin; voiceover commentary on serious documentary

Studio discussion on any serious topic, e.g. literature, the environment; unprepared interview with government minister, scientist, writer

“Vox pop” interviews in the street with ordinary people depicted in television/ radio plays, serials, soap operas; discussions, interviews on non-serious topics, especially involving women (e.g. cooking, fashion); game shows; sports commentary

Rarely represented except by speech of stereotypical working-class characters (doormen, porters, messengers, cleaners) in comedies and soap operas.

Level

1

2

3

4

5

informal

informal

non-serious, e.g. discussion of television programmes, sports, jobs, fashion

non-serious, domestic, uninformed by contact with modern civilization

semi-formal

formal

ritualized/ highly formal

tenor

same as Level 2

non-religious serious e.g. chemistry, law, politics, news bulletin

Islam/Classical Arabic literature/cultural history

field(s) [field of experience]

conversation (especially with children/ illiterates)

conversation

extempore speech (monologue or conversation)

written/reading aloud

written/prepared spoken monologue/reading aloud

mode(s)

Table 4.4 Five language levels in Cairo according to field, tenor and mode parameters of context (adapted from Holes, 2004: 382)

148  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Language description, comparison and typology  149 particular contextual conditions, like registers of rituals and ceremonies, of science and technology, and of administration. The insight that languages are adaptable aggregates of registers thus has far-reaching implications not only for language description but also for language comparison and typology, as has been indicated in the comparison of a small number of different languages based on samples from comparable registers, e.g. Teich (1999), Lavid (2000), Murcia-Bielsa (2000); cf. also Martinec (2003), Rose (2001, 2005). Linguistic patterns that have been given attention in the typological literature are likely to be subject to registerial variation, as is clear also from the non-SFL literature (e.g. Thompson & Hopper, 2001, on transitivity patterns in casual conversation, compared with their system-based account in Hopper & Thompson, 1980). One area of grammar where this is very likely to be the case is “word order”, in the specific sense of the sequence of elements of the clause, since the textual metafunction is likely to deploy it as a means of realization of textual statuses such as thematicity and newsworthiness (quite often together with textual “highlighting” markers such as focus particles) and it will reflect methods of text development characteristic of different registers. (For example, Modern Standard Arabic has been characterized as “VSO”, which makes sense in narrative texts with a temporal event line; but in taxonomic reports, “SVO” is motivated by the taxonomic method of development – cf. Holes, 2004; Bardi, 2008.) When we set out to develop systemic functional descriptions of “new” languages, we can use particular registers as “gateways” into specific areas of lexicogrammar and semantics because in these registers certain wordings and meanings are “at risk” (cf. Halliday, 1978). For example, if we want a gateway into temporal systems of a particular language, it will make sense to start with recounts and narratives since these are registers where the meanings and wordings of “time” are at risk. It is helpful to move in “from above”, from the context in which a language operates (cf. Martin, 1983, on systems for establishing and tracking discourse referents). This descent from context to language implicates all three contextual parameters, i.e. field, tenor and mode, and the metafunctional modes of meaning that resonate with them, i.e. field ∼ ideational, tenor ∼ interpersonal, and mode ∼ textual. For example, Zhang (2020, 2021) investigates interpersonal systems in Khorchin Mongolian ecologically in reference to the tenor parameter. This approach is also illustrated in the description of the interpersonal grammars of eight languages (Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish Gaelic; Mongolian; Mandarin; Tagalog; Pittjantjatjara; and British Sign Language) in Martin, Quiroz and Figueredo (2020). To further comment on the descent “from above”, I will focus on the field parameter of context, more specifically field of activity; but the same method of moving

150  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen in “from above” applies to field of experience (“subject matter”, “topic”, “domain of knowledge”), tenor and mode. 4.6.3 Registerial variation in context: Field of activity

Field of activity can be differentiated into eight primary types, each with subtypes (e.g. Matthiessen, 2015c); and it is possible to increase the delicacy of the description further, of course. The types and their subtypes can be characterized as follows (adapted from Matthiessen, 2015c): • expounding our experience of classes of phenomena according to a general theory (ranging from commonsense folk theories to uncommonsense scientific theories) – either by categorizing (or “documenting”) these phenomena or by explaining them; • reporting on our experience of particular phenomena – chronicling the flow of particular events (as in historical recounts or news reports), surveying particular places (as in guidebooks) or inventorying particular entities (as in catalogues); • recreating our experience of the world imaginatively, that is, creating imaginary worlds having some direct or tenuous relation to the world of our daily lives – recreating the world imaginatively through narration and/or through dramatization; • sharing our personal lives, prototypically in private, thereby establishing, maintaining and negotiating personal relationships – sharing our personal experiences (e.g. reminiscing) and/or sharing our personal values (e.g. gossiping, expressing opinions); • doing social activities, prototypically engaging in interactive social behaviour, thereby collectively achieving some task – either by members of one group collaborating with one another or by one person directing the other members of a group; • enabling people to undertake some activity, thus very likely foreshadowing a ‘doing’ context – either by instructing them in how to undertake the activity (e.g. recipes, topographic procedures – “how to” texts) or by regulating their behaviour (e.g. parental control strategies, legislation); • recommending people to undertake some activity, thus very likely foreshadowing a ‘doing’ context – either by advising them (recommendation for the benefit of the addressee, as in consultations) or promoting them (inducement: recommendation for the benefit of the speaker, as in advertisements); • exploring our communal values and positions, prototypically in public – by reviewing a commodity (goods-&-services or information), by rallying people around a view of cause for action (e.g. political speeches),

Language description, comparison and typology  151 or by arguing about positions, stances and ideas (e.g. expositions, discussions, debates). Naturally, there is indeterminacy in the differentiation of fields of activity (Matthiessen & Teruya, 2016); but when we use fields of activity heuristically in language description, comparison and typology, our main concern is to probe for registerial variation so that we can compile corpora of texts from reasonably full and balanced ranges of registers (see e.g. Kumar, 2009; Mwinlaaru, 2017) and so that we can use texts instantiating different registers to study particular systems – systems at risk in those registers, as illustrated by the display in Figure 4.9. Texts belonging to different registers operating in contexts characterized by the fields of activity shown in Figure 4.9 can serve as the way into, as the first window on, the exploration of some particular lexicogrammatical system (or semantic system, although they are not named in the display). For example, if we want to investigate and describe the grammar of clause complexing (the systems of taxis and logico-semantic type) within the logical mode of the ideational metafunction, one way in is through texts belonging to procedural registers operating in contexts of ‘enabling’: ‘instructing’, since they will be organized as temporal sequences of operations and the contribution made by clause complexing is likely to be fairly clear, viz. indicating sub-procedures within the overall procedure. Then the investigation can be expanded to other registers, e.g. sequential explanations operating in ‘expounding’ contexts, recounts operating in ‘reporting’: ‘chronicling’ contexts, and narrative sequences in ‘sharing’ contexts (e.g. realizing the stage of Substantiating Behaviour in gossip texts: see Slade, 1996). For textual systems such as systems of theme, the best starting point is likely to be texts belonging to registers operating in contexts calling for quite different “methods of development” (cf. Fries, 1981; Matthiessen, 1995) – say, taxonomic reports operating in ‘expounding’ contexts, recounts operating in ‘reporting’ contexts, narratives operating in ‘recreating’ contexts and procedures operating in ‘enabling’: ‘instructing’ contexts. Such comparison of texts belonging to registers characterized by different “methods of development” is likely to reveal quite quickly what the textual grammar of the language under description is tuned into. (As an aside: in non-SFL accounts of Japanese, there has been a great many armchair treatments of the choice between “wa” and “ga”. The issues involved can be fairly quickly illuminated if the switch to an examination of texts instantiating registers that have clearly different “methods of development”; and this approach is also likely to lead to the insight that treating “wa” and “ga” as contrasting terms in a choice between the two, which is a common assumption, is completely misleading.)

152  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

examples of areas of grammar “at risk” in texts operating in contexts characterized by different fields of activity: grammar of cause – clause complexes of reason, relational clauses of cause grammar of persuasion and argumentation – objective evaluations in clause and nominal group; clause complex of reasoning

grammar of evalution – objective evaluations in clause and nominal group

grammar of taxonomy – relational clauses, nominal groups: grammar of assessment classification; thematization of information – of (classes of) entities modalization / evidential systems

explaining

grammar of (static) location in space – relational clauses of location, existential clauses; thematization of places

categorizing

arguing

inventorying surveying

expounding reviewing

chronicling reporting

exploring

narrating

promoting grammar of suggestions – action clauses; modalities of obligation (’you should’) and of potentiality (’you can’)

recommending

field of activity

recreating dramatizing

advising

doing

sharing experiences sharing values

regulating directing

grammar of episodic development: sequence – clause complexing (chaining), circumstances of time (and place)

sharing

enabling instructing

grammar of sequence – clause complexing (chaining); action clauses

grammar of time – tense/ aspect systems, verbal groups; thematization of times

collaborating

grammar of interpersonal control – modulated and imperative clauses

grammar of negotiation – mood systems

grammar of opinion – subjective evalutions in clause and nominal group

grammar of language in action – action clauses; deixis; ellipsis

Figure 4.9  Fields of activity within context and example of areas of grammar “at risk”, and thus likely to be investigated productively

Not surprisingly, languages may achieve comparable contextual tasks using different lexicogrammatical resources, as Martin (1983) showed in his pioneering comparison of the grammatical resources used in English, Kâte and Tagalog to establish and track discourse referents in text. For example, in instructional texts in English, ‘imperative’ clauses serve as the unmarked realization of the steps in the procedure; but in MSA, ‘passive’, ‘declarative’ clauses would be the norm. Such differences began to be revealed in the comparative studies based on comparable registers mentioned above at the beginning of this section (Teich [1999], Lavid [2000], Murcia-Bielsa [2000]; cf. also Martinec [2003], Rose [2001, 2005)). In relation to Figure 4.9, we need to consider two important related points. (1) The field parameters of the cultures in which different particular languages operate need to be described for each particular language-culture

Language description, comparison and typology  153 complex based on empirical evidence, instead of being taken over from exploratory descriptions of English contexts. (2) As noted briefly above, language-culture complexes vary considerably around the world and, obviously, through time; as research progresses within anthropology and descriptive linguistics, it reveals more and more of the rich diversity that has evolved over the last 150,000 to 250,000 years. Languages are aggregates of registers (e.g. Halliday, 1978; Matthiessen, 1993, 2015c); and as they evolve, they adapt to the changing semiotic conditions by changing their registerial composition. This is obviously important when we set out to compile a registerially varied and balanced corpus as the basis for the description of a particular language; and it is equally important when we compare and typologize languages.45 As noted above, there will be registers that are very common, and presumably ancient, like narratives (cf. Halliday, 2010b) and casual conversation. Such registers will be candidates for large-scale comparative studies since they are likely to be part of the registerial make-up of all languages, as illustrated powerfully by Rose (2005) in his comparative study based on narratives. Such registers contrast with registers that are more culture-specific, including ones that have evolved more recently within certain cultures or clusters of cultures, e.g. the registers of science, the registers of news reporting, the registers of promotion through advertising and certain registers based on the recently developed channels of the Internet and mobile devices.

4.6.4 Variation around the languages of the world seen “from above” and “from below”; and also “from roundabout”

Rounding off my discussion of the inherent variability of language, I will take a step back to view variation writ large “from above” and “from below”: see Figure 4.10. Variation “from below” can be thought of as the extension of dialectal variation into variation across languages over areas of the world. Here we can note both the divergence of “low-level” patterns as members of a language family diverge over time and language contact (areal typology) leading to convergence. The illustration comes from the WALS map of different markers of polar interrogative clauses, focused on Western Eurasia. Variation “from above” can be thought of as the extension of registerial (and codal) variation across languages in terms of cultural space – including different role systems (tenor) and different modes of subsistence (field) and different media (spoken or spoken and written, but also with different uses and combinations of semiotic systems other than language). This is variation in styles of meaning in the first instance, including but not limited to the variation from one language to another in their registerial make-ups, i.e. in the functional varieties they have evolved to operate in all the institutional settings that make up the context of culture of a given language. Compare

154  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Figure 4.10   Variability viewed “from above” – the dispersal of meaning over cultural space, and “from below” – the dispersal of sounding and wording over space

Evans and Levinson (2009: 432): “The conclusion is that the variation has to be taken at face value – there are fundamental differences in how languages work, with long historico-cultural roots that explain the many divergences.” The “styles of meaning” that we may be able to identify in particular languages and compare and contrast cover semantic syndromes of the kind explored for Tagalog by Martin (1988) under the heading of “conspiracy” and for English by Halliday (1990) in relation to our construal of the

Language description, comparison and typology  155 environment and ecological considerations; cf. also Hasan (1984) in reference to implicitness in Urdu. Halliday (1996: 15) illuminates the potential for such syndromes due to the fission of the content plane into semantics and lexicogrammar: In a stratified semiotic system, where grammar is decoupled from semantics, the two strata may differ in the arrangement of their internal space. Things which are shown to be topologically distant at one stratum may appear in the same systemic neighbourhood at the other. Having noted that the inter-stratal relation between lexicogrammar and phonology is largely conventional or “arbitrary”, he contrasts this interstratal relation with that between semantics and lexicogrammar: But between the semantics and the grammar, this new frontier (typically non-arbitrary) within the content plane, we expect to find more isomorphism: things which mean alike might reasonably be worded alike. As a general rule, they are: grammatical proportionalities typically construe semantic ones. But not always. On the one hand, there are regions of considerable drift in both directions; an obvious one in English is the semantic domain of probability and subjective assessment, which is construed in many different regions of the grammar – each of which may in turn construe other semantic features, such as obligation or mental process. On the other hand, there are the “syndromes” mentioned above – high-level semantic motifs which are located all around the terrain of the lexicogrammar, such as the complex edifice of meanings that goes to make up a “standard language”. People make much use of these re-alignments in reasoning and inferencing with language. In addition to “variation from above” and “variation from below”, we also need to recognize and illuminate “variation from roundabout”. This is variation in how languages map different metafunctional modes of meaning onto one another, dealing with the competing motivations internal to the system and the ones reflecting pressure “from above” and also “from below”. For example, languages may start the clause thematically, with a combination of textual, logical and interpersonal patterns – a thematic orientation, as in English, or they may end the clause with interpersonal and logical patterns – an interpersonal finale, as in Japanese. These possibilities are set out in Table 4.5. And there are of course other possible patterns in the unification of metafunctional patterns within the clause. The point is simply that languages vary “from roundabout”

156  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Table 4.5 Examples of combinations of metafunctional patterns at the beginning or end of clauses textual logical

interpersonal

interpersonal

Japanese: end of the English: beginning of the clause clause (Predicator ^ (Theme: textual [cohesive Negotiator, linkers, conjunctions] + structural binders) [linkers, binders] & interpersonal [interrogative wh-items, Finite before Subject)

in how they map the metafunctions onto one another structurally. And behind these different possibilities lies paradigmatic variation – variation in patterns of interaction among the different metafunctional systems of the clause. I will now discuss the metafunctional organization of the content plane of language. 4.7 The content plane: The metafunctional spectral organization of language The content plane of language – i.e. semantics and lexicogrammar – is organized metafunctionally; it is organized into a spectrum of different complementary modes of meaning (cf. Halliday, 1978, 1979; Martin, 1992, 1996; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen, 1991). The metafunctional organization of the content plane of language organizes it into simultaneous modes of meaning – characteristic of modern language in contrast with the alternative macrofunctional modes of meaning of archaic language and the microfunctional modes of meaning of protolanguage. And this metafunctional organization tends to permeate into the highest rank of phonology (part of prosodic as opposed to articulatory phonology46), since at the highest rank the relationship between lexicogrammar and phonology is largely natural rather than conventional (“arbitrary”), Martinet’s (1962, 1970: Chapter 1) notion of “double articulation” becoming more dominant at the lower ranks of phonology (cf. Matthiessen, 2021a). 4.7.1 The status of the metafunctions

The metafunctions are very general principles of functional organization; they are not in the first instance of collections of specific systems. For example, polarity (or “negativity” as it has sometimes been called in the non-systemic functional literature) is a system we can identify in many, probably, all languages (cf. note on Kusunda in Section 4.4.3); but

Language description, comparison and typology  157 it is definitely not a metafunction (pace Fawcett, e.g. 1980): its metafunctional status may in fact vary across languages.47 This is a fundamental principle, referred to above: languages may achieve comparable tasks while using different metafunctional modes of meaning. These modes of meaning are of a higher order of abstraction than specific semantic and lexicogrammatical systems that we cover in the descriptions of particular languages. That is one reason why they are part of the general theory of language – part of the “architecture” of modern language, emerging as evolutionary transformations of the macrofunctions of archaic language (or, in ontogenesis, Phase II, the transition into the mother tongue, following Phase I, protolanguage48). In this section, I will first discuss the metafunctional modes of meaning as areas of variation and complementarity that we find when we examine how languages around the world achieve tasks that would seem to be complementary (cf. Martin, 1983). I will then examine the relationship between metafunctional modes of meaning and modes of expression, and the manifestation of different modes of expression in different media of expression. This will make it possible to review discussions of one of the media of expression, sequence (usually explored under the heading of “word order”), as a realizational resource for the different metafunctions. 4.7.2 Metafunctional modes of meaning: Complementarity and variation

As noted above, the spectrum of metafunction is a global dimension in the organization of the content plane of language, and it also affects the highest ranks of the higher of the two expression strata – the rank of the tone group within phonology. At this rank (the highest of prosodic phonology), phonology is natural or “transparent” in relation to lexicogrammar (for sound symbolism, see Footnote 46). For example, the modes of expression manifested within the medium of expression of intonation stand in a natural relationship to the metafunctional modes of meaning of the content plane (see Section 4.7.3). At the same time, the metafunctional organization of the content plane resonates with the functional parameters of context, in particular within the stratum of the interlevel of the content plane, i.e. semantics (the interface to what lies outside language – not only context but also other denotative semiotic systems and bio-semiotic systems [for the notion of bio-semiotic systems, see Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999]). This principle was suggested by Halliday (1978) and further explored by Halliday (1979), Matthiessen (1991), Martin (1996) and various subsequent studies dealing with different languages (e.g. McDonald, 1998). When we examine the description of languages from different genetic families and with different typological characteristics, we find a reasonably high degree of similarity – certainly in comparison with other semiotic systems, whether semiotic systems used by humans or ones used by other

158  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen animals. For example, in one language after another, we find a consistent stratal-realizational relationship between tenor (context), speech function (semantics), and mood (lexicogrammar). (This is of course what made the work of the speech-act realization project possible in CrossCultural Pragmatics; cf. House & Kádár, 2021.) This relatively high degree of similarity is not surprising since speakers of all languages are all AMHs (see Section 4.3.2 above). For example, we all have the same sensory systems; through these bio-semiotic systems (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999) we construe our “Umwelten”, the experiences animals can construe for themselves using their sensory systems (see e.g. von Uexküll, 1934, who coined the term). The significance of this becomes particularly clear when our sensory systems are compared with those of our fellow creatures, as Yong (2022) does in a very evocative way. And the different sensory systems provide different affordances for the expression planes of varied semiotic systems. In addition, we all inhabit “Gaia” (Lovelock, e.g. 1991); and being part of this system also means that our basic material conditions are the same (e.g. we are all subject to gravity and live within what Lovelock has called “the narrow window of life” – one that we are collectively closing at an accelerating speed), although we have dispersed over very varied environments and lived through dramatically different phases such as ice ages, adapting successfully to all these varied conditions (cf. Figure 4.10). At the same time, we also find very significant differences. As I noted above, languages may achieve comparable contextual and semantic tasks through different metafunctional strategies, which may become apparent at the instantial pole of the cline of instantiation when we examine metafunctional translation shifts (cf. Matthiessen, 2014a; Wang & Ma, 2021). And the composition of such tasks is also subject to variation across languages. For example, speaking in Quechua, one needs to specify one’s source of information, making selections in the system of evidentiality (Weber, 1989), but not in Chinese or English. In Jacaltec, speakers select among spatial options in a system of directionals (e.g. Craig, 1993), just as speakers of English must select among temporal options in the system of tense. There are innumerable examples of such variable systems among the languages of the world (cf. Matthiessen, 2004a, on such systems variably expanding the core logical, experiential, interpersonal and textual systems). When we encounter such metafunctional shifts in translation, one central question is, of course, whether they are systemic (i.e. whether they can be traced all the way to the potential pole of the cline of instantiation). In any case, it is clear that there are semiotic tasks that languages may achieve in metafunctionally different ways (always allowing for registerial

Language description, comparison and typology  159 variation within a given language), in addition to pervasive variation within one metafunction (cf. Halliday, 1987b). For example, languages differ metafunctionally in how they: • create links between the sequences that make up texts as units of meaning, either textually by means of a cohesive system such as conjunction or logically by means of systems for forming clause complexes, taxis and logico-semantic type. (Other systems may also be implicated, like systems of switch reference; and intonation may also be involved.) • construe human experience of the flow of events, either experientially by means of transitivity systems engendering configurations of process + direct/indirect participants as representations of quanta of change or logically by means of taxis systems engendering paratactic/hypotactic series, of clauses (sequences: clause complexes) or of verbal groups (“serial verb constructions”; or hypotactic series with a head verb and verbs in a “converb” form, e.g. Bisang, 1995) or, at one rank further below, of verbs (“verb compounding”). • construe human experience of time in the flow of events, either experientially by means of “taxonomic” systems of tense and/or aspect, potentially with several steps in the differentiation of tenses, as in Kalam, or logically by means of systems of serial tense. • construe the content of what people say (and think), i.e. quoting and reporting, either logically by means of taxis (combined with projection as a logico-semantic type) or experientially by means of relational clauses within the system of transitivity, setting up an identity between the projected content and the source of projection. And the system of polarity is certainly another candidate – clearly integrated with interpersonal systems of the clause in English and many other languages, but in terms of how negative polarity is “achieved”, we find the deployment of clause nexuses of projection, as well as conditional forms of realization relating to different mood types, process types or tenses/aspects (as in Arabic; cf. Figure 4.3 above) – cf. Matthiessen (2004a). 4.7.3 Logical and experiential complementarity

Let me begin by briefly commenting on one of these examples, the complementarity of the logical and experiential modes across languages as resources for construing our experience of quanta of change in the flow of events. In my view, this is a fundamental typological variable, but it does not seem to have been given attention or even recognized in these metafunctional terms

160  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen outside SFL despite relevant absolutely pioneering contributions (e.g. the fundamental contrast between English and Kalam, a Trans-New Guinea language spoken in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, e.g. Pawley, 1966, 1987, 2008; Lane, 2007; discussed in systemic functional terms in Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999: Chapter 7), contributions that illuminate the central question of the variation across languages of what is construed as a quantum of change or as a series of related quanta of change. The logical and experiential modes of construing experience are compared and contrasted in Table 4.6. They provide different models of experience; using the row headings in the table, I will comment briefly on recursion, system and structure. Recursion: both the logical mode of construing experience and the experiential one embody the possibility of recursion, but they are distinct in nature.49 (1) The logical mode of recursion is based on a recursive system, with the simple contrast between ‘stop’ and ‘go on’, the latter being the recursive option. The first option, ‘stop’, means that the complex being developed is not augmented further; in contrast, ‘go on’ means that the complex is further augmented: the logical system is entered again, opening up the potential of taxis (parataxis/hypotaxis) and logicosemantic type again. This type of recursion is linear (although it may also involve internal nesting, or “layering”). (2) The experiential mode of recursion is based on the rank scale (a compositional scale of constituency) and involves downranking units to serve as if they were units of a lower rank (e.g. clauses serving as if

Table 4.6 The logical vs. experiential modes of construing our experience of the world property

logical

experiential

“recursion”

recursion through taxis

recursion through downranking (embedding)

system

logical recursion (stop or continue augmenting complexes)

experiential elaboration in delicacy

example: verb inventory

a few hundred, fairly general, so low degree of delicacy; serialized

thousands, high degree of delicacy

structure

univariate

multivariate: configurational

Language description, comparison and typology  161 they were groups or words). In other words, a unit of a given rank is “embedded” in another unit to serve as if it was a unit of a lower rank, as when defining relative clauses are downranked to serve as modifiers in nominal groups, i.e. embedded in the structure of the nominal group. Influenced by formal linguistics, linguists outside SFL usually understand “recursion” along these lines (cf. Everett’s, 2008: 239, characterization of it as “the mathematical, matrioshka-doll sense”). But from a systemic-functional point of view, what I have called the “experiential mode of recursion” is not true recursion in the logical sense; as Halliday (1979 [2002: 213]) points out, “The recursion-like effect that is produced is an incidental outcome of the selection, at a particular place in structure, of an item from the same rank or from a higher rank in the constituent hierarchy”. In linguistics outside SFL, there has been a considerable debate about recursion. It has been claimed to be a central language universal – Noam Chomsky’s position,50 but this claim has been challenged – famously by Daniel Everett (e.g. 2005) based on his description of Pirahã (spoken in Amazonia, Brazil); cf. also Foley (1986: 177). This debate is outlined by Evans and Levinson (2009) roughly up through to 2010, and they cite descriptions of a number of languages other than Pirahã that show little or no recursion of the downranking kind, what I have characterized as the experiential mode of recursion. The way forward in this debate, it seems to me, is to recognize that there are two kinds of recursion, as outlined above based on the systemic functional theory of (modern) language, logical recursion (linear in nature), which is true recursion, and experiential recursion (downranking in nature), which is “incidental recursion”, and then to note that they are complementary, creating the conditions for variation across languages in how they deploy these complementary models. In English (and many other languages with a long history of a written mode), logical recursion is favoured in spontaneous spoken language, whereas experiential recursion is favoured in planned written language (e.g. Halliday, 1985b, 1987b; Matthiessen, 2002). It seems plausible that languages that have as yet not got a written mode, or have only recently developed one, would favour logical recursion rather than experiential recursion (as can be inferred from descriptions of “clause chaining” in many languages), which (as noted) seems to be characteristic of the written mode (one consideration being the potential for the assignment of different textual statuses within the clause as a message, as shown in relation to the evolution of ideational grammatical metaphor in the macro-register of science by Halliday [1988]). In any case, the way forward in engaging with the debate is to recognize the complementarity between logical recursion

162  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen and experiential recursion, and then to explore the description of particular languages illuminated by this insight. System: both the logical and the experiential modes embody the possibility of further systemic specification in our construal of experience. However, as already noted, in the logical mode, this is manifested as logical recursion: our construal of experience is serialized – successive selections from the same systems. In contrast, in the experiential mode, this is manifested as delicacy: our construal of experience is elaborated taxonomically, progressing towards ever more delicate (“fine-grained”) distinctions. This contrast between the logical and experiential modes can be illustrated by reference to tendencies towards “serialization” (logical) and size of verb inventories (reflecting the degree of experiential taxonomic elaboration). Thus, while English construes quanta of change by elaborating the clause system of process type to a considerable degree of delicacy, thus increasing the intension of the representation of a chunk of experience (e.g. Hasan, 1987; Halliday, 2008; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Matthiessen, 1999, 2014b) with an inventory of thousands of verbs (cf. Levin, 1993), there are languages with much smaller verb inventories, e.g. Kalam with around 100 (Pawley, 1966, 1987, 2008; Lane, 2007) and Ewe with around 600 (Ameka, 2006: 125). Their strategy is to construe change serially, using logical systems of complexing as clause rank and/or group rank and chaining verbs that are fairly general. This applies to both Kalam and Ewe, both being spoken in areas where “serial verb constructions” are very common. Thus, the Processes of the transitivity structures in such languages are likely to be realized by hypotactic verbal group complexes (“serial verb constructions”). With respect to Ewe, Ameka (2006: 141) notes “Depending on the genre, 50–70 per cent of clauses in a text may be SVCs”. For discussion of Kalam, see also Halliday and Matthiessen (1999: Chapter 7). Elements introduced as part of the series of lexical verbs in a “serial verb construction” may also correspond in languages such as English that foreground the experiential mode of construing experience to circumstantial augmentations, as illustrated by the contrast between Akan and English in Figure 4.11. Structure: while the structure engendered by logical systems is univariate, the structure engendered by experiential systems is multivariate, more specifically (within multivariate), it is configurational (see Halliday, 1965, 1979). This means that logical structure is, in principle, open-ended (in principle, enabling speakers to produce the “never-ending story”); and logical structures can reach a high degree of intricacy (including internal nesting, or “layering”). This is the principle behind complexes at all ranks, including clause complexing (or “clause chaining”, as it has also been called). In contrast, experiential structure operates within the domain of units, representing them as configurations of organic wholes, allowing us

Language description, comparison and typology  163

Figure 4.11  Examples of construal of motion in Akan and in English

to represent composition of a unit whole exhaustively (even if this involves many functions, as in the case of Smeet’s [2008: 149] description of the verb in Mapuche (Mapudungun) [Araucanian], a “polysynthetic language” in Chile, involving a maximum of 36 “slots”). The contrast between the two types of structure is illustrated for Akan [Niger-Congo: Kwa] and English in Figure 4.11. Here the domain of experience is that of motion (translocation) through space.51 Akan construes the path by realizing the Process by a hypotactic verbal group complex, a “serial verb construction”; in contrast, English construes it by means of a circumstantial augmentation of the configuration of Actor + Process, viz. the circumstance of Place from Kumase to Accra.

4.7.4 Examples of diversity in the experiential construal of the “Umwelt” of speakers

The ideational resources of any given language empower its speakers to construe their experience of their “Umwelt”. These sensory systems can be interpreted as bio-semiotic systems (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999), and if we take a step back to survey the rich diversity of such systems among our fellow creatures, as Yong (2022) enables us to do in his survey of the “immense world” construed perceptually in a rich variety of ways, we can begin to get a very powerful sense of the distinction between the physical world and the different angles on it construed by complementary

164  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen combinations of bio-semiotic systems – the Umwelten of humans and bats or dogs or mosquitoes are very different. In the case of AMHs (Homo sapiens sapiens), our Umwelten construed by our bio-semiotic systems are further differentiated by our socio-semiotic systems, centrally including language, into what we might call our lifeworlds. Different languages operating in different contexts of culture have evolved ideational resources for construing their speaker’s experience of the world, and the models they have evolved are very richly varied, including elaborations of resources for construing domains of experience of particular importance in a given community, e.g. in terms of ethnoscience (e.g. Goodenough, 1956; Frake, 1962; Lounsbury, 1964; D’Andrade, 1987; Kronenfeld, 1996; and also Ong, 1967, on linguistic variation in the “sensorium”, and Howes, 1991, on the “anthropology” of the senses). The systemic functional interpretation of the role of language in construing our experience of the world around us and inside us as meaning has always been a constructivist one, resonant with the Sapir–Whorf line of interpretation (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999). While there have been periods in the history of linguistics and related disciplines when scholars tried to argue against the “Sapir–Whorf hypothesis”, often offering a more universalist alternative, the last 30 years or so have witnessed an accumulation of studies providing solid empirical evidence for the linguistic constructivist view that our understandings of domains of experience are richly varied depending on our linguistic resources – an early contribution relevant to our understanding of varied linguistic models for construing our perception of the world being Viberg’s (1984) survey of patterns in 53 languages, followed up by Evans and Wilkins (2000) for around 60 Australian languages. Domains of experience construed in different languages that have been investigated by researchers within different disciplines include: Our experience of motion through space (i.e. translocation, and also static location in space): e.g. Talmy (1985, 2007); Slobin (1987, 2004); Levinson and Wilkins (2006); Beavers, Levin and Thao (2010); Matthiessen (2015e, and references therein); Matthiessen, Arús-Hita and Teruya (2021). This has been a domain of human experience richly explored in a considerable number of languages with different typological characteristics. One important stimulus for this research was Talmy’s (1985) typology of different lexicalization patterns, an account that has been further elaborated and served as the basis for empirical studies based on naturally occurring texts and on experimental set-ups. I will say a few words more about the highly relevant and fundamentally important research by Christiane von Stutterheim and her group below.

Language description, comparison and typology  165 Our experience of orientation in space: over the last two decades, Lera Boroditsky has produced several important accounts documenting how “language shapes thought”, i.e. how different languages shape very different thoughts (e.g. Boroditsky, 2011). In a TED talk, she shows how different languages provide strikingly different models for speakers to locate themselves in space,52 using either a model based on cardinal points or on the orientation of the human body (cf. also Levinson & Wilkins, 2006; Hickmann & Robert, 2006). Our experience of olfaction: while our bio-semiotic system of vision is considered our most developed sensory system, and seems to be most highly elaborated in terms of the lexicogrammatical resource of languages around the world (e.g. Viberg, 1984), communities of speakers in particular cultures may need more lexicogrammatical resources for other sensory systems as well (Ong, 1967; Howes, 1991): Majid and Kruspe (2018) document the elaboration of the lexis of olfaction in the language (Semaq Beri, Austroasiatic) of a hunter-gatherer community in peninsular Malaysia, emphasizing the importance of olfactory discrimination in their mode of subsistence. Our experience of pain: Halliday (1998) on English and various other languages; Hori (2006) on Japanese; Lascaratou (2007) on pain in Greek; cf. also Sussex’s (2009) review of Lascaratou (2007). In his study, Halliday points out that pain is a kind of experience that is very difficult to come to terms with, and suggests that for this reason, languages have evolved different, complementary models of construing our experience of pain (e.g. as a process, a quality or an entity – construed subjectively or objectively). Our experience of emotion: like pain, emotion is a phenomenon of experience that is multi-faceted and challenging to come to terms with (cf. Matthiessen, 2007b53). The received view has been that there are a number of primary emotions that are universal, in large part based on experimental research by Paul Ekman and his research group. However, Barrett (2017) challenges this view, pointing out that the Ekman-type studies tended to include sets of options that the “subjects” had to choose among (what we might think of as systemic “guidance” based on English). Her research is grounded in neuroscience, and she presents very compelling empirical evidence showing that emotions have no neurological “fingerprints” and that speakers of different languages embedded in a different context of culture have very different models of emotion. This finding is, of course, very resonant with the systemic function constructivist theory of language as a resource in construing our experience of the world (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999).

166  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen As I said above, our shared human Umwelten are further differentiated by our very diverse resources for construing experience through language and other semiotic systems operating in different cultures, leading to a rich diversity of lifeworlds. But even in terms of our bio-semiotic activities, languages actually play a guiding role, as research by Christiane von Stutterheim and her research group (at the University of Heidelberg, and also elsewhere) has shown (e.g. Carroll & von Stutterheim, 2011; Flecken, von Stutterheim & Carroll, 2014; Gerwien & von Stutterheim, 2018). For example, different languages do not only construe our experience according to different semiotic models, but they also guide us to use our shared bio-semiotic systems in different ways. In one study, von Stutterheim and her researchers established the linguistic differences between German and English in how they construe movement through space in descriptions of the two languages, showing that while German orients its speakers towards the outcome and destination of the movement English does not. When they showed a video clip of motion through space to speakers of the two languages, they found that English speakers started reporting on what they saw before German speakers, who waited until they had a sense of the result of the movement; and using eye-tracking, the investigators found that the German speakers looked towards the expected destination. In other words, visual perception is guided by the ideational semantics of languages: there is a strong resonance between the deployment of our bio-semiotic system of vision and the ideational resources of the particular language we speak. This shows that the guiding, constructive role of language actually goes beyond conceptualization, or “thought”, which is its role usually associated with the “Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis”, including Slobin’s (1987) instantial version of it, his “thinking for speaking” account.54 The examples listed above all come from studies focused on (in our systemic functional terms) different models for construing our experience of the world – that is, from the ideational metafunction. But the same principle of rich diversity applies to the other two metafunctions, the interpersonal and the textual. I think it is fair to say that they have received considerably less attention in the comparative-typological literature, although there are important exceptions such as studies of “speech act realization” (interpersonal) and of “information structure”55 (textual). This “ideational bias” is also evident in important contributions documenting what communities of speakers and the whole human family lose when “languages [words] die” and “voices vanish” (e.g. Nettle & Romaine, 2000; Harrison, 2007; Evans, 2010). The focus tends to be on ethnoscience – what is lost in terms of the collective human understanding of the world we live in. This is supremely important, but equal weight must be given to what is lost in

Language description, comparison and typology  167 terms of ways in which tenor relationships are enacted through interpersonal resources (cf. the implications we can draw from Diamond, 2013, and also Graeber & Wengrow, 2021) and mode values are created through textual resources. 4.7.5 Metafunctional modes of meaning, modes of expression and media of expression

Having briefly explored the metafunctional modes of meaning, I will now turn to metafunctional modes of expression and media of expression (for the distinction between modes and media of expression, see Matthiessen, 2004a). In the linguistic typological literature, the medium of expression that has probably been given the greatest attention is “word order”. “Word order”, or more accurately the sequence of elements within a given grammatical unit, is one of the means of expression languages deploy in realizing different metafunctional modes of expression, other means of expression being segmental marking and intonation (Matthiessen, 2004a). Languages vary in how they deploy these means of expression in terms of metafunctional modes of expression (logical: serially; experiential: configurationally; interpersonal: prosodically; textual: undulatorily [creating waves of prominence and non-prominence]). The different metafunctional modes of expression are engendered by the different metafunctional modes of meaning identified by the systemic functional theory of metafunction (e.g. Halliday, 1978, 1979; Matthiessen, 1991; Martin, 1996); this is an important aspect of the natural relationship between semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), as emphasized by Halliday (1985c). More generally, a great deal of typological variation across languages can be understood in terms of how the different metafunctions of languages are unified or mapped onto one another, subject to competing motivations and alternative optimizations (e.g. Matthiessen, 2004a). This relates not only to syntagmatic patterns discussed under the heading of “word order” in functional typology but also to marking patterns, prominently “head marking” vs. “dependent marking” (originating with Nichols, 1986). However, to return to the differentiation of metafunctional modes of meaning, metafunctional modes of expression and metafunctional media of expression, I would like to add to the insight first elaborated by Halliday (1979) that metafunctional modes of meaning resonate with modes of expression that are naturally related to them (cf. Halliday, 1985c, on the natural – as opposed to conventional, or “arbitrary”, relationship between lexicogrammar and semantics, and, outside SFL, Haiman, 1985a, 1985b, on “natural syntax” and the role of “iconicity”). The “resonance” between metafunctional modes of meaning and metafunctional modes of expression

168  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen had been explored and established by the turn of the century (e.g. Halliday, 1981b; Matthiessen, 1991; Martin, 1996; McDonald, 1998). It seemed to me that the different “modes of expression” could be manifested through (or carried by) different media of expression, as I suggested in Matthiessen (2004a). I identified three media of expression, viz. segmental, sequential, and intonational. They are set out in Table 4.7 together with the metafunctional modes of meaning and the metafunctional modes of expression. For example, the interpersonal mode of meaning tends to permeate a whole unit such as a move in dialogue enacting a proposition (exchange of information: statement or question) or a proposal (exchanges of goods&-services: offer or command), so it is natural that its mode of expression is one of “colouring” – a prosody that extends through the whole unit that realizes it (in this case, typically a clause). Thus, we might expect to find that medium of expression is intonational, either the direction of the (major) pitch movement or the pitch register (in “tone languages” where the expressive resources of pitch direction or level are used up locally within syllables). This is certainly true of many languages. However, we also find that there are languages where the prosodic mode of expression is manifested through the segmental medium of expression; these are typically like segmental juncture prosodies (Matthiessen, 2004a), segmental markers of interpersonal values located at the beginning or end of the clause or at another place interpreted as permeating the whole clause, like Wackernagel’s position (but see e.g. Agbayani & Golston, 2010) – markers that have the whole clause realizing the dialogic move as their domain. I think that this theory-based differentiation of mode of meaning, mode of expression and medium of expression I have proposed (Matthiessen, 2004a), expanding on Halliday (1979), i.e. Meaning: metafunctional modes of meaning Expression: Metafunctional modes of expression Metafunctional media of expression is very helpful in language description, comparison and typology. For example, it can be used to dispel the mythical distinction between “fixed” and “free” “word order” languages; and it can help us interpret the socalled “non-configurational” languages. Let me take these two examples, both of which are lamentably biased in terms of the sample of languages they are based on, in turn. (1) “Free word order” as opposed to “fixed word order”. Here, “word order” actually refers to the sequence of elements within a particular grammatical unit, e.g. a clause (so = sequence of elements of the clause, viz. groups and phrases), a phrase (so = sequence of adposition plus nominal

Mode of expression

serial

configurational

prosodic

periodic (wave-like)

Metafunctional mode of meaning

ideational: logical

ideational: experiential

interpersonal

textual

“particles” used to highlight elements, e.g. focus particles

juncture prosodies

adpositions; case markers

segmental tactic markers (e.g. linkers and binders)

Segmental

Medium of expression

sequential prominence and the beginning and end of units

prosodic sequences; repeated segments

tonicity (the location of the major pitch movement [as indication of prominence])

tone (the direction of the major pitch movement)

—

tone sequence (including tone concord)

serial sequence, e.g. 1 2 3 …, modification (and sub-modification) iconic experiential sequence, e.g. Actor > Process > Goal

Intonational

Sequential

Table 4.7 Metafunctional mode of meaning, mode of expression and medium of expression

Language description, comparison and typology  169

170  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen group), a group (e.g. modifying adjective and head noun), a word (e.g. prefix, suffix, circumfix, infix). In my view, this distinction between “fixed” and “free” “word order” is completely without any empirical base, and it has created a great deal of confusion, and even harm, in the descriptive, comparative and typological literature. It makes absolutely no sense to assume that any language would evolve in such a way that it did not take up the considerable expressive potential of sequence (“word order”), wasting it as an expressive resource by treating it as freely variable. Compare the segmental medium of expression: Bolinger’s, 1977, argument against “mindless morphs”, presenting a “challenge to the fallacy of meaninglessness”. In the preface, he writes: Despite a number of skirmishes over the past few years in which the troops arrayed on the side of meaninglessness have come off rather worse for the encounter, there has been no frontal attack on the theory that it is normal for a language to establish a lunacy ward in its grammar or lexicon where mindless morphs stare vacantly with no purpose other than to be where they are. The idea has been around for a good while. Traditional grammar recorded such things as it (It is hard to decide), that (I know [that] it happened), and there (Across the street [there] is a candy store) as having at most a grammatical function, with no meaning of their own. But contemporary linguistics has carried the fantasy to new heights, and expanded it with a new version of an old vision, that of synonymy: not only are there mindless morphs, but there are mindless differences between one construction and another. The same applies to the sequential medium of expression; there are no “mindless sequences”. Instead of asking whether a language under description has “fixed” or “free” word order, we need to ask how the expressive potential of the medium of sequence (in relation to other media of expression) is deployed metafunctionally in the language under description: is it deployed logically, experientially, interpersonally or textually? In the typological literature, Warlpiri and Latin are often among the languages cited as illustrations of “free word order languages”, and linguists will often cite examples of clauses with different sequences of elements, often elicited from language consultants out of both co-text and context. For example, up through the 20th century, Warlpiri was routinely characterized as a language with “free word order” (e.g. Hale, 1983; Hale, Laughren & Simpson, 199556). Since then, however, linguists outside SFL, certainly in lexical-functional grammar (LFG), and even in Chomskyan generative linguistics have paid much more attention to considerations having to do with systems within the textual metafunction, using terms such as “topical constraints”, “pragmatic

Language description, comparison and typology  171 constraints”: see e.g. Katalin (1995), Simpson (2007) with reference to Warlpiri in particular, Schwabe and Winkler (2007a), Féry and Ishihara (2016a). Earlier, Halliday (1985a) had problematized the untenable distinction between “free word order” and “fixed word order” languages in his paper It’s a fixed word order language, is English, but it does not seem to have had an impact. The myth of “fixed” vs. “free” “word order languages” seems to be very hard for descriptive, comparative and typological linguists to transcend. One reason is, naturally, that traditionally comparison and typology have strongly tended to be system-based to the exclusion of empirical evidence from naturally occurring texts in context belonging to registers with different “methods of development” – and without the benefit of the cline of instantiation to connect the two poles of system and text (with intermediate patterns of variation). (2) “Non-configurational” languages as opposed to “configurational” languages.57 The interpretation of certain languages, Warlpiri being a key example, as “non-configurational” was introduced by Hale (1983), who was a very significant descriptive linguist contributing valuable insights into various languages, importantly, aboriginal ones spoken in Australia. Part of this was his observation that while in the original Chomskyan account of English, the clause was described as a configuration of NP + VP [V + NP], and semi-functional labels such as “subject” could be derived from this configuration and did not have to be posited as a separate independent category (in contrast with the approach in e.g. LFG, as in Kaplan and Bresnan [1982] and many subsequent publications, where both function structure and constituent structure are posited58). Hale (1983) characterized the clausal structure of Warlpiri as “flat” since it seemed to lack this configuration.59 It is important to note that this was an issue derived from a particular theory: as far as systemic functional theory is concerned, no such distinction is imposed on modern language nor on any particular languages.60 In addition, “non-configurational languages” have also been characterized as having “free word order”, being “pro-drop” languages and having extensively discontinuous constituents. Having already discussed “free word order”, I will only comment on discontinuity here. Many languages, probably all, operate with discontinuous constituents (i.e. elements of structure): discontinuity may be motivated textually to achieve a co-textually and con-textually appropriate “information flow” (e.g. afterthought structures, reprise themes, end-weight) or ideationally to achieve interleaving in “serial verb constructions” (see Figure 4.11). However, Warlpiri and other languages became famous for having discontinuous nominal groups (“NPs”); the elements of a nominal group, e.g. the Thing and the Deictic, can be dispersed throughout a clause. In terms

172  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen of the medium of expression of sequence, they are indeed “dispersed”; they are not contiguous – they are discontinuous. Based on accounts of “major languages”, many linguists seem to expect that the medium of expression of sequence is the standard or unmarked reflection (realization) of the status of elements as a unit – i.e. the contiguity of the elements. However, if we take a step back to consider the full array of media of expression, we could imagine that there might be languages that use a medium of expression other than sequential contiguity to mark unity in constituency. One candidate is, as shown in Table 4.7, the segmental medium of expression: as an alternative to marking unity in constituency sequentially, languages might use segmental markers. And this is precisely what we find in Warlpiri and other languages that have been characterized as “non-configurational”: unity in constituency is realized segmentally rather than sequentially; that is, elements of one and the same group (typically a nominal group) are shown to be part of the same unit by segmental case marking rather than by sequential contiguity. Thus, Hale, Laughren and Simpson (1995: 1434) introduce an example of a discontinuous nominal group (in systemic functional terms), where the two elements are marked by the same case (the ergative case, in this example): Where a nominal expression is discontinuous – a possibility in Warlpiri – each of the separate subconstituents must be marked for case: […] Maliki-rli-0-ji dog-ERG-PERF-1sNS ‘A big dog bit me.’

yarlku-rnu bite-PAST

wiri-ngki. big-ERG

I offer an ad-hoc systemic functional structural analysis in Figure 4.12. Here the unity of the nominal group serving as Agent is realized segmentally rather than sequentially; it is indicated by the ergative case affix rather than by sequential contiguity. Thus, nominal groups in “non-configurational” languages such as Warlpiri may be sequentially discontinuous with segmental marking of their status of grammatical units just as verbal groups or verbal group complexes may be discontinuous in languages such as English and Akan (cf. Figure 4.11). In the case of discontinuous verbal group (complexes), the markers may be dependent verb forms (cf. also languages with “converb” sequences, e.g. Kazakh, discussed by Muhamedowa, 2016); in the case of discontinuous nominal group complexes, the markers may be (repeated) segmental case markers. In both cases, the medium of expression is segmental rather than sequential. In other words, there is a trade-off between segmental and sequential realization. And it would appear that there is also a trade-off across languages between potential for

Language description, comparison and typology  173 maliki-

rli-

0-

ji

yarklu-

rnu

wiri-

ngki

dog

ERG

PERF

1SNS

bite

PAST

big

ERG

Agent

Process

nominal group (1)

verbal group

nominal group (2)

Thing

Event

Epithet

a

b

Figure 4.12  Ad-hoc systemic functional analysis of a Warlpiri example with a discontinuous nominal group (example taken from Hale, Laughren & Simpson 1995: 1434)

discontinuous verbal groups and discontinuous nominal groups. In both cases, one key metafunctional question is, of course, which metafunction engenders the discontinuity. Evans and Levinson (2009) suggest a differentiation in the description of “configurational” and “non-configurational” languages in terms of constituency vs. dependency structure. It is an interesting suggestion, but I do not find it convincing at all, centrally, of course, because the contrast between “configurational” and “non-configurational” languages is derived from the choice of theory, not from the phenomena themselves. In SFL, the distinction makes no sense; not even English is treated as “configurational” since there is no analogue of “VP” in the systemic functional description of it.61 The approach in LFG that Evans and Levinson (2009) refer to, which rests on the distinction between f-structure and c-structure is closer to what would emerge from a systemic functional description, one drawing on Halliday’s (1966) distinction between structure (cf. f-structure in LFG) and syntagm (cf. c-structure in LFG). In the context of the exploration here, I think it is important to recognize the value of the distinction between modes of expression and media of expression, and to explore variation across languages in how they deploy different media of expression as “carriers” of different metafunctional modes of expression. That is, languages simply use different media of expression, in this case, sequential vs. segmental media of expression. And when we arrive at this insight, we can begin to explore how sequence is “deployed” as a medium of expression in a language such as Warlpiri (cf. again Katalin, 1995; Simpson, 2007; Schwabe & Winkler, 2007a; Féry & Ishihara, 2016a). This line of exploration is an obvious one in SFL, and the data would in the first instance be naturally occurring texts belonging to different registers in context – not examples elicited out of co-text and context. As can be expected, the media of expression interact in various ways. For example:

174  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen interpersonal prosodies may be manifested both intonationally and segmentally, reinforcing the interpersonal “colouring” of a whole grammatical unit such as a clause (cf. Halliday, 1970); textual waves of prominence may be manifested sequentially in the case of thematic prominence, intonationally in the case of informational prominence as news, and either may be reinforced segmentally by a highlighting “particle” indicating textual prominence; experiential configurational transitivity roles may be marked segmentally and sequentially; for example, in so-called “SVO” languages the Process/Predicator (“V”) separates the two participants (“S” and “O”), but in “VSO”, “SOV” and “VOS” languages, they are not separated by the Process/Predicator and the need for segmental “case marking” will be greater and is more common in the samples included in WALS. The deployment of the media of expressions as “carriers” of the metafunctional modes of expression thus varies across languages, with languages achieving the same mode of expression (e.g. prosody) by means of different media of expression. At the same time, there is also variation within one language, importantly dialectal variation, e.g. regional and temporal variation (cf. Section 4.6.1). 4.7.6 Variation in metafunctional combinations

Modern language (as opposed to archaic language) is organized metafunctionally: the content plane is organized according to the simultaneous metafunctional modes of meaning discussed above. However, languages vary in the division of labour among the metafunctions (see Section 4.7.2 above), notably in the division of labour between the logical and experiential modes of construing experience as meaning (see Section 4.7.3). Languages also vary significantly in the range of systems belonging to each metafunction (cf. Section 4.4.3). For example, while many or all languages are likely to have an interpersonal system of mood for enacting the clause as a dialogic move, they will vary as to the kind of system they use to assess information (e.g. modality: modalization or evidentiality) and with respect to the extent that they grammaticalize tenor relations as “speech levels” (for example, highly grammaticalized in Korean, Japanese and Javanese, but much less so in Chinese and English). In addition to variation in the metafunctional division of labour and in the systemic composition of the metafunctional potentials, languages also vary considerably in how they map the metafunctional patterns onto one another, for example, in how they unify the clause as a message (textual), as a move (interpersonal) and as a figure (experiential), also in relation to logical sequences realized by clause complexes: see

Language description, comparison and typology  175 Matthiessen (2004a: 542–553). For example, as illustrated in Table 4.5 above, in English, textual and interpersonal selections are typically realized at the beginning of the clause within the “thematic zone”; but in Japanese, interpersonal and logical selections are typically realized at the end of the clause within its “interpersonal finale”. Such differences in mapping across languages are reflected in the “word order” type identified by typological linguists. This variation in how metafunctions are mapped onto one another can be viewed in the light of competing motivations, which helps us see why the mappings may change over time in a particular language (maybe also due to changes in the registerial make-up of the language and in language contact62). 4.8 Semogenesis: Lexicogrammaticalization Language is a complex adaptive system; and an important aspect of its ability to adapt to and help create ever-changing contexts is that it provides the resources for creating new meanings. The creation of new meanings is the process of semogenesis (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999): the meaning potential of language includes strategies for expanding this meaning potential by creating new meanings, within different timeframes – logogenetically, ontogenetically and phylogenetically. Semogenic strategies centrally include the “play” made possible by the stratification of the content plane into semantics and lexicogrammar. This stratification increases the possible patterns of agnation within the content plane (see Matthiessen, 2023b); and this double stratal agnation within the content plane underpins the development of new patterns such as lexicogrammatical metaphor and other figures of speech. In the non-systemic functional typological literature, one type of semogenesis has become the focus of investigation, viz. grammaticalization. From a systemic functional point of view, this is one aspect of lexicogrammaticalization – of the creation of meaning through patterns of wording in the different timeframes mentioned above.63 4.8.1 “Grammaticalization” in the descriptive-typological literature

The phenomenon of “grammaticalization” has been given increasing attention in typological linguistics outside SFL since the 1980s (informed by earlier work by Meillet, 1912, who coined the term64), one oft-cited introduction being Hopper and Traugott (1993 [2003]). In their second edition (p. xv), they revise their original definition of “grammaticalization” after noting that it invited potential misunderstanding: We defined grammaticalization as the process whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical

176  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen functions, and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions. […] To avoid further terminological confusion, we now define grammaticalization as the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions. In the expanding literature on grammaticalization since the 1980s, various characterizations have been offered. Other early influential contributions include Traugott and Heine (1991), Hagège (1993), Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), Traugott and Heine (1991), Heine and Kuteva (2009) and Narrog and Heine (2011, 2021). Here I would simply like to interpret what Hopper and Traugott (1993 [2003]: iv) call grammaticalization by reference to the systemic functional architecture of language in context, bringing out what this means in terms of the change “whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions”. This will involve an interpretation of grammaticalization as a semogenic process, one that is part of lexicogrammaticalization, and it will be based on the architectural dimensions of axis (with the paradigmatic axis as the primary axial organizing principles), rank, stratification, instantiation and probability, and metafunction. (There is a brief overview of my systemic functional interpretation of grammaticalization as a move along different semiotic dimensions in Matthiessen, 1995: 49–50.) Halliday (2008: 2–3) sheds light on lexicogrammaticalization as an inter-stratal process, in contrast with the mainstream conception of grammaticalization as an intra-stratal one: The historical processes of “grammaticalization” have been extensively studied during the past fifteen to twenty years; but grammaticalization is usually framed in an intra-stratal perspective, as the shift of some category across the stratum from lexis into grammar, whereas I was visualizing it as an inter-stratal phenomenon: given any semantic domain, where does it get lexicogrammaticalized? Where is it construed, along the continuum linking the lexis and the grammar? It was always clear that lexis and grammar formed a continuum, or cline, so we were always seeing movement along the cline; and this could be a movement in either direction: from lexis into grammar, but also from grammar into lexis.

Language description, comparison and typology  177 4.8.2 Towards a systemic functional account of lexicogrammaticalization

When we consider grammaticalization in the context of lexicogrammaticalization, we find that certain meanings are more likely to be created within the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar than within the lexical zone, although there is considerable variation across languages. For example, polarity is highly likely to be grammaticalized (say within the interpersonal or logical metafunction), probably at clause rank and also below; but it may also be lexicalized, as with English fail in fail to do, prevent as in prevent from doing and forbid as in forbid to do. Similarly, while linear time is grammaticalized as a system of tense in many languages, there are also many languages that instead rely on lexical distinctions. As always in SFL, primacy is given to the paradigmatic axis, which foregrounds the relation in delicacy between open lexical sets and closed grammatical systems as complementary modes of creating meanings as wordings (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 67–69; Halliday, 2008: Chapter 2). As part of his exploration of complementarities in language, Halliday (2008: 170) offers a helpful note on grammaticalization: Grammaticalization has been a major area of concern for linguists in recent decades – although the questions raised under this heading have been explored for a long time, ever since enough different languages have been described to enable people to ask how, and then why, they differ. An example of such questions is that of noun classification: how are nouns classified? By countability (count / mass)? by number (singular / plural)? by some combination of form and function (“classifiers”, as in Chinese)? by symbolic value in the culture? by gender (masculine / (feminine / neuter))? What categories go with nouns and not (or as well as) with verbs? Underlying these enquiries are two very general issues. One is: where are the different kinds of meaning construed, along the lexicogrammatical cline? The other, underlying the first one, is: why did such a cline evolve in the first place? What is the payoff, in survival value, for a semiotic system which has this particular property, that of stringing out its semogenic resources, both interpersonal and (especially) ideational, along this particular cline? A bit later he goes on to analyse the term “grammaticalization” (pp. 171–172): The term “grammaticalization” embodies two notions: (1) “grammatical” and (2) “-ization”; we need to separate these out and look at each in turn.

178  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (1) What is “grammatical” is usually defined “from below”, by reference to realization: it is what is realized morphologically, in the broader sense – by inflection or derivation, by the ordering of elements, or by particles or other “function words” – everything, in fact, other than “content words”. To this we need to add two further properties of what is “grammatical”: formally, it is systemic – a small, closed set of contrasting possibilities, or “terms”; functionally, it is proportional – the relationship among the terms is constant. This gives us labelled categories like number: singular / plural person: first / second / third tense: past / present / future aspect: perfective / imperfective case: nominative / genitive / dative / accusative / ablative / instrumental – varying of course according to the language under description: what the particular terms in the system are, and whether the system is present in the language at all. (2) “-ization” means “being turned into”; so “turning things into grammar”. This is a concept from historical linguistics, familiar from prototypical examples like the future tense in Romance: Latin videre habet “see + has (to)” > Italian (future tense) verra Here “grammaticalization” is a “horizontal” move across the grammar-lexis divide: the collocation of lexical items “see” plus “have” evolves into a morphological variant of the single lexeme “see”. Two processes are involved: (formal) reduction: words tend to get phonologically reduced (functional) generalization: words tend to get semantically generalized

It may be implied that all grammatical phenomena result from some kind of grammaticalizing process of this kind. Halliday then gives further examples from the history of Romance languages, and then turns to a discussion of the accounts of grammaticalization given by Hopper and Traugott (1993) and, in particular, Hagège (1993).

Language description, comparison and typology  179 But let me leave Halliday’s discussion at this point and summarize the systemic functional conception of grammaticalization in the context of the discussion of the multidimensional architecture of language in context I have presented so far. Grammaticalization involves moves along the following semiotic dimensions: axis: the paradigmatic axis, along the cline of delicacy from lexis (open sets of very specific options) to grammar (closed systems of highly generalized options) – a move characterized by “semantic bleaching”; rank: a drift down the rank scale, e.g. from items functioning in the clause to clitics in groups to bound affixes in words (see Figure 4.14); stratification: phonological reduction, symbolically reflecting the two moves just mentioned, the move along the cline of delicacy from specific to general and the move along the rank scale from high-ranking to low-ranking. In other words, grammaticalization can be understood in terms of, and further illuminated by, the dimensions of the systemic functional architecture of language in context. 4.8.3 Hierarchy of axis – paradigmatic: decrease in delicacy; rank: descent in rank

Starting with the cline of delicacy and the hierarchy of rank (rank scale), we can interpret grammaticalization as a move along these dimensions, as shown schematically in Figure 4.13. The move along the cline of delicacy is a decrease in delicacy, from the lexical zone to the grammatical zone: items move from operating in open lexical sets to operating in closed grammatical systems, thus becoming more generalized in meaning and at the same time increasing in frequency (e.g. go as a lexical verb of motion being shifted to the grammatical zone to serve as a temporal auxiliary of secondary future65). The move along the hierarchy of rank is a descent in rank, from higherranking to lower-ranking: for example, items with the status of words in groups may become cliticized, and then move further down to serve as bound affixes in words, at the same time become phonologically reduced (e.g. going to > gonna). These two moves are independent in the sense that they involve two distinct semiotic dimensions, delicacy and rank; but grammaticalization involves both moves, as well as the changes in frequency of instantiation (increase)

180  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Figure 4.13  Aspects of grammaticalization in terms of (i) the cline of delicacy – move from more delicate items in open sets to less delicate items of higher frequency in closed systems; and (ii) the hierarchy of rank – move from items operating at higher ranks to items operating at lower ranks (words to clitics to affixes)

and phonological material (reduction). Some examples are given in Figure 4.14 (see also Matthiessen, 2004a: 562–563). 4.8.4 Cline of instantiation: Increase in frequency

In addition to the moves along semiotic dimensions just discussed, grammaticalization also involves a move along the cline of instantiation, with instances accumulating to form recurrent patterns that may be distilled as systems over time; and at the same time, as lexical items begin to be drawn into service as grammatical items within grammatical systems, they become more frequent in text, since grammatical items realizing terms in low-delicacy, general grammatical systems are more frequent than lexical items realizing (combinations of) terms in high-delicacy specific lexical systems (cf. Zipf, 1936, 1949). When we conceptualize language as a probabilistic system, we also pave the way for accounts of languages evolving as change in progress: languages change adaptively in their changing contexts, ongoingly and gradually in terms of systemic probabilities manifested as relative frequencies in texts instantiating different registers (an excellent example is provided by Ellegård’s, 1953, pioneering study of the presence/absence of the auxiliary do in the systemic environments defined by the intersection of the systems of mood type and polarity): see Figure 4.15. This theoretical model obviously includes the interpretation of grammaticalization: like all other

Figure 4.14  Examples of grammaticalization of items involving descent in rank (see Matthiessen, 2004a)

Language description, comparison and typology  181

182  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Figure 4.15   The cline of instantiation and the relationship between systemic probabilities and text frequencies

changes in language, grammaticalization emerges at the instantial pole of the cline of instantiation as repeated selections gradually form a pattern that is distilled as a systemic change, and it can thus be studied in terms of changes in relative frequency in texts belonging to different registers over time (with the macro-register of scientific English leading the way in the spread of ideational grammatical metaphor in English, starting around half a millennium ago, according to Halliday’s, 1988, study). One aspect of this is of course that grammatical items are much more frequent than lexical items (as can be inferred from Zipf’s, 1936, 1949, pioneering studies), so when lexical items become grammaticalized, they become more frequent and are likely to become phonologically reduced (cf. Figure 4.13). By illuminating and emphasizing the cline of instantiation as one of the dimensions of the architecture of language in context, Halliday (1991b) was able to reconceptualize the Saussurean dichotomy of langue and parole (and the original Chomskyan dichotomy of competence and performance66) as a continuum or a cline rather than as a dichotomy. The interpretation of it as a cline makes it possible to relate relative frequencies in texts belonging to different registers to systemic probabilities, including the gradual change in probabilities over time through cumulative changes in relative frequencies, as already noted above, with a reference to Ellegård (1953). Thanks to the cline of instantiation, it is possible to transcend the swings in much of linguistic theory in the 20th century between system-oriented approaches (like European structuralism) and text-oriented approaches (like corpus linguistics): the two poles of the cline of instantiation are related as phases of one and the same phenomenon. This is hugely important for language description, comparison and typology. The description of a particular language should include not only qualitative specifications but also quantitative ones; it should include systemic probabilities, i.e. probabilities attached to terms in systems, based on the analysis of relative frequencies in texts belonging to different registers (as already illustrated by Halliday, 1959). When we have such descriptions of particular languages, ones where the qualitative descriptions of the systems that collectively make up the language supplemented by systemic

Language description, comparison and typology  183 probabilities, we can compare languages in probabilistic terms, as already noted above with reference to Mathesius (1975) and the comparison of the intersection of process type and agency in English and Chinese. Such comparisons enable us to highlight areas where certain systems in languages are more similar, or congruent, with one another than they might appear to be when they are only characterized qualitatively since absence is simply the limiting case of low probability (as in the case of “mental” clauses in English and Chinese mentioned above in Section 4.5.1). At the same time, we can also bring out differences that are probabilistic in nature and thus would not appear in purely qualitative comparisons (e.g. Mathesius’ point about frequency of active vs. passive voice in English in comparison with Czech and other certain continental European languages). The same principle applies when we move from the comparison of a small number of languages to generalized comparison, or language typology. Thus, in languages where we can posit a system of voice based on criteria for comparability (which would exclude the focus systems of Philippine languages even though they have been called voice systems), we need to typologize such voice systems taking systemic probability into account – as an extension of the observations originally made in a comparative context by Mathesius. For example, is the probability distribution always ‘active’ 0.9/‘passive’ 0.1? Is there variation across registers? Have the probabilities changed over time (e.g. the “bei” construction in Mandarin, which has been interpreted as ‘passive’ voice, has increased considerably in frequency since the 19th century; cf. Dong, 2014: 119, 146–147). Such quantitative information is clearly of vital importance as we continue to produce accounts of language typology, but it is obviously “expensive” since it depends on extensive text analysis for each particular language based on registerially diverse corpora of texts.67 4.8.5 The spectrum of metafunction: Experiential to interpersonal and textual

Rounding off the discussion on grammaticalization, I will now consider movements along the spectrum of metafunction. It seems that among the metafunctions, it is typically the ideational one that provides “material” for grammaticalization within the other metafunctions, the interpersonal and textual ones. For example: Ideational constructions of projection may evolve into markers of terms within interpersonal systems of assessment, including modalization and evidentiality; for the sources of evidential markers, see e.g. Harris and Campbell (1995: 168–172) and Aikhenvald (2004, 2014).

184  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Experiential constructions of identity may evolve into markers of terms within textual systems of information (e.g. “cleft constructions”), viz. focus markers, as documented for “African languages” by Heine and Reh (1984: in particular, 177–182), and Harris and Campbell (1995: 166–168) on biclausal “cleft” to monoclausal highlighting markers. Experiential constructions involving circumstances serving as experiential Adjuncts in the transitivity structure of the clause may evolve into markers serving as interpersonal Adjuncts and/or conjunctive Adjuncts, as carefully documented for indeed, in fact and besides in the history of English starting with Old English by Traugott (1997). She shows the move (in our terms) from experiential to interpersonal (“sentential adverb”, and then to textual (“discourse marker”). These are thus examples of inter-metafunctional grammaticalization paths (e.g. experiential ‘identifying’ construction > textual ‘theme predication’ > textual focus marking). Within experiential systems, grammaticalization often involves a shift from domains of concrete experience to domains of abstract experience. For example, ‘material’ clauses construing our experience of concrete doings and happenings may provide a model for construing our experience of our own consciousness (e.g. the title of one of Alec Guinness’s books of memoirs: My Name Escapes Me: The Diary of a Retiring Actor); and models of concrete space provide speakers with resources for construing abstract realms of experience (cf. also the brief discussion above of the shift from space to time). 4.9 A personal angle I have organized this chapter around what I have called key characteristics of SFL that are significant in pursuing language description, comparison and typology. In this section, in view of the overall orientation of this book and the other contributions to it, I would like to complement this angle of vision with a personal one – my own experience engaging with language typology since first reading about it in the 1970s68 and teaching an undergraduate course in linguistics at Lund University that included contrastive analysis and language typology in the first half of 1979. At the time, the overall picture appeared somewhat muddy rather than clear to me: comparative linguistics (as a methodology in historical linguistics), contrastive linguistics (as support in second/foreign language education) and language typology seemed to be related but tended to be pursued as separate endeavours by fairly different groups of linguists. As far as empirical approaches to language typology are concerned, the late 1970s happened to be a critical period, which led to what Nikolaeva (2018: 3) characterizes as the third period in the development of language/linguistic typology, the 1980s and 1990s, “when typology started

Language description, comparison and typology  185 developing into a major area of research in its own right”: in 1978, the four volumes of Universals of Human Language edited by Joseph Greenburg and his collaborators were just being published, as were a number of important thematic volumes expounding the empirical approach to typology that was functional in orientation and over time increasingly text-based. (There is a more detailed account of aspects of my journey of discovery in Chapter 7 of Matthiessen et al., 2022, derived from an interview Isaac Mwinlaaru did with me a few years ago.) My keen burning interest in different language and in language typology back in Sweden in the 1970s led me to apply to study linguistics at UCLA starting in 1979. I was fortunate enough to get a scholarship as part of an exchange programme, and while I could have applied to any of the UC campuses, I chose UCLA because of its orientation towards the description of languages from different parts of the world and towards language typology. There were experts on indigenous languages in North America, on languages spoken in Africa (from different families) and on Austronesian languages. It was thus a linguistically very rich environment. Consequently, many PhD students undertook descriptions of various languages as their PhD projects. Through his connection with Bill Mann at UCLA (see Matthiessen et al., 2022: 10), I got to know David Webber and learned from his comprehensive description of Huallaga Quechua (Weber, 1989), e.g. his account of the system of evidentiality in the language (pp. 76, 419–438). I remember attending his public defence of his PhD thesis, and the collective appreciation of his enormous achievement. This took place, I think, a couple of years after Noam Chomsky had given a talk at UCLA, where he claimed that it used to be enough to submit a description of a language as a PhD thesis, but that now much more was required, viz. a theoretical contribution (obviously framed in his own conception of what constituted linguistic theory). His claim was patently false at the time (and still is), and it was also a lamentable act of dismissing and devaluing tremendously important descriptive work.69 Fortunately, the grand descriptive tradition survived in certain places in the United States like UCB (University of California Berkeley) and UCLA, and has now recovered as Chomsky’s influence began to diminish.70 And in my coursework, I was very lucky: I was able to take part in or audit a number of courses with typological orientation, including Sandy Thompson’s one-year course on the transitivity hypothesis that she and Paul Hopper had just developed (Hopper & Thompson, 1980, 1982, and cf. also Thompson & Hopper, 2001), Talmy Givón’s course on topic continuity (Givón, 1983), Steve Anderson’s course on reading Boas’s Kwakiutl grammar, Bernard Comrie’s course on tense (at USC; later published as Comrie, 1985), and Maddieson’s course on approaches to the syllable (cf. Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996). Sandy Thompson’s course reinforced

186  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen what I thought of as a systemic, or parametric, approach to language typology; in their transitivity hypothesis, she and Paul Hopper identified ten transitivity parameters whose values could be shown to co-vary, e.g. resonating in high transitivity or low transitivity. In addition, I was able to try to learn Zulu for a year (1979–1980), and to study the genetic classification of languages spoken in Africa with Bill Welmers (1973). Later, in the mid-1980s, I took a one-year course in field methods with Paul Schachter, where the language under investigation was Akan; this was one of my most important and rewarding learning experiences (I had actually tried to take this course the year before, when Pam Munro was the teacher, and the language consultant was a speaker of a Muskogean language, I think; but because I had to earn my living working as a research linguist at the Information Institute, I found I did not have enough time, so I postponed the field method requirement for one year). Our Akan language consultant was a PhD student in geology at UCLA from Ghana. While I drew on SFL in my description of the phonology and lexicogrammar of Akan, most or all of the other students in our field methods class pursued Chomskyan linguistics, and at the time long-distance movements were fashionable, so they probed him to find out to what extent they were possible in Akan. (There were a couple of PhD students from Kenya, and they told me that it was a condition of their scholarships that they had to frame their research in Chomskyan terms.) At the end of our year together, the consultant asked me for a copy of my description of Akan phonology and lexicogrammar; he said he could not understand what the other students were trying to achieve, but he could see the point of my work. Needless to say, his comments made a huge impression on me – and now I would interpret this in the light of the notion of appliable language description. As part of my project developing a systemic functional description of the grammar and phonology of Akan, I continued my practice of re-interpreting descriptions of languages couched in a variety of frameworks in systemic functional terms – in the case of Akan, this included centrally Christaller’s (1875) description. I have used this method of systemic functional harvesting of language description throughout the last 40 years. Apart from insights from many great descriptions, I have also gained a sense of what they often do not cover because the language under description has not been approached cartographically with a general map such as the function-rank matrix that would have enabled the descriptive linguist to probe and cover all areas of the grammar of the language (or phonology), taking at least a few steps in delicacy. (Some linguists have offered templates for descriptions or overviews of the descriptions they offer, e.g. Whorf’s, 1956: 127, “plan and conception of arrangement”, and S.E.

Language description, comparison and typology  187 Martin’s, 1988: 32–33, two charts: “The order of presentation follows, to some extent, the order shown in the following two charts. These are to be regarded as rough maps of uncertain terrain, at best, and they may prove misleading to the unwary” (p. 31). However, they tend to be syntagmatically oriented, and unlike systemic functional paradigmatic overviews such as Halliday’s function-rank matrix, they do not give a picture of the overall organization of the resources of the grammar of a language. Systemic maps like the function-rank matrix enable us to explore the overall coverage of a description of a language, probing what may appear to be gaps in the description, e.g. empty cells in a lexicogrammatical function-rank matrix.) The Linguistics Department at UCLA hosted talks by linguists from around the world on Friday afternoons, so I had an opportunity to learn from them about different languages and approaches. In addition to wonderful contributions by academics in our department, e.g. Sandy Thompson, Ed Keenan, they included Ken Pike (whom I got to know separately), John Haiman, Jack Hawkins, R.M.W. Dixon, Deirdre Wilson, Noam Chomsky, Alan Timberlake and many others. Such invited talks were always very stimulating and could involve confrontation and debate. I remember Robert Stockwell challenging George Lakoff with respect to his conception of “conceptual metaphor” and again Stockwell telling John Haiman after his talk on iconicity (cf. Haiman, 1985a, 1985b) that he had only covered a short distance in his attempt to explain syntax. R.M.W. Dixon came to UCLA and gave a talk on what I would characterize as semantically transparent patterns in transitivity. I tried to muster enough courage to ask him if he was aware of Michael Halliday’s pioneering work on transitivity starting in the 1960s. Luckily for me, I did not succeed in mustering the courage since I do not know how he would have reacted;71 later I became aware of the background of Halliday’s influence on his work in the 1960s (cf. Dixon, 1963a, 1963b). Complementing these departmental talks, Sandy Thompson hosted more informal seminars at her home, providing an opportunity to meet a range of interesting linguists, including Haj Ross, and explore a variety of topics. In addition, I had opportunities to audit fascinating courses with descriptive and typological content at an LSA (Linguistic Society of America) summer school, where teachers included John Goldsmith on autosegmental phonology and Gerald Gazdar and Geoff Pullum on GPSG (Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar). At conferences, I heard talks by or even met other fascinating descriptive and typologically oriented linguists, including Robert Longacre, Ilah Fleming, Joe Grimes, Joseph Greenberg, Eugene Nida, Paul Hopper and Joan Bybee. The list includes well-known linguists and also ones who are probably nowhere near as well-known as they deserve to be in view of their valuable contributions. One of the latter is Ilah Fleming (e.g. 1988), an insightful energetic contributor to SIL

188  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (Summer Institute of Linguistics). She drew on her modified version of stratificational linguistics to develop descriptions of various languages and a kind of guidebook for language description. On one of the occasions we met, she gave me a mimeo copy of a major book manuscript, which I fear never got published in a widely accessible form. She said that she gave it to me, because “you are nice” – which I think is a testimony to her generosity rather than to any of my personal traits! At ISI (Information Science Institute), while many visitors to our projects were primarily computational linguists (e.g. Martin Kay, Jane Robinson), we also had visits from descriptive linguists who had worked on a rich variety of languages, including of course systemic functional linguists, but also Joseph Grimes, Igor Mel’čuk, Alexander Žolkovsky, Evelyn Pike and Eleanor Ochs. The visits by Mel’čuk and Žolkovsky stimulated an interest in the meaning-text model in general and in their work on lexical functions in particular. Lexical functions were of course interesting in language comparison and text translation. From a systemic functional point of view, they are a heterogeneous collection; a number of them can be interpreted as collocations – lexical syntagmatic combinations common in different languages. Since I left UCLA in 1988, I have had many opportunities to learn about a wide variety of languages, and to learn from linguists devoted to language description, first in Sydney and then in Hong Kong; and of course on trips around the world, including a month at the Sonderforschungsbereich für Mehrsprachigkeit (Research Centre for Multilinguality) associated with the University of Hamburg, as Juliane House’s guest, and visits to CIIL (the Central Institute of Indian Languages) in Mysore and ISDL (the International School of Dravidian Languages) outside Trivandrum. During this period I have had opportunities to learn more about languages spoken in Australia (e.g. Heath, 1984; McGregor, 1990; Rose, 2001), Papua New Guinea (e.g. Pawley, 1966, 1987, 2008; Boxwell, 1990) and India (both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages). I can recall many fascinating conversations. For example, in India, I have learned from Bh. Krishnamurti, whom I first met in Hyderabad in 1984 (having been invited to attend my flatmate’s wedding there, I used the opportunity to engage in some linguistic tourism), about his investigation of possible links between Dravidian languages and Australian languages that some linguists had speculated about (cf. Bh. Krishnamurti, 2006) – his view being that there was no substantial evidence for such links (which seems to be borne out by Jäger & Wichmann’s, 2016, exploratory “world tree of languages” based on computational analysis of word lists). On one occasion, we had both been invited as plenary speakers at a conference hosted at a university in (what was still at the time) Andhra Pradesh (AP), before the state was split into AP and Telangana. After the last day

Language description, comparison and typology  189 of conferencing, he suggested that we continue our discussion over a bottle of whiskey. Fortunately, we did not finish it; but when the following day I checked out of the hotel where we were staying, the reception presented me with what remained, with greetings from Krishnamurti. (Somehow whiskey became a liquid prosody for me in India; I recall pleasant occasions when I was invited for meals at the Sekunderabad Club, preceded by pegs of whiskey in a place that seemed full of echoes of the British Raj – it was established in 1878.) Starting a few years ago in response to a request by Bhimrao Bhosale (at the time at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University in Aurangabad, now at Hyderabad University), I outlined a systemic functional interpretation of secondary sources dealing with Marathi (centrally the reference grammar by Pandharipande, 1997) as a way into what we hope will be a more extensive project producing systemic functional descriptions of a number of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages spoken in India – descriptions designed to be appliable so that they can support applications in various institutional settings such as education. During my time in Sydney and Hong Kong, I was fortunate enough to supervise research students developing systemic functional descriptions of a very interesting and varied range of languages. I have listed comprehensive clause grammar descriptions in Table 4.8 (thus not including theses concerned with descriptions of aspects of a given language: McDonald, 1998; Kim, 2007; Ochi, 2013). Taking part in these PhD projects as an advisor (or “supervisor”), I learned a great deal about the languages under description, including “serial verb constructions” (which I had worked on in Akan in the mid-1980s), aspect, phase, honorification and politeness, I also learned about how to go about developing a description of a language not previously described comprehensively in systemic functional terms, approaching the language “cartographically” through a combination of text and systemic paradigm probing. Naturally, the foundation for the description should ideally be a corpus compiled in such a way that it covered a range of registers that could serve as ways into different areas of the lexicogrammar (cf. Section 4.6.3 above). For instance, it became clear early on that in exploring the textual clause grammar of a language, one should begin by examining texts with quite distinct “methods of development” instead of only starting with media of expression such as sequence or segmental markers.72 I have continued engaging with the topics of this chapter – description, comparison and typology. Intellectually, the research questions in these areas have inspired and sustained me – in large part thanks to doctoral research students undertaking descriptive projects. But despite repeated attempts, I have never been able to obtain research funding to undertake significant research projects in this area – despite my success in getting

Semitic

Tai

Vietic

Sinitic

Japanese

Tai-Kadai

Austroasiatic

Sino-Tibetan

Japonic

Japanese

Mandarin

Vietnamese

Thai

Arabic (Modern Standard)

Oko

Atlantic-Congo (Volta-Niger)

Afroasiatic

Dagaare

Bajjika

Indo-Aryan

Atlantic-Congo (Gur)

French

Romance

Indo-European

Niger-Congo

Language

Family

Teruya (1998)

Li (2003)

Thai (1998)

Patpong (2005)

Bardi (2008)

Akerejola (2005)

Mwinlaaru (2017)

Kumar [Kashyap] (2009)

Caffarel (1996)

PhD

√

√

√

Chapter in Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004a)

Teruya (2007)

Li (2007)

Caffarel (2006)

Book publications

Table 4.8 PhD thesis focused on comprehensive clause grammar descriptions supervised by Christian Matthiessen

190  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

Language description, comparison and typology  191 funding for projects in computational linguistics and healthcare communication studies. 4.10 Conclusion In this chapter, I have suggested and discussed what I think are “key features” in the systemic functional approach to and engagement with language description, language comparison and language typology. These key features all derived from the systemic functional holistic theory of language – modern language as opposed to archaic language and protolanguage – and the commitment to the development of comprehensive descriptions of particular languages, which – being comprehensive – are appliable and thus relevant to institutional settings in the community. I have explored these key features, but I have not provided a methodology for the development of language descriptions – for some methodological considerations, see Matthiessen and Teruya (2023: Chapter 4). Nor have I summarized existing systemic functional description with a view to producing descriptive generalization. This is an important task, one partly attempted in Matthiessen (2004a); and one I am addressing, at least in part, in what I think of as a multilingual version of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar – a considerable expansion of the typological outlooks provided in Matthiessen (1995). In conclusion, I will now offer some additional comments on language typology (or linguistic typology, as it is also known) – a fascinating area of activity I have been following since the 1970s and tried to frame in systemic functional terms. In work on language typology, as in other multilingual studies, it is increasingly possible to take a step back in order to relate findings within the 4th-order of systems, semiotic systems,73 to studies of manifestations of language within lower orders in the ordered typology of systems referred to above, in particular, the social and biological orders. This is relevant in many ways, including the issue of the status of (putative) language universals. As noted at the beginning, J.R. Firth problematized claims about language universals well before Halliday started to develop SFL, and SFL has continued to be more relativist than universalist in orientation, emphasizing the importance of treating particular languages in their own right, i.e. sui generis. While it was “out of phase” with universalist assumptions coming into focus in the 1960s (but of course with earlier precursors), this systemic functional view has become increasingly resonant with other strands in linguistics based on empirical evidence from large samples of languages, where the description of a wide range of languages is also given high value – as in Evans and Levinson (2009) on the myth of language universals,74 but also in work relevant to our understanding of the relationship between

192  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen language and the brain – as in Barrett’s (2017) account of how emotions “are made” in different languages operating in different cultures. Barrett’s account is a powerful demonstration that, contrary to the received view (due to a large extent to Paul Ekman and his group), emotions are not universal but are rather (in our terms) semiotic constructs, viz. linguistic-cultural constructs, specific to particular languages operating in particular contexts of culture. Barrett’s constructivist account of emotions is very resonant with the constructivist stance taken in SFL (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999), with recognition of the pioneering work by B.L. Whorf (1956) – cf. also Lee (1996).75 However, at the same time, it is important to point out that as far as we can tell, all languages spoken today are “modern” languages rather than “archaic” ones:76 they are organized according to the “architecture” of modern language as it must have emerged on the order of 150,000 to 250,000 years ago as part of the “modern package”, i.e. Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs, Homo sapiens sapiens) and Linguistically Modern Humans (LMHs). This we can hypothesize is the outcome of the co-evolution of language and the brain (Deacon, 1992, 1997), and even more generally the co-evolution of language and the body since there is evidence in the fossil record of the evolution of our vocal tract, e.g. the lowering of the larynx (cf. P. Lieberman, 1984, 2000; Deacon, 1997; D. Lieberman, 2013). The modern architecture of language was sketched in Section 4.3.3: it is the organization of language as a higher-order semiotic system for making meaning in context:77 where the relationship between the expression plane and the content plane of language is basically conventional (“arbitrary”) rather than natural (the property of “double articulation”), enabling modern language to expand the content plane, especially once it had been stratified (see immediately below) and also to evolve different expressive systems; where both the content plane and the expression plane are stratified into “form” and “substance” (in Hjelmslevian terms) – content substance: semantics (the interface to what lies outside language; strategies for transforming this into linguistic meaning) and content form: lexicogrammar (the internal organization of meaning as wording, related to expression form); and expression form: phonology (resources for realizing wordings as soundings) and expression substance: phonetics (the interface to the [modern] articulatory and auditory resources); where the content plane is organized metafunctionally – into simultaneous abstract metafunctional modes of meaning (ideational: logical, experiential; interpersonal; and textual) rather than the mutually exclusive macrofunctional generalized modes of meaning (mathetic and pragmatic) that we can hypothesize characterized “archaic” language and

Language description, comparison and typology  193 their evolutionary precursor, the exclusive microfunctional modes of meaning tied to specific contexts of use (instrumental, regulatory – generalized later to pragmatic; and personal, heuristic – generalized later to mathetic; and interactional – split later between mathetic and pragmatic); where language is extended along the cline of instantiation from the overall meaning potential “embedded” in the context of culture to texts (as units/processes of meaning) embedded in contexts of situation, with an expanding range of registers intermediate between the two, evolving together with new institutional domains (institutions being aggregates of situation types) – enabling languages to adapt ongoingly to their changing semiotic environments; where language is organized systemically as a vast meaning potential that is independent of the context of culture (i.e. not tied to specific contexts of use, unlike protolanguage) but at the same time resonates functionally with the organization of context. It is certainly possible to explore this “modern architecture” of language as “universal”, but given the amount of baggage which that term has (or “semantic slime” as Michael Halliday might have put it), it is perhaps better to view it in terms of a typology of semiotic systems – as the kind of semiotic system, a higher-order one, that evolved out of archaic language and became a powerful resource for our anatomically modern ancestors. Halliday (1996: 33) comments on the term “universals”: I have preferred to avoid talking about “universals” because it seems to me that this term usually refers to descriptive categories being treated as if they were theoretical ones. As I see it, the theory models what is being treated as “universal” to human language; the description models each language sui generis, because that is the way to avoid misrepresenting it. The resource of modern language allowed speakers to construe all of their increasingly varied experiences as meaning and also to enact their increasingly diverse role relationships and value systems as meaning. The emergence of this powerful meaning-making resource, modern language, also meant that semiotic evolution could continue to accelerate, being much faster than biological evolution (e.g. Christiansen & Chater, 2008). It is the foundation of the collective brains of different communities (e.g. Christian, 2004; Fusaroli, Gangopadhyay & Tylén, 2014), and it makes possible vastly expanded semiotic learning in addition to social learning. The architecture of modern language constitutes a multidimensional semiotic space where particular languages can evolve meaning potentials

194  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (including wording potentials and sounding potentials) that are considerably different from one another, exploiting the overall space in different ways and continuously adapting to changing environmental conditions (both material and immaterial ones). Given the metaphor of language having a multidimensional architecture, we could explore the analogy with Thompson’s (1942) geometrical approach to “growth and form” in biological systems. Within the multidimensional architecture of language, there are many possible geometric linguistic variants – different adaptations. For example, in certain languages, the logical domain is expanded relative to the experiential one as a model of the speakers’ experience of the world; in certain languages, the domain of word rank is expanded relative to that of group rank; and so on. (And the same applies to registers within a given language.) As a higher-order semiotic system, modern language has a location among all semiotic systems, contrasting the primary semiotic systems but sharing properties (including “design features” in Hockett’s, 1960, sense) with semiotic systems in an ordered typology of systems. Semiotic systems are 4th-order systems in the ordered typology of systems mentioned above, the lower-order systems being 3rd-order: social systems, 2nd-order: biological systems and 1storder: physical systems. There are a number of properties shared by systems of all orders, e.g. the cline of instantiation relating potential to instance; and properties that emerge as the complexity of systems of all orders increase, e.g. compositional hierarchies; and there are properties that would appear to be common to more complex biological, social and semiotic systems like linear recursion and embedding of sub-procedures within procedures (cf. Steiner, 1991). Thus, heartbeats and breathing are linearly recursive, open-ended – fortunately for us; and so is walking as well as running. But a hunting or fishing expedition is configurational, with clear distinctive stages; and our affectual and emotive processes tend to be prosodic. These are properties that are being studied in various approaches to the study of systems in general (e.g. Capra & Luisi, 2014; Barabási, 2016). Being a 4th-order system, language “inherits” the properties characteristic of lower-order systems, both ones that can be viewed as enabling and ones that can be thought of as constraining. (It is thus possible to sort the “constraints” Christiansen and Chater [2008: 501–503] propose by reference to the ordered typology of systems.) Evans and Levinson (2009) characterize language as a “bio-cultural hybrid” at various points in their discussion, e.g. (p. 436): The dual role of biological and cultural-historical attractors underlines the need for a coevolutionary model of human language, where there is interaction between entities of completely different orders – biological constraints and cultural-historical traditions.

Language description, comparison and typology  195 This certainly reflects aspects of the ordered typology of systems operating in different phenomenal realms explored in SFL and discussed briefly here. However, I would prefer to interpret language not only as a “biocultural hybrid” but rather as a higher-order semiotic system evolved out of a primary semiotic system, enacted as a social system and embodied as a biological system, noting that these systemic orders must have coevolved – i.e. semiotic and social and biological co-evolution (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Matthiessen, 2004b). Notes 1 I’m very grateful to the editors, Dr. Wang Bo and Dr. Ma Yuanyi, for their conception of this book, their invitation to me to contribute this chapter and for their comments on draft versions of the chapter. I’m also very grateful to Dr. Isaac Mwinlaaru for detailed comments on my draft. Their input has improved the chapter considerably. While it hopefully stands on its own, I have conceived of it as a complement to other publications of mine dealing with language description, comparison and typology cited here. 2 In the 19th century, these morphological types in morphological typologies tended to be seen as evolutionary stages, arranged linearly (rather than cyclically). There was an interesting parallel in the accounts of societies, again with evolutionary stages. The fieldwork-based anthropology undertaken by Bronisław Malinowski and Franz Boas and their followers changed the focus from speculation about evolutionary stages to synchronic accounts of the organization of societies. However, in work on deep history (or “big history”), there was a return to models of evolutionary stages (cf. Johnson & Earle, 2000; Harari, 2015). This type of account is carefully refuted in detail by Graeber and Wengrow (2021). They show that throughout human history there has been much more diversity in the organization of human societies and not a linear evolutionary progression through stages. One conclusion we can draw from this is that societies, and their cultures, must be conceptualized in the same way as language as multidimensional with variation along the dimensions. Like languages, they must be investigated and described polysystemically (in Firth’s sense), allowing for relatively independent variation in terms of each system. 3 And, naturally, we also take account of variation across every speaker’s personalized meaning potential (“idiolect”). At the same time, it is important to note that the extent to which different languages manifest these three different kinds of variation is itself a typological variable: thus, dialectal variation is a function of the spatial, temporal and social spread of any given language, and the extent of codal variation depends on the social stratification of the community in which a language is spoken. However, all languages are subject to registerial variation; in fact, for various purposes, it is very productive to characterize a language as nothing but an aggregate of registers. 4 From the point of view of SFL, most of Dixon’s (2010) “basic linguistic theory” turns out to be descriptive generalizations rather than a general theory of modern language as a higher-order human semiotic. This in no way diminishes the value of his contribution – the point is simply one of locating and interpreting his contribution in terms of the overall conception provided by SFL. It is an essential resource for tasks such as language description, language comparison and language typology, in the same way that the three volumes edited by

196  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Shopen (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) are, and other books providing descriptive overviews and generalizations, e.g. Payne (1997), Whaley (1997) and Moravcsik (2013); and thematic volumes concerned with particular topics such as tense/ aspect, evidentiality, voice, transitivity and clause combining and surveys of language families and linguistic areas. 5 Cf. Whorf’s (1956: 126) “language: plan and conception of arrangement”. 6 Traditional grammar (in the West) was based on a very narrow linguistic sample, Ancient Greek and Latin. Robins (1974: 17) points out that although both the Hellenistic and Roman empires were multilingual and people engaged with translation and interpreting, “surprisingly little theoretical importance seems to have been attached to the differences between languages, perhaps because the two major languages of the Roman empire, Latin and Greek, were obviously related”. In contrast, medieval scholars began to study Hebrew and then Arabic, and needed to engage with the “diversity of European vernaculars”: “Thus the middles ages, unlike antiquity, were led to think about the problem of linguistic universals, in relation to the obvious surface differences of language structure, a problem that in different forms has beset linguists ever since”. As Europeans began to expand to other parts of the world, exploring and colonizing them, they became even more aware of the diversity of languages around the world. 7 Usually attributed to Adolph Dirr’s account of the languages of the Caucasus in the 1910s; but see Ramer (1994) for identification of earlier uses of the term “ergativity”. But it took a long time before the term was widely recognized among descriptive linguists. In his textbook on ergativity, Dixon (1994: xiii) notes: “When I first went out to Australia to study an indigenous language, in 1963, the word ‘ergative’ wasn’t in my linguistic vocabulary. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies suggested working in the Cairns Rain Forest region and I chose Dyirbal for my major focus of study simply because it was the language with the most speakers (perhaps 100 fluent speakers, at that time). When I returned to London and explained the structure of Dyirbal to M.A.K. Halliday he told me that these unusual-looking grammatical patterns I had uncovered were ‘ergative’”. 8 It is interesting to trace the development of an understanding of this “construction” by linguists in the late 19th century and early 20th century – linguists are still largely confined to traditional grammar: for example, in studies of languages spoken in West Africa, Christaller (1975) [Akan] can be said to have struggled, while Westermann (1907, 1930) [Ewe] got closer. But it was not until the 1960s that the contours of this “construction” began to come into focus. When I first had the opportunity to investigate such constructions in Akan in a one-year field methods course conducted by Paul Schachter, many linguists still tried to interpret such verb complexes in terms of some kind of IC (immediate constituent) analysis (cf. Lord, 1993): I was just lucky enough to have seen (draft manuscripts of) Michael Halliday’s description of clause complexes and (hypotactic) verbal group complexes, so I was in a position to realize that this logical interpretation was to the way forward in the account of “serial verb constructions” (cf. Matthiessen, 1987). In general, logical systems engendering univariate tactic structures seem to have been a challenge against the background of traditional grammar. Thus related to but distinct from serial verb constructions, verb series with all verbs except for the “head” in the converb form have taken time to sort out: see e.g. Bisang (1995). 9 I remember attending a talk that Noam Chomsky gave at UCLA sometime in the first half of the 1980s. He commented that it used to be possible to get a

Language description, comparison and typology  197 PhD in linguistics by submitting a description of a particular language and suggested that this was no longer sufficient – that the PhD had to be more theoretical in orientation. This was not only demonstrably false at the time, but it was also an absolutely inexcusable act of devaluing the very rich empirical tradition of descriptive linguistics. Despite Chomsky’s attack on it, it survived – in the United States, in certain locations such as the West Coast, but it was certainly under threat for a long time because of his devaluing of it (cf. also e.g. Gross, 1979; Seuren, 2004; Evans & Levinson, 2009). 10 While due to space constraints, I cannot explore the evolution of language (and other human semiotic systems) here, it would certainly be interesting to go back to Hocket (1960) and review his suggested 13 “design features” based on my interpretation of the evolution of language (Matthiessen, 2004b) and systemic functional theory. 11 In presentations of SFL that are focused on the content plane, language is sometimes characterized as “tri-stratal”, the two expression plane strata being collapsed (e.g. phonology and phonetics). However, if we view the overall organization of language, giving equal weight to the content and expression planes, we need to recognize that the expression plane of “modern language” is also stratified into two strata, one of form (“phonology” in spoken language) and one of substance (“phonetics” in spoken language). 12 In studies of particular phenomena based on vocabulary lists (rather than on more or less comprehensive descriptions), researchers have been able to work with larger samples of languages, even around two-thirds of the languages still spoken around the world, e.g. Blasi et al. (2016), Jäger & Wichmann (2016). 13 This makes very good sense in terms of SFL since clauses are “exocentric” but groups are “endocentric” (in Bloomfield’s, 1933, terms). Bloomfield’s distinction is of fundamental descriptive importance, and it provides the basis for differentiating “phrases” (exocentric, like clauses) and “groups” endocentric. But this critical distinction has been neutralized in approaches where both phrases and groups are characterized as “phrases”. 14 The challenge of establishing the basis for comparability is a general one across systems, at least across immaterial (social and semiotic) systems. See, for example, the discussion of difficulties in comparing economic conditions and standards of living through time and across countries in Kenny (2012) – in a field with at least as much debate and disagreement as in the linguistics of typological generalizations and universals. 15 A common temptation linguists fall prey to is reasoning about linguistic terms and their glosses rather than about the phenomena they denote – one example being the structural function of “theme” (cf. Matthiessen, 1992). To avoid this temptation, we need to examine patterns emerging in texts in contexts, trying to identify reactances and thus working not only with overt categories but also with covert ones; and we need to reason by means of patterns of agnation and proportionalities to reveal implicit order in languages. As far as naming is concerned, for categories not familiar to the “tradition”, there are likely to be periods characterized by a proliferation of terms as descriptive linguists strive to arrive at a deep understanding of the phenomenon being investigated and to arrive at a consensus. One example is the category of “converb”, i.e. verb forms entering into logical series dependent on a “head”; they have been called “participles”, “gerunds”, “infinitives” and some other terms familiar from the tradition: see e.g. Bisang (1995). 16 While the theory of the cline of instantiation had not yet been developed at the time, it is clear that it is the basis for using translation at the instantial pole of

198  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen the cline as evidence for comparability of two or more systems at the potential pole of the cline. 17 Alternatively, we can couch this in terms of the relationship between texts in contexts as products (original [source] and translated version [target]), as in Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964) and Halliday (2006, 2010a). 18 Like all fractal patterns in general, the local dimensions may be manifested in somewhat varied ways depending on the environment that they are manifested in, adapting to their affordances. For example, the rank scale is manifested as one compositional hierarchy in descriptions of the phonological and lexicogrammatical stratal subsystems in various languages (i.e. the stratal subsystems of “form” rather than “substance”). However, its manifestation in the stratal subsystem of semantics may be subject to adaptation and proliferation across metafunctions and registers (cf. Matthiessen, 2007; Matthiessen, 2023b, forthcoming; Matthiessen & Teruya, 2023). Complementing this interpretation of local dimensions, we can also draw an analogy with one account in current physics related to string theory of ten spatial dimensions, the “local” ones being curled up in other dimensions (e.g. Zwiebach, 2009). 19 I have put “deeper” in double quotes to reflect Halliday’s (1966) article “Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar”, where he used the depth metaphor simply as an invitation to generative linguists familiar with the notion of “deep structure” to engage with his account. Needless to say, they do not appear to have been interested (see Matthiessen, Wang & Ma, 2019). 20 As Halliday (1981a: 123) has pointed out, the languages that traditional grammar was first developed to deal with, Ancient Greek and Latin, “invited” this approach because they both have elaborated word grammars, and variant forms of words (e.g. in terms of case and number, or tense and person) were thus overt and easy to observe. He contrasts this with the development of linguistics in China, where people undertook lexical studies and phonological descriptions (drawing on the tradition imported from India) but not grammatical studies. Halliday (1981a: 123) writes: “Linguistics, wherever it has developed autochthonously, has begun as the study of the home language; and it is readily accepted that the nature of this language, whichever it happens to be, has played a significant part in determining the directions linguistic studies would take. In ancient Greece and India, where the languages were rich in word morphology, linguistics first developed as the study of word paradigms; and this, through a search for explanation of the choice of case, eventually led to syntax. The influence of the language on the development of linguistics in China seems no less clear. Classical Chinese had virtually no morphology; morphology is the outward sign of grammar; this, it is assumed, is why there is no study of grammar in Chinese linguistics. Both the general pattern of Chinese linguistics, with its concentration on lexicology and phonology, and the particular methods developed in these two fields, can be reasonably well explained by reference to the nature of the Chinese language and script”. 21 Typological surveys in WALS of such systems tend to take into account only lower-ranking markers. 22 Importantly, the conception of language as a meaning potential covers all metafunctional modes of meaning. Thus, it embraces “communication”, which foregrounds the interpersonal dialogic exchange of meanings, but also “construal”, which is concerned with language as a resource for construing our experience of meaning (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999). This is of crucial importance. The view of language as (merely) a resource for communication tends to downgrade language to the status of a servant system rather than as

Language description, comparison and typology  199 a constructive system. In the context of our work on the Penman project, this was important. The project leader, Bill Mann, highlighted communication as the central trait of language (which is of course a common conception), but to Michael Halliday, this was too narrow. In Halliday and Matthiessen (1999), we emphasized and detailed a constructivist conception of language – which is much broader. 23 One could draw on any well-described language to illustrate descriptive fragments, and by implication the potential for using them in comparative, and by another step, typological generalizations. Here I have used the description of MSA for a variety of reasons. As an undergraduate student at Lund University in the second half of the 1970s, I tried to learn MSA as a foreign language. As an academic linguist, I was fortunate enough to take part in Bardi’s (2008) very insightful systemic functional description of MSA in the role of PhD supervisor, and as a systemic functional linguist concerned with language description, comparison and typology, I have continued to engage with MSA as one of the languages informing my understanding of description, comparison and typology. 24 In descriptions of Arabic, such clauses have been called “nominal clauses” (as opposed to “verbal clauses”); but this only reflects the structural view of the clause “from below”. (In the great tradition of Arab linguistics, these terms are used in a different way, reflecting [in our terms] the nature of the Theme of the clause, either nominal or verbal. But this is again essentially the view of the clause “from below”, a view of the beginning of the clause from below in terms of the class of the group placed first in the clause.) 25 But Bartlett (2020) argues that, in Scottish Gaelic, ‘indicative’ clauses are not differentiated into ‘declarative’ vs. ‘interrogative’ but rather into ‘assertive’ vs. ‘non-assertive’. 26 Linguists vary in how they interpret the distinction between the two forms of the verb, e.g. (third-person singular, masculine ‘write’: kataba vs. yaktubu – interpreted as perfective [or “perfect”] vs. imperfective, or as past vs. present). For example, Ryding (2005) describes this as a distinction in tense between “past” and “present”. In my view, this is wrong and misleading, and Holes (2004) presents strong evidence in favour of an aspectual interpretation. Taking both verbal morphology and temporal particles and auxiliaries into consideration, I think the temporal grammar of MSA embodies a mixed system of tense and aspect, but this basic morphological distinction is most helpfully interpreted as aspectual. However, these descriptive alternatives are not important here since I am merely using my systemic description as an example. (And the temporal grammar of the verbal group in Classical and MSA certainly constitutes a descriptive challenge, reflected in the varied interpretations offered by different linguists from both the Arab and Western traditions, as noted by Versteegh & Versteegh, 2014.) 27 I use the term “mode” for verbal categories instead of the term “mood” since the latter is used in SFL for the interpersonal clausal system realizing the semantic system of speech function (cf. Matthiessen, 2004a; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Thus, in the description of many languages, it is important to distinguish between “indicative” as a verbal mode, contrasting with other types of mode such as “subjunctive”, and “indicative” as a clausal mood type, contrasting with “imperative” mood. In traditional descriptions, the distinctions are often not made or maintained clearly. 28 Cf. Halliday (1984) on the ineffability of grammatical categories. In at least one respect, they become less “effable” the further down the rank scale that we

200  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen move simply because they will be part of various higher-ranking patterns (as illustrated by Figure 4.4). But clearly, even clausal categories tend to be ineffable – the category of Subject being a well-known example. 29 The patterns of “measures” are largely experiential in nature, realizing distinctions in transitivity (like ‘causative’), but in a complex way embodying a mixture along the cline of delicacy from grammatical distinctions to particular lexicalized distinctions that are not grammatically predictable. In contrast, the conjugational paradigms reflect interpersonal (mode) and experiential (aspect) distinctions. 30 As noted above, the Arab tradition also adopted a view “from below” in making this distinction, but based on (in our terms) thematic considerations within the textual metafunction: is the element placed at the beginning of the clause verbal or nominal? 31 The meanings of interpersonal lexicogrammatical systems are “multiplied” in the environment of different settings of the parameters of tenor, as is shown by Brown and Gilman’s (1960) pioneering non-systemic functional study of the “pronouns of power and solidarity”. Power and solidarity are tenor variables, and they show the same pronominal system can be used to enact power or solidarity depending on the tenor of the relation between speaker and addressee (cf. Matthiessen, 2023b). 32 As far as the grammatical system of mood is concerned – as presented here. However, if we extend our vision upwards in terms of the hierarchy of stratification, we will – predictably – find that the semantic system of speech function “deploys” the various mood types in different ways across languages, also with variation across the registers of each of the languages being compared. For some discussion, see Matthiessen, Teruya and Wu (2008). 33 Luckily for me, Sandy Thompson ran a one-year seminar on this work in 1979– 1980, during my first year at UCLA, and I took this course. She gave us a pre-publication version of the article that was published in Language in 1980, and many other readings. When I read their manuscript, I was struck by how systemic it was in orientation, and I wrote Sandy about ten pages of comments trying to show the relationship to Halliday’s (1967/8) description of the system of transitivity in English. 34 Thanks to my Indian flatmate Sarma Sastry in Santa Monica, living in a house owned by his father (a UN economist), in the 1980s while I was studying at UCLA, I became aware of Krishnamurti, and two of us attended his talks at Ojai during a few years in the first half of the 1980s before he passed away in 1986. At the end of his last talk in January 1985, Sarma somehow found the courage to walk up to Krishnamurti as he was leaving the oak grove where he conducted his dialogues and asked him if we could have a meeting with him. Krishnamurti responded positively but said it would have to be the next year since he was about to leave Ojai. But Krishnamurti died in 1986, during the period when he would have given the talks in Ojai. He proposed ways of looking at issues that I found interesting from a systemic functional point of view, like his notion of “choiceless awareness”, which can certainly be a way of approaching the rich diversity of languages – contrasting with preconceived (“choicefull”) frames of reference, frames narrowing our field of vision. 35 See Watters (2006) on Kusunda vs. claims in a BBC article, “The language that doesn’t use ‘no’” by Eileen McDougall, BBC 10 August 2022. 36 However, at least part of this variation can be viewed in terms of variation in media of expression used to “carry” the same metafunctional mode of expression: cf. Section 4.7.5.

Language description, comparison and typology  201 37 Mathesius (1975: 103) points out: “What is the reason that in English, as opposed to Czech, the subject can so regularly express the theme of the utterance? The answer is to be sought in the fact that English uses the passive much more frequently than Czech, which makes it possible to distinguish constructions where the subject expresses the theme of the utterance from those in which it denotes the patient directly affected by the verbal action”. 38 This is a methodological reminder of the importance of ensuring that typological, comparative and contrastive studies are linked within the general field of multilingual studies (as articulated e.g. by Matthiessen, Teruya & Wu, 2008), also together with translation studies: when we compare a small number of languages, it is possible to draw empirical evidence from registerially composite multilingual corpora (as developed within SFL: Teich, 2003; Hansen-Schirra, Neumann & Steiner, 2012; Kunz et al., 2021). Since texts are located at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, we are always faced with the challenge when we undertake text-based studies of determining how systemic the patterns we find are – i.e. how far up along the cline of instantiation towards the potential pole can we be justified in moving given evidence from text. For example, in the English translation of Heinrich Böll’s Die blasse Anna – Pale Anna, there are two instances where the English translator has translated the original German clauses with English ones involving theme predication (Erst im Frühjahr 1950 kehrte ich aus dem Krieg heim, – It wasn’t until spring 1950 that I came back from the war,; and Erst als ich drei Wochen dort wohnte, als ich das Bild von Karl wohl zum fünfzigsten Mal in die Hand genommen, sah ich, daß der Straßenbahnwagen, vor dem er lachend mit seiner Geldtasche stand, nicht leer war. – It wasn’t until I’d been there three weeks and had taken Karl’s picture into my hands for about the fiftieth time, that I saw that the tram-car, in front of which he was standing with his satchel, smiling, wasn’t empty.). These translation “shifts” could have been purely instantial, but it turns out that they are “triggered” by differences between the German and English textual systems of the clause at the potential pole of the cline of instantiation (cf. Matthiessen, 2001). 39 This is characteristic of what we can call privative systems (as opposed to equipollent ones), drawing on Trubetzkoy’s (1939) account of phonological systems in reference to typology. 40 www​.youtube​.com​/watch​?v​=M​-ymanHajN8 41 I would query the claim that “we as adults are no longer absorbing those statistics”. It seems very plausible that our adult personalized meaning potentials (including wording potentials and sounding potentials) continue to change probabilistically as we process relative frequencies in texts from a variety of registers as our own registerial repertoires continue to develop. A somewhat anecdotal indication of this within the expression plane, we can note studies of certain changes in Queen Elizabeth II’s pronunciation over seven decades or so in tandem with changes in English pronunciation in general (for the study that drew attention to the Queen moving with the times, see Harrington, Palethorpe & Watson, 2000). 42 Hence the possibility of “dialect adaptation” of translation into one dialect of a language, as explored for Quechua by Weber & Mann (1981). 43 While there are implications of evolutionary stages in social organization, e.g. the move from positional to personal family control systems and the stages of art form (primitive > classical > romantic > professionalism), we need to note the survey of societies presented by Graeber & Wengrow (2021): they show that societies may alternate between different social systems, e.g. on a sea-

202  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen sonal basis. Thus, against the background of their empirical evidence for very rich diversity of cultures and social systems throughout human history, we can think of Douglas’s “general cosmological ideas” as probes helping us explore the description and comparison of languages in their contexts of culture – not as evolutionary stages. 44 I have added to the table his examples of the levels “typically represented on television and radio”. These examples tend to imply different fields of activity and implicate different registers (or “genres”). 45 Therefore, we need comparative and typological studies focused on the variation in the registerial composition of particular languages (illuminated by studies documenting the emergence of new registers in particular languages under specific contextual conditions, e.g. Halliday, 1988; Nanri, 1993). This is a daunting task, particularly since anthropological accounts of the activities in a particular language tend to focus on “doing” rather than “meaning”: activities of doing, i.e. social behaviour, are differentiated (as in Johnson & Earle, 2000). One very interesting exception is Wiessner (2014). 46 In this respect, modern language may have evolved “arbitrariness” further than in earlier stages of language; but this is a matter of degree, of course. Halliday (1996: 15) observes: “we do not expect things which mean the same to sound the same – although there is considerable seepage, which Firth labelled ‘phonaesthesia’ (Firth, 1957)”. Since Firth coined the term, there has been a good deal of research covering different languages, discussed under various headings, including “sound symbolism” and “phonosemantics”, e.g. Blasi et al. (2016), Joo (2020) and Johansson et al. (2020). Here we can consider the possibility of interpreting sound symbolism metafunctionally; we can recognize certain metafunctional motifs relating to the construal of experience (ideational) and to the enactment of roles, relations and values (interpersonal), potentially together with prominence (textual). This also applies to extra-phonological features – paralanguage. The expansion of research in the area of sound symbolism, particularly in the last couple of decades, is relevant also to the description of particular languages, e.g. the accounts of ideophones, which are relevant to the description of languages that have been described systemic-functionally. 47 Halliday has characterized polarity as potentially pre-metafunctional. In designed forms of logic (originally derived from natural language), it is organized logically rather than interpersonally: the negative can be serialized (with alternating truth value), i.e. repeated negatives do not form a prosody, which is the interpersonal mode of expression. In a particular language, it may be grammaticalized as an interpersonal system, but also lexicalized within the ideational metafunction. It is possible that there are languages where it is grammaticalized logically; but since descriptive and typological accounts of polarity (or “negation”) do not probe the metafunctional nature of the system, it is difficult to know at this stage: thus, we need more metafunctionally aware descriptions. 48 As I suggest in Matthiessen (2004b), Halliday’s ontogenetic phases in language development – infants learning how to mean – can guide us in our interpretation of the phases in the evolution of language, taking into account both the increasing power to mean and the increasing complexity of the architecture of language. 49 Chomsky (2015: ix) notes in passing that the “property of embedding” is “often confused with recursion”. Both are, of course, terms that are dependent on the choice of theoretical framework (and the sources it is influenced by, like mathematics and computer science). Here I have, of course, formulated the distinction between the logical mode of recursion and the experiential one in terms of

Language description, comparison and typology  203 systemic functional theory. See Halliday (1979 [2002: 212–213]) on the difference between logical recursion and rankshift, which he notes does not produce “true recursive structures”. 50 This has been important in his early work, including the Chomsky hierarchy; and the discussions were re-energized by Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch (2002). 51 While the English version does not include serial verb complexing, the circumstance of Place, which represents the path of the motion, is realized by a prepositional phrase complex; but unlike serial verb complex, this complex is not interleaved with elements of the transitivity structure of the clause. In the literature on “lexicalization patterns” in the domain of motion through space drawing on Talmy (1985), English belongs to the group of languages he called “satellite-framed languages” in contrast with “verb-framed languages such as Spanish (cf. Matthiessen, Arús-Hita & Teruya, 2021). To accommodate languages with “serial verb constructions”, Slobin (2004) later added “equipollent languages”, of which Akan, Ewe and Kalam would be examples. See also Matthiessen (2015d) and references therein. 52 www​.ted​.com​/talks​/lera​_boroditsky​_how​_language​_shapes​_the​_way​_we​_ think​?language​=en. 53 In this paper, I also make the distinction between the experiential construal of our experience of emotion and the interpersonal enactment of feelings and attitudes. It is important to differentiate these two modes of meaning even though the interpersonal metafunction often co-opts and adapts experiential resources. 54 The issues involved are often couched in terms of “language shaping thought” (as in the title of Boroditsky’s, 2011, article in Scientific American). In Halliday and Matthiessen (1999), our position is a constructivist one: thought (or cognition or knowledge) and meaning are complementary views on the same phenomenon, one characteristic of 4th-order systems (see below): we can view it either as meaning within semiotic systems or as knowledge within cognitive systems. But the notion of language shaping thought suggests that there are two distinct phenomena rather than one viewed in complementary perspectives. 55 It is interesting to note that in the literature on “information structure”, contributors have acknowledged that the term was introduced by Halliday. Schwabe and Winkler (2007: 1) write: “The term Information Structure (IS) of a sentence refers since Halliday (1967) to the linguistic encoding of notions such as focus versus background and topic versus comment, which are used to describe the information flow with respect to discourse-givenness and states of activation”. See also Féry and Ishihara (2016b): “Halliday (1967–68) first used the term information structure. Focus is what is ‘not being recoverable from the preceding discourse’ (1967–68: 204). ‘The newness may lie in the speech function, or it may be a matter of contrast with what has been said before or what might be expected’ (1967–68: 206)”. 56 Hale, Laughren and Simpson (1995: 1431) do note: “Although the choice of different word order alternatives is conditioned by stylistic and discourse factors, as yet only partially understood, it is also true to an extraordinary degree in Warlpiri that different orderings are considered to repetitions of one another. When asked to repeat an utterance, speakers depart from the ordering of the original more often than not (cf. Hale, 1983; Laughren, 1989; Swartz, 1982, 1991)”. By the mid-1990s, there had been many contributions by Prague School linguists and systemic functional linguists showing the role of (in systemic functional terms) systems of the textual metafunction such as theme and information in the organization of the “flow of information” (or better: “swell”

204  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen – Halliday, 1985a) as texts unfold. And yet, claims about “free word order” languages continued to be published based on the methodology of elicitation. 57 Comparable issues were raised much earlier, e.g. in the contrast between Japanese as “VSO” and English “SVO” (e.g. McCawley, 1970). Note that in SFL, the term “configurational” denotes the experiential mode of expression – a configuration of components as parts of an organic whole (Halliday, 1979). 58 This distinction can be compared to Halliday’s (1966) distinction between structure (cf. f-structure) and syntagm (cf. c-structure). But in the systemic functional theory of grammar, syntagms are treated as realizations of structures – specified by realization statements in the paradigmatic environments of terms in systems (cf. Matthiessen, 1988). 59 As a rule of thumb, I am always wary of accounts that characterize certain languages in negative or marked terms such as “non-configurational” or “prodrop”. It is always helpful to try to characterize English (or another language dominant in descriptions, like Whorf’s SAE [Standard Average European]) in similarly negative or marked terms; for example, we might say that English is a “pro-retentive” or “pro-obsessed” language – but for good reasons located in the interpersonal grammar of mood. 60 That is, the general systemic functional theory of modern language (as opposed to archaic language, and by another evolutionary step, protolanguage) does not impose distinctions such as “configurational” vs. “non-configurational”: the description of each particular language must be based on empirical evidence (fundamentally, authentic text in context) in order to support such claims. However, based on the general theory of the architecture of language and on the growing number of comprehensive descriptions of particular languages, I would imagine distinctions such as “configurational” vs. “non-configurational” would be met by cautious (or caustic?) skepticism (as is clear from Firth, 1957). 61 In the description of particular languages, there will be reasons for positing different combinations of function and different functional configurations. For example, in the description of English, Chinese and many other languages, there is good reason to describe the clause as a message (the textual guise of the clause) as Theme + Rheme. In the description of English and a few other languages, it makes sense to describe the clause as a move (the interpersonal guise of the clause) as Mood + Residue (+ Moodtag); but this is not warranted for Chinese, nor for most other languages. 62 I remember Michael Halliday pointing out to me in the 1980s that textual patterns seem particularly likely to change in language contact situations; he gave English (in contact with Celtic languages) and Japanese (in contact with Austronesian languages) as examples. 63 In the sense typically intended in the literature on “grammaticalization”. But the other timeframes we identify, ontogenesis and logogenesis, are in fact also relevant. Among other considerations, logogenesis provides material for ontogenesis, which in turn provides material for phylogenesis. 64 As an example, Meillet (1912 [1982: 140–141]) gives the evolution of negation in Indo-European (IE) languages. He notes that the negative marker is a “small word”, may weaken phonologically and then need further support, as happened with the emergence of pas in French, resulting in the negation ne … pas. After discussing developments in a few branches of IE, he concludes with an important generalization: “Les langues suivent ainsi une sorte de développement en spirale: elle ajoutent des mot accessoires pour obtenir une expression intense; ces mots s’affaiblissent, se dégradent et tombent au niveau de simples outils grammaticaux; on ajoute de nouveaux mot ou des mot différent en vue

Language description, comparison and typology  205 de l’expression; l’affaiblissement recommence, et ainsi sans fin”. The automatic translation by MacOS into English is: “Languages thus follow a kind of spiral development: they add accessory words to obtain an intense expression; these words weaken, degrade and fall at the level of simple grammatical tools; new or different words are added for expression; weakening begins again, and thus endlessly”. I remember Bertil Malmberg explaining grammaticalization to us in the 1970s with reference to Romance languages before it had become a popular topic in linguistics. 65 This is of course made possible by the construal of our experience of the phenomenal domain of time on the model of our experience of the domain of space (the “source domain”): in many languages (perhaps all), the ideational metafunction construes a mapping between time and space. And many languages have deployed the resources of lexical verbs of motion as markers of terms in their tense or aspect systems; see e.g. Hagège (1993), Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), Dahl (2000), Huumo (2016). The underlying principle is that such inter-domain mappings create the conditions for lexicogrammaticalization in general. 66 Chomsky (1965: 1–2) writes: “Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. This seems to me to have been the position of the founders of modern general linguistics, and no cogent reason for modifying it has been offered. […] We thus make a fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language) and performance (the actual use of language in concrete situations). Only under the idealization set forth in the preceding paragraph is performance a direct reflection of competence. In actual fact, it obviously could not directly reflect competence. A record of natural speech will show numerous false starts, deviations from rules, changes of plan in mid-course, and so on”. Halliday (1973: 52–53) comments on this distinction, contrasting it with his own distinction between potential and instance: “A word or two should be said about the relation of the concept of meaning potential to the Chomskyan notion of competence … The two are somewhat different. Meaning potential is defined not in terms of the mind but in terms of the culture; not as what the speaker knows, but as what he can do – in the special sense of what he can do linguistically (what he ‘can mean’, as we have expressed it). The distinction is important because ‘can do’ is of the same order of abstraction as ‘does’; the two are related simply as potential to actualized potential, and can be used to illuminate each other. But ‘knows’ is distinct and clearly insulated from ‘does’; the relation between the two is complex and oblique, and leads to the quest for a ‘theory of performance’ to explain the ‘does’”. By operating with meaning potential and actualized meaning potential (instance = text as a unit of meaning), Halliday is able to relate data (text) to the account of the system (potential) – theorized in language as a general human system and described in the account of particular languages. See also e.g. Halliday (1996: 30). 67 This kind of corpus-based quantitative language typology informed by the probabilistic systemic profiles of particular languages is obviously different from the quantification of tendencies based on typological samples of languages discussed in Section 4.3.4. Such generalizations represent a move away from “absolute” universals to tendencies based on large samples of languages (cf.

206  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Keenan, 1976a; Evans & Levinson, 2009). In his attempt to move towards a “universal definition of ‘Subject’”, Keenan (1976a) proposes a “multi-factor concept” of Subject. Interpreted systemic functionally, this means that “subject” needs to be split and its properties interpreted in terms of distinct functions within the textual, interpersonal and experiential metafunctions. 68 The first professor of linguistics at Lund University I learned from was Bertil Malmberg. He was an expert in European structuralism and theories of the sign, and also in Romance languages and the tradition of Romance linguistics. I remember he explained to us some of the basic principles of grammaticalization in the 1970s, before it had become an area of intense research in linguistics, in particular, in functional-typological linguistics. He gave an account of how, in Romance languages, personal pronouns had given rise to verbal morphology (cf. Halliday’s, 2008, references to examples of grammaticalization in Romance languages). 69 Chomsky’s attitude towards the grand descriptive tradition and towards other linguistic theories seemed hard to understand given his political activism and heroic championing of groups of people who had suffered from imperialist power. He has continued to challenge the dominance of the United States in different parts of the world, including its allies such as Israel, and he has arguably paid a high price for his brave opposition, e.g. facing possible persecution and imprisonment; but in linguistics, it seemed that he was content to surf the corporate capitalist waves of Coca Cola and McDonald’s sweeping across the world. Another aspect of this was the source of funding: as Morris Halle has documented during an event celebrating linguistics at MIT (2010) – developments at MIT benefitted greatly from military funding. This included some of Chomsky’s own work. Chomsky’s view was that what mattered was what one did during one’s discretionary time; in contrast, Terry Winograd’s position was not to accept any military funding at all, since accepting such funding served, institutionally, to strengthen the flow of money through military channels. (In our projects on text generation by computer led by Bill Mann, we relied on funding from military agencies. Bill’s position was that as long as the research was unclassified, the military would be the last to benefit from the research due to their incompetence in long-term research management because of their regular turnover of personnel.) Regarding Chomsky: Michael Halliday told me that, to him, there seemed to be two distinct Chomskyan personae: he and Chomsky could have fruitful discussions of politics, comparing and contrasting different theories, views and interpretations; but in linguistics, it was impossible to explore different alternative views with Chomsky. For relevant assessments, see also Seuren (2004). 70 In 2004, I attended a conference on South Asian Languages hosted at CIIL (the Central Institute of Indian Languages), Mysore, honouring Murray Emeneau (1904–2005) on the occasion of his 100th birthday. One of the great Indian scholars who attended was, K.V. Subbarao, who became a good friend during our time in Mysore. In terms of linguistic theory, he had contributed to Chomskyan linguistics; but at the same time, he was also dedicated to the task of describing languages in India. In his closing remarks at the conference, he advised research students and junior scholars to pursue the very important task of describing Indian languages, but he advised them against using the Minimalist framework, because, he said, in ten years, it would be junk! 71 Dixon’s (2005) book on English grammar includes the description he presented in his talk at UCLA. Reading the book, two things struck me: (1) it owed a great deal to Halliday (1967/8, 1985, 1994), while arguably lacking in the overall guiding insight into language Halliday has given us; and (2) it seemed semanti-

Language description, comparison and typology  207 cally much richer than his description of other languages (e.g. Dixon, 1972, 1988). 72 This leads to the insight in the description of Japanese that early position in the clause is thematically significant and that the famous wa is a special thematic marker, one that does not in fact contrast with ga (as has commonly been assumed): this false contrast was originally explained to me by Michael Halliday; for a full account, see Teruya (2007). And it leads to the insight that Modern Standard Arabic varies between “VSO” and “SVO” depending on the method of development characteristic of the register of the text being analysed (e.g. narrative, where VSO is motivated, vs. taxonomic report, where SVO is motivated). 73 For the complementary interpretation of 4th-order systems as cognitive systems, see e.g. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) and Matthiessen (2021b). 74 Their contribution is followed by a number of commentaries by linguists who either support their position or oppose it. Those who oppose it and are in favour of universals do not appear to me to provide much in the way of evidence for a substantial robust list of universals. 75 Ruqaiya Hasan and I met Penny Lee at a conference of the Australian Linguistics Association around 1990. Ruqaiya knew Whorf’s work in complete detail, and the dialogue she and Penny Lee had was fascinating. I think both of them recognized that Whorf had been misread and misunderstood and misrepresented during the period starting in the 1960s when universalist claims dominated. 76 The same would apply to languages that have vanished – died – but have been given reasonably comprehensive descriptions in the last 150 years or so. But if Pagel (2000) is right, we cannot determine to what extent this applies to the roughly half a million languages spoken at the peak of linguistic richness. Still, it makes sense to hypothesize that they must also have been “modern” languages, spoken by AMHs; but we can only speculate about parallel lineages of hominids that have not survived, including the fairly recent disappearance of Neanderthals. (As for speculation, cf. William Golding’s The Inheritors, and Halliday’s, 1971, analysis of his deployment of the English transitivity system to evoke the different understandings of the world by the Neanderthals and the new people, Homo sapiens sapiens.) 77 Croft has observed (e.g. 2010) that there are very few if any language universals and suggests that “what is universal is the holistic conceptualization of highly particular situation types, and the conceptual relationships that hold among them”. It is possible to imagine that systemic patterns are induced from recurrent instantial discursive patterns in context – as part of the process of learning how to mean (Halliday, 1975, 2003), also involving statistical learning, as shown for phonology by Kuhl (e.g. 2010). And according to SFL, this process of learning how to mean is a phased one (I: protolanguage > II: transition > III: mother tongue), where the move into the mother tongue is based on the earlier phases – just as I have hypothesized – happened in language evolution (protolanguage > archaic language > modern language; Matthiessen, 2004b). But one central question is what the possible limits of induction from instances might be. For example, Lee and Goldsmith (2016) show how far the “Linguistica” morphological analyser can reach based on unsupervised learning (see also Goldsmith, 2006); but even in languages where the domain of word grammar is quite extended, it constitutes only a small part of the total potential of a language. For discussion, see also Chater et al. (2015). Such explorations are concerned with inducing descriptions from large amounts of text data, which

208  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen is different from, and harder than, inducing the kinds of deep learning models now pursued by OpenAI, Google, Microsoft and other players in the field.

References Agbayani, Brian & Chris Golston. 2010. “Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal conjunction.” Indogermanische Forschungen 115(2010): 1–21. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexanddra Y. 2014. “The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source.” In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A crosslinguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–51. Akerejola, Ernest. 2005. A systemic functional grammar of Òkó. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Ameka, Felix K. 2006. “Ewe serial verb constructions in their grammatical context.” In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 124–143. Badawi, Elsaid. 1973. Mustawayāt al-‘Arabīya al-Mus’āṣira fi Miṣri [Levels of contemporary Arabic in Egypt]. Cairo: Dār al-Ma’ārif. Badawi, Elsaid, Michael Carter & Adrian Gully. 2016. Modern written Arabic: A comprehensive reference grammar. Revised by Maher Awad. London & New York: Routledge. Barabási, Albert László. 2016. Network science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardi, Mohamed Ali. 2008. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Arabic. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Barrett, Lisa Feldman. 2017. How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Bartlett, Tom. 2020. “Interpersonal grammar in Scottish Gaelic.” In J.R. Martin, Beatriz Quiroz & Giacomo Figueredo (eds.), Interpersonal grammar: Systemic functional linguistic theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 257–284. Bateman, John A., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Zeng Licheng. 1999. “Multilingual language generation for multilingual software: A functional linguistic approach.” Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal 13(6): 607–639. Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Thao. 2010. “The typology of motion expressions revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–377. Bernstein, Basil. 1971. Class, codes and control, vol. 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bisang, Walter. 1995. “Verb serialization and converbs – differences and similarities.” In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 137–188.

Language description, comparison and typology  209 Blasi, Damián E., Søren Wichmannd, Harald Hammarström, Peter F. Stadler & Morten H. Christiansen. 2016. “Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(39): 10818–10823. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: Allen & Unwin. Boas, Franz 1911. “Introduction.” In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Part 1: 1–83. Bohm, David. 1979. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1977. Meaning and form. London & New York: Longman. Boroditsky, Lera. 2011. “How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world.” Scientific American February 2011: 63–65. Boxwell, Maurice. 1990. Co-referentiality through nominal elements in Weri. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. “The pronouns of power and solidarity.” In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 253–276. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Caffarel, Alice. 1996. Prolegomena to a systemic functional interpretation of French grammar: From discourse to grammar and back. PhD thesis, Sydney University, Sydney. Caffarel, Alice. 2006. A systemic functional grammar of French: From grammar to discourse. London & New York: Continuum. Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004a. Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004b. “Introduction: Systemic functional typology.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Callow, Kathleen. 1974. Discourse considerations in translating the word of god. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Capra, Fritjof & Pier Luigi Luisi. 2014. The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, Mary & Christiane von Stutterheim. 2011. “Event representation, time event relations, and clause structure: A crosslinguistic study of English and German.” In Jürgen Bohnemeyer & Eric Pedersen (eds.), Event representation in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 68–83. Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chater, Nick, Alexander Clark, John Goldsmith & Amy Perfors. 2015. Empiricism and language learnability. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2015. “Preface.” In Ángel J. Gallego & Dennis Ott (eds.), 50  years later: Reflections on Chomsky’s aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 77: vii–xii.

210  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Christaller, Johann Gottlieb. 1875. A grammar of the Asante and Fante language called Tshi: Based on the Akuapem dialect with references to the other (Akan and Fante) dialects. Basel: Printed for the Basel Evangelical Missionary Society. Christian, David. 2004. Maps of time: An introduction to big history. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA & London: University of California Press. Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater. 2008. “Language as shaped by the brain.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5): 489–508; Open peer commentary 509–558. Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard & Edward L. Keenan. 1979. “Noun phrase accessibility revisited.” Language 55(3): 649–664. Conklin, Harold C. 1964. “Ethnogenealogical method.” In Ward H. Goodenough (ed.), Explorations in cultural anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill. 25–55. Covington, Michael A. 1984. Syntactic theory in the high middle ages: Modistic models of sentence structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Craig, Colette G. 1993. “Jakaltek directionals: Their meaning and discourse function.” Languages of the World + Linguistic News Lines 7(2): 23–36. Croft, William. 2010. “Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals.” CogniTextes 4. https://journals​.openedition​.org​/cognitextes​/303. Dahl, Östen (ed.). 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. D’Andrade, Roy. 1987. “A folk model of the mind.” In Naomi Holland & Dorothy Quinn (eds.), Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 112–148. Deacon, Terrence. 1992. “Brain-language coevolution.” In John A. Hawkins & Murray Gell-Mann (eds.), The evolution of human languages. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley. 49–85. Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the human brain. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. DeLancey, Scott. 1997. “Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information.” Linguistic typology 1: 33–52. Diamond, Jared. 2013. The world until yesterday: What can we learn from traditional societies? Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Dixon, R.M.W. 1963a. Linguistic science and logic. The Hague: Mouton. Dixon, R.M.W. 1963b. “A logical statement of grammatical theory: As contained in Halliday’s ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’.” Language 39(4): 654–668. Dixon, R.M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory: Volume 1: Methodology; Volume 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dong, Hongyuan. 2014. A history of the Chinese language. London: Routledge.

Language description, comparison and typology  211 Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London & New York: Routledge. Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. “Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adjective and noun.” In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals​.info.) Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary “do”: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell. Erickson, Lucy C. & Erik D. Thiessen. 2015. “Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity, and predictions of statistical learning account of language acquisition.” Developmental Review 37: 66–108. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1969. “Sociolinguistics.” In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Volume 4. New York: Academic Press. 93–107. Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. “The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492. Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. “In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages.” Language 76(3): 546–592. Everett, Daniel L. 2005. “Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language.” Current Anthropology 46: 621–646. Everett, Daniel L. 2008. Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian Jungle. New York: Vintage Books. Fawcett, Robin P. 1980. Cognitive linguistics and social interaction. Exeter & Heidelberg: University of Exeter & Julius Groos. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. “Diglossia.” WORD 15: 325–340. Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.). 2016a. The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2016b. “Introduction.” In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Firth, J.R. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. Flecken, Monique, Christiane von Stutterheim & Mary Carroll. 2014. “Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: Findings from a cross-linguistic non-verbal recognition task.” Language and Cognition 6(1): 45–78. Fleming, Ilah. 1988. Communication analysis: A stratificational approach. A field guide for communication situation, semantic, and morphemic analysis. Volume 2. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

212  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frake, Charles O. 1962. “The ethnographic study of cognitive systems.” In Thomas Gladwin & William C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. 72–85. Fries, Peter H. 1981. “On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse.” Forum Linguisticum 6(1): 1–38. Reprinted in János Petöfi & Emel Sözer (ed.), Micro and macro connexity of texts. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. 116–152. Fusaroli, Riccardo, Nivedita Gangopadhyay & Kristian Tylén. 2014. “The dialogically extended mind: Language as skilful intersubjective engagement.” Cognitive Systems Research 29: 31–39. Garcia-Sierra, Adrian, Nairan Ramírez-Esparza & Patricia K. Kuhl. 2016. “Relationships between quantity of language input and brain responses in bilingual and monolingual infants.” International Journal of Psychophysiology 110(2016): 1–17. Gerwien, Johannes & Christiane von Stutterheim. 2018. “Event segmentation: Crosslinguistic differences in verbal and non-verbal tasks.” Cognition 180: 225–237. Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). 1993. Register analysis: Theory and practice. London & New York: Pinter. Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goldsmith, John A. 2006. “An algorithm for the unsupervised learning of morphology.” Natural Language Engineering 12(4): 353–371. Goodenough, Ward H. 1956. “Componential analysis and the study of meaning.” Language 32(1): 195–216. Graeber, David & David Wengrow. 2021. The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. “Some universal of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements.” In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universal of language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 73–113. Gregory, Michael J. 1967. “Aspects of varieties differentiation.” Journal of Linguistics 3: 177–198. Gross, Maurice. 1979. “On the failure of generative grammar.” Language 55(4): 859–885. Guillaume, Antoine & Harold Koch (eds.). 2021. Associated motion. Berlin & Boston, MA: Mouton de Gruyter. Hagège, Claude. 1993. The language builder: An essay on the human signature in linguistic morphogenesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Haiman, John. 1985a. Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, John (ed.). 1985b. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hajek, John. 2013. “Vowel nasalization.” In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals​ .info​/chapter​/10. Accessed on 2022-08-14.)

Language description, comparison and typology  213 Hale, Ken. 1983. “Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47. Hale, Ken, Mary Laughren & Jane Simpson. 1995. “Warlpiri.” In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1430–1451. Halliday, M.A.K. 1959. The language of the Chinese “Secret history of the Mongols”. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2006. Studies in the Chinese language. Volume 8 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 3–171. Halliday, M.A.K. 1959–60. “Typology and the exotic.” Combination of two lectures, one delivered at the Linguistics Association Conference, Hull, in May 1959, the other to the St. Andrews Linguistic Society, in May 1960. In M.A.K. Halliday & Angus McIntosh. 1966. Patterns of language: Papers in general, descriptive and applied linguistics. London: Longman. 165–182. Halliday, M.A.K. 1965. “Types of structure.” The O.S.T.I. Programme in the linguistic properties of scientific English. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 1981. Readings in systemic linguistics. Edited by M.A.K. Halliday & J.R. Martin. London: Batsford. 29–41. Halliday, M.A.K. 1966. “Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar.” Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 57–67. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 106–117. Halliday, M.A.K. 1967/8. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English 1–3.” Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 37–81, 3(2): 199–244, 4(2): 179–215. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in English language. Volume 7 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 5–54. 55–109. 110–153. Halliday, M.A.K. 1969. “Options and functions in the English clause.” Brno Studies in English 8: 81–88. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in English language. Volume 7 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 154–163. Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. “Language structure and language function.” In John Lyons (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 140–165. Halliday, M.A.K. 1971. “Linguistic function and literary style: An enquiry into the language of William Golding’s ‘The inheritors’.” In Seymor Chatman (ed.), Literary style: A symposium. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 330–368. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 88–125. Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.

214  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. “Ideas about language.” In Aims and perspectives in linguistics. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Papers 1). 32–49. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 92–115. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. “Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions.” In David J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (ed.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–79. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 196–218. Halliday, M.A.K. 1981a. “The origin and early development of Chinese phonological theory.” In R.E. Asher & Eugénie Henderson (eds.), Towards a history of phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 123–139. Halliday, M.A.K. 1981b. “Text semantics and clause grammar: Some patterns of realization.” Seventh LACUS Forum. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. 31–59. Reprinted as “Text semantics and clause grammar: How is a text like a clause?” in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 219–260. Halliday, M.A.K. 1984. “On the ineffability of grammatical categories.” In Alan Manning, Pierre Martin & Kim McCalla (eds.), Tenth LACUS Forum. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. 3–18. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 291–322. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. “It’s a fixed word order language is English.” ITL Review of Applied Linguistics: 67–68, 91–116. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in English language. Volume 7 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 213–231. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985b. Spoken and written language. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985c. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1987a. “Language and the order of nature.” In Nigel Fabb, Derek Attridge, Alan Durant & Colin MacCabe (eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 135–154. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 116–138. Halliday, M.A.K. 1987b. “Spoken and written modes of meaning.” In Rosalind Horowitz & S. Jay Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. New York: Academic Press. 55–82.

Language description, comparison and typology  215 Halliday, M.A.K. 1988. “On the language of physical science.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. London & New York: Pinter. 162–178. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2004. The language of science. Volume 5 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 140–158. Halliday, M.A.K. 1990. “New ways of meaning: A challenge to applied linguistics.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 6 (Ninth World Congress of Applied Linguistics Special Issue): 7–36. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 139–174. Halliday, M.A.K. 1991a. “Towards probabilistic interpretations.” In Eija Ventola (ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 39–61. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Computational and quantitative studies. Volume 6 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 42–62. Halliday, M.A.K. 1991b. “The notion of ‘context’ in language education.” In Thao Lê & Mike McCausland (eds.), Interaction and development: Proceedings of the international conference, Vietnam, 30 March – 1 April 1991. Launceston: University of Tasmania. 1–26. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2007. Language and education. Volume 9 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 269–290. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992a. “A systemic interpretation of Peking syllable finals.” In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Pinter. 98–121. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in Chinese language. Volume 8 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 294–320. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992b. “Systemic grammar and the concept of a ‘science of language’.” Waiguoyu (Journal of Foreign Languages, Shanghai International Studies University) 2: 1–9. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 199–212. Halliday, M.A.K. 1993a. “Analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese.” In Keqi Hao, Hermann Bluhme & Renzhi Li (eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on texts and language research. Xi’an: Xi’an Jiaotong University Press. 90–97. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday & J.R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer. 124–132. Halliday, M.A.K. 1993b. “Towards a language-based theory of learning.” Linguistics and Education 5(2): 93–116. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2004. The language of early childhood. Volume 4 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 327–352. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. “Language and the theory of codes.” In Alan Sadovnik (ed.), Knowledge and pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 124–142. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2007. Language and society. Volume 10 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 231–246. Halliday, M.A.K. 1996. “On grammar and grammatics.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory into

216  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–38. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 384–417. Halliday, M.A.K. 1998. “On the grammar of pain.” Functions of Language 5(1): 1–32. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Studies in English language. Volume 7 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 306–337. Halliday, M.A.K. 2003a. The language of early childhood. Volume 4 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. 2003b. “Written language, standard language, global language.” World Englishes 22(4): 405–418. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2006. The handbook of world Englishes. Edited by Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru & Cecil L. Nelson. Oxford: Blackwell. 349–365. Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. Computational and quantitative studies. Volume 6 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. 2005. “On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(1): 59–82. Halliday, M.A.K. 2006. “The gloosy ganoderm: Systemic Functional Linguistics and translation.” Talk at The Halliday Centre for Intelligent Applications of Language Studies, City University of Hong Kong, 5 December 2006. Published as M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. “The gloosy ganoderm: Systemic Functional Linguistics and translation.” Chinese Translators Journal [中国翻译] 1: 17–26. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2013. Halliday in the 21st century. Volume 11 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 105–126. Halliday, M.A.K. 2008. Complementarities in language. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 2010a. “Pinpointing the choice: Meaning and the search for equivalents in a translated text.” In Ahmar Mahboob & Naomi K. Knight (eds.), Appliable linguistics. London & New York: Continuum. 13–24. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2013. Halliday in the 21st century. Volume 11 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 143–154. Halliday, M.A.K. 2010b. “Language evolving: Some systemic functional reflections on the history of meaning.” Manuscript of plenary given at ISFC 37, UBC Vancouver, Canada, July 2010. Published as M.A.K. Halliday. 2013. Halliday in the 21st century. Volume 11 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Bloomsbury. 237–253. Halliday, M.A.K. 2013. “Meaning as choice.” In Gerald O’Grady, Tom Bartlett & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Choice in language: Applications in text analysis. London & Oakville: Equinox. 15–36. Halliday, M.A.K. 2014. “That ‘certain cut’: Towards a characterology of Mandarin Chinese.” Functional Linguistics 1(2): 1–20.

Language description, comparison and typology  217 Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 2006. “Retrospective on SFL and literacy.” In Rachel Whittaker, Mick O’Donnell & Anne McCabe (eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches. London & New York: Continuum. 15–44. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Cassell. Reprinted as M.A.K. Halliday & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2006. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Continuum. Chinese translation: Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2022. 通过意义识解经验— 基于语言的认知研究 [Construing experience through meaning: A languagebased approach to cognition] (Trans. Juyuan Li [李桔元], Haiye Chen [陈海叶], Zhihui Shang [尚智慧] & Hongyan Li [李鸿雁]). 杭州 [Hangzhou]: 浙江工商大学出版社 [Zhejiang Gongshang University Press]. Halliday, M.A.K. & Edward McDonald. 2004. “Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 253–305. Halliday, M.A.K., Angus McIntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner. 2012. Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair EnglishGerman. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Harari, Yuval Noah. 2015. Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. New York: HarperCollins. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrington, Jonathan, Sallyanne Palethorpe & Catherine I. Watson. 2000. “Does the Queen speak the Queen’s English: Elizabeth II’s traditional pronunciation has been influenced by modern trends.” Nature 408: 927–928. Harrison, K. David. 2007. When languages die: The extinction of the world’s languages and the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1973. “Code, register and social dialect.” In Basil Bernstein (ed.), Class, codes and control: Applied studies towards a sociology of language: Volume 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 253–292. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1984. “Ways of saying: Ways of meaning.” In M.A.K. Halliday, Robin P. Fawcett, Sydney Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture. London: Frances Pinter. 105–162. Reprinted in Ruqaiya Hasan. 1996. Ways of saying: Ways of meaning: Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Carmel Cloran, David Butt & Geoffrey Williams. London: Cassell. 191–242. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1987. “The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar.” In M.A.K. Halliday & Robin P. Fawcett (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics: Volume 1: Theory and description. London: Pinter. 184–211. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1989. “Semantic variation and sociolinguistics.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 9: 221–275.

218  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2009. Semantic variation: Meaning in society and sociolinguistics. Volume 2 in the Collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Equinox. Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. “The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?” Science 298: 1569–1579. Heath, Jeffrey. 1984. Functional grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2009. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickmann, Maya & Stéphane Robert (eds.). 2006. Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hockett, Charles F. 1960. “The origin of speech.” Scientific American 203: 88– 111. Reprinted in Charles F. Hockett. 1982. In William S.-Y. Wang (ed.), Human communication: Language and its psychobiological bases: Readings from Scientific American. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. 4–12. Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Revised edition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse.” Language 56: 251–299. Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1982. Studies in transitivity. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hori, Motoko. 2006. “Pain expressions in Japanese.” In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections. London & Oakville: Equinox. 206–225. House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2021. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howes, David (ed.). 1991. The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses. Toronto, Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press. Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Huumo, Tuomas. 2016. “The grammar of temporal motion: A cognitive grammar account of motion metaphors of time.” Cognitive Linguistics 28(1): 1–43. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jäger, Gerhard & Søren Wichmann. 2016. “Inferring the world tree of languages from word lists.” In Sean G. Roberts, C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. BarcelóCoblijn, O. Feher & T. Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference (EVOLANG11).

Language description, comparison and typology  219 Johansson, Niklas Erben, Andrey Anikin, Gerd Carling & Arthur Holmer. 2020. “The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features.” Linguistic Typology 24(2): 253–310. Johnson, Allen W. & Timothy Earle. 2000. The evolution of human societies: From foraging group to agrarian state. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Joo, Ian. 2020. “Phonosemantic biases found in Leipzig-Jakarta lists of 66 languages.” Linguistic Typology 24(1): 1–12. Kaplan, Ronald & Joan Bresnan. 1982. “Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation.” In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 173–281. Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar. 2019. “Language typology.” In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schöntal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 767–792. Keenan, Edward L. 1976a. “Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’.” In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 303–333. Keenan, Edward L. 1976b. “Remarkable subjects in Malagasy.” In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 247–301. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. Kenny, Charles. 2012. Getting better: Why global development is succeeding – and how we can improve the world even more. 2nd edition. New York: Basic Books. Kim, Mira. 2007. A discourse based study on theme in Korean and textual meaning in translation. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Kiss, Katalin É. (ed.). 1995. Identificational focus versus information focus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koch, Harold. 1984. “The category of ‘associated motion’ in Kaytej.” Language in Central Australia 1: 23–34. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2006. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krishnamurti, Jiddu & David Bohm. 1999. The limits of thought: Discussions. London & New York: Routledge. Kronenfeld, David. 1996. Plastic glasses and church fathers: Semantic extension from the ethnoscience tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kuhl, Patricia K. 2010. “Brain mechanism in early language acquisition.” Neuron 67(5): 713–727. Kumar, Abhishek. 2009. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Bajjika. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Kunz, Kerstin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, José Manuel Martínez Martínez, Katrin Menzel & Erich Steiner. 2021. GECCo – German-English contrasts in cohesion: Insights from corpus-based studies of languages, registers and modes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lane, Jonathan. 2007. Kalam serial verb constructions. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

220  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Lantolf, James. 2010. “Minding your hands: The function of gesture in L2 learning.” In Robert Batstone (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 131–150. Laughren, Mary. 1989. “The configurationality parameter and Warlpiri.” In Laszlo Maracz & Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris. 319–353. Lascaratou, Chryssoula. 2007. The language of pain: Expression or description? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lavid, Julia. 2000. “Cross-cultural variation in multilingual instructions: A study of speech act realisation patterns.” In Eija Ventola (ed.), Discourse and community: Doing functional linguistics. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag. 71–85. Lavid, Julia, Jorge Arús & Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla. 2010. Systemic Functional Grammar of Spain: A contrastive study with English. London & New York: Continuum. Lee, Penny. 1996. The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lee, Jackson L. & John A. Goldsmith. 2016. “Linguistica 5: Unsupervised learning of linguistic structure.” Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2016 (Demonstrations): 22–26. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL & London: The University of Chicago Press. Levinson, Stephen C. & David P. Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levshina, Natalia & Steven Moran. 2021. “Efficiency in human languages: Corpus evidence for universal principles.” Linguistics Vanguard 7(s3): 20200081. Li, Eden Sum-hung. 2003. A text-based study of the grammar of Chinese from a systemic functional approach. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Li, Eden Sum-hung. 2007. Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese: A text-based analysis. London & New York: Continuum. Lieberman, Philip. 1984. The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lieberman, Daniel E. 2013. The story of the human body: Evolution, health, and disease. New York: Pantheon Books. Lieberman, Philip. 2000. Human language and our reptilian brain: The subcortical bases of speech, syntax, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964. “The structural analysis of kinship semantics.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 1073–1093. Reprinted in Stephen A. Tyler (ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 193–212. Lovelock, James. 1991. Gaia: The practical science of planetary medicine. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. McCawley, James D. 1970. “English as a VSO language.” Language 46(2, Part 1): 286–299. McDonald, Edward. 1998. Clause and verbal group systems in Chinese: A textbased functional approach. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Language description, comparison and typology  221 McGregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Majid, Asifa & Nicole Kruspe. 2018. “Hunter-Gatherer Olfaction is special.” Current Biology 28: 409–413. Martin, J.R. 1983. “Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 45–74. Martin, J.R. 1988. “Grammatical conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, face and fate – with reference to Benjamin Lee Whorf.” In Michael J. Cummings, William S. Greaves & James D. Benson (eds.), Linguistics in a systemic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 243–300. Martin, J.R. 1990. “Interpersonal grammaticalisation: Mood and modality in Tagalog.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 2–51. Martin, J.R. 1992. English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Martin, J.R. 1996. “Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text.” In Eduard Hovy & Donia Scott (eds.), Burning issues in discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective. Heidelberg: Springer. 39–66. Martin, J.R. 2004. “Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 255–304. Martin, J.R. 2013. Systemic Functional Grammar: A next step into the theory – axial relations. (Chinese translation by Pin Wang & Yongsheng Zhu.) Beijing: Higher Education Press. Martin, J.R. & Priscilla Angela T. Cruz. 2019. “Relational processes in Tagalog: A systemic functional linguistic perspective.” In Kumaran Rajandran & Shakila Abdul Manan (eds.), Discourses of Southeast Asia: A social semiotic perspective. Singapore: Springer. 225–251. Martin, J.R., Y.J. Doran & Giacomo Figueredo (eds.). 2020. Systemic functional language description: Making meaning matter. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Martin, J.R., Beatriz Quiroz, Giacomo Figueredo (eds.). 2020. Interpersonal grammar: Systemic functional linguistic theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, J.R., Beatriz Quiroz & Ping Wang. 2023. Systemic Functional Grammar: A text-based description of English, Spanish and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, Samuel E. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean: A complete guide to the grammar and history of the Korean language. Rutland, VT & Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle. Martinec, Radan. 2003. “The social semiotics of text and image in Japanese and English software manuals and other procedures.” Social Semiotics 13(1): 43–69. Martinet, André. 1962. A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Martinet, André. 1970. La linguistique synchronique: Études et recherches. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Mathesius, Vilém. 1929. “Zur Satzperspektive in modernen Englisch.” Archiv f. das Studium der neueren Sprachen un, Litteraturnen 145: 202–210.

222  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Mathesius, Vilém. 1975. A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis (Translated by Libuše Dušková. Edited by Josef Vachek). The Hague: Mouton. Matsumoto, Katsumi. 1991. “On ‘subject’.” GENGO KENKYU [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan] 100: 1–41. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987. Notes on Akan lexicogrammar: A systemic interpretation. MS. To appear in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. forthcoming. Volume 3 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya. Sheffield: Equinox. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1988. “Representational issues in Systemic Functional Grammar.” In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic functional perspectives on discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 136–175. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1991. “Metafunctional complementarity and resonance in syntagmatic organization.” MS. To appear in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. forthcoming. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 2. Volume 2 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya & Diana Slade. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox. Chapter 5. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1992. “Interpreting the textual metafunction.” In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice. London: Pinter. 37–82. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. “Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter. 221–292. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1999. “The system of TRANSITIVITY: An exploratory study of text-based profiles.” Functions of Language 6(1): 1–51. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2001. “The environments of translation.” In Erich Steiner & Colin Yallop (eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–124. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. “Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view.” In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 237–322. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004a. “Descriptive motifs and generalizations.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 537–673. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004b. “The evolution of language: A systemic functional exploration of phylogenetic phases.” In Geoff Williams & Annabelle Lukin (eds.), Language development: Functional perspectives on evolution and ontogenesis. London: Continuum. 45–90. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2006. “Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report.” In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections. London: Equinox. 103–142. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007a. “The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional theory: developments since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya

Language description, comparison and typology  223 Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language (volume 2). London: Equinox. 505–561. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007b. “The lexicogrammar of emotion and attitude in English”. Published in electronic proceedings based on contributions to the Third International Congress on English Grammar (ICEG 3), Sona College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India, January 23–27, 2006. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2014a. “Choice in translation: Metafunctional considerations.” In Kerstin Kunz, Elke Teich, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Peggy Daut (eds.), Caught in the middle – language use and translation: A festschrift for Erich Steiner on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press. 271–333. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2014b. “Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes.” Functions of Language 21(2): 139–175. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “Halliday on language.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 137–202. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 222–287. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Halliday’s conception of language as a probabilistic system.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 203–241. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015c. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015d. “The language of space: Semiotic resources for construing our experience of space.” Japanese Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics 8: 1–64. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015e. “The language of space: Semiotic resources for construing our experience of space.” Japanese Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics 8: 1–64. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2018. “The notion of a multilingual meaning potential: A systemic exploration.” In Akila Sellami-Baklouti & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 90–120. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2019. “Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Register Studies 1(1): 10–41. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2021a. “The architecture of phonology according to Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Sheffield: Equinox. 288–338. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2021b. “Translation, multilingual text production and cognition viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Fabio

224  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Alves & Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 517–544. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2023a. “Afterword: Describing languages systemicfunctionally.” In J.R. Martin, Beatriz Quiroz & Pin Wang. Systemic Functional Grammar: A text-based description of English, Spanish and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 382–401. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2023b. System in Systemic Functional Linguistics: A system-based theory of language. Sheffield: Equinox. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. forthcoming. The architecture of language according to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Book MS. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Bilingual edition, with introduction and translation by Huang Guowen. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2016. “Registerial hybridity: Indeterminacy among fields of activity.” In Donna R. Miller & Paul Bayley (eds.), Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Grammar, text and discursive context. Sheffield: Equinox. 205–239. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2023. Systemic Functional Linguistics: A complete guide. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Jorge Arús-Hita & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2021. “Translations of representations of moving and saying from English into Spanish.” WORD 67(2): 188–207. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Canzhong Wu. 2008. “Multilingual studies as a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies. London & New York: Continuum. 146–220. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma. 2019. “Matthiessen on Halliday: An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (part I).” Language, Context and Text 1(2): 366–387. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Isaac N. Mwinlaaru & Yuanyi Ma. 2018. “‘The axial rethink’ – making sense of language: An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” Functional Linguistics 5(8): 1–19. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru. 2022. Systemic functional insights on language and linguistics. Singapore: Springer. Meillet, Antoine. 1912. “L’évolution des formes grammaticales.” Scientia: Rivista internazionale di sintesi scientifica 12: 384–400. Reprinted in Antoine Meillet. 1982. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion. 130–148. Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing language typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muhamedowa, Raihan. 2016. Kazakh: A comprehensive grammar. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Munro, Pamela. 2013. “Word order.” In Silcia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to syntax. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 118–142.

Language description, comparison and typology  225 Murcia-Bielsa, Susana. 2000. “The choice of directives expressions in English and Spanish instructions: A semantic network.” In Eija Ventola (ed.), Discourse and community: Doing functional linguistics. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 117–146. Mwinlaaru, Isaac Nuokyaa-Ire. 2017. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Dagaare. PhD thesis, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Mwinlaaru, Isaac, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Ernest Akerejola. 2018. “A system-based typology of mood in African languages.” In Augustine Agwuele & Adam Bodomo (eds.), The Routledge handbook of African languages. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 93–117. Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Winfred Wenhui Xuan. 2016. “A survey of studies in systemic functional language description and typology.” Functional Linguistics 3(8): 1–41. Nanri, Keizo. 1993. An attempt to synthesize two systemic contextual theories through the investigation of the process of the evolution of the discourse semantic structure of the newspaper reporting article. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesbitt, Christopher N. & Guenter Plum. 1988. “Probabilities in a systemic grammar: The clause complex in English.” In Robin P. Fawcett & David Young (ed.), New developments in systemic linguistics, vol. 2: Theory and application. London: Frances Pinter. 6–39. Nettle, Daniel & Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. “Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar.” Language 62: 56–119. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2018. “General introduction: The scope and the brief history of linguistic typology.” In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Linguistic typology: Volume I: Historical and theoretical context. London & New York: Routledge. 1–24. Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler. 2004. “Tense beyond the verb: Encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 597–641. Ochi, Ayako. 2013. A text-based study of the interpersonal grammar of modern Japanese: Mood, modality and evidentiality. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. O’Grady, Gerald, Tom Bartlett & Lise Fontaine (eds.). 2013. Choice in language: Applications in text analysis. London & Oakville: Equinox. Ong, Walter J. 1967. “The shifting sensorium.” In Walter J. Ong. The presence of the word: Some prolegomena for cultural and religious history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1–9. Reprinted in Walter J. Ong. 1991. David Howes (ed.), The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 25–30. Pagel, Mark. 2000. “The history, rate and pattern of world linguistic evolution.” In Chris Knight, Michael Studdert-Kennedy & James Hurford (eds.), The

226  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen evolutionary emergence of language: Social function and the origins of linguistic form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 391–416. Patpong, Pattama. 2005. A systemic functional interpretation of Thai grammar: An exploration of Thai narrative discourse. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Pawley, Andrew. 1966. The structure of Kalam: A grammar of a New Guinea Highlands language. PhD thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland. Pawley, Andrew. 1987. “Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience.” In Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 329–361. Pawley, Andrew. 2008. “On the origins of serial verb constructions in Kalam, or, what are clauses good for?” For 12th Biennial Rice University Linguistics Symposium, 27–29 March 2008. Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. London & New York: Routledge. Ramer, Alexis Manaster. 1994. “The origin of the term ‘ergative’.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung : STUF 47(3): 211–236. Reid, Thomas B.W. 1956. “Linguistics, structuralism, philology.” Archivum Linguisticum 8: 28–37. Robins, R.H. 1974. “Theory-orientation versus data-orientation: A recurrent theme in linguistics.” Historiographia Linguistica 1(1): 11–26. Rose, David. 2001. “Some variations in theme across languages.” Functions of Language 8(1): 109–145. Rose, David. 2005. “Narrative and the origins of discourse: Construing experience in stories around the world.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 151–173. Röthlisberger, Melanie & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2020. “Dialect typology: Recent advances.” In Stanley D. Brunn & Roland Kehrein (eds.), Handbook of the changing world language map. Cham: Springer. 131–156. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schachter, Paul. 1976. “The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actortopic, or none of the above.” In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 491–518. Schachter, Paul. 1977. “Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects.” In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. 279–306. Schachter, Paul. 1996. “The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above.” UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15: 1–61. Schwabe, Kerstin & Susanne Winkler (eds.). 2007a. On information structure, meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schwabe, Kerstin & Susanne Winkler. 2007b. “On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages.” In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–29. Seuren, Pieter A.M. 1998. Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Language description, comparison and typology  227 Seuren, Pieter A.M. 2004. Chomsky’s minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi & Theodora Bynon (eds.). 1995. Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007a. Language typology and syntactic description: Volume 1, clause structure. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007b. Language typology and syntactic description: Volume 2, complex constructions. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007c. Language typology and syntactic description: Volume 3, grammatical categories and the lexicon. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, Jane. 2007. “Expressing pragmatic constraints on word order in Warlpiri.” In Annie Zaenen (ed.), Architecture, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan Bresnan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 491–514. Slade, Diana M. 1996. The texture of casual conversation in English. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Slobin, Dan I. 1987. “Thinking for speaking.” In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 435–445. Slobin, Dan I. 2004. “The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events.” In Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Volume 2, typological and contextual perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 219–257. Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Steiner, Erich. 1988. “Focus and diathesis.” EUROTRA reference manual 5.0: 414–425. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities. Steiner, Erich. 1991. A functional perspective on language, action and interpretation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stewart, J.M. 1963. “Some restrictions on objects in Twi.” Journal of African Languages 2: 145–149. Sussex, Roland. 2009. “The language of pain in applied linguistics: Review article of Chryssoula Lascaratou’s The language of pain.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics [ARAL] 32(1): 06.1–06.14. Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton. Swartz, Stephen. 1982. “Syntactic structure of Warlpiri clauses.” In S. Swartz (ed.), Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In Memory of Lothar Jagst. Darwin: SIL. 69–127. Swartz, Stephen. 1991. Constraints on zero anaphora and word order in Warlpiri narrative text. Darwin: SIL. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalisation patterns.” In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–149. Talmy, Leonard. 2007. “Lexical typologies.” In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 66–168.

228  Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Teich, Elke. 1999. “System-oriented and text-oriented comparative linguistic research: Cross-linguistic variation in translation.” Languages in Contrast 2(2): 187–210. Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Teruya, Kazuhiro. 1998. An exploration into the world of experience: A systemicfunctional interpretation of the grammar of Japanese. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2004. “Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Japanese.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 185–254. Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese. 2 volumes. London & New York: Continuum. Teruya, Kazuhiro, Ernest Akerejola, Thomas H. Andersen, Alice Caffarel, Julia Lavid, Christian Matthiessen, Uwe Helm Petersen, Pattama Patpong & Flemming Smedegaard. 2007. “Typology of MOOD: A text-based and systembased functional view.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (volume 2). London: Equinox. 859–920. Teruya, Kazuhiro & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. “Halliday in relation to language comparison and typology.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London: Bloomsbury. 427–452. Thai, Minh Duc. 1998. A systemic functional interpretation of Vietnamese grammar. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1942. On growth and form. New edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul Hopper. 2001. “Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation.” In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 27–60. Tozzer, Alfred M. 1921. A Maya grammar. Republished in 1977. New York: Dover. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1997. “The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization.” Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester 1995 Version of 11/97. Published as “Le rôle de l’évolution des marqueurs discursifs dans une théorie de la grammaticalization.” In M.M. Jocelyne FernandezVest & Shirley Carter-Thomas (eds.), Structure informationallée et particules énonciatives: Essai de typologie. Paris: L’Harmattan. 295–333. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization: Volume 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux au Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. Prague. Translated into English as N.S. Trubetzkoy. 1969. Principles of phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Vachek, Josef. 1980. “Vilém Mathesius as forerunner of contrastive linguistic studies. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 5–16. Versteegh, Kees & C.H.M. Versteegh. 2014. The Arabic language. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Language description, comparison and typology  229 Viberg, Åke. 1984. “The verbs of perception: A typological study.” In Brian Butterworth, Bernard Comrie & Östen Dahl (eds.), Explanations for language universals. The Hague: Mouton. 123–162. von Uexküll, Jakob. 1934 [2010]. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning (Trans. Joseph D. O’Neill). Minneapolis, MN & London: University of Minnesota Press. Wang, Bo & Yuanyi Ma. 2021. Systemic functional translation studies: Theoretical insights and new directions. Sheffield: Equinox. Wang, Bo & Yuanyi Ma. forthcoming. “Christian Matthiessen and translation viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma (eds.), Theorizing and developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Watters, David E. 2006. Notes on Kusunda grammar: A language isolate of Nepal. With the participation of Yogendra P. Yadava, Madhav P. Pokharel & Balaram Prasain. Kathmandu: National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities. Weber, David J. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Weber, David J. & William C. Mann. 1981. “Prospectus for computer-assisted dialect adaptation.” American Journal of Computational Linguistics 7(3): 165–177. Welmers, William E. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Westermann, Diedrich. 1907. Grammatik der Ewe-Sprache. Berlin: Dietrich Reimar (Ernst Vohsen). Westermann, Diedrich. 1930. A study of the Ewe language. London: Oxford University Press. Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. London: Sage. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wiessner, Polly W. 2014. “Embers of society: Firelight talk among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen.” PNAS 111(39): 14027–14035. Yong, Ed. 2022. An immense world: How animal senses reveal the hidden realms around us. New York: Random House. Zhang, Dongbing. 2020. Negotiating interpersonal meaning in Khorchin Mongolian: Discourse and grammar. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Zhang, Dongbing. 2021. “Interpersonal grammar in Khorchin Mongolian.” In J.R. Martin, Beatriz Quiroz & Giacomo Figueredo (eds.), Interpersonal grammar: Systemic functional linguistic theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 64–95. Zipf, George Kingsley. 1936. The psychobiology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press. Zwiebach, Barton. 2009. A first course in string theory. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5

On language and linguistics in health Christian Matthiessen and health communication research Neda Karimi

Health communication has been a recurring area of engagement in Christian Matthiessen’s rich and diverse work in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and his work on medical discourse and his contribution to health communication research are vastly known to systemic functional linguists. This body of work, which addresses some of the existing gaps in the literature of health communication research, deserves more attention from the wider community of health communication researchers as well as researchers in medicine. In this chapter, I summarize Matthiessen’s contributions to this area. I take an applied approach to synthesize and position Matthiessen’s work within the broader health communication literature and describe how his work has been or can be translated into research that benefits communities and improves lives. 5.1 Text generation and health reports Matthiessen’s contribution to health communication research goes back to over 20 years ago when his team within the Systemic Meaning Modelling Group at Macquarie University, Sydney, conducted translational research to generate multimodal reports on communicable diseases. In a collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO)1 in Canberra, the Systemic Meaning Modelling Group provided the meaning base for the generation of regular multimodal reports on communicable disease (Matthiessen et al., 1998). In collaboration with researchers at other institutions in Australia, Germany, and Japan, the Systemic Meaning Modelling Group developed a system called Multex that generates multilingual and multimodal presentations based on the principles of systemic functional theory. Multex processes data into meaningful information in the form of multilingual and multimodal contents. It is a grammar-centric generation system, i.e. it has full knowledge of grammar and builds “complex lexicogrammatical DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-7

Matthiessen and health communication  231 structures by ‘executing’ the grammar” (Matthiessen et al., 1998: 229). Multex is discourse-oriented and generates on the basis of texts rather than sentences. It has a self-contained linguistic engine called the Meaning Base. The Meaning Base contains multilingual linguistic systems (e.g. the lexicogrammar and semantics of English, Chinese, and Japanese), multimodal resources for the creation of maps, tables, and charts, and multiple domain models (e.g. knowledge about communicable disease and tourism). In addition to the Meaning Base, Multex has a set of natural language processing (NLP) processes. An NLP process, in Matthiessen et al.’s (1998: 230) words, is “an application or a service that performs some NLP functionality for the information consumer by drawing on the resources in the Meaning Base”. The development of Multex was guided by a study of a corpus of World Health Organization (WHO)’s Weekly Epidemiological Reports (WERs) by Matthiessen and his team with the aim of integrating the meanings of images (maps and graphs) and texts in English (Matthiessen, 2006, 2009). Multex has been applied in conjunction with another system called HINTS to generate multimodal reports on communicable disease. HINTS was designed by DSTO with contributions from the Systemic Meaning Modelling Group at Macquarie University to process information concerning communicable diseases. In the HINTS-Multex arrangement, Multex provides the meaning base for HINTS and generates reports based on the information extracted by HINTS. For example, when a user wants to generate a report on outbreaks of Ebola in a certain region over a certain period of time, they can retrieve all the related documents from an existing collection or an online source and ask HINTS to prepare a summary and extract facts using the Fact Extractor (Wallis & Chase, 1997). Fact Extractor uses a set of templates for extracting information from the collection of documents that are derived from Multex’s Meaning Base. The extracted information along with a meaning request is passed over to Multex where the information is processed and a report is generated with an additional feature that allows the user to include additional information if required, making it what Matthiessen et al. (1998: 236) refer to as “a writer’s tool”. HINTS and Multex were designed to help health officers with the regular production of reports and briefings during the Ebola outbreak in the 1990s and in the context of the rapid flow of information. These tools are still relevant more than ever in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The multilingual feature of Multex is of great importance as it allows the generation of reports in languages other than English. Similarly important is Multex’s multimodal feature which allows it to produce multimodal reports including charts and labeled maps based on information extracted from written texts.

232  Neda Karimi 5.2 A socio-semiotic framework for conceptualizing patientcentered care 5.2.1 Patient-centered care

Since its introduction in Enid Balint’s (1969) paper, patient-centered care has been explored and conceptualized in theoretical work and interpreted in empirical studies through the use of diverse measures. Patient-centered care is a popular but at the same time ambiguous concept, particularly when it comes to its measurement. Researchers have proposed conceptual frameworks that are more or less different in their components of a patient-centered model. Brown, Stewart, and Tessier’s (1995) Patient-Centered Clinical Model (PCCM) includes six interactive components for patient-centered care: • Exploring both the disease and the illness experience including the patient’s ideas about the disease, their feelings including fear, the impact of illness on their functioning, and their expectation about what needs to be done; • Understanding the whole person: understanding the patient’s disease and their experience in the context of their life setting and stage of personal development; • Finding common grounds regarding management and reaching agreement on the nature of the problems and priorities, the goals of treatment, and the roles of the doctor and the patient; • Incorporating prevention and health promotion to enhance health, reduce risk, ensure early detection of disease, and improve disease outcomes; • Enhancing the patient-doctor relationship through enhancing the therapeutic relationship over time, empathy and caring, self-awareness, and sharing power; • Being realistic in terms of time, resources, and team building. Bauman, Fardy, and Harris (2003) suggest similar principles but with less emphasis on doctor-patient relationship, prevention and health promotion, and planning around the availability of resources in their model. Instead, their model emphasizes the centrality of multidisciplinary teams in a patient-centered model. The principles of patient-centered care in Bauman, Fardy, and Harris’s (2003) model include: • Exploring what patients think, believe, and expect, and their confidence about their disease management; • Exploring the social supports, social and family influences, and physical environment in which people live, which may influence their health and illness;

Matthiessen and health communication  233 • Applying the principles of behavior change: discuss the disease management plan, individualize patient education, and plan for change to occur in stages; • Working with teams of healthcare providers, community agencies, and support groups. Taking a systematic literature review approach and using Walker and Avant’s (2005) method of concept analysis, which looks at the most frequently associated attributes of a concept as their method of analysis, Morgan and Yoder (2012) identified the key characteristics of patient-centered care in a post-acute healthcare setting. The researchers suggest “holistic”, “individualized”, “respectful”, and “empowering” as the attributes of patient-centered care in the literature. By “holistic” they mean a model that considers the biological, social, psychological, and spiritual aspects of an individual. Being “individualized”, according to the researcher, has been the most frequently acknowledged attribute of patient-centered care and entails the consideration of the unique needs, preferences, and concerns of the patient rather than institutional standards or routines. A “respectful” care is one that respects the patient’s values, their right to have choices, and their agency in making decisions regarding their care. Finally, the attribute “empowering” is related to medical care that encourages patient autonomy and agency in decision-making. The characteristics of patient-centered care, as suggested in Morgan and Yoder (2012) based on their review of 50 articles, have overlapped with those outlined in the previously described models; however, a complete agreement cannot be established. Mead and Bower (2000) propose five key dimensions to patient-centered care: biopsychosocial perspective, the “patient-as-person”, sharing power and responsibility, the therapeutic alliance, and the “doctor-as-person”. The biopsychosocial dimension involves a combined biological, psychological, and social perspective towards illness to account for the full range of problems experienced by the patient. The “patient-as-person” dimension views the understanding of the personal meaning of an illness for a patient to be relevant to medicine. For example, a hand injury will not be experienced in the same way by a musician or a surgeon compared with an office worker. Sharing power and responsibility entails a view of the patient as an active and informed participant with the right to full information, involvement in decision-making, and treatment with respect rather than a passive recipient of medical care. The therapeutic alliance dimension is about the value of the doctor-patient relationship and its role in mediating positive outcomes including patient satisfaction, patient quality of life, and clinical outcomes. Finally, the “doctor-as-person” dimension concerns the influence of the doctor’s subjectivity, emotions, and personal qualities on the doctor-patient relationship.

234  Neda Karimi Epstein et al. (2005) define “patient-centeredness” as a moral philosophy with the following core values adapted from McWhinney (1995): • Considering patients’ needs, wants, perspectives, and individual experiences; • Offering patients opportunities to provide input into and participate in their care; • Enhancing partnership and understanding in the patient-physician relationship. In Epstein et al. (2005), the authors refer to patient-centered care as actions in service of patient-centeredness, including interpersonal and infrastructural factors. Further, they define patient-centered communication as a concept that promotes patient-centeredness; is influenced by patient, clinician, relationship, and health system factors; and includes: • Eliciting and understanding the patient’s perspective (concerns, ideas, expectations, needs, feelings, and functioning); • Understanding the patient within his or her unique psychosocial context; • Reaching a shared understanding of the problem and its treatment with the patient that is concordant with the patient’s values; • Helping patients to share power and responsibility by involving them in choices to the degree that they wish. A challenge in ascertaining whether and to what degree patient-centered care is implemented in practice is variations in the available measures of patient-centered care, the disconnect between the theoretical models, and the quantification of the different aspects of patient-centered care. According to Epstein et al. (2005), most tools focus on the contribution of clinicians to patient-centered communication with very few measuring the effect of relationships, health systems, and patients on how patient-centered communication can take place. Mead and Bower (2000) have to some extent addressed the issue of the disconnect between theory and measure by coding the existing measures in terms of the patient-centered care component(s) they address based on their conceptual model. Although the authors acknowledge that their conceptual model “does not map neatly onto some of the measures” (Mead & Bower, 2000: 1104) and that it is difficult to relate “non-specific verbal behaviours”, such as information provision or question asking, to a specific higher-order concept as they may be interpreted to be relating to more than one dimension of patient-centered care. 5.2.2 Matthiessen’s (2013) socio-semiotic model

The main issue when it comes to measuring patient-centered care, however, seems to be a theoretical issue rather than merely the disconnect

Matthiessen and health communication  235 between theory and measurement. Mead and Bower’s (2000) conceptual framework and many other theoretical frameworks for patient-centered care do not account for the link between the contextual elements (aspects of patient-centered care), on the one hand, and the verbal realizations of those contextual elements, on the other hand, in a systematic way. This gap is addressed in Matthiessen’s (2013) socio-semiotic description of patient and patient-centered care, which is a less-known model in the general literature of health communication research. Matthiessen’s model has the advantage of systematically linking a higher-order cultural concept such as patient-centered care to more immediate contextual elements to semiotic choices made by social actors involved in a clinical situation type such as a medical encounter. In developing this model, Matthiessen (2013) drew on two collaborative research projects on communication in emergency departments of large hospitals in Australia and Hong Kong: the Emergency Department Communication (EDCOM) Project in Australia led by Diana Slade and a similar project based in Hong Kong led by Diana Slade and Christian Matthiessen. The model is based on the concept of the ordered typology of systems (Matthiessen, 2007; Matthiessen & Guo, 2020; Halliday, 1996, 2005; Matthiessen, 2009). The ordered typology of systems consists of physical systems (first-order systems), biological systems (secondorder systems), social systems (third-order systems), and semiotic systems (fourth-order systems). Biological systems are physical systems with the added component of “life”; social systems are biological systems with the added component of “social order” or “value”; and semiotic systems are social systems with the added component of meaning. In Matthiessen’s (2013) model of patient-centered care, patients are “organisms” or “species” (cf. Foucault, 1973) within the biological order of abstraction, “persons” within the social order of abstraction, and “meaning-makers” or “meaners” when viewed in a social-semiotic perspective. By considering patients as “meaners” (one who “means”), Matthiessen’s (2013) model draws attention to the semiotic roles that a patient plays in different communication networks. In a theoretical perspective, Matthiessen’s framework for the description of patient-centered care draws on Halliday’s concept of register (Halliday, 1977, 1978, 1985; see Chapter 2 in this volume) as Matthiessen described in his seminal 2013 paper (Matthiessen, 2013: 460): “the recognition that patients are not only organisms but also persons and meaners takes us back to the combination of field and tenor”. Register, as Halliday explained, is a semantic concept and “a configuration of meanings that are typically associated with a particular situational configuration of field, mode, and tenor” (Halliday, 1985: 38–39). Register analysis, which is the backbone of Matthiessen’s socio-semiotic framework for patient-centered

236  Neda Karimi care, involves analyses of different aspects of language from different vantage points (i.e. trinocular vision; see Halliday, 1978): “from above” by looking at the context, “from below” by looking at the grammar, and “from roundabout” by looking at the semantic options. Matthiessen’s (2013) framework for patient-centered care is, therefore, equipped with contextually sensitive tools for a thorough description of patient-centered care. It has the ability to link higher-order concepts such as the different aspects of patient-centered care to the interactions between patients and clinicians and their semiotic choices in a systematic way. In this framework, the study of patient-centered care does not stop at the level of social roles, as the study of the patient’s journey through the healthcare system does not stop at the level of institutional relationships, as will be discussed in Section 5.3. The framework considers meanings to be “intimately related to the definition of and perspective on humane clinical care”, to use Mishler’s (1984: 21) words. It models patient-centered care systematically within the consultation’s immediate and broader context (context of situation and context of culture, respectively) and in terms of the semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology of the occurring interactions. Further, unlike most previous models of patient-centered care (see Mead & Bower, 2000, for an overview), Matthiessen’s (2013) model accounts for both the patient’s and the doctor’s contribution. In other words, it is a contextually flexible framework that has the potential to model patient-centered care in a more detailed fashion compared with the previous frameworks. Patient-centered care, as I have tried to show in this section, is a complex theoretical concept involving various interrelated aspects with communication playing a key role as an overarching factor that operationalizes patient-centered care. As a result, a flexible and comprehensive model that accounts for contextual factors and that can model the role and contribution of the patient and the doctor as social actors and meaning-makers is crucial to understand how patient-centered care is operationalized in practice. A model that supports the changing and nuanced role relationship between clinicians and patients by situating doctor-patient interaction within the context of a network of institutional relationships (and interactions) and by factoring in the different layers of meaning in those interactions, such as that of Matthiessen’s, is crucial for conducting robust research on patient-centered care. Matthiessen’s (2013) socio-semiotic model, like similar models within the SFL tradition such as Moore’s account of shared decision-making (Moore, 2003, 2023) and Butt et al.’s (2010) linguistic measure of “fragmentation” in psychotherapy, has the capacity to situate the clinician-patient dialogue with all its intricacies within the broader cultural, institutional, and textual context that surrounds it. In the palliative oncology context,

Matthiessen and health communication  237 for example, the model has been shown to be helpful in describing patientcentered care by (a) investigating the concept from above and describing the activities performed by an oncologist that was patient-centered in her ideology and approach using Hasan’s networks of context (Karimi, Moore & Lukin, 2018); (b) looking at patient-centered care from roundabout and describing the semantics of information provision by the same oncologist using Hasan’s networks for providing information (Karimi, Moore & Lukin, 2020); and (c) by investigating patient-centered care from below and describing how the patients identified themselves and made sense of themselves through a transitivity-concordance analysis of patients’ contributions in the consultations (Karimi et al., 2018). 5.3 The patient journey and communication load In Section 5.2, I provide a brief overview of health communication research on patient-centered care and patient-centered communication, summarize the existing methodological gaps, introduce Matthiessen’s (2013) sociosemiotic model of patient-centered care, and describe how the model has the potential to address the existing gaps in the literature of patient-centered care. I argue that Matthiessen’s model, which draws on Halliday’s concept of register, addresses the current gaps in research on the measurement or description of patient-centered care by theorizing the patient (and the clinician) as “meaners” within the context of networks of institutions and interactions rather than coding snapshots of verbal behaviors (such as expression of sympathy, concern, or question) in a vacuum, as generally practiced in other methods. In this section, I describe a methodological approach to the analysis of the “patient journey” through the healthcare system based on the same theoretical principles that underpin Matthiessen’s (2013) model of patientcentered care. Analysis of the patient journey using this approach involves mapping the journey not just in terms of time, space, and institutional networks, but also in terms of the interactions that occur between the patient and the medical team. The practice of mapping the patient journey through the healthcare system, which is referred to as process mapping in the broader literature of health services research, is a type of clinical audit that enables us to illustrate, see, and understand patients’ overall experience in their perspective. It involves mapping the consecutive processes (including activities, interventions, interactions, etc.) that together make up the patient journey in a specific institutional setting (e.g. specialist outpatient department, primary care, hospital emergency department). The process in this sense has the following characteristics: (a) scope: a starting point and an end point; (b) a defined group of users (a group of patients with similar characteristics or needs); (c) a purpose; (d) rules governing the standard or quality of inputs;

238  Neda Karimi (e) links to other processes; and (f) differences in terms of length and complexity (NHS Institute of Innovation and Improvement, 2005). The aim of process mapping is to identify the systematic critical incidents, risks, and bottlenecks, as well as value-adding practices, and to improve the quality and efficiency of clinical management as well as the patient experience of care. There are various methods of collecting process-mapping data. Such data can be collected during a single multidisciplinary meeting or a series of meetings involving the clinical and administrative staff in a non-clinical environment (Trebble et al., 2010). In this method, each staff member describes the processes that involve them and the patient. The description provided by each member of the team forms a part of the patient journey map drawn and visualized during the meeting. Direct observation and walking the journey are other methods of data collection for process mapping (Peng et al., 2020). In the direct observation method, the researcher shadows the patient and takes notes of the processes involved in their journey. In the walking the journey method, the researcher follows the normal route of the patient’s journey and takes notes. Workshop interviews with patient and healthcare providers is another method of recreating the patient journey (Marshall et al., 2021). Process mapping can also be recorded by the patient in real time: patients taking notes of their journey. Information obtained during the data collection phase will form the raw data for the mapping phase in which the processes are combined and drawn (often by hand) onto paper (Trebble et al., 2010). All these different methods of investigating and illustrating the patient journey are useful for identifying the systematic critical incidents, risks, bottlenecks, as well as value-adding practices. However, they do not fully capture all the layers involved in the patient journey, including the communication processes. The first investigations of the patient journey that reported a systematic analysis of the communication processes patients engaged in as they travel through healthcare institutions were the EDCOM project and the subsequent Hong Kong-based research project that investigated communication in an accident and emergency department in Hong Kong (Slade, Manidis et al., 2015; Slade, Chandler et al., 2015). The researchers in both projects audio-recorded, mapped, and analyzed the clinical encounters that patients had during their visits to emergency departments. Figure 5.1 visualizes the encounters one patient, named Dulcie, had during a visit to the emergency department (see Slade et al., 2011). The number of encounters and the communication load experienced by the patient during the four-hour visit to the emergency department reveal the importance of accounting for communication when investigating the patient journey in a healthcare setting.

Figure 5.1  Encounters for Dulcie (adapted from Slade et al., 2011: 43)

Matthiessen and health communication  239

240  Neda Karimi

Figure 5.2  The location of a situation type in relation to a hospital as a cultural institution of healthcare (adapted from Matthiessen, 2013: 445)

Matthiessen (2013) describes the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of this socio-semiotic approach in analyzing the patient journey. Accordingly, this approach, which is grounded in Halliday’s concepts of register and his framework for the description of the architecture of language, characterizes the patient journey as sequences of situation types instantiating the cultural institution of healthcare (e.g. hospital) and the broader context of culture (Figure 5.2). At the same time, each situation type is realized in semantics and lexicogrammar. During their journey, patients encounter one situation after another with changes in the socio-semiotic processes as well as the personnel. Situating the patient journey within Halliday’s framework for the architecture of language allows for the analysis of the different layers of interactions (e.g. exchange structure, speech functions, and grammatical agency) at each individual situation type. 5.4 Building research capacity and mentorship The establishment of the International Research Center for Communication in Healthcare (IRCCH) provided the infrastructure for fostering health communication research guided by SFL and training and mentorship of early career researchers in this area. IRCCH is an internationally recognized health communication research center at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with members from over ten countries (Slade et al., 2014). Several emerging health communication researchers have received mentorship from Matthiessen within IRCCH, notably Jack Pun, Marvin Lam, Andy Fung, and Peijia Zhang. Pun, Lam, and Fung were on the research team of the Hong Kong Accident and Emergency Department communication project (Chandler

Matthiessen and health communication  241 et al., 2015; Slade, Chandler et al., 2015; Pun et al., 2015; Slade et al., 2014; Slade et al., 2016; Pun et al., 2017). Fung completed his PhD under Matthiessen’s supervision. Using data from the main Hong Kong-based communication project for his PhD project, Fung (2016, 2019) describes the semantics of clinical interaction in emergency department medical consultations and provides a description of their structure. He adapts Hasan’s (1983) semantic networks to Cantonese for the description of the semantics of the consultations and applies Hasan’s Generic Structure Potential (GSP) (Hasan, 1985, 1996) to the analysis of the structure of the consultations. Fung’s account of the structure of emergency department consultations in Hong Kong is very similar to the generic structure of emergency department consultations in Australian hospitals as described in the EDCOM project (Slade et al., 2008). However, Fung presents a more detailed account with the inclusion of the semantic and lexicogrammatical realizations of each generic element. He also identifies additional optional elements/ sub-elements including “Initial Diagnosis” and “Immediate Treatment”, “Treatment Negotiation”, and “Admission Negotiation”. Peijia Zhang (Kaela), another emerging health communication researcher, also completed her PhD (Zhang, 2018) under the supervision of Matthiessen. Using Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) multimodal model, Bateman’s (2008, 2014) GeM (genre and multimodality) model, and exploring the systems of transitivity, speech function, modality (see Matthiessen, 1995; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014 for introductions to these systems), and rhetorical relations (see Matthiessen, 2002; Matthiessen & Thompson, 1988; Matthiessen & Teruya, 2015, for introductions to the rhetorical relations and the application of Rhetorical Structure Theory), Zhang (2018) provides a multimodal description of 60 public health posters used in New York City and Hong Kong. Her detailed analysis of the different semiotic resources in public health posters has the potential of serving as a guide for designers in the field of public health education to effectively communicate health-related messages and promote public health. 5.5 Final remark Christian Matthiessen has been consistently contributing to and drawing on research in health and medical discourse studies through developing systems for the generation of multimodal medical reports, contributing to research on communication in hospital emergency departments in Australia and Hong Kong, and mentoring health communication researchers. Central to his work in this area has been the application of SFL as an appliable theory (Halliday, 2008; Matthiessen, 2012) in healthcare and the concept of translational research. In appliable linguistics, theory is designed to have the potential to be applied to solve problems that arise in communities (see also

242  Neda Karimi Halliday, 1975); in translational research, scientific findings are implemented to improve human lives. Such compatibility between SFL, on the one hand, and translation research, on the other hand, is manifested in Matthiessen’s work at the intersection of medicine and linguistics. Matthiessen’s work in health communication has been translational in essence. It also, as I have tried to show in this chapter, addresses important gaps in health communication research whose primary motive is translational research (Parrott, 2008). It is, thus, valuable for systemic functional linguists working on health communication to encourage and build mutual engagement with other health communication researchers as well as medical experts. Note 1 In July 2015, the agency’s name was changed from Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO) to Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG).

References Balint, Enid. 1969. “The possibilities of patient-centered medicine.” The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 17: 269–276. Bateman, John A. 2008. Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systemic analysis of multimodal documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bateman, John A. 2014. “Developing a GeM (genre and multimodality) model.” In Sigrid Norris & Carmen Daniela Maier (eds.), Interactions, images and texts: A reader in multimodality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 25–36. Bauman, Adrian E., H. John Fardy & Peter G. Harris. 2003. “Getting it right: Why bother with patient-centred care?” Med J Aust 179: 253–256. Brown, Judith B., Moira Stewart & Suzan Tessier. 1995. “Assessing communication between patients and physicians: A manual for scoring patient-centred communication.” In Working papers Series 95#2. London: Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, The University of Western Ontario. 1–18. Butt, David G., Alison R. Moore, Caroline Henderson-Brooks, Joan Haliburn & Russell Meares. 2010. “Dissociation, relatedness, and ‘cohesive harmony’: A linguistic measure of degrees of ‘fragmentation’?” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 3(3): 263–293. Chandler, Eloise, Diana Slade, Jack Pun, Graham Lock, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Elaine Espindola & Carman Ng. 2015. “Communication in Hong Kong accident and emergency departments: The clinicians’ perspectives.” Global Qualitative Nursing Research 2: 1–11. Epstein, Ronald M., Peter Franks, Kevin Fiscella, Cleveland G. Shields, Sean C. Meldrum, Richard L. Kravitz & Paul R. Duberstein. 2005. “Measuring patientcentered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues.” Social Science & Medicine 61: 1516–1528. Foucault, Michel. 1973. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage.

Matthiessen and health communication  243 Fung, Andy. 2016. “Hasan’s semantic networks revisited: A Cantonese systemic functional approach.” In Wendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds.), Society in language, language in society: Essays in honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 115–140. Fung, Andy. 2019. Analysing Cantonese doctor-patient communication: A semantic network approach. PhD thesis, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. “The context of linguistics.” In Francis P. Dineen (ed.), Report of the Twenty-fifth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 179–197. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 74–91. Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. “Text as semantic choice in social context.” In Teun A. van Dijk & János S. Petöfi (eds.), Grammars and descriptions: Study in text theory and text analysis. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 176–225. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 23–81. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. “Part A.” In M.A.K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press. 1–49. Halliday, M.A.K. 1996. “On grammar and grammatics.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory into practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–38. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 384–418. Halliday, M.A.K. 2005. “On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(1): 59–82. Halliday, M.A.K. 2008. “Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics.” In J.J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies. London & New York: Continuum. 7–23. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1983. “A semantic network for the analysis of messages in everyday talk between mothers and their children.” Unpublished work, Macquarie University, Sydney. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. “Part B.” In M.A.K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press. 50–118. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1996. Ways of saying, ways of meaning: Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Carmel Cloran, David Butt & Geoff Williams. London: Cassell.

244  Neda Karimi Karimi, Neda, Annabelle Lukin, Alison Rotha Moore, Adam Walczak & Phyllis Butow. 2018. “Advanced cancer patients’ construction of self during oncology consultations: A transitivity concordance analysis.” Functional Linguistics 5(6): 1–23. Karimi, Neda, Alison Rotha Moore & Annabelle Lukin. 2018. “Cancer care as an integrated practice: Consultations between an oncologist and patients with advanced, incurable cancer.” In Akila Sellami-Baklouti & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 315–337. Karimi, Neda, Alison Rotha Moore & Annabelle Lukin. 2020. “Ways of meaning: A case study of two oncologists’ answers to questions asked by advanced cancer patients and their companions.” Language, Context and Text 2(1): 145–170. Kress, Gunther R. & Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd edition. London & New York: Routledge. Marshall, Amy, Kirsty Rawlings, Sharmilla Zaluski, Pablo Gonzalez, and Gill Harvey. 2021. “What do older people want from integrated care? Experiences from a South Australian co-design case study.” Australasian Journal on Ageing 40: 406–412. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. “Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multifaceted view.” In Joan L. Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 235–319. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2006 “The multimodal page: A systemic functional exploration.” In Terry D. Royce & Wendy L. Bowcher (eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1–62. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007. “The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional theory: Developments since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language (volume 2). London: Equinox. 505–561. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009. “Multisemiosis and context-based register typology: Registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems.” In Eija Ventola & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro (eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 11–38. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2012. “Systemic Functional Linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches.” DELTA (Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada) 28: 437–471. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013. “Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics in healthcare contexts.” Text & Talk 33: 437–466. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Enhua Guo. 2020. “Matthiessen’s thoughts on some key issues in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” WORD 66: 130–45. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2015. “Grammatical realizations of rhetorical relations in different registers.” WORD 61: 232–281.

Matthiessen and health communication  245 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’.” In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 275–329. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Zeng Licheng, Marilyn Cross, Ichiro Kobayashi & Canzhong Wu. 1998. “The Multex generator and its environment: Application and development.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON: Association for Computational Linguistics. 228–237. McWhinney, Ian R. 1995. “Why we need a new clinical method.” In Moira Stewart, Judith B. Brown, W. Wayne Weston, Ian R. McWhinney, Carol L. McWilliam & Thomas R. Freeman (eds.), Patient-centred medicine: Transforming the clinical method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mead, Nicola & Peter Bower. 2000. “Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature.” Social Science & Medicine 51: 1087–1110. Mishler, Elliot G. 1984. The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Moore, Alison Rotha. 2003. The discursive construction of treatment decisions in the management of HIV disease. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Moore, Alison Rotha. 2023. Pills, life, agency: HIV treatment decisions as language in social context. Sheffield: Equinox. Morgan, Stephanie & Linda H. Yoder. 2012. “A concept analysis of personcentered care.” J Holist Nurs 30: 6–15. NHS Institute of Innovation and Improvement. 2005. Improvement leaders’ guide: Process mapping, analysis and redesign, general improvement skills. Nottingham: NHS Institute of Innovation and Improvement. Parrott, Roxanne. 2008. “A multiple discourse approach to health communication: Translational research and ethical practice.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 36: 1–7. Peng, Ke, Hueiming Liu, Jing Zhang, Minghui Yang, Yishu Liu, Maoyi Tian, Hongling Chu, Xinbao Wu & Rebecca Ivers. 2020. “Applying normalization process theory and process mapping to understand implementation of a co-management program for older hip fracture patients in China: A qualitative study.” Arch Osteoporos 15(1): 1–10. Pun, Jack K.H., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Kristen A. Murray & Diana Slade. 2015. “Factors affecting communication in emergency departments: Doctors and nurses’ perceptions of communication in a trilingual ED in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Emergency Medicine 8(1): 1–12. Pun, Jack K.H., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Geoff Williams & Diana Slade. 2017. “Using ethnographic discourse analysis to understand doctor–patient interactions in clinical settings.” In SAGE research methods cases. Slade, Diana, Marie Manidis, Jeannette McGregor, Hermine Scheeres, Jane SteinParbury, Roger Dunston, Nicole Stanton, Eloise Chandler, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Maria Herke. 2011. Communicating in hospital emergency departments: Final report. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.

246  Neda Karimi Slade, Diana, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Elizabeth A. Rider & Jack Pun. 2014. “The international centre for communication in healthcare: Creating safer and more compassionate healthcare systems around the world.” The International Journal of Whole Person Care 1(1). Slade, Diana, Eloise Chandler, Jack Pun, Marvin Lam, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Geoff Williams, Elaine Espindola, Francisco O.D. Veloso, K.L. Tsui, S.Y.H. Tang & K.S. Tang. 2015. “Effective healthcare worker-patient communication in Hong Kong accident and emergency departments.” Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine 22: 69–83. Slade, Diana, Marie Manidis, Jeannette McGregor, Hermine Scheeres, Eloise Chandler, Jane Stein-Parbury, Roger Dunston, Maria Herke & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. Communicating in hospital emergency departments. Heidelberg: Springer. Slade, Diana, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Graham Lock, Jack Pun & Marvin Lam. 2016. “Patterns of interaction in doctor-patient communication and their impact on health outcomes.” In Lourdes Ortega, Andrea Tyler, Hae In Park & Marika Uno (eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 235–254. Slade, Diana, Hermine Scheeres, Marie Manidis, Rick Iedema, Roger Dunston, Jane Stein-Parbury, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Maria Herke & Jeannette McGregor. 2008. “Emergency communication: The discursive challenges facing emergency clinicians and patients in hospital emergency departments.” Discourse & Communication 2(3): 271–298. Trebble, Timothy, Navjyot Hansi, Theresa Hydes, Melissa Smith & Marc Baker. 2010. “Practice pointer process mapping the patient journey: An introduction.” BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 341: c4078. Walker, Lorraine O. & Kay C. Avant. 2005. Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wallis, Peter & Greg Chase. 1997. “An information extraction system.” In Australasian natural language processing summer workshop. Sydney: Macquarie University. Zhang, Peijia. 2018. Public health education through posters in two world cities: A multimodal corpus-based analysis. PhD thesis, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

6

Christian Matthiessen and verbal art Donna R. Miller

6.1 Introduction As this volume further corroborates, Christian Matthiessen is an eminent linguist deservedly renowned for his incisive contributions to the development of numerous and frequently interrelated areas of research within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Foremost among these fields are those featured in the volume: the overarching challenges of an appliable theory of meaning; language description and typology; register; phonology; healthcare communication; and, though less prominent than any of the foregoing, also verbal art.1 The focus of this chapter is Matthiessen’s inquiry into this last functional variety of text, which aims at characterizing all “discursive engagement with literature in a fairly comprehensive way” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 54). To this task, Matthiessen once again brings his outstanding aptitude for implementing the mapping and modelling of the forms and functions of instances of meaning-making with constant reference to meaning potential but also to context. Section 6.2 briefly considers the foundational contributions to SFL verbal art studies of Halliday and Hasan, with particular reference to how Matthiessen’s work openly revisits, takes on and builds upon these. Among the aspects explored figure the special status of verbal art, the need for a linguistic approach to it, the value assigned to it, the complexities of its language-context connection and its power to construe higher-level meanings or “themes”. The work of Halliday and Hasan will of course continue to be referenced where relevant throughout the chapter. Subsequently, we turn to its central concern: probing the various ways Matthiessen both amplifies and enriches their language in literature legacy. The two substantial and intersecting ways he does this are illuminated in Section 6.3. Section 6.3 first discusses how Matthiessen systematically enlarges the perspective to afford a complex theoretical and methodological picture that is as inclusive as possible, as is characteristic of his work. This involves making plain and illustrating key semiotic dimensions of the overall SFL architecture on the basis of verbal art theory and its application, which DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-8

248  Donna R. Miller remain to a degree presupposed in much of Halliday and Hasan’s own verbal art studies. Matthiessen’s purpose is to clearly show the multiple angles from which any work of verbal art can, and should, be examined. These interconnected semiotic dimensions, most detailed in Matthiessen (2013a), include: the cline of instantiation; the hierarchy of stratification; Halliday’s related principle of trinocularity (e.g. Halliday, 1978, 1996; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009); and metafunctional systems across strata (on these and other dimensions vis-à-vis translation see Wang and Ma, [forthcoming]). Section 6.3 also delineates what is conceivably the most original development Matthiessen makes to the knowledge-base of verbal art study: the application of his long-developing work on registerial cartography, a typology of fields of activity within context – i.e. specifications of what is going on in any given context (cf. e.g. Matthiessen, 2015a, 2015b, 2019; Matthiessen & Teruya, 2016; see also Steiner’s detailed treatment in Chapter 2, this volume). With reference to this map of fields of activity, literature as text is interpreted as operating in contexts where the activity is primarily one of “recreating” aspects of life. It is this approach, he maintains, which allows the analyst “to locate literature within the total universe of discourse” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 4). Another innovative aspect of Matthiessen’s treatment of verbal art deriving from registerial cartography is also addressed: the sub-register of discourse about literature which negotiates its value (Matthiessen, 2013a, 2013b, 2017). This too factors into the comprehensive account of the discursive engagement with literature that he would fashion. Further facets of Matthiessen’s expansion of Hallidayan–Hasanian verbal art description and analysis comprise attention to computational resources for investigating lexicogrammatical patterns quantitatively (Matthiessen, 2013a: 26–27, 2013b: 40, 2015d, 2017: 42, 2019: passim) and multisemiosis (e.g. Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023). These aspects will chiefly emerge in discussing select text analyses under the heading of stratification. Matthiessen also locates and examines verbal art with reference to a typology of systems at work in an overall architecture of language in context, again as is often his wont. The typology comprises contextual, linguistic (semantic and lexicogrammatical) and other semiotic systems. This is because, as Matthiessen argues: [a] comprehensive analysis of a work of verbal art is one that covers all the contextual and linguistic systems of English […]. And if semiotic systems other than language are also involved in the work of art, then these are of course also candidates for analysis. (Matthiessen, 2013a: 42)

Matthiessen and verbal art  249 Systems at all levels will be considered only rather randomly, if recurrently, as they arise throughout the chapter in discussion. In addition, Matthiessen has something to say about the status of verbal art as register, which is dealt with essentially in speaking about meaning potential, but also elsewhere. Some brief parting thoughts will be given in closing. 6.2 Building on the Halliday–Hasan verbal art cornerstone Immediately and transparently, Matthiessen (2013a: 1) asserts the essentials of his engagement with verbal art: “the systemic functional approach presented by Hasan (1985), based on her own work since the 1960s and that of Halliday (e.g. 1971, 1982) and drawing on insights from the Prague School, in particular the work by Jan Mukařovský”. Miller (2021) has much to say about their approach, and its roots in the Prague Linguistic Circle, with its work on foregrounding, (de)automatization and the aesthetic function – far too much to recapitulate here. But in connection with Halliday and Hasan’s contribution to what we have dubbed systemic functional stylistics (SFS),2 a section of Chapter 2 in Miller (2021) is entitled “The meeting of like minds”, in which the intense synergy between these two scholars’ views on language in literature as these evolved are explored. Select aspects of these positions and Matthiessen’s rapport with them are now set forth. Matthiessen highlights various features in particular of Hasan’s work, the first among which is her study of literature as verbal art (e.g. Hasan, 1985, 2007). Though he does not cite her words, he clearly champions Hasan’s belief that literature is “created by languaging in a particular way” (Hasan, 2007: 16, original emphasis), that it involves “language that is artistic and art that is linguistic” (Hasan personal communication, 15 April 2014). He also cites other pertinent SFS studies, among them Lukin and Webster (2005) and Butt and Lukin (2009), in which her and Halliday’s work features strongly. A further aspect of Halliday and Hasan’s work echoes powerfully in Matthiessen’s own. In all of his investigations of verbal art, he stresses the importance of the artistic merit assigned to works of verbal art by members of a culture or sub-culture. Indeed, “[t]he status of texts as verbal art (and of art in general) depends on value” (Matthiessen, 2015d: 254, original emphasis). For Hasan, a text’s endurance as art will always hinge on the value which is awarded by successive generations of readers: “The challenge for the creator of verbal art is […] to be capable of striking a chord in the reader over substantial distances in time and space” (Hasan, 2007: 25). Analogously, Halliday (in Halliday & Hasan, 1985: 42), while talking about texts and their registers, identifies the distinctive status of literature:

250  Donna R. Miller Some texts are truly unique and indeed are highly valued for their uniqueness; it is this property we have in mind when we say that something belongs to the rather vaguely defined category of “literature”. A literary text is a text that is valued in its own right, which must mean that it differs from all other texts. This links up to what Matthiessen calls “aesthetic linguistics”: “a field of investigation dealing with […] the negotiation in a community of the value of works of art” (Matthiessen, 2009: 37). Such negotiation gives rise to the aforementioned discourse about literature: what is said and/or written about verbal art, involving, however, different contexts and so also different fields of activity – different from the field of activity of fiction, i.e. the imagining and recreating of fictional worlds which engender, at a higher order, a deeper significance. These distinct activities, as said above, are duly taken up in Section 6.3.2. What is more, Matthiessen unambiguously concurs with Halliday and Hasan about the kind of analysis that verbal art entails: one that is truly objectivized, i.e. systematically probed with the tools of a valid, comprehensive and consistently applied theory-based linguistics. In Hasan’s words: “without linguistics, the study of literature must remain a series of personal preferences, no matter how much the posture of objectivity is adopted” (Hasan, 1985: 104). Such objectification involves a complex, time-consuming process of identifying foregrounded patterns of meaning in the semantics that are realized as patterns of lexicogrammar and ascertaining their significance for the construal of the text’s deepest meanings, or what Hasan calls its “theme” (1985, 2007). In short, as Hasan first posited, consistently foregrounded choices in the grammar of the literature text create additional patterns of meaning; or, as Halliday prefers to put it, the grammar moves into a de-automatized mode of functioning. In the same manner, Matthiessen (2015d: 254) insists on the following associated insights: • Literary texts are distinct from non-literary texts in that they construe and enact higher-level patterns of meaning – the theme of a piece of literature (cf. Hasan, 1985, on symbolic articulation); and the linguistic analysis of literary texts should and will bring out such higher-level themes.3 • Thus the resources of language are pushed into additional meaning making labour, and this is achieved partly through the de-automatization of patterns of wording (lexicogrammar) in relation to patterns of meaning (semantics), as shown by Halliday (1982) in his analysis of the themes in Priestley’s play An Inspector Calls. Of course, the notions of both foregrounding and de-automatization go back to the Prague School, to Mukařovský, as well as to Jakobson; the

Matthiessen and verbal art  251 former notion is appropriated by Hasan in her work, while the latter, as Matthiessen reveals above, is theorized and illustrated by Halliday (1982; cf. Matthiessen, 2013a: 35). As Halliday explains his preference: The term “de-automatization”, though cumbersome, is more apt than “foregrounding”, since what is in question is not simply prominence but rather the partial freeing of the lower-level systems from the control of the semantics so that they become domains of choice in their own right. In terms of systemic theory the de-automatization of the grammar means that grammatical choices are not simply determined from above […] (Halliday, 1982: 131, our emphasis) Significantly, what is being theorized here evokes, in the first place, Hasan’s scaffolding of a doubly articulated framework for the analysis of verbal art, and, in the second, also her theorization of the unique language-context connection in verbal art (Hasan, 1985), on which Halliday also reflects (notably in 1978: 145 ff.), in connection with the three contextual variables of field, tenor and mode, an analysis which in turn Matthiessen himself adapts and reproposes (2013a: 31, 44–45). Paralleling Halliday and Hasan, he maintains that “[l]ike a text of any kind, a work of verbal art is ‘embedded’ in a context of situation – the semiotic environment in which it operates” (2013a: 42). With reference to “what’s going on” and “who’s taking part”, or field and tenor, he introduces the terms “outer” and “inner”, the former concerning the author and the audience and the latter the contexts created by the literature text itself (Matthiessen, 2013a: 11, passim, 2013b: 19, 2017: 22). Using Halliday’s account (1978) as a touchstone, Table 6.1 offers a comparative summarized overview of these three scholars’ views on the complexity of context in verbal art (see also Miller, 2021: Section 2.2.1). Clearly, Matthiessen faithfully follows Halliday’s account. Regarding his “outer” context, he also observes that The author’s context of situation is in principle distinct from that of the consumer; and they can be described separately. If the semiotic distance between these two contexts is minimal – as when a high-school student writes a short story for his or her class mates or teacher, it may be sufficient to describe the author’s context of situation. However, if the semiotic distance between these two contexts is greater – when author and consumers are culturally further apart (for spatial and/or temporal reasons), it may be helpful or even necessary to describe not only the author’s context of situation but also that of a particular (community of) consumers. This will help us reveal questions of interpretation. (Matthiessen 2013a: 42)

252  Donna R. Miller Table 6.1 Comparing views of verbal art contexts Halliday, 1978

Hasan, 1985, 1996a

Matthiessen, 2013a, 2013b, 2017

“Context of creation” of verbal 1st order/level art (1985), comprising: Field: the social act of narration author’s language/world view and use of conventions vis-à-vis his/ Tenor: located her cultural context. Separate is between the her “context of reception”. narrator and Re Halliday’s levels: in 1996a, she his readership, too talks of a “first level”, but which is solely linked to her “semiotic embodied in the system of language” (1985) narrative

OUTER context of situation extratextual context, linked to that of (re)creation (author) but also to that of reception (audience)

Hasan too speaks (1996a) of 2nd order/level a “second level”, linked to Field: the social her “symbolic articulation of acts that form theme”, within her “semiotic the content of system of verbal art” (1985); narration cf. Halliday’s de-automatized Tenor: located language (1982) and Miller among the (2021: Section 2.2.1) for a participants in fuller account. the narrative, which is embodied in the dialogue

INNER recreated context of situation of the literature text itself

Albeit implicitly, here Matthiessen connects up with Hasan’s take on cultural and/or temporal distance between authors and consumers. As Hasan puts it, “[g]enerally speaking, the greater the distance between the context of creation and reception, the more inaccessible the meanings of the text become” (1985: 102). Moreover, she notes that bridging that distance is often a challenging task for the verbal art analyst: When there is a disjunction between the contexts of creation and interpretation as with diachronic cultural distance, the question of readership for the literature text assumes even greater importance. […] If it is true that texts place restraints upon what can be done with them interpretively, and if it is true that the author speaks from a particular social position at a particular cultural stage [as she argues, DRM], then listening to this voice across the cultural distances requires special expertise. (Hasan, 1996a: 52–53) But what more can be said about theme? Hasan writes reams about it (notably in Hasan, 2007; cf. Miller, 2021: Section 2.3 for a precise summary).

Matthiessen and verbal art  253 Matthiessen (2013a: 10; cf. 2013b: 17, 2017: 20–21, Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023: 4) time and again approvingly points out that “Hasan (1985: 96ff) characterizes the theme of a literary text – a work of verbal art – as ‘the deepest level of meaning in verbal art’, writing” (Hasan, 1985: 97): it is what a text is about when dissociated from the particularities of that text. In its nature, the theme of verbal art is very close to a generalisation, which can be viewed as a hypothesis about some aspect of the life of social man. For Matthiessen as well, the social/cultural context is vital to the identification of theme, as we will see better below. We will come back to theme and to the status of verbal art as register below. But before going on, there is another point of contact that Matthiessen makes with Hasan’s work, which, though not addressed straightforwardly or in a great amount of detail, is, we feel, noteworthy; this is literacy: engaging with verbal art as an academic discipline (cf. Section 4.3 of Miller, 2021). Matthiessen rightly points out (2013a: 24–25, 2013b: 35, 2017: 37–38) how Hasan evokes the nature of certain texts which assign value to works of verbal art in decrying the “doxic” and “reproductive quality” of much “lit crit” exploited for teaching literature (Hasan, 2007: 19). Hasan was deeply concerned with empowering students to engage analytically with the language in literature, which meant enabling students “to produce their own reasoned analysis of a literary work” (Hasan, 2011: xv, our emphasis). Subsequently, this emancipating pedagogic aim is renewed and refined in her stimulating call for a “reflection literacy” (Hasan, 1996b: 199), so brilliantly illuminated by Williams (2016), whose own literacy work Matthiessen (2013a: 23; 2015d: 279) does explicitly pay tribute to. For Hasan, it is only reflection literacy that “frees the reader from unquestioningly following the opinions of ‘authorities’” (Hasan, 2007: 34); when done successfully, “it should ideally produce in the pupils a disposition to distrust doxic knowledge. i.e. knowledge whose sole authority is the authority of someone in authority” (Hasan, 1996b: 198). As Bowcher perceptively suggests, “it is in her work on literacy pedagogies that the key to teaching the artistry of verbal art may lie” (2018: 296, original emphasis). With his extensive experience in teaching verbal art, surely this is an aspect of Hasan’s work that Matthiessen might very productively pursue and develop. 6.3 Amplifying and enriching the SFS legacy We now turn to the two interrelated ways in which Matthiessen develops the Halliday–Hasan verbal art legacy, first in systematically exhibiting the

254  Donna R. Miller full complex theoretical and methodological picture by explicitly bringing key SFL dimensions of semiotic organization into verbal art studies. Halliday (1988a: vii–ix) briefly illustrates the “interdependence of all the parts” in the linguistic study of literature, particularly stratification, instantiation and metafunction. Correspondingly, these are the symbiotic dimensions – along with his principle of trinocularity – which Matthiessen weaves into his multifaceted analytical framework of verbal art and also tellingly links up to the identification of the Hasanian theme. Of course, characterizing any of these dimensions in isolation is nigh impossible, as the degree of overlap among them is simply too great to allow for their neatly ordered or self-contained presentation. That much said, in what follows their treatment is, if less than ideally, partitioned, and such intersections are regularly pointed up. Here we also delineate Matthiessen’s most innovative development of the systemic functional stylistic tradition: his locating verbal art, as well as talk about verbal art, within a context-based typology of text. Recall that for Matthiessen it is in the first place this approach which allows the analyst “to locate literature within the total universe of discourse” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 4). Thus, his bringing it to bear on the theory and description of verbal art is inspired by his ultimate aim. 6.3.1 Trinocularity

We begin with this dimension of semiotic organization as it is typically forefronted in Matthiessen’s own accounts. Unsurprisingly, trinocularity continuously interacts with stratification, but also acts jointly with instantiation, and even metafunction, as we will see. And all liaise with his fieldbased typology of text in context, to be introduced shortly. In his work, Matthiessen promptly enlists trinocularity for his discussion of verbal art (2013a: 3–4, 2013b: 7–8, 2017: 11–12). A rich, if lengthy, quote on its specific application to literature is in order, not least because he embarks on an assessment of literature as register: If we characterize literature as verbal art, this means that we assume that there are “artistic” ways of deploying the resources of language […]. Here it is helpful to invoke Halliday’s principle of trinocularity, or trinocular vision […]; based on the stratal organization of language in context, we can view literature “from above”, “from roundabout” and “from below”: •

viewed “from above”, literature operates in contexts where it is given value by members of the culture or one or more subcultures – so we need to investigate how this happens […]; but at the same time, we also need to situate literature in relation

Matthiessen and verbal art  255

•

•

to all aspects of context, identifying its contribution to the life of a community relative to other meaning-making practices of that community […]; viewed “from roundabout”, literature is a way of deploying the semantic resources of a language – and often also the meaning-making resources of other semiotic systems that accompany language – to achieve the kind of value that is recognized by the community; it is an extended register – the meanings deployed within the overall meaning potential within the kind of context in which verbal art is produced and consumed […]; viewed “from below”, the patterns of meaning of literature are realized directly by patterns of wording in the lexicogrammar, and, by another step, by patterns of sounding in the phonology (or patterns of writing in the graphology, or of course by patterns of gesturing in sign languages).

These angles on literature are represented diagrammatically in Figure 6.1. To be highlighted here is how Matthiessen points up, in “from above”, the wider cultural context that “context” involves, linked also, in “from roundabout”, to that “value” a cultural community acknowledges, which the verbal artist is said to achieve through artistic exploitation of its meaning-making resources, linguistic and other. Straightaway Matthiessen (2013a: 4) addresses the special nature of the “extended register” of verbal art: how on one hand it is the same as for any other functional variety of text, but also, conversely, how it is significantly different: As the diagram suggests, literature is dispersed across all strata of language in context – just as any registerial variety of language is (that is any subpotential of the overall meaning potential of language). And just like any other register, literature is a semantic construct in the first instance – the “language of literature” is a meaning potential within the overall meaning potential of language in the first instance; but it engenders a higher-order of meaning within context, and it is realized by patterns within the strata located below semantics in the stratal organization of language shown [in Figure 6.1 DRM]. Thus, he once again also endorses Hasan’s notion of the literature text’s deepest meanings, or theme, and its realization, seen “from below”, by the foregrounded/de-automatized patterns of lexicogrammar.4 More will be said below about the hierarchy of stratification vis-à-vis the stratal dispersal of literature and also on this process of relating acts of meaning to meaning potential in speaking explicitly of the cline of instantiation. However,

Figure 6.1  Viewing “literature” trinocularly in terms of the hierarchy of stratification – stratal dispersal of literature (Matthiessen, 2013a: 5, 2013b: 9, 2017: 13)

256  Donna R. Miller

Matthiessen and verbal art  257 and even though in principle any of the trinocular approaches would be possible points of departure for dealing with verbal art, we once again opt to follow Matthiessen’s (2013a: 4) own method. Indeed, expounding the trinocular view “from above” generally leads him to segue into his fieldbased typology of text in context (2013a: 4 ff., 2013b: 10 ff., 2017: 13 ff.). Accordingly, we now move on to a concise description of this. 6.3.2 Verbal art from the vantage point of the field of activity

So then, innovatively and also, I submit, profitably, Matthiessen brings to bear upon verbal art his long-and-still-developing work on “registerial cartography”, described above as a typology of fields of activity within context (cf. references provided in our introduction). Since Steiner (Chapter 2, this volume) provides an in-depth treatment of this work, we assume this background and focus on such activities vis-à-vis verbal art. Clearly, field, or “what’s going on”, must be seen in relation to the other two contextual variables, tenor (“who’s taking part”) and mode (“how the meanings are being exchanged”) (e.g. Halliday, 1978), and Matthiessen does not in fact lose sight of these. 6.3.2.1 The recreating field of activity

With reference to a map of eight primary fields of activity, each having various subtypes, literature as text is interpreted as working in contexts where the activity is first and foremost one of “recreating” aspects of life, i.e. functioning in contexts in which life – or to appropriate Hasan’s term, “human social existence” (Equinox online gloss to Hasan [forthcoming]) – is being recreated. Figure 6.2 depicts this location with reference to the stratal features already seen in Figure 6.1. Recreating contexts are different from other contexts in that the worlds they evoke are fictional/imaginary rather than factual/“real”. They are also unique insomuch as they project into existence imaginary experiences that may involve any of the eight fields of activity […]. For example, a story may include contexts of sharing involving friends and family members as casual conversation around the dinner table, contexts of doing in which friends play tennis together, contexts of recommending in which one of the characters sees a doctor, a lawyer or other kind of professional. (Matthiessen, 2013a: 7, 2013b: 13, 2017: 16–17) Thus, he points up the contextual complexity of the content plane of verbal art once again (his inner, recreated context; cf. Table 6.1). In these same

258  Donna R. Miller

Figure 6.2   Literary texts located contextually within the “recreating” field of activity; stratal features characteristic of literature as verbal art (Matthiessen, 2013a: 8, 2013b: 14, 2017: 18)

pages, examining texts operating in recreating contexts leads Matthiessen to various other critical observations, such as identifying two central and totally compatible strategies for recreating life semiotically: narration and dramatization, the former entailing the temporal location of recreated events, and the latter prototypically involving dialogue. Furthermore, as

Matthiessen and verbal art  259 he points up, the various kinds of fictive worlds recreated connect up to the world as we experience it in a myriad of ways, also noting that a host of terms have been coined over time to classify such variety: e.g. “realism”, “naturalism”, “surrealism”, “magical realism”, “fantasy” and “science fiction”. In addition, although what is recreated imaginatively is, as said, most commonly some aspect of “real” human existence, the notion can be a knotty one, as Matthiessen and Veloso (2023) adeptly reveal in probing a story that actually problematizes just what it means to be “real”. And he distinctly asserts the exclusively semiotic nature of fiction, i.e. the fact that it consists wholly of meaning – meanings as tangibly made by the system of language. Let us now revisit Matthiessen’s “outer” and “inner” contexts of verbal art apropos of the relationship between his “recreating” and “recreated” contexts. In Figure 6.3, note the vast number of socio-semiotic processes potentially involved in the recreated contexts and, consequently, the equally vast number of potential situation types and associated text types which writers may recreate. Notice too the location of the higher-order theme in the diagram. But now to pass to the reverse side of the verbal art (by way of registerial cartography) coin: to talking and writing about literature – a still more original contribution Matthiessen makes to SFS studies. Here we introduce not yet mentioned field-based activities, the meanings of whose labels, however, are disambiguated.

6.3.2.2 Discourse about literature

Two of Matthiessen’s published papers (2013b, 2017) are in fact dedicated to the task of identifying different modes of engaging with literature – chatting about literature, sharing personal opinions; promoting works of literature; exploring literature publicly by reviewing and interpreting works of literature, giving it positive or negative value in the community; chronicling development of literature; and theorizing literature, characterizing and explaining features of literature. (2013b: 20, 2017: 24; see also 2013a: 17) For Matthiessen, these context-based activities are the means by which verbal art is assigned the cultural value discussed above. Indeed, they have a gate-keeping function: to promote a literature text’s inclusion in and/or exclusion from literary canons. Let us first take the activities that primarily regard the assigning of value and that are thus tenor-oriented. As Matthiessen (2013b: 21–22, 2017: 25) delineates these contexts:

260  Donna R. Miller

Figure 6.3   “Recreating” contexts (outer) and recreated (Matthiessen, 2013a: 12, 2013b: 19, 2017: 23)

contexts

(inner)

• in ‘sharing’ contexts, people tell one another about literature that they’ve read, they express opinions about literary works – and, importantly, they compare opinions and preferences, both to identify a common base and to identify different views that can serve as fuel for discussion; • in ‘recommending’ contexts, publishers promote the literature they publish through book blurbs, advertisements and commercials; • in ‘exploring’ contexts, professional media critics review works of literature – now increasingly also with contributions from the reading public through websites that provide for “user reviews”;

Matthiessen and verbal art  261 • in ‘exploring’ contexts, academic critics interpret works of literature, assigning them value according to some framework for evaluation. He then distinguishes the above from those more strictly field-oriented contexts, largely concerned with the nature of literature itself: • in ‘reporting’ contexts, historians of literature chronicle the development of literature in the form of literary histories and biographies [and] journalists track developments of literature, and interview literary figures such as writers; • in ‘expounding’ contexts, scholars analyse and theorize literature. Figure 6.4 represents the location of such discourses about literature with reference to that of literature as verbal art, within his context-based typology of texts. Matthiessen hastens to emphasize that the classification of these divisions is based on tendencies only. In short, analogously to registerial fields of activity taken overall, these too are permeable categories which interpenetrate (see Matthiessen & Teruya, 2016, on registerial hybridity). At the same time, however, their core concerns are not identical: hence the partitions. Matthiessen (2013b, 2017) illuminates just how these divergences/convergences are realized and function in histories, interviews with writers, admission interviews and reviews. Decidedly, we have but scratched the surface of Matthiessen’s use of the metaphor of cartography as a way of mapping linguistic theory in general and SFS theory in particular. Notwithstanding, we hope its capacity for revealing how all areas relate to one another has to some degree emerged, as well as its contribution to the all-inclusive description he seeks. As he puts it: “Literature ‘lives’ in a culture in a range of different contexts, and these are all relevant in a holistic understanding of the role of literature in a society” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 54). But now to discuss more methodically those always-interconnected semiotic dimensions which have been put off until now, beginning with the hierarchy of stratification. 6.3.3 The stratal dispersal of literature

We have already seen how Figure 6.1 represents the stratal dispersal of verbal art in a trinocular perspective as well as how, in Figure 6.2, stratal features characteristic of literature likewise participate in locating verbal art as a recreating activity. But now, with Matthiessen, let us systematically describe the “familiar hierarchy of stratification” as “the ordering of language in context into a series of subsystems related by realization:

262  Donna R. Miller

analysis of verbal art: classification and explanation

fieldoriented engagement

verbal art

history of literature ; interviews with writers

literary criticism: assignment of public value to works of verbal art explaining

categorizing

arguing

inventorying surveying

expounding reviewing reporting

exploring

narrating

promoting

literary promotion: advertising works of verbal art

chronicling

literature

recreating

recommending

dramatizing

advising

verbal art

[metafiction]

sharing

enabling

sharing values

instructing doing

sharing experiences

regulating directing

collaborating

literature in conversation: sharing (personal evaluations of) works of verbal art

tenororiented engagement

Figure 6.4  Literature and discourses about literature – the location of literature as verbal art, of literary criticism and of analysis, classification and explanation of literature as verbal art in a context-based typology of texts (Matthiessen, 2013a: 18, 2013b: 21, 2017: 24)

context – language [[content plane: semantics – lexicogrammar] – [expression plane: phonology – phonetics]]” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 34). Further development of the significance of such ordering with respect to verbal art is most detailed in, yet again, Matthiessen (2013a). Concerning the phenomenon of foregrounding, he notes that the “local effect is located at the interface between lexicogrammar and semantics” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 34), i.e. solidly within the hierarchy of stratification. But widening the lens, he asks: “What is the effect of such patterns of foregrounding? Foregrounding in the lexicogrammar is likely to have a stratal effect – to be motivated – higher up, in the semantics” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 34). In Hasan’s framework, this corollary would signal that her “semiotic system of verbal art” – and within it, the symbolic articulation of theme – comes

Matthiessen and verbal art  263 into play. Although Matthiessen does not explicitly take up Hasan’s twotiered framework, his approach to the phenomenon is correspondingly stratal. Matthiessen reproposes Halliday’s (1982) term de-automatization and Halliday’s contention that as a result of the process, selections “are freed up to create additional patterns of meaning; the grammar moves into a de-automatized mode of operation”, functioning to articulate the deepest meanings of the literature text, or its theme. What is more, for Matthiessen, stratification has a leading role in the process, as it “enables us to interpret the effect of foregrounding in instantiation as de-automatization of lexicogrammar in relation to semantics” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 35). One illustration of such foregrounding/de-automatization which Matthiessen offers is his analysis (in 2013a) of the unfolding or logogenesis of Theme selections (capitalized, i.e. in the grammatical sense of “point of departure of the clause”) in a children’s version of the Noah’s Ark narrative (Genesis 6–9).5 He finds that selections are typical in terms of Time and Space circumstances indicating episodic narrative shifts and also that the human protagonists are consistently given thematic prominence in a typical fashion. However, concentrated within the middle of the text, ‘liquid’ Themes – rain, creeks, rivers, lakes, the great flood, the water, it (“the water”), the rain, water – are found to be instances of motivated foregrounding (Matthiessen, 2013a: 35). Indeed, they constitute “the peak of a thematic wave in the middle of the text, with the effect of creating a sense of the wave of water destroying the world” (2013a: 36). Matthiessen also observes the high frequency of “material” clauses in the text, indicative of “a story that embodies an event line where actions and activities figure prominently” (2013a: 27). This foregrounding is corroborated quantitatively by systematically comparing the relative frequencies of selections of terms in the system of process type in 132 clauses of the text with selections in a much larger sample of texts (8,425 clauses) taken from different registers. This same text is also the exclusive focus of detailed enquiry in Matthiessen (2015d), where he returns to selections in the system of transitivity to investigate their role in the subliminal and non-negotiable construal of the hierarchy of control embodied in the world order. Clause by clause he examines the logogenetic flow of events as a configuration of process, participants and attendant circumstances, revealing who or what can legitimately act on whom or what. The order of the world that emerges is then interpreted at the higher strata of semantics and context in terms of the Hasanian theme of Noah’s Ark which, he determines, “relates to: (a) the cosmology (cultural context); and (b) the world view (semantics) that are construed by the text” (Matthiessen, 2015d: 273). The cosmology has to do with a God that is both creator and destroyer and is permeated by a

264  Donna R. Miller patriarchal value system. Among the various aspects of the world view in which the cosmology of Old Testament culture is manifested, Matthiessen concentrates on the degree of potency of persons and things that enter into different participant and circumstance roles. Unsurprisingly, a key word of the paper is “ideology”, which Matthiessen dedicates most of his conclusion to delineating – also in necessary connection to all three contextual variables and their metafunctional manifestations in language, presently dealt with below. A final development Matthiessen makes regarding the stratal dispersal of literature is made in Matthiessen and Veloso (2023), which analyses one version of Margery William’s classic nursery tale, “The Velveteen Rabbit, or How Toys Become Real”, probing how the theme of real and imaginary characters and worlds is construed in selections in both text and image and how the two semiotic systems work, in unison, to mean. Again, the system of transitivity is examined, together with that of projection. Though the story is linguistically created at the content plane, stratified into meanings and wordings, the stratal nature of the pictorial semiotic is said to be far less clear: first, concerning whether its content plane can even be said to be technically stratified and then, if so, just what those strata can be said to be.6 Be that as it may, trinocularity enters into the methodological multisemiotic tool kit as well: looking at these two semiotic systems “‘from above’, one can ask what the division of labour between them is and looking at them ‘from roundabout’, one can ask what relations obtain between elements in the two relating to the distinction [i.e. between real and imaginary, DRM]” (Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023: 10–12). Multimodality is also a quality of “The Streets of Laredo”, the cowboy ballad skilfully examined by Matthiessen (2013a: 45–53) in the version performed by Johnny Cash. Working top-down, from context to semantics and to lexicogrammar, he performs a meticulous multistratal analysis, which, however, is essentially mono-semiotic, as he protests he is “not equipped to do anything like a sophisticated analysis of the music” (personal communication, 17 January 2020). Accordingly, the musical semiotic is simply sketched as working together with the narrative text by being “sung with voice as instrument, and accompanied by other instruments, realizing the motif of ‘lament’ and representing the beat of the drums” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 46).7 As in Noah’s Ark, a hierarchy of potency to act and impact upon something/someone emerges as a significant ideational way of meaning and construing theme. Of course, such a hierarchy links back to Hasan’s pathbreaking work on the “cline of dynamism” (Hasan, 1985: 45–47). But findings are much more complex, as is also “the complementarity of the interpersonal and experiential analyses” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 53), only briefly but relevantly commented.

Matthiessen and verbal art  265 But now to speak directly to Matthiessen’s take on the importance of metafunctions and their complementarity as modes of meaning in verbal art, as well as of their correlation with theme. 6.3.4 The spectrum of metafunction

The spectrum of metafunction is defined by Matthiessen as “the diversification of meaning into different modes of meaning resonating with different parameters within context” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 39). As is well-known, in SFL the three contextual parameters of field, tenor and mode respectively are seen as tending to activate these different modes of meaning working across strata, also three: the ideational (experiential and logical), the interpersonal and the textual. These are what organize the content systems of language (i.e. the strata of semantics and lexicogrammar). The first functions to make sense of, construing, our experience, the second to enact personal and social relationships, while the third, the textual, enables the ideational and interpersonal ones to become text (Halliday & Hasan, 1985: 12, 57–59). Further, within each of these, there are pivotal systems operating to realize textually these diverse modes of meaning (cf. Matthiessen, 2015d: 256 ff.). In applying the theory to the analysis of verbal art, Matthiessen makes clear that all three metafunctions have crucial roles to play – despite his focus being a field-based typology of texts. In his analysis of Noah’s Ark, briefly discussed above, he gives us what he dubs an “‘ideational slice’ through the system of language in context” (Matthiessen, 2015d: 276) but immediately adds that “this is of course only one of three angles on the story in its context (both its immediate context of situation, and the context of culture that lies behind it)”. In short, a comprehensive analysis would include probing the tenor (interpersonal metafunction) and mode (textual metafunction) as well. And such complementarity is well-illuminated with reference to the ideology of the Noah’s Ark text, mentioned above. But let us hear him on this at some length: • ideology – field: cosmology, manifested semantically in terms of world view; • ideology – tenor: power hierarchies, manifested semantically in terms of interactant (exchange) protocol, and value systems, manifested in terms of assessments (evaluations, appraisals); • ideology – mode: relative weight given to spoken vs. written medium, monologic vs. dialogic turn; degree of orientation towards field or towards tenor. For example, we need to “read” this pleased God vs. this made God sad not only in terms of “denotation” (the experience of emotion

266  Donna R. Miller being construed) but also in terms of “connotation” (the value system being enacted, in this case “positive” vs. “negative”), as brought out in the work on appraisal, notably Martin and White (2005). Similarly, when we begin to explore the culture of the Old Testament in terms of family structure – positional (vs. personal), we are moving into the territory of tenor (cf. Halliday, 1978). (Matthiessen, 2015d: 276) Ideology is embodied in world views and value systems, both of which, he suggests, can be much further examined (cf. Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023: 6). And, given Matthiessen’s constant impetus towards the global, he tells us that a more complete analysis would include comparative text-based explorations as well. So it comes as no surprise that, for Matthiessen (2013a: 38–39), “the nature of the ‘theme’” also rests on this dimension of semiotic organization, i.e. the spectrum of metafunction. It will depend on which metafunction it is articulated within, but also on the contextual parameter the metafunction resonates with. Moreover, he finds that themes tend to be located within either field or tenor, those within the former concerning world views in a broad sense, and those within tenor involving value systems and relationships (Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023: 6). However, theme may also be a composite product of more than one metafunction. And, of course, both kinds of theme can, indeed should, also be read in terms of ideology. 6.3.5 The cline of instantiation, meaning potential and register vis-à-vis verbal art

“The cline of instantiation is central to the analysis and interpretation of verbal art”, Matthiessen tells us (2013a: 32 – once again in the regrettably unpublished “draft” paper affording the widest coverage of all issues). It is not within our brief to offer a review of the SFL theory of instantiation, i.e. the system of a language as it is “instantiated” in text (but see e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006, 2014). And so we deal below only with what most closely pertains to Matthiessen’s application of this dimension of analysis to recreating contexts of verbal art. Still, we must recall that for SFL, system and text define the two poles of the cline – that of the overall potential and that of a particular instance. Indeed, the system of a language is its underlying potential as a meaningmaking resource. Moreover, if we approach different instance types, or text types, with their associated situation types, from the system pole of the cline of instantiation, these can be interpreted as “registers”, or functional varieties of text. Hence our opting to treat these three theoretical

Matthiessen and verbal art  267 constructs – instantiation, meaning potential and register – in juxtaposition, as Matthiessen himself does. He observes that “the potential pole is the location of the linguistic system – including the resources that are deployed in verbal art” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 28). In terms of context, which is unceasingly his focus, he locates the contexts of situation that all texts, including verbal art, function within at the instance pole; then he positions the cultural system, or context of culture, in which of course contexts of situation themselves are situated, at the potential pole. But, redolent of Halliday’s (1991) metaphor of climate and weather, he stresses that “potential and instance are not separate phenomena; they are simply different phases of one and the same phenomenon” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 28). For Halliday, the metaphor was also useful to understanding the relationship between context and culture (Halliday, 1991; cf. Miller, 2017: 12). With reference to the cultural system, in reflecting on “Context: higher-level themes”, Matthiessen (2013a: 38–39) contends that Hasanian “theme can – and must – be interpreted against the context of culture – the cultural potential – of a community: it can be formulated in terms of this higher-level meaning potential”. He also emphasizes the importance of one’s knowing something about the context of culture of a literature text to develop a better sense of its theme. Here he implicitly links up with the socially situated writer’s “world view”, located within Hasan’s “context of creation” (1985; cf. Table 6.1 above), the investigation of which for Hasan is crucial to better identify the literature text theme. So then, verbal art is “located at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation as recreating text. The system is the potential for making meaning that lies behind these instantial acts of meaning; it is distilled out of these acts, and it is instantiated in them” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 28–29, original emphasis). Matthiessen thus contends that text analysis must be seen as the investigation of sequences of acts of meaning (cf. Halliday, 1992) and concludes that a verbal art text is at the same time a semantic art text. Figure 6.5 reproduces the figure he offers at this juncture. And once again in evidence in the figure is the hierarchy of stratification, invariably intertwining with other dimensions. Figure 6.5 graphically represents its dimensional bond with instantiation. Recall too that it is stratification that “enables us to interpret the effect of foregrounding in instantiation as de-automatization of lexicogrammar in relation to semantics” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 35). In brief, it too is vital to the identification of a literature text’s deepest meanings, or theme.

268  Donna R. Miller

Figure 6.5  A work of verbal art as a work of semantic art, located at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation as an instance of verbal art (Matthiessen, 2013a: 29)

“But what about literature – verbal art – itself as a subpotential within the overall meaning potential of a language? What is it like – can it be characterized at all, or is it too heterogeneous?”, Matthiessen asks, and replies: “The short answer is, of course, that this is still an open question; but it is one that can in principle be answered by empirical research […] – extensive empirical research” (2013a: 31–32). And here we link up to the trinocular view of verbal art, seen “from roundabout”, i.e. of a work of verbal art as an “extended register” that is “constructed out of this subpotential of the overall meaning potential as successive acts of meaning” (Matthiessen, 2013a: 3, 2013b: 8, 2017: 12). Matthiessen hypothesizes this subpotential’s location along the cline of instantiation, as in Figure 6.6. Recalling that for Hasan the complexities of the language-context connection in verbal art is a distinctive trait making this register special, we note how Matthiessen’s graphic representation in the figure highlights that connection in an analogous fashion. Elaborating on this putative register, he says: If it exists, it would, in the first instance, be the semantic strategies deployed in recreating contexts – that is, the subpotential of the overall meaning potential of a language that writers (and speakers) use in order to recreate aspects of life. That is, like semantics in general, the

Figure 6.6  Verbal art as a (putative) register located midway along the cline of instantiation within “recreating” contexts (Matthiessen, 2013a: 32)

Matthiessen and verbal art  269

270  Donna R. Miller semantics of recreating contexts would be strategic in nature; it would include strategies for “placing” a story in terms of main characters and spatio-temporal setting, as shown by Hasan (1984), strategies for creating suspense and strategies for establishing the point of view of a character. (Matthiessen, 2013a: 32) And yet, he notes that a comprehensive description of the semantic strategies of verbal art has still to be suitably developed – a part of that extensive systematic research into verbal art instances needing to be carried out to enable the characterization of verbal art as a meaning subpotential, a register. Intriguingly, in closing his papers on “Talking and Writing about Literature”, Matthiessen (2013b: 42–44, 2017: 44–47) considers what he baptizes “registerial radiation”, i.e. the registerial dissemination which texts operating in recreating contexts can be seen to have. He exemplifies his point with the play Spring and Port Wine by British playwright, Bill Naughton, first written in a “recreating” context. The play was staged for the first time in 1959 and then turned into a screenplay. The film was released in 1970. But a variety of discourses operating in a range of contexts have had these two literature texts as their source. For instance, in “reporting” contexts, he cites “biographical sketches of the author, recounts of the plot, cast lists, and so on – for example the Wikipedia and the IMDB (Internet Movie Database) entries” (Matthiessen, 2013b: 43, 2017: 46). Spring and Port Wine also appears as a topic of conversation among friends in “sharing” contexts. And the play and film become a commodity to be promoted and to be reviewed in “recommending” and “exploring” contexts, respectively. And the phenomenon appears to be growing. The ever-developing “technology of the Internet supports the dissemination of discourses, including discourses about literary discourses [that] tend to instantiate a range of different registers” (Matthiessen, 2013b: 44, 2017: 46). Registerial radiation, he remarks briefly, can also be usefully probed with computational tools capable of tracing such itinerant meanings and pin-pointing trends.8 6.4 Parting thoughts Lack of space precludes that these be anything but much too succinct. Matthiessen’s work is always a reminder of how SFL gifts us a holistic and comprehensive means of engaging with language in context and of performing extensive analyses of texts belonging to many different registers. Yet, for him, the benefits of SFL are even greater, even more inspiring. Right from the start, SFL has been designed to have the theoretical potential to be applied to solve problems in communities, ultimately

Matthiessen and verbal art  271 to improve the human condition. Halliday (e.g. 2002) has characterized it as appliable linguistics, and a key part of appliable linguistics is appliable discourse analysis. (Matthiessen, 2015c: 150–151, original emphasis) And, of course, as Matthiessen systematically shows, a key part of appliable discourse analysis is appliable verbal art analysis. In critically engaging with and expanding SFS in his assiduously wide-ranging way, Matthiessen purposefully demonstrates the high-stakes activity it is, illuminating the inherent function of verbal art to “hold a many-angled mirror to human life”,9 without which the human condition would no doubt be by far the poorer. Acknowledgements My thanks go to Christian Matthiessen for generously providing unpublished work and permission to cite from it. To him, and also editor Bo Wang, I am grateful for helpfully engaging with my many queries. Notes 1 Not all of Matthiessen’s work on verbal art is, regrettably, as yet published. His draft paper (2013a) – a truly serendipitous find online some years ago – is unfortunately no longer available at the link provided in the references (https:// it​.scribd​.com​/document​/218160408​/Analysing​-and​-Interpreting​-Works​-of​ -Verbal​-Arts. Last accessed 2 April 2018). His 2013b paper is a revised and much-reduced version, reprinted in 2017, but without much of Matthiessen’s (2013a) truly noteworthy material. 2 The designation was introduced in Miller (2021) because it was needed to differentiate the theory and practice of stylistics in the SFL perspective from the myriad varieties of stylistics currently out there being described in the volume. 3 In this paper, and repeatedly, Matthiessen draws attention to Halliday’s (2011) analogy between scientific theory and literary theme as being relevant to the construal of human experience and higher-order value. See also Matthiessen (2013a: 10, 2013b: 17, 2017: 21; Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023: 5). Halliday and Butt (2019) elaborate further on the topic. Hasan’s modelling of the symbolic articulation of theme within a “semiotic system of verbal art” (Hasan, 1985: 96–99]; cf. Miller, 2021: Section 2.3) is not in itself explicitly developed by Matthiessen, though it is central to Halliday’s argument for the analogy between verbal art and “verbal science”. 4 Initially, I had queried Matthiessen’s sometimes locating theme within context rather than semantics in 2013a. His reply was as follows (personal communication 1 July 2018): “Regarding semantics vs. context as the location of the ‘theme’: this is an interesting challenge; I believe part of my consideration was that context is implicated in multisemiotic art – there must be a location that

272  Donna R. Miller will enable the coordination of the resources in the different semiotic systems working together”. So he was viewing “from above” and in terms of multisemiosis. 5 Matthiessen (2015d) does not explicitly argue the case for seeing the Noah’s Ark narrative as literature, and neither will we. But we do see the Bible as text as a sort of literary anthology – a collection of varied literary genres written by multiple authors over time. A Google search for “The Bible as literature” or “Literary Study of the Bible” reaps rich results. See, e.g. Marx (2013). 6 “Scholars speak of the ‘grammar’ of various semiotic systems other than language, e.g. ‘grammar of images’, the ‘grammar of film’; but this is grammar in a metaphorical sense of systematic organization – in systemic functional work, involving systems and structures – but not in the technical sense of lexicogrammar operating together with semantics within the content plane. See e.g. Bateman & Schmidt (2012) on the problems with extending the use of the term ‘grammar’ to the description of film” (Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023: 10, n. 3). 7 And yet he often happily works with songs with his students, reflecting his intense interest in examining popular culture (cf. Matthiessen, Wang & Ma, forthcoming). As he writes (personal communication, 17 January 2020): “I’ve been analysing songs – as you know and have mentioned, and at least some of them with multimodal implications. A number of the songs I have chosen myself, like Peter, Paul and Mary’s ‘El Salvador’ and Mavis Staples’ version of ‘We Shall Not Be Moved’ [which he has generously shared with me DRM], ‘In the Year 2525’, and Johnny Cash’s version of ‘The Streets of Laredo’; others I have analysed because students proposed them and asked me to analyse them, like Ed Sheeran’s ‘Perfect’ (which I found hard to tolerate because of my allergy to syrupy clichés), The Beatles’ ‘Yesterday’, and Shawn Mendes & Camila Cabello’s ‘Señorita’”. 8 Cf. Kashyap & Matthiessen (2017), an interesting corpus-assisted investigation into the construal of motion in different registers, including verbal art. 9 See the Equinox online gloss to Hasan (forthcoming): https://api​.equinoxpub​ .com​/books​/1511.

References Bateman, John A. & Karl-Heinrich Schmidt. 2012. Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Bowcher, Wendy L. 2018. “Future directions in the study of verbal art.” In Rebekah Wegener, Stella Neumann & Antje Oesterle (eds.), On verbal art: Essays in honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. Sheffield: Equinox. 278–313. Butt, David G. & Annabelle Lukin. 2009. “Stylistic analysis: Construing aesthetic organization.” In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. 190–215. Halliday, M.A.K. 1971. “Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s The Inheritors.” In Seymour Benjamin Chatman (ed.), Literary style: A symposium. London & New York: Oxford University Press. 330–365. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 88–125.

Matthiessen and verbal art  273 Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1982. “The de-automatization of grammar: From Priestley’s ‘An inspector calls’.” In John A. Anderson (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 129–159. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 126–148. Halliday, M.A.K. 1988a. “Foreword.” In David Birch & Michael O’Toole (eds.), Functions of style. London: Pinter. vii–ix. Halliday, M.A.K. 1988b. “Poetry as scientific discourse: The nuclear sections of Tennyson’s ‘In memoriam’.” In David Birch & Michael O’Toole (eds.), Functions of style. London: Pinter. 31–44. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 149–167. Halliday M.A.K. 1991. “The notion of ‘context’ in language education.” In Thao Le & Mike McCausland (eds.), Interaction and development: Proceedings of the international conference, Vietnam, 30 March – 1 April 1992. University of Tasmania: Language Education. 1–26. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2007. Language and education. Volume 9 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 269–290. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992. “The act of meaning.” In James E. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992: Language, communication and social meaning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 7–21. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 375–389. Halliday, M.A.K. 1996. “On grammar and grammatics.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–38. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 384–417. Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. “Applied linguistics as an evolving theme.” Presented at AILA 2002, Singapore. Published in M.A.K. Halliday. 2007. Language and education. Volume 9 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 1–19. Halliday, M.A.K. 2011. “Some thoughts on text and discourse, information and meaning.” Paper given to “Choice and Text”, Institute of Language & Communication, University of Southern Denmark. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2013. Halliday in the 21st century. Volume 11 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Bloomsbury. 55–70.

274  Donna R. Miller Halliday, M.A.K. & David G. Butt. 2019. “Language and science, language in science, and linguistics as science.” In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 620–650. Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Reprinted in 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2006. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1984. “The nursery tale as a genre.” Nottingham Linguistic Circular 13: 71–102. Reprinted in Ruqaiya Hasan. 1996. Ways of saying: Ways of meaning: Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Carmel Cloran, David G. Butt & Geoffrey Williams. London: Cassell. 51–72. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. Linguistics, language and verbal art. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Reprinted in 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1996a. “Teaching literature across cultures.” In Joyce E. James (ed.), The language-culture connection. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre. 34–63. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1996b. “Literacy, everyday talk and society.” In Ruqaiya Hasan & Geoff Williams (eds.), Literacy in society. London & New York: Longman. 377–424. Reprinted in Ruqaiya Hasan. 2011. Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. Volume 3 in the Collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Equinox. 169–206. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2007. “Private pleasure, public discourse: Reflections on engaging with literature.” In Donna R. Miller & Monica Turci (eds.), Language and verbal art revisited: Linguistic approaches to the study of literature. London: Equinox. 13–40. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2011. “A timeless journey: On the past and future of present knowledge.” In Selected works of Ruqaiya Hasan on applied linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. xiv–xliii. Hasan, Ruqaiya. forthcoming. Verbal art: A sociosemiotic perspective. Volume 7 in the Collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster & David G. Butt. Sheffield: Equinox. Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2017. “FIGURE and GROUNDa in the construal of motion: A registerial perspective.” WORD 63(1): 62–91. Lukin, Annabelle & Jonathan J. Webster. 2005. “Systemic Functional Linguistics and the study of literature.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (volume 1). London: Equinox. 413–456. Martin, J.R. & Peter R.R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Marx, Steven. 2013. “Bible as literature.” In Anne L.C. Runehov & Luis Oviedo (eds.), Encyclopedia of sciences and religions. Dordrecht: Springer. 194–202.

Matthiessen and verbal art  275 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009. “Ideas and new directions.” In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum. 12–58. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 135–183. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013a. “Analysing and interpreting works of verbal art as acts of meaning instantiating the meaning potential of language in context.” 1–58. MS. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013b. “Talking and writing about literature: Some observations based on Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 39(2): 5–49. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Modelling context and register: The long-term project of registerial cartography.” Letras, Santa Maria 25(50): 15–90. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015c. “Systemic functional morphology: The lexicogrammar of the word.” In Edson Rosa de Souza (ed.), Estudos de descrição funcionalista: Objetos e abordagens. LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 55. München: LINCOM. 150–199. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015d. “Subliminal construal of world order clause by clause: Hierarchy of control in Noah’s Ark.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11(2–3): 250–283. https://doi​.org​/10​.1558​/lhs​.00000. Issued Date: 15 Jun 2018. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2017. “Talking and writing about literature: Some observations based on Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Leila Barbara, Adail Sebastião Rodrigues-Júnior & Giovanna Marcella Verdessi Hoy (eds.), Estudos e pesquisas em Linguística Sistêmico Funcional [Studies and research in Systemic Functional Linguistics]. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras. 9–51. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2019. “Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Register Studies 1(1): 10–41. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Bilingual edition, with introduction by Huang Guowen. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2016. “Registerial hybridity: Indeterminacy among fields of activity.” In Donna R. Miller & Paul Bayley (eds.), Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Grammar, text and discursive context. Sheffield: Equinox. 205–239. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Francisco O.D. Veloso. 2023. “‘Real’ and imaginary worlds in children’s fiction: The velveteen rabbit.” Semiotica: 1–31. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​/sem​-2022​-0047 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma. forthcoming. “Interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen: On language and literature.” Manuscript of interview conducted on September 25, 2017, to appear in a future volume of the interview collection.

276  Donna R. Miller Miller, Donna R. 2017. Language as purposeful: Functional varieties of text (2nd fully revised edition). In Donna R. Miller (ed.), Functional grammar studies for non-native speakers of English, series in the Quaderni del Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali (CeSLiC). E-book deposited in the Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze, available in pdf at http://amsacta​.unibo​.it​/id​/eprint​/5504. Miller, Donna R. 2021. Verbal art and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Sheffield: Equinox. Wang, Bo & Yuanyi Ma. forthcoming. “Christian Matthiessen and translation viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma (eds.), Theorizing and developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Williams, Geoff. 2016. “Reflection literacy in the first years of schooling: Questions of theory and practice.” In Wendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds.), Society in language, language in society: Essays in honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 333–356.

Part III

Christian Matthiessen and the global influences of Systemic Functional Linguistics





7

The impact of Christian M.I.M Matthiessen on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Australia Ernest S. Akerejola

7.1 Introduction This is the third attempt I have been involved in to write about Christian Matthiessen. The first attempt was foiled by the movement of contributors, some to Japan and others to Hong Kong. In the second attempt, an effort was made to galvanize as many of Matthiessen’s students to produce a festschrift in his honour for his 60th birthday. Perhaps we did not give the endeavour sufficient time and that resulted in a limited number of (or rather rushed) abstracts. Pressures on prospective contributors from their jobs, research and imperatives on nominated editors were also inhibiting factors. The commendable foresight, patience and perseverance as well as the long-term planning of Bo Wang and Yuanyi Ma have significantly brought this latest attempt to a promising fruition. Christian Matthiessen’s contributions to the development of Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL) research and teaching in Australia can hardly be adequately described in words. His impact is multifaceted; in broad terms, ranging from the teaching, research, mentorship and instigation of the growth and development of the SFL school in Australia. The imperatives of tense consistency make writing about Matthiessen in the past tense challenging, as it is not known that Hong Kong has distracted him from the admirable virtues discussed in the paragraphs below. In this chapter, I will first explore the context in which Matthiessen was situated in Australia (see Figure 7.1 for a picture of him in Australia); next, I will discuss his impact on SFL development generally; I will then discuss his general approach to the dissemination of SFL; and finally, I will highlight some of the factors, in my view, that made his activities in Australia so successful, if not indispensable. I have to admit, although another major challenge in writing this article is the decision on a specific principle of organization of the material, several points seem intertwined as a result of the apparent complexity of Matthiessen’s involvement in multiple areas of the epistemological development of SFL. Evidence of this complexity can be seen in his accessible scores of publications while he was in Australia. DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-10

280  Ernest S. Akerejola

Figure 7.1  Christian Matthiessen at the introduction of IFG3 during ISFC 2005

7.2 Matthiessen in the Australian SFL context In this section, I explore the Australian linguistic context in which Christian Matthiessen operated. SFL effectively began in Australia with the migration of Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan to Sydney in early 1976. Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan began to teach, led research in SFL and eventually headed departments at the University of Sydney (USYD) and Macquarie University (MU) respectively for many years. SFL, as conceived by M.A.K Halliday, is a holistic theory of language in context (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: xvi). Australia was very fortunate to have scholars who collaborated with the two pioneers above, mostly as linguistics students, researchers, in other capacities and at different levels of engagement with the duo.1 These scholars shared a common intellectual interest in SFL, which fortified the work that Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan had started and advanced in their various fields of interest. Their activities of both teaching and research collaboration made Australia a powerhouse and a centrifugal source for SFL. The arrival of Matthiessen, however, was especially phenomenal in this scheme of things. The two decades of Matthiessen in Australia made the continent, undoubtedly, the intellectually most formidable SFL centre in the world. SFL began to be seen as a paradigm that accounts for most questions that have been unanswered for decades (or even centuries), including the functions of language, the focus of language studies and language education in society. This was a departure from the notion of “‘linguistics’ for linguistic sake” or language as a system of rules.

Matthiessen in Australia 

281

7.3 Matthiessen’s crucial role in SFL advancement in Australia This section discusses Christian Matthiessen’s crucial role in advancing SFL in Australia. Significantly, Matthiessen played a central role in the rapid growth, dissemination, consolidation, and popularity of SFL, both as a linguistic theory and an appliable paradigm. His two decades in Australia, from 1988 to 2008, were characterized by sustained impact that saw SFL reach a crescendo. With Matthiessen’s ever-increasing enthusiasm, SFL began to develop exponentially in various dimensions, such as discourse semantics, language education, multimodality, corpus analysis, text analysis, language typological studies and application of SFL to translation and interpreting; the vast expansion in Australia, which can be credited to his orchestration. Notably, it was also during this period that Introduction to Functional Grammar (IFG) was revised and published as the third edition, through his collaborative effort with M.A.K. Halliday (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). There was a significant leap in this edition over the previous ones, given its enrichment with (i) system networks that gave the erstwhile functional theory the true “systemic” imprint and (ii) copious natural text examples that facilitated the comprehensibility of the concepts to the readers (see An [2020] for a summary of some of the improvements brought into this third edition). Perhaps, one way of expressing the contributions of Christian Matthiessen to SFL is to state that, although Halliday did the foundational works leading to SFL, Matthiessen’s amplification of the concepts provided the needed explicitness that we have today, especially with the modelling of systems, perceptible elaboration, illustrations and with emphasis on text substantiation. Further, SFL scholars were given the privilege of the preview of the above third edition by Christian Matthiessen at the ISFC (International Systemic Functional Congress) at the University of Sydney in April 2005 (see Figure 7.2). That was enlightening and it set the scholars on very good footing. 7.4 Matthiessen’s professional commitments 7.4.1 Professor of Linguistics

This section discusses Christian Matthiessen’s role as a mentor in nurturing SFL. As a Professor of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Matthiessen constituted a catalyst to the boom in linguistics courses in the department. There was an expansion in the context and contents of several linguistic courses both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Some specific courses that thrived during his leadership of the department included “Exploring English” as a first-year course, “Grammar and Meaning in Context” in the second year and “Grammar and Meaning in a Multilingual, Typological Perspective” in the third year, which were all

282  Ernest S. Akerejola

Figure 7.2  Christian Matthiessen expounding IFG3 in April 2005

in an SFL perspective. Related courses at a more advanced level included the postgraduate courses: “Discourse Semantics”, “Register Analysis” and “Text Analysis for Translators”. Matthiessen brought insights to the conversation between linguistics and other fields of study. His approach illuminated the intersection of linguistics and other fields such as education, ideology and variation, computational technology, translation and interpreting studies, business studies, typological studies and discourse analysis, with research collaborators coming from every part of Australia and beyond. His approach highlighted the possibility of modelling language and context as a complex adaptive system (Matthiessen, 2009b: 214). 7.4.2 The provision of tools for modelling SFL description

Christian Matthiessen provided an enabling environment for the growth of ingenuity in linguistic description. He was a resource person for SFL research. In his 20 years of sojourn in Australia, he attracted many researchers and scholars from different parts of the world. He was consulted for ideas as well as direction in every area of linguistic research. He was also a source for potential linguistic researchers from all continents of the world and linked them to his research groups and apparatus, either actually or virtually. With his consistent encouragement and persuasive

Matthiessen in Australia 

283

profundity, the researchers were nurtured and became easily inspired to immerse themselves in deep linguistic studies. During his time, Australia (especially Sydney) became the hub of linguistic activities of all shades. As one of the “crème de la crème” of SFL, Matthiessen motivated frequent convergence of linguists in Australia. As such, the continent became the unlegislated world centre of the SFL school. These factors provided a rich experience for linguistic researchers in Australia. 7.4.3 The foundation of systemic linguistic typological research groups across and beyond Australia

Christian Matthiessen was a key figure, a foundational member, and the Deputy Director of the Centre for Language in Social Life (CLSL), under the directorship of David Butt. The combined effort of both leaders enabled the centre to exude such vibrancy that made linguistic research in Australia not only endearing but also delightful. The number of post-doctoral fellowship, foreign exchange students, linguistics research scholars and short-term research visitors’ programmes reached its peaks in the decade of Matthiessen’s presence at Macquarie University in Australia.2 The centre became popular for language description and typological works. Interest in systemic typological description grew significantly during his time in Australia. Australia became a centre of intellectual attraction. Some of the by-products of this development are the collaborative works that led to the publication of Language Typology: A Functional Perspective edited by Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004) and Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics edited by Halliday and Webster (2009). Furthermore, while Matthiessen’s influence facilitated collaboration among linguists across the globe, it also became a catalyst for the establishment of satellite SFL groups in various regions of the world. From the onset, Matthiessen initiated and promoted team collaboration as a standard for SFL intellectualism: study, research and publication. He was adept at putting a team together to collaborate on topic areas. Such collaboration led to the publication edited by Wu, Matthiessen and Herke (2008), with each author viewing the concept of “projection” in the perspective of different languages – a very enriching experience. It was understood that individuation of research constrained its potentials and outcomes. The advantages of his advised team approach to research are as follows: firstly, it helped individual members of the team to have a solid base and to locate their research endeavours consciously within a sound linguistic tradition; secondly, it afforded them a broadminded, peer-review development in their individual intellectual trajectory of interest at the same time; and thirdly, it ensured that there was continuity of SFL in Australian institutions wherever anyone relocated to,

284  Ernest S. Akerejola eventually. This was important (particularly for Macquarie University) because, as a result, every movement then constituted a potential for the spread of SFL thoughts. Matthiessen provided the right atmosphere for collaboration and teamwork. As an illustration of the above, Matthiessen masterminded a very productive collaborative team at Macquarie University (where he held the Linguistics Department professorial chair).3 Even though members had their individual research focus, they held frequent meetings. Their activities, in the form of teaching and research, as well as collaboration in these activities, made Macquarie University a powerhouse and a centrifugal point for SFL in Australia. The insight occasioned by their interaction with Matthiessen was a boost to their confidence in teaching, publications and exploration of other research avenues in SFL. Thus, that decade of Matthiessen at Macquarie University made the institution not only a breeding ground for SFL, but his efforts also saw the creation of a social network of linguistics scholars and researchers in Australia. There were occasional visitors to some of the activities and seminars of this group, which included esteemed scholars such as Michael Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan, Geoff Williams, Erich Steiner, Elke Teich, Michael Abib, V. Prakasam, Mick O’Donnell, Thomas Hestbæk Andersen, Marvin Lam, Makoto Sasaki and a host of others. 7.4.4 The Matthiessonian approach

Christian Matthiessen’s method of exploring language (henceforth the Matthiessonian approach) has become the most widely applied approach for language description. This method, which derives from Halliday’s perspective of language as an integral part of a people’s culture and as a resource for making meaning, advocates a heuristic approach (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: xvii) and description of a particular language to be as comprehensive as possible (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 19; 2014). Additionally, language, as conceived, is constituted by a network of systems and theorized as a system of meaning potential; while linguistic activities of cultural tokens and resultant texts, such as public speeches (oral or written), conversations (formal or casual), marriage contracts, narratives, sermons, prayers and songs in language, are instances – both the system and instance are at either terminal of a continuum. Matthiessen (2009b: 207) explains: language is both system and instance. These are not separate phenomena but rather different phases of a unified phenomenon extended along a cline of instantiation from potential to instance. Because the central characteristic of language is that it is a resource for making meaning, we can say that the acts of meaning that make up a text

Matthiessen in Australia 

285

unfolding in time instantiate a meaning potential, noting that these are simply different phases of language as a meaning-making resource. With further exposition by Matthiessen, such notions as dimensions, matrices and metafunctions became crucial entry concepts into the SFL description of languages. Language descriptions based on the above grew exponentially while he was in Australia. Scholars and students working with Matthiessen at postgraduate levels (i.e. honours,4 doctoral or post-doctoral) were advised to locate their studies in specific conceptual frameworks, the scope of which depended on the breadth and depth the student wished to go, as well as the time they had at their disposal. Matthiessen encouraged researchers wishing to attempt a comprehensive description of a language to begin by building an archive (of naturally occurring texts of all types), from which they were to draw on in the exploration of, for example, the lexicogrammar of the language. This fostered the text-based research into various languages which, in itself, was an enriching experience, while it contributed to the originality of individual language description. On the other hand, researchers whose interests were in specific text types were advised to build a corpus (of the same text type) for their linguistic description or analysis. The consideration of register typology was of significant use to the latter group (see also Chapter 2, this volume). Matthiessen’s advised procedure would be a meaning-oriented description, commencing with the specification of an area of investigation, referred to as the “dimensions in language” (Halliday, 2009: 61; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 21, 2014: 20–21), and definition of the scope of the study by locating it in the linguistic system – what Butt (2005) refers to as “semiotic address/atlas”. This implies that the investigation became unambiguous as it focused on (a) specific point(s) within “the architecture” of the linguistic system (Matthiessen, 2007: 505) in the process of exploring language as meaning potential. This is illustrated in one of Matthiessen’s most popular diagrams in Figure 7.3 (see also Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1, this volume). Thus, the researchers began to investigate specific aspects of the meaning system of a language or text type: experiential (the transitivity system), interpersonal (the mood system) or textual (theme system). This was a significant development facilitated by the two decades of Christian Matthiessen in Australia. Descriptions of a number of languages were built on this systemic functional linguistic framework, initially posited by M.A K. Halliday, with continual expansion by Matthiessen (see Chapter 4, this volume, for discussions on language description). In this way, the description of a language first identifies the level of language (namely context, content plane or expression plane). Each level (stratum) chosen then has ramifications. For instance, the level of context implicates the exploration of the field,

Figure 7.3  Dimensions of language (adapted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 21)

286  Ernest S. Akerejola

Matthiessen in Australia 

287

tenor and mode of discourse; while the level of content becomes an entry point to the components of meaning: ideational (experiential and logical), interpersonal and textual meanings. The level of expression is describable in terms of mode of expression (the sound system of a language – phonology). However, the description/discussion at any point of the levels of language would normally relate to other terms symbiotically. Matthiessen advocated Halliday’s “trinocular perspective” (Halliday, 1996: 26–27; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 35) in his approach to analysis. This meant approaching linguistic analysis from different levels: “from above” – higher level of abstraction, “from roundabout” – within the level, and “from below”. For instance, a description of a “particle/ clitic” in a language like Ọ̀kọ (“from above”) would probe its motivation from the interpersonal metafunctional system of meaning and its relation to the lexicogrammatical system of the mood of the clause; while “from roundabout”, “particle/clitic” would be examined in relation to how a shift in the position (initial, medial or final) in the clause had ramifications for the attitudinal shift in the system of negotiation; and “from below”, the focus might be on the relationship between “particle/clitic” and tone in what Halliday refers to as the key system of certain languages such as English (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 142; see also Smith & Greaves, 2015: 308–309). The adoption or adaptation of this framework has led to major achievements in the description of languages from various parts of the world based on systemic functional grammar. Matthiessen played a central supervisory role in the emergence of these ground-breaking studies in Australia (see also Chapter 4, this volume). Some of these studies include Caffarel’s (2006) description of French – Indo-European, Kazuhiro Teruya’s (1998, 2004, 2007) description of Japanese – Sino-Tibetan, Mohamed Ali Bardi’s (2008) description of Arabic – Afroаsiatic, Pattama Patpong’s (2006) description of Thai – Tai-Kadai, Ernest Akerejola’s (2005) description of Ò̩kọ – NigerCongo, Mira Kim’s (2008) description of Korean – Koreanic, and Abhishek Kumar’s (2008) description of Bajika – Indo-Aryan (see also Table 4.8 in Chapter 4, this volume). While some of the works included a comprehensive description of the three (or four – where the ideational metafunction distinguishes experiential from logical) metafunctions, others emphasized a particular metafunction and explored it in greater depth. As a result, for practical reasons, there was always a trade-off between the scope and the depth of coverage in description, whichever approach was adopted. Furthermore, Matthiessen always encouraged a text-based description. He promoted on the one hand naturally occurring text (that is, text in context) as a resource for language investigation, and the building of a corpus from actual sources, where possible. On the other hand, descriptions were also based on pre-existing data sources such as published data. For the

288  Ernest S. Akerejola description of a language, researchers are advised to collect a wide range of text types (as an archive), as some registers are more inclined to produce some text samples oriented towards one metafunctional component than others. For instance, a casual conversation would be more suited for the description of interpersonal metafunction, as this would normally involve the negotiation of interpersonal relationship; a recount may produce more instances of experiential concepts, as the emphasis may be the construal of various activities in chronological order and temporal circumstances; a tourist guide or certain procedural texts may facilitate the description of textual metafunction, as these may contain a serial order or waves of information. These examples are based on the text characters of registerial types; as elaborated below. The concept of register typology was originally proposed by Jean Ure (see e.g. Matthiessen, 2009a: 29, 2015, 2020). However, this was further amplified, elaborated and systematized by Matthiessen (e.g. 2009b), who made it increasingly accessible to researchers.5 One of the outcomes of this systematization was the modelling of the socio-semiotic characterization of text types, which had become one of the iconic parts of the Matthiessonian approach (see Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2). This had provided investigators with a tool not only for the contextualization of areas of investigation in specific terms but also for predicting the character of any text as well as enabling the building of a corpus to suit any area of interest.

7.4.5 The successful building of the SFL community

The role of Christian Matthiessen in building a strong SFL community in Australia cannot be overemphasized. Besides his regular meeting and communication with his postgraduate and research students, Matthiessen’s attendance at the SFL weekly seminars hosted at the University of Sydney always motivated various systemic functional linguists to attend. His role in these seminars in conjunction with erudite counterparts in Sydney and other parts of Australia helped to form a strong SFL community with varying linguistic interests in Australia. The rooms, where he did any presentation, were hardly ever large enough for attendees. Similarly, the demand for his attention, whether he presented at the seminar or not, was always high, and this regularly extended to post-seminar get-togethers, where he fielded questions from scholars. It was obvious that the beneficiaries of this relaxed mode of interaction found it very helpful and instructive. Christian Matthiessen demonstrated his leadership acumen in the roles he played in the International Systemic Functional Linguistic Association (ISFLA) Congress in Sydney in 2005, where he was a member of the Organizing Committee; and another in 2008 at Macquarie University, where he chaired the Organizing Committee. His leadership role in the

Matthiessen in Australia 

289

2008 ISFC obviously inspired members’ enthusiasm for the huge successes that characterized the conference. Matthiessen has made a monumental contribution to the understanding of both the theory and application of SFL in Australia. In the 20 years that he spent in Australia, Matthiessen had been a resource person and was widely consulted for research in various areas of linguistic investigations. Draft copies of his publications were freely made available to his students and researchers in SFL. His library was open to as many as desired to use it. Among other resources, his monograph based on his experience of doing computational research, Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems (Matthiessen, 1995), and drafts of “The ‘Architecture’ of Language according to Systemic Functional Theory: Developments since the 1970s” (Matthiessen, 2007) and Systemic Functional Grammar: A First Step into the Theory (Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009) were just a few of the print resources widely used by his students to facilitate their grasp, comprehension and depth of understanding of SFL. 7.4.6 An all-round linguistic scholar and his mentoring strategies

Christian Matthiessen’s versatility made it easy for him to work with students, mentees or scholars of different areas of linguistic inclination as well as from different regions of the globe. As an example, his study of Akan (i.e. Matthiessen, 1987a, 1987b) evidently positioned him to easily assist researchers in African languages, especially the Niger-Congo family of languages. I was a beneficiary of the mentioned experience in the exploration of Ò̩kọ, a Nigerian language in the same Niger-Congo family as Akan (Akerejola, 2005; cf. Mwinlaaru, Matthiessen & Akerejola, 2018). In addition, Matthiessen’s works in computational linguistics placed him as a resource to researchers like Canzhong Wu (2000) who were inclined to develop computational tools for SFL analysis, or the deployment of SFL computational knowledge in critical discourse as by Maria Herke (2006). Not all the research works and publications that have come under his direct mentorship have been mentioned in this article (see Matthiessen et al., 2022: Chapter 3 for more discussions on his supervision of PhD theses); but those that feature here, doubtlessly, reflect his vast intellectual experience. There are numerous other works that he contributed to in Australia through unofficial advice, which are not documented here. 7.4.7 The Matthiessonian teaching and supervision

Christian Matthiessen, like Michael Halliday, taught language as a complex semiotic system (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, 2014: 24; Matthiessen, 1991, 2009a; see also Section 1.8 in Chapter 1, this volume). To carry out a meticulous study of the texts in the archive, a researcher

290  Ernest S. Akerejola is expected to work out the systems in the language, drawing from (but not limited to) available SFL system networks (see e.g. Matthiessen, 1995; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Matthiessen advocated the description of every language in its own natural terms. In other words, each language should be described as the potential for the creation of meaning for users of that particular language, rather than prescriptively imposing the system(s) of another language on it. This also explains why Matthiessen advised moving from the text in context to description, which was reminiscent of an inductive rather than a deductive approach. By so doing, a researcher might also identify potentials in the language that would feed into the SFL theory. According to Matthiessen, a researcher needed to be aware of the nature of language – language was organized in dimensions (see Figure 7.3), which could be enumerated as the dimensions of stratification, metafunction, axis, and instantiation (see Matthiessen, 2007). The details of this organization are discussed explicitly in Halliday (2009: Section 1.4). Within these broad categories of systems, there are other systems, all interconnected within a complex network of systemic relations. Furthermore, researchers were encouraged to observe the nuances in individual languages. This approach led to creativity as well as confidence in the product of one’s description of a language, whether it be phonological analysis (see Smith, 2008), lexicogrammatical analysis (see Teruya, 1998, 2007; Akerejola, 2005) or discourse analysis (see Ochi, 2013). This approach also resulted in high-quality research outcomes. His thoroughness in dealing with the works of his students and mentees encouraged them to adopt a thorough approach in their linguistic investigations. Matthiessen was highly respected as a towering figure in the Australian SFL group. He seemed an indefatigable scholar. Intellectual activities were always happening wherever Matthiessen was. He was a centre of intellectual attraction, even though he never took credit for any of his achievements. Rather, he would spend much time and space, on any occasion, highlighting the accomplishments of others, but little of his. In many respects, he can be known as the linguist who brought IFG “down to earth” and populated it with illustrations from languages. This was very apparent during his sojourn in Australia. 7.5 Matthiessen’s humane intellectualism 7.5.1 The Matthiessonian modus operandi

This section examines the tenor of Christian Matthiessen’s intellectual activities. Matthiessen’s consultation method can, indeed, be described as humane intellectualism. In terms of tenor, Matthiessen took a humane approach in dealing with his mentees. His empathy towards their plights

Matthiessen in Australia 

291

apparently underlay his approach. This had a significant impact on the confidence of his students or mentees and gave them control of their study or scholarly activities. He would always find something positive to comment on in whatever they did or redirect their perspective towards a positive trajectory, no matter how simplistic the point was. He denigrated or belittled no one but gave everyone a chance. Matthiessen did not only resource his intellectual dependents. When needs arose, he also used his resources to alleviate their condition. The atmosphere he created among his students facilitated the crossbreeding of ideas. From 2002 to 2006, Matthiessen organized a weekly forum where his students in the same field of study met with him to discuss their research work together in a seminar fashion. This arrangement gave the researchers an opportunity to articulate their ideas, while it also motivated individuals to work progressively with a clear focus. Furthermore, researchers were given the opportunity to be informed about agnate or related studies, to receive constructive criticism from their colleagues and to contribute their opinions to colleagues’ works. This helped to expand the horizon of his mentees. Sometimes, the belief in his students inspired them to take risks, delving into areas they had not previously conceived. This was beneficial, ultimately, in helping them to generate more useful ideas for their work.

7.5.2 Postlude to Matthiessen’s mentorship

Christian Matthiessen was very delightful to work with. With his sense of humour, he doused potential anxiety faced by his students and mentees. His support through interjections and body language helped the latter to overcome their nerves under situations (such as group or public seminar presentations) that challenged their confidence. In addition, there were no questions that were too insignificant for him to respond to. Rather, he gently guided his mentees in the right direction. Furthermore, he showed utmost magnanimity in response to views that might be at variance with his own. Matthiessen keeps contact with his beneficiaries, even years after active mentoring engagements, acquainting and updating them with information, as much as possible, on available intellectual opportunities, nudging them to be active. He also encourages their research collaboration for publication outcomes. As such, he has become an implicit, continual virtual intellectual rallying point of some sort. The genuine interest he shows in his students and colleagues and the provision of an environment for individual development have endeared all to him. He has been a rare role model. In a citation preceding Christian Matthiessen’s plenary in the 2011 Register Conference,6 Ruqaiya Hasan described him as “a phenomenon”

292  Ernest S. Akerejola and “an intellectual hero” in the order of Vygotsky, Whorf, Bernstein, and Halliday. Furthermore, she continued: He [Christian Matthiessen] works within SFL language in such a way as to develop capacities and resources without losing what is really characteristic of SFL – that SFL is both social semiotic theory of language […] and is both functional and formal; that permits both critical and descriptive analysis. Those who have appraised him as “the natural successor of Michael Halliday” seem to have a good sense of discernment. In his usual humility, he might contend such an appraisal, but nothing can change the fact that, if Halliday was recognized as the greatest linguist of the 20th century, Christian Matthiessen is obviously one of the greatest linguists of the 21st century. Notes 1 These include notably, J.R. Martin, Christian Matthiessen, Frances Christie, Geoff Williams, Theo van Leeuwen, Claire Painter, David Butt, Carmel Cloran, Diana Slade, Sally Humphrey, Rick Iedema, Louise Ravelli, Susan Feez, Kristina Love, Beverly Derewianka, Suzanne Eggins, Pauline Jones, Christopher Cléirigh, Chris Nesbitt, Rosemary Huisman, Sue Hood, Peter White, Alice Caffarel, Kazuhiro Teruya, John Knox, Brian Dare, John Polais, and a host of others. 2 Scholars visited from Japan, China, East Timor, Germany, Denmark, Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Europe, India, Iran, Algeria, South America and so on. 3 Members of this team included David Butt, Christopher Candlin, Colin Yallop, Rhondda Fahey, Sue Spinks, Alison Moore, Annabelle Lukin, Edward McDonald, Katrine Turkwel, Stephen Moore, Canzhong Wu, Catherine Martin, Maria Herke, Bradly Smith, Rebecca Wegener, Pattama Patpong, Ayako Ochi, Mira Kim, Philip Hall, Clair Scott, Helen Slatyer, Ben Fenton, Mohamed Ali Astika Kappagoda, and Ernest Akerejola, as well as others. 4 An honours degree is awarded in Australia following a fourth and/or fifth year of study (where you do further research and write a thesis in your area of study), after the years of undergraduate bachelor’s study. 5 For more images and discussions, see Section 3 of Matthiessen (2009c; see also 2009b). 6 The Register Conference was hosted yearly until 2015, by the Centre of Language in Social Life, in honour of Emeritus Professor Ruqaiya Hasan, who joined the Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, in 1976, and contributed immensely to the development of linguistic studies in the institution until 1994 when she retired.

References Akerejola, Ernest S. 2005. A text-based lexicogrammatical description of Ò̩kọ: A systemic functional approach. PhD thesis, Macquarie Sydney, Sydney.

Matthiessen in Australia 

293

An, Duong Thi Hong. 2020. “A critical review on ‘Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar’ by M.A.K Halliday, revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (2014).” International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 10(2): 9866 Bardi, Mohammed Ali. 2008. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Arabic. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Butt, David G. 1996. “Theories, maps and descriptions: An introduction.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. xv–xxxv. Butt, David G. 2005. “Understanding your ‘semiotic address’: Grammar, meaning and discourse”. Talk delivered at pre-congress Institute of International Systemic Functional Congress, Sydney, Australia. Caffarel, Alice. 2006. A systemic functional grammar of French: From grammar to discourse. London & New York: Continuum. Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1996. “On grammar and grammatics.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory into practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–38. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 384–418. Halliday, M.A.K. 2009. “Methods – techniques – problems”. In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum. 59–86. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Herke-Couchman, Maria. 2006. SFL, corpus and the consumer: An exploration of theoretical and technological potential. PhD thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney. Kim, Mira. 2008. A discourse based study on theme in Korean and textual meaning in translation. PhD thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney. Kumar, Abhishek. 2008. Mood, transitivity and theme in Bajjika in a typological perspective: A text-based description. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987a. Notes on Akan lexicogrammar: A systemic interpretation. Mimeo. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987b. Notes on Akan phonology: A systemic interpretation. Mimeo. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1991. “Language on language: The grammar of semiosis.” Social Semiotics 1(1): 69–111. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publisher.

294  Ernest S. Akerejola Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007. “The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional theory: Developments since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (volume 2). London: Equinox. 505–561. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009a. “Ideas and new directions.” In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum. 12–58. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 135–183. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009b. “Meaning in the making: Meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning.” Language Learning 59(Suppl. 1): 206–229. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009c. “Multisemiosis and context-based register typology: Registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems.” In Eija Ventola & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro (eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 11–38. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2012. “Systemic Functional Linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches.” Delta 28(Especial), 435–471. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2020. “Trinocular views of register: Approaching register trinocularly.” Language, Context and Text 2(1): 3–21. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Bilingual edition, with introduction by Huang Guowen. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru. 2022. Systemic functional insights on language and linguistics. Singapore: Springer. Mwinlaaru, Isaac N., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Ernest Akerejola. 2018. “A system-based typology of MOOD in Niger-Congo languages.” In Augustine Agwuele & Adams Bodomo (eds.), The Routledge handbook of African linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 93–117. Ochi, Ayako. 2013. A text-based study of the interpersonal grammar of modern Japanese: Mood, modality and evidentiality. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Patpong, Pattama. 2006. A systemic functional interpretation of Thai grammar: An exploration of Thai narrative discourse. PhD thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney. Smith, Bradley Alexander. 2008. Intonational systems and register: A multidimensional exploration. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Matthiessen in Australia 

295

Smith, Bradley A. & William S. Greaves. 2015. “Intonation.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 291–313. Teruya, Kazuhiro. 1998. An exploration into the world of experience: A systemicfunctional interpretation of the grammar of Japanese. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2004. “Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Japanese.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 185–254. Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2007. A systemic functional grammar of Japanese (in two volumes). London & New York: Continuum. Wu, Canzhong. 2000. Modelling linguistic resources: A systemic functional approach. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Wu, Canzhong, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Maria Herke (eds.). 2008. Proceedings of ISFC 35: Voices around the world. Sydney: The 35th ISFC Organizing Committee.

8

Matthiessen in the Latin American SFL community Jesús David Guerra Lyons

8.1 Introduction This chapter reviews research by scholars in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) in Latin America, focusing on their engagement with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen’s work, chiefly as reflected in their citation of his books and articles, and in their application, critical discussion, and expansion of the proposals and principles therein. In Boland and Dickson’s (2017) taxonomy of literature reviews, this study falls under the category of “rapid review”, characterized by the application of an explicit protocol with stated inclusion and exclusion criteria for addressing a set of clearly defined questions. The rapid review differentiates itself from the systematic review in its less strict commitment to exhaustive coverage of available research, reflected in its delimitation to one or a few academic databases, its omission of unpublished or “grey” literature, and its usual involvement of a solo researcher. The reach and comprehensiveness of the present review should, however, provide an adequate basis for appraising Matthiessen’s impact on the Latin American SFL community and offer a useful reference for future systematic reviews oriented to examining evidence for specific issues. Although the impact of a scholar in a region may be measured by various criteria (e.g. plenary speeches in local congresses, participation in locally funded projects, publication in local journals, supervision of local students), I have decided to focus on citations of Matthiessen’s work by scholars affiliated to Latin American universities. Citations provide more objective and verifiable evidence of scholarly impact, constituting a window into the concerns and purposes for which researchers in a region apply a particular scholar’s work. This chapter thus also involves elements of citation analysis, a largely quantitative examination of the structure of a scholars’ citation network. I will (perhaps controversially) delimit Latin America to the set of (largely) Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries located in the American continent, including Mexico, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Latin America thus defined has been an emerging DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-11

Matthiessen in Latin America  297 hotspot for SFL over the last two decades, especially since the inauguration of the Latin American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association (ALSFAL for its initials in Spanish and Portuguese) in 2007.1 The community maintains a high level of dynamism and exchange, as reflected in the annual celebration of the ALSFAL congress, subscription to the ALSFAL mailing list by more than 250 members, and an ever-increasing base of publications in diverse areas. Christian Matthiessen has been an assiduous supporter of the Latin American SFL community since its early beginnings, part of which can be seen in his participation in a number of academic events in the region, including various ALSFAL congresses. The growing spread of SFL in the region owes to its “appliability” to a variety of research problems and domains (Halliday, 1964; Matthiessen, 2012). Appliability is a welcome feature in a world region that continues to face enormous challenges despite improvement in recent decades. According to data from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2018), the steady progress in Sustainable Development Goals such as the reduction in extreme poverty, child mortality, gender inequality, and illiteracy has been accompanied by an increase in crime, environmental deterioration, and social inequality. The Covid-19 pandemic has aggravated these challenges and pushed back years or decades of social development gains in most Latin American countries (ECLAC, 2020). Through the ordered typology of systems (Halliday, 1996, 2005), one of Matthiessen’s favored reasoning tools, we may conceive of these challenges as entailing implications for physical, biological, social, and semiotic systems. The physical, biological, and social risks placed by crime, environmental damage, and inequality are compounded by semiotic risks pertaining to the reproduction, naturalization, and invisibilization of the ideologies enabling these problems. (One should also note Halliday’s [2005] principle that meaning organizes matter.) This chapter hopes to provide an updated and well-balanced review of Latin American researchers’ use of Matthiessen’s contributions to SFL to address problems from various application domains. It seeks to explore Matthiessen’s impact in the region following both quantitative and qualitative indicators, as explained in the Methodology section (Section 8.2 of this chapter). For each area of application, it analyzes the ways in which Latin American researchers have engaged with and furthered Matthiessen’s proposals, suggesting possible areas for expansion. 8.2 Methodology The present review is motivated by the goal of understanding the influence of Christian Matthiessen’s work on SFL research carried out in the Latin American context. Matthiessen’s influence as a scholar may be understood through quantitative and qualitative indicators. The quantitative indicators

298  Jesús David Guerra Lyons have to do with the frequency of citations of his work in research published by scholars affiliated to Latin American universities.2 Citation frequency may be characterized in absolute terms (total number of citations) and in relative terms (comparing citation frequency in other world regions and the citation frequency of other SFL scholars in the region). Questions associated with quantitative indicators include: 1) What is the frequency of citation of Matthiessen’s work by Latin American scholars? 2) Which Latin American countries host the most scholars citing Matthiessen’s work? 3) Which are the most cited works by Matthiessen in the Latin American region? 4) How does the frequency of citation of Matthiessen’s work in Latin America compare to other regions in the world? 5) How does the frequency of citation of Matthiessen’s work compare with the frequency of citation of other SFL scholars in Latin America? Qualitative indicators refer to the nature of Latin American scholars’ engagement with Matthiessen’s work. One qualitative indicator refers to the areas of application where Matthiessen’s work is cited. The scope of Matthiessen’s work is likely to be reflected in a diversified range of application domains, given the broad range of purposes occupying Latin American “consumers” of linguistic theory (cf. Halliday, 1964). A more complex qualitative indicator concerns the nature of Latin American SFL scholars’ engagement with Matthiessen’s work, as reflected in the following questions: 6) In which application domains do Latin American SFL scholars mostly cite Matthiessen’s work? 7) How does Latin American SFL scholars’ research apply, advance, or complement Matthiessen’s work? To approach these seven questions, I performed an analysis of citations of Matthiessen’s work based on a dataset extracted from the Scopus academic database. The Scopus database, comprising peer-reviewed research from top-tier journals, offers a reliable and practical resource for studying quantitative and qualitative indicators of scholars’ influence in different regions. Initially, I extracted bibliographic information (including names, publication years, abstracts, affiliation, and references) from journal articles, monographs, and book chapters in the database using the search terms “Matthiessen” in the References field, and the key terms “Systemic Functional Linguistics”, “Systemic Functional Grammar”, “Linguistics”,

Matthiessen in Latin America  299 and “SFL” in the “Abstract, title and key words” field. I did not specify a timespan or language in order to achieve a maximally representative dataset. The initial search yielded a total of 2,354 papers, which I extracted using the export CSV function. I manually edited out papers citing scholars surnamed “Matthiessen” not corresponding to the author in question, for a final count of 2,143 papers. I used this initial dataset to explore quantitative indicators of citation frequency from a cross-national comparative perspective (Questions 2 and 4). I employed VOS viewer 1.6.16 (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014) to visualize cross-national citation frequencies as a citation network. The next step involved manually annotating the initial dataset for region and country of affiliation, paying attention to the affiliation data provided by Scopus. This step yielded a dataset of 134 papers authored by scholars affiliated to Latin American universities, providing an answer to Question 1. To explore Questions 3 and 5, I performed an analysis of the references in the extracted dataset, using AntConc 3.5.9 (an open access corpus analysis tool) (Anthony, 2020) to perform a word frequency search of the most common last names referenced, and a concordance search of Matthiessen references to determine the most frequently cited works. The subsequent annotations focused on the dataset of studies from Latin American scholars. I annotated the area of application (e.g. typology, translation, multimodality, healthcare) in pursuing an answer for Question 6. Finally, in addressing Question 7, I read the papers in the database to establish their purpose and the nature of their engagement with Matthiessen’s work. 8.3 Findings 8.3.1 Quantitative indicators

Of the 2,143 papers (including journal articles and book chapters) accessed through the Scopus database of works citing Christian Matthiessen, 134 were published by scholars affiliated to Latin American universities. This finding indicates that 6.25% of the Matthiessen citation comes from Latin American scholars, roughly one out of 16 linguistics papers citing the author. The overall proportion of Matthiessen citations in Latin America seems quite low compared with other regions of the world: Europe (36.19%), Asia (22.14%), Oceania (16.86%), and North America (15.52%). Figure 8.1, designed with VOS viewer, shows that a large proportion of Matthiessen’s citation network falls within the Australia-USAUK-China (+ Hong Kong) axis, with Latin American countries appearing as minor satellites. The relatively less sizable contribution of the Latin American region to Matthiessen’s citation frequency is likely not an accurate indicator of his

Figure 8.1  Matthiessen’s geographic citation network

300  Jesús David Guerra Lyons

Matthiessen in Latin America  301 influence in the region. For one thing, the Latin American share is consistent with the contribution of the region to overall world publication output, 4.23% in the 2000–2018 period.3 The interpretation thus needs to be tampered by global contextual factors related to publication output in the Latin American context. Another consideration concerns the fact that this review excludes papers outside the Scopus database, and that a fair proportion of linguistics journals in the Latin American region (where local SFL scholars might opt to publish) are pending for Scopus indexation. I will now leave the cross-national perspective aside and focus on characterizing the Latin American data in quantitative terms. One indicator concerns the distribution of Matthiessen citations across Latin American nations, where Brazil is an undisputed leader with 57.66% of papers citing Matthiessen, followed distantly by Chile (16.05%), Argentina (13.13%), Colombia (6.56%), and the rest of the countries (6.55%). The Matthiessen citation is thus largely a South American phenomenon, with him being the third most cited SFL scholar in the region, with 304 citations, following Michael Halliday (623 citations) and Jim Martin (452 citations). Concerning Matthiessen’s most cited works in the region, the list is topped by introductory reference works (49.21%), including Introduction to Functional Grammar (IFG) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, 2014), Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics (Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam, 2010), and Systemic Functional Grammar: A First Step into the Theory (Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009). A distant second place is occupied by works in the area of language typology (28.12%), especially “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations” (Matthiessen, 2004). The third (17.96%) and fourth (10.15%) positions are occupied by Construing Experience through Meaning (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999/2006) and Lexicogrammatical Cartography (Matthiessen, 1995). Other less-cited works include papers in the areas of register description (6.25%), translation (6.25%), and Rhetorical Structure Theory (5.46%). The least cited areas are multimodality (4.68%) and healthcare communication (1.56%). The quantitative indicators in the first part of the present study indicate that, despite Latin America’s relatively small contribution to Matthiessen’s citation network, his work is highly influential in Latin American SFL research across a wide range of areas. The qualitative indicators section will elaborate on Latin American scholars’ engagement with Matthiessen’s work.

8.3.2 Qualitative indicators

I will now address the qualitative aspects of Matthiessen’s influence in the Latin American SFL scene by focusing on the application areas in descending order of presence within the Latin American paper database. From

302  Jesús David Guerra Lyons each area, I will highlight some key studies, contributions, and possible areas of expansion. 8.3.2.1 Grammar

Most citations of Matthiessen in the Latin American SFL articles database refer to introductory works co-authored with Halliday and other scholars, chiefly Introduction to Functional Grammar (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, 2014), but also Matthiessen and Halliday (2009); Martin, Matthiessen and Painter (1997, 2010); and Matthiessen, Teruya and Lam (2010). These reference works understandably top the citation frequency rank given their role in presenting key linguistic categories employed in SFL-informed analysis. Lexicogrammatical Cartography (Matthiessen, 1995) stands among the most cited reference works in papers concerned with the study of specific lexicogrammatical categories such as transitivity and theme in Spanish and Portuguese (Ignatieva & Zamudio, 2012; Figueredo, Pagano & Oliveira, 2014; Moyano, 2016; Gutiérrez, 2008, 2010). Figueredo, Pagano and Oliveira (2014), for example, adopt Matthiessen’s definition of predicated Theme to highlight experiential elements in the clause as a strategy to explore this resource in Brazilian Portuguese. Gutiérrez (2008, 2010) cites Matthiessen’s (1995) claim concerning the ontogenetic precedence of congruent forms of modulation to clarify the degrees of congruence in choice of obligation in Spanish. In some cases, Matthiessen (1995) is preferred over other systemic functional reference works due to its key differentiating subtleties. Ignatieva and Zamudio (2012), for instance, align with Matthiessen’s (1995) position that verbal processes constitute a basic process type in the TRANSITIVITY system. On most occasions, however, Lexicogrammatical Cartography is cited together with other seminal works without mentioning specific points from the monograph. Matthiessen is also frequently cited in grammatically oriented corpusbased register studies in the Latin American context (Gutiérrez, 2008, 2010, 2011; Fuzer, 2012; de Souza-Romero & de Leão, 2014; Oteiza, Castro & Pinuer, 2021). One approach adopted in register characterization is the one illustrated in Matthiessen’s (2006) study of frequency profiles of basic lexicogrammatical systems. Under the same approach, Gutiérrez (2008, 2010) presents a corpus-based study of textbook genres based on probabilistic distributions of modulation markers; and, in a subsequent study, Gutiérrez (2011) categorizes narrative, argumentative, and descriptive registers based on their use of different Theme types. One of the transnational initiatives led by Matthiessen and colleagues, which has motivated grammar-based studies of registers in the Latin American context, is the Systemics Across Languages (SAL) project – see Scotta-Cabral and Bárbara (2018) for a selection of papers. Illustrative

Matthiessen in Latin America  303 studies include Fuzer’s (2012) research into verbal process realizations in civil engineering articles, Ignatieva’s (2021) study of process type frequencies in undergraduate history assignments, Mizuno, Barletta and Chamorro’s (2018) study of material processes in social science textbooks, and Guerra-Lyons and Moss’ (2020) study of verbal processes in Colombian linguistics articles. Halliday’s (1991) probabilistic conception of grammar, which Matthiessen (2015) reflects on, has served as a departure point for Latin American scholars’ further theoretical developments. Citing Matthiessen (2015), Menéndez (2021) sets out to propose that agentivity in process configurations is partially motivated by registerial and generic constraints. Finally, an important contribution to the systemic understanding of language as a probabilistic system is Figueredo and Figueredo (2020), who assemble a quantitative model where the interpersonal, textual, and ideational structures of the clause intersect to render a multidimensional model of grammatical space (cf. Matthiessen, 2007). Halliday and Matthiessen’s (1999/2006) Construing Experience through Meaning also figures prominently in SFL Latin American citation. This theoretical source is cited in text analytical and descriptive studies of academic and non-academic registers (Barrientos, 2011; Moss et al., 2013; de Melo, 2017; Barletta, Chamorro & Mizuno, 2020; Ignatieva, 2021), political discourse (Cabral, 2015; Cabral & Barbara, 2012), and media discourse (García-Marrugo, 2013). One interesting study examining the theoretical tenets in Halliday and Matthiessen (1999/2006) in a neurological perspective is García and Ibáñez (2016). The authors review neuroscientific evidence pointing to the neurological distinctiveness of processes of doing, supporting the hypotheses that the processes of doing are neurologically distinct from participants and from other process types, and the hypothesis that there is a natural relationship between processes and verbs of doing. The study goes further by proposing a sensorimotor interface between context of situation and semantics, and by calling for the incorporation of neuroscientific approaches and methods for the empirical exploration of the ideation base model. Matthiessen’s co-authored and single-authored works are clearly influential sources in the study of grammar across registers in the Latin American context. Studies in the region exploit the richness of SFL reference works to reason about grammatical theory and justify analytical choices. There is, however, limited exploitation of principles expounded in Matthiessen’s works for reasoning about grammar, including trinocularity, the stratification-instantiation matrix, the ordered hierarchy of systems, semogenesis and others. Future studies in the region may decide to use these reasoning strategies more explicitly and purposefully. Expansion of grammatical theory in diverse disciplinary and methodological perspectives, as illustrated by García and Ibáñez (2016) and Figueredo and

304  Jesús David Guerra Lyons Figueredo (2020), stands among the most original and promising contributions from the Latin American context. 8.3.2.2 Appliable discourse analysis

Matthiessen’s (2012, 2014a) notion of “appliable discourse analysis”, or ADA, has been cited by various scholars in the region (Rodríguez-Vergara, 2017; Benítez et al., 2018; Trevisan & García, 2019; Guerra-Lyons & Rosado, 2020). The notion is brought up mostly in connection with methodological choices, as in Rodríguez-Vergara (2017: 5), who reflects on Matthiessen’s (2012) point concerning the trade-offs between analytic depth and coverage in offering a rationale for his methodological decision to conduct a comprehensive analysis of a single medical paper. GuerraLyons and Rosado (2020) also borrow Matthiessen’s concept of appliable linguistics in considering the potential of SFL for revealing ideological patterns in text. “Appliable discourse analysis” is also cited in papers inviting systemic functional perspectives within specific disciplines. Trevisan and García (2019) draw on Matthiessen (2014a) to highlight the advantages of SFL as a linguistic theory with inherent applicability to English language teaching and healthcare communication respectively. Although Matthiessen’s notion of ADA has strengthened Latin American scholars’ rationale for using SFL as a language theory with built-in potential for application, there needs to be more engagement with the ideas put forward in Matthiessen (2014a) beyond highlighting SFL’s applicability. There is also a lack of studies in the region exploring appliability beyond the traditional focus on education and text analysis, despite Latin America’s numerous social, political, and environmental challenges. 8.3.2.3 Language typology

One of the areas where Matthiessen’s influence in the Latin American region is most extensive, as per citation frequency, is language typology focused on the description of Spanish and Portuguese (Figueredo, Pagano & Oliveira, 2014; Moyano, 2016; Quiroz, 2017a, 2017b; Cornejo, Barrientos & Muñoz, 2020; Oliveira & Figueredo, 2020). A key source in this domain is Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen (2004) and the concluding paper therein, where Matthiessen (2004) reviews evidence from multiple languages belonging to different linguistic families to tease apart descriptive motifs and generalizations. This typological framework has provided a basis for local researchers to reason about language-specific realizations of lexicogrammatical systems. One of the most focused systems is that of theme, whose particularities in Portuguese and Spanish have prompted descriptive proposals complementing Matthiessen’s (2004) initial account. Figueredo, Pagano and Oliveira (2014) draw on the notion

Matthiessen in Latin America  305 of textual particles in interpreting the functionality of focused Themes with “ser” in Brazilian Portuguese. Moyano (2016) analyzes the realization of Theme in Spanish declarative clauses in the context of Spanishwritten research papers, reaching the conclusion that Spanish draws on agreement realized by affixation within the verbal group, in addition to the three media pointed out in Matthiessen (2004) (intonationally, segmentally, and sequentially). Besides seeking to expand Matthiessen’s (2004) descriptive motifs and generalizations, studies in the Latin American context have also derived descriptive principles from his typological work. Quiroz (2017a) alludes to Matthiessen’s (2004) descriptive generalization concerning the cross-linguistic complementarity between ideational (multivariate) and logical (univariate) structure in reflecting about the specificities of the Spanish verbal group. Along similar lines, Quiroz (2017b) takes as a point of departure Matthiessen’s (2004) postulate regarding the cross-linguistic comparability of lexicogrammatical strategies for interpersonal negotiation, with divergences in higher levels of descriptive delicacy and in syntagmatic configuration as major differentiating criteria. One salient finding in the revision is the lack of studies citing Matthiessen in the description of indigenous languages spoken in Latin American countries. The only study in the database situated outside the traditional focus on Spanish and Portuguese (although lacking an explicit typological focus) is Cornejo, Barrientos, and Muñoz (2020), who investigate the realization of process types in Chilean Sign Language. The study of indigenous languages spoken within Latin American nations under the light of the descriptive motifs and generalizations in Matthiessen (2004) could result in illuminative expansions of SFL typological theory and would aid in the preservation of the region’s dwindling linguistic and cultural patrimony. 8.3.2.4 Translation

Matthiessen’s ideas on translation have proved applicable to translation research in Latin America, particularly in Brazil (Vasconcellos, 2009; de Souza, 2013; Rodrigues-Júnior & García de Oliveira, 2015; Espindola, 2016; de Lima-Lopes, 2018; Rodrigues-Júnior, 2018). His 2001 paper on the “environments of translation” has been of special interest, given its comprehensive mapping of translation along the systemic dimensions of axis, stratification, metafunction, instantiation, rank, and delicacy. Vasconcello’s (2009) historical review provides an informative account of the engagement with SFL theory in the Brazilian translation scene. Seeking to investigate whether translation in Brazil was experiencing what Matthiessen (2007) called a “feverish phase” in the worldwide adoption of SFL in translation (cf. Taylor & Baldry, 2001), the author provides a positive appraisal of the present and future of the field in the country. Subsequent publications

306  Jesús David Guerra Lyons by Brazilian SFL translation scholars have sustained her conclusion and have shown the value of Matthiessen’s (2001) early mapping work. The emphasis has mostly been placed on shift and equivalence in the translation of literary work from Brazilian Portuguese to English, and vice versa, approached chiefly from the dimension of metafunction (cf. Matthiessen, 2014b, 2021a). Works emphasizing the ideational-experiential metafunction have derived reflections into the semogenic role of translation as coordination of culturally situated worldviews of the original and translated text. Through the analysis of shifts and equivalences in the translation of a story from Portuguese to English, de Lima-Lópes (2018) reasons about the contextual, semantic, and lexicogrammatical motivations of translation choices and their significance for the comprehension of translation as a semogenic act (cf. Matthiessen, 2001). Rodrígues-Júnior and Oliveira (2015) follow a similar line in examining ideational shifts in the translation of Fernando Pessoa’s literary work from Portuguese into English, although with less of an intent on deriving systemic insights about ideational lexicogrammar in the two languages. Approaching from ideational-logical metafunction, Rodrígues-Júnior (2018) analyzes the role of elaborative clause complexes in construing a narrative viewpoint and the ideological effects their omission in translation and adaptation creates, using a corpus of Portuguese-to-English translations of Oscar Wilde’s work. SFL-based translation work on Theme, the most emphasized dimension in other parts of the world (cf. Kim & Matthiessen, 2015), is relatively underrepresented in the Latin American context. One interesting study is Espindola’s (2016) analysis of thematic choices in Star War character Master Yoda’s speech and its translation shifts and equivalences in Brazilian Portuguese subtitling. Other SFL translation studies in the region have sought to enrich the range of “translation environments” through additional systemic dimensions. De Souza (2013), for instance, proposes an emphasis on the negotiation of meanings between users of the translated text, drawing on Martin’s (2009) conceptualization of individuation. 8.3.2.5 Multisemiotic registers

Matthiessen’s theorization of multisemiotic systems – those where two or more semiotic systems cooperate under a shared context of situation along a cline of integration (Matthiessen, 2009) – has also received attention in the Latin American context. Particularly interesting is the work carried out by Parodi and his colleagues at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso on the reading of multimodal texts by undergraduate students (Boudon & Parodi, 2014; Vásquez-Rocca & Parodi, 2015; Parodi & Julio, 2016; Vásquez-Rocca, 2018; Julio, Parodi & Loureda, 2019; see also Matthiessen, 2021b). One of the initial strands of their work was the identification of “multisemiotic artifacts” mediating access to specialized

Matthiessen in Latin America  307 knowledge in economics textbooks, which include diagrams, formulae, graphs, icons, illustrations, and tables (Boudon & Parodi, 2014). Key insights include the illustration of the degrees of integration between language and the semiotic systems associated with these artifacts. Another line of research has been the analysis of the meaning-making strategies foregrounded by multisemiotic artifacts through the lens of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Vásquez-Rocca & Parodi, 2015). Their findings suggest that the graphic elements in the artifacts are responsible for most of the semiosis, with language playing a complementary role in the elaboration of the meanings therein, and they indicate that “elaboration” and “background” are the predominant relations in the graphic objects surveyed. A subsequent study analyzing students’ reading of multisemiotic economy texts through eye-tracking technology (Parodi & Julio, 2016) concluded that students’ eye movements revealed a preference for processing verbal text over graphic elements and that this preference spanned different undergraduate disciplines (except for specific registers in economy). The authors related these findings to a process of “domestication” or “training” of eye movements favoring the preferred semiotic system (text). Vásquez-Rocca’s (2018) research on economics students’ reading of multisemiotic texts derives similar findings and highlights the need for developing students’ multisemiotic competence for processing meanings other than those generated linguistically. Julio, Parodi and Loureda’s (2019) study replicates the finding of eye movement preference for text over image after controlling for the first and second reading of the texts. The empirical findings from Parodi and his colleagues seem to lend support to the hypothesis of language as the semiotic system coordinating other semiotic systems in making meaning (e.g. Matthiessen, 2001, 2009). The studies are also an illustration of a judicious empirically oriented program of research required for theory refinement and substantiation. 8.3.2.6 Healthcare communication

Healthcare communication, one of Matthiessen’s recently most active areas (e.g. Matthiessen, 2013; Slade et al., 2015), has been relatively less influenced by SFL and by his work in the Latin American context. Two recent studies citing Matthiessen are Chaves et al. (2019) and Trevisan and García (2019). In nursing research, Chaves et al. (2019) carry out a cross-cultural adaptation of the Behavior Change Protocol for educational practices in diabetes mellitus, applying recommendations in Matthiessen (2013) during the pre-test phase for the analysis of patients’ use of language and other semiotic systems, such as gesture and gaze. Trevisan and García (2019) highlight the advantages of employing SFLoriented language tasks in the construction of language experiments oriented to the monitoring and treatment of neurocognitive affections,

308  Jesús David Guerra Lyons such as Parkinson’s disease. The authors credit the “appliability” of SFL (cf. Matthiessen, 2012, 2014a) with enhancing the ecological validity of psycholinguistic experimentation. However, my review found no studies explicitly applying a trinocular perspective to healthcare interactions and healthcare institutional organization as illustrated in Matthiessen (2013). Studies focusing on the semiotic journey of patients throughout the healthcare system and the semiotic risks involved in patient handover within hospitals and other healthcare sites may fruitfully use Matthiessen’s proposed framework. 8.4 Concluding remarks Christian Matthiessen clearly has a significant influence on Latin American SFL research across a diverse range of domains, as reflected in both quantitative and qualitative indicators. The rapid review (cf. Boland, Cherry & Dickson, 2017) cum citation analysis presented in this chapter provides ample evidence of the appliability of Matthiessen’s work to the issues addressed by Latin American SFL researchers. It also shows the creative and critical ways in which Latin American scholars have engaged with Matthiessen’s ideas, contributing to their elaboration and refinement through the implementation of new methodologies, their use in novel contexts of application, and their discussion against new perspectives and concerns. Some key points could contribute to boosting Latin American SFL scholars’ engagement with Matthiessen’s theoretical proposals. One key point concerns the explicit and purposeful application of the reasoning strategies illustrated in Matthiessen’s work. While most papers adopt an explicit perspective from one systemic dimension (mostly metafunction and stratification), multidimensional reasoning about linguistic and social phenomena of the type illustrated in Matthiessen’s papers would provide a better-rounded understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Another key point concerns the expansion and diversification of application domains, which seems especially necessary in the areas of language typology and discourse analysis. Although it is important to further the systemic description of Spanish and Portuguese, there is a need for descriptions of indigenous languages spoken within Latin American countries, using the typological framework in Matthiessen (2004). There is also a need for appliable discourse analysis, exploring domains of special relevance to the Latin American context: the discursive naturalization of inequality, the social legitimation of crime, and the construal of the environment in relation to social structure, among others. The increasing volume of publications and the diversity of approaches in them paint a brilliant outlook for Latin American scholars’ contribution to SFL, one in which Matthiessen will surely continue to figure as a central source of insights.

Matthiessen in Latin America  309 Notes 1 ALSFAL official website, consulted April 2, 2021. 2 I will hereafter refer to scholars affiliated to Latin American universities as “Latin American scholars”, recognizing the possibility of affiliation by scholars from other parts of the world. 3 World Bank, accessed April 23, 2020.

References ALSFAL (Asociación Latinoamericana de Lingüística Sistémica Funcional). 2021, April 23. ALSFAL official website. https://alsfalen​.wordpress​.com/. Anthony, Laurence. 2020. AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from https://www​.laurenceanthony​.net​ /software. Barletta, Norma Patricia, Diana Chamorro & Jorge Mizuno. 2020. “Force in the construction of the theoretical framework in scientific papers: A systemicfunctional linguistics approach.” Ikala 25(1): 75–91. Barrientos, Rosa María Gutiérrez. 2011. “Systemic-functional description and multiregister grammar.” Estudios Filológicos 47: 59–82. Benítez, Teresa, Norma Barletta, Diana Chamorro, Jorge Mizuno & Gillian Moss. 2018. “Reading and writing across the curriculum.” In Akila Sellami-Baklouti & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 249–268. Boland, Angela, Gemma Cherry & Rumona Dickson (eds.). 2017. Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide. London: Sage. Boudon, Enrique & Giovanni Parodi. 2014. “Multisemiotic artifacts and academic discourse of economics: Knowledge construction in the textbook genre.” Revista Signos 47(85): 47–85. Cabral, Sara Regina & Leila Bárbara. 2012. “Verbal processes in media discourse: Frequency and organization of the message.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 28: 581–603. Cabral, Sara Regina. 2015. “Transitivity and self/representation in a political debate.” Cadernos de Linguagem e Sociedade 16(1): 9–35. Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chaves, Fernanda, Sumaya Cecilio, Ilka Reis, Adriana Pagano & Heloísa Torres. 2019. “Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the behavior change protocol for educational practices in diabetes mellitus.” Revista LatinoAmericana de Enfermagem 27:1–8. Cornejo, Fabiola, Rosa Barrientos & Claudia Muñoz. 2020. “Ideational metafunction in Chilean sign language: Lexical verb forms as processes.” Estudios Filológicos 65: 169–194. de Souza, Ladjane Maria Farias. 2013. “Interlingual re-instantiation: A new systemic functional perspective on translation.” Text & Talk 33(5): 575–594. de Souza-Romero, Tania & Norma de Leão. 2014. “Typological patterns across the interpersonal metafunction modality in agricultural scientific

310  Jesús David Guerra Lyons articles: Differences and similarities both in Portuguese and English.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 30(1): 115–136. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 2018. “Economic survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2018. Evolution of investment in Latin America and the Caribbean: Stylized facts, determinants and policy challenges.” ECLAC. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 2020. “Health and the economy: A convergence needed to address COVID-19 and retake the path of sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Covid-19 Report-ECLAC PAHO. Espindola, Elaine. 2016. “A systemic functional translation analysis of thematic structure: Directing attention to Yoda’s linguistic manifestation.” WORD 62(1): 22–34. Figueredo, Giacomo & Grazziela Figueredo. 2020. “A systemic dynamics model of text production.” Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 27(4): 291–320. Figueredo, Giacomo, Adriana Pagano & Kicila Ferreguetti Oliveira. 2014. “Systemic organization of predication and identification in the grammar of Brazilian Portuguese.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 30(2): 309–352. Fuzer, Cristiane. 2012. “Realization of verbal processes in scientific texts in the field of civil engineering.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 28(3): 269–304. García, Adolfo Martín & Agustin Mariano Ibáñez. 2016. “Processes and verbs of doing, in the brain: Theoretical implications for Systemic Functional Linguistics.” Functions of Language 23(3): 305–335. García-Marrugo, Alexandra. 2013. “What’s in a name? The representation of illegal actors in the internal conflict in the Colombian press.” Discourse and Society 24(4): 421–445. Guerra-Lyons, Jesús David & Margaret Gillian Moss. 2020. “Construing symbolic exchange in academic registers of Spanish.” In Kathy Ling Lin, Isaac N. Mwinlaaru & Dennis Tay (eds.), Approaches to specialized genres. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 154–164. Guerra-Lyons, Jesús David & Nayibe Rosado. 2020. “On the notion of ‘owning a forest’: Ideological awareness and genre-based pedagogy in university literacy.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 36(4): 1–30. Gutiérrez, Rosa María. 2008. “The textbook genre in academia disciplines: A characterization from the obligation system.” Revista Signos 41(67): 177–202. Gutiérrez, Rosa María. 2010. “Discourse specialization: A characterization from the obligation system.” RLA 48(1): 105–132. Gutiérrez, Rosa María. 2015. “Transitivity in Spanish: An exploratory study from the systemic functional approach.” Revista Signos 48(88): 223–249. Halliday, M.A.K. 1964. “Syntax and the consumer.” In C.I.J.M. Stuart (ed.), Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 11–24. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2003. On language and linguistics.

Matthiessen in Latin America  311 Volume 3 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 36–49. Halliday, M.A.K. 1966. “Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar.” Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 57–67. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 106–117. Halliday, M.A.K. 1991. “Towards probabilistic interpretations.” In Eija Ventola (ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 39–61. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2005. Computational and quantitative studies. Volume 6 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 42–62. Halliday, M.A.K. 1996. “On grammar and grammatics.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory into practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–38. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 in the Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. 384–418. Halliday, M.A.K. 2005. “On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(1): 59–82. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999/2006. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell/Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Ignatieva, Natalia 2021. “Ideational and interpersonal analysis of student history texts in Spanish within the systemic framework.” Revista Signos 54(105): 169–190. Ignatieva, Natalia & Victoria Zamudio. 2012. “Functional perspective of verbal processes in the writing in Spanish of students of literature and history.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 28 (Special Issue): 561–579. Julio, Cristóbal, Giovanni Parodi & Óscar Loureda. 2019. “Congruency between semiotic systems: A study on words and graphs with the use of eye tracker.” Estudios Filológicos 63: 237–259. Kim, Mira & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. “Ways to move forward in translation studies: A textual perspective.” Target 27(3): 335–350. Reprinted in Mira Kim & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2017. Discourse analysis in translation studies. Edited by Jeremy Munday & Meifang Zhang. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 11–26. Lima-Lopes de, Rodrigo. 2018. “Translation choices as representational systems: A study of the processes in the short story ‘Love’ by Clarice Lispector.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 34(1): 17–39. Martin, J.R. 2009. “Realisation, instantiation and individuation: Some thoughts on identity in youth justice conferencing.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 25: 549–583.

312  Jesús David Guerra Lyons Martin, J.R., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Clare Painter. 1997. Working with functional grammar. London: Arnold. Martin, J.R., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Clare Painter. 2010. Deploying functional grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1999. “The system of TRANSITIVITY: An exploratory study of text-based profiles.” Functions of Language 6(1): 1–51. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2001. “The environments of translation”. In Erich Steiner & Colin Yallop (eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–124. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004. “Descriptive motifs and generalizations.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 537–664. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2006. “Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report.” In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections. London: Equinox. 103–142. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007. “The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional theory: Developments since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language (volume 2). London & Oakville: Equinox. 505–561. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009. “Multisemiosis and context-based register typology: Registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems.” In Eija Ventola & Jesús A. Moya Guijarro (eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 11–38. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2012. “Systemic Functional Linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 28: 435–471. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013. “Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics in healthcare contexts.” Text & Talk 33 (4–5): 437–467. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2014a. “Appliable discourse analysis.” In Yan Fang & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and application. London: Equinox. 135–205. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2014b. “Choice in translation: Metafunctional considerations.” In Kerstin Kunz, Elke Teich, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Peggy Daut (eds.), Caught in the middle – language use and translation: A festschrift for Erich Steiner on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press. 271–333. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2021a. “Translation, multilingual text production and cognition viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Fabio

Matthiessen in Latin America  313 Alves & Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 517–544. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2021b. “Register cartography and Giovanni Parodi’s research: Registerial profiles of school subjects and university disciplines.” Revista Signos 54(107): 799–841. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Marvin Lam. 2010. Key terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum. Melo de, Lívia. 2017. “Linguistic structures that inscribe the other and self in the writing of supervised internship reports of language teachers in education.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 33(2): 467–496. Menéndez, Salvio Martín. 2021. “Agentivity and discourse: Discursive projection of processes.” Revista Signos 54(105): 1–2. Mizuno, Jorge, Norma Barletta & Diana Chamorro. 2018. “La representación del mundo mediante los procesos del hacer y suceder.” In Sarah Scotta-Cabral & Leila Bárbara (eds.), Estudos sistêmico funcionais no âmbito do projeto SAL. Santa María-Brasil: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras, Universidade Federal de Santa María. 124–136. Moss, Margaret Gillian, Diana Chamorro Miranda, Norma Barletta & Jorge Mizuno. 2013. “Grammatical metaphor in social sciences textbooks in Spanish.” Onomazein 28(2): 88–104. Moyano, Estela Inés. 2016. “Theme in English and Spanish English text construction.” English Text Construction 9(1): 190–219. Navarro, Federico & Alex Caldas Simões. 2019. “Generic structure potential in electric engineering dissertations: Contrasts between languages and educational stages.” Revista Signos 52(100): 306–329. Oliveira, Francieli & Giacomo Figueredo. 2020. “Contributions of contrastive analysis of genres to mapping translation product.” Cadernos de Traduçao 40(2): 221–251. Oteíza, T., Claudia Castro & Claudio Pinuer. 2021. “Graduating political crisis and violence in the discourse of history: The role of Spanish suffixes.” Discourse Studies 23(1): 45–67. Parodi, Giovanni & Cristóbal Julio. 2016. “Where do eyes go when reading multisemiotic disciplinary texts? Processing words and graphs in an experimental study with eye tracker.” Revista Signos 49: 149–183. Quiroz, Beatriz. 2017. “Basic interpersonal grammar of Spanish: A systemic functional account of the mood system.” Lenguas Modernas 49: 157–182. Quiroz, Beatriz. 2017. “The verbal group.” In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 301–318. Rodrigues-Júnior, Adail & Simone Garcia de Oliveira. 2015. “Mudanças ideacionais das representações linguísticas do heterônimo Álvaro de Campos na obra literária de Fernando Pessoa e em sua tradução para a Língua Inglesa.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 31(2): 391–410.

314  Jesús David Guerra Lyons Rodrigues-Júnior, Adail. 2018. “Clause complexes as the basis for construing the narrative point of view in translation context.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 34(1): 41–54. Rodríguez-Vergara, Daniel. 2017. “A systemic functional approach to the passive voice in English into Spanish translation: Thematic development in a medical research article.” Open Linguistics 3(1): 1–17. Scotta-Cabral, Sara & Leila Bárbara (eds.). 2018. Estudos sistêmico funcionais no âmbito do projeto SAL. Santa María-Brasil: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras, Universidade Federal de Santa María. Slade, Diana, Marie Manidis, Jeannette McGregor, Hermine Scheeres, Eloise Chandler, Jane Stein-Parbury, Roger Dunston, Maria Herke & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. Communicating in hospital emergency departments. Heidelberg: Springer. Taylor, Chris & Anthony Baldry. 2001. “Computer assisted text analysis and translation: A functional approach in the analysis and translation of advertising texts.” In Erich Steiner & Colin Yallop (eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 277–305. Trevisan, Piergiorgio & Adolfo García. 2019. “Systemic Functional Grammar as a tool for experimental stimulus design: New appliable horizons in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics.” Language Sciences 75: 35–46. Van Eck, Nees Jan & Ludo Waltman. 2014. “Visualizing bibliometric networks.” In Ying Ding, Ronald Rousseau & Dietmar Wolfram (eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice. Berlin: Springer. 285–320. Vasconcellos, María Lucía. 2009. “Systemic functional translation studies (SFTS): The theory travelling in Brazilian environments.” Delta (Documentaçao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada) 25(Supplement 1): 585–607. Vásquez-Rocca, Liliana & Giovanni Parodi. 2015. “Rhetoric relations and multimodality in the monetary policy report genre of academic discourse of the Economy.” Calidoscopio 13(3): 388–405. Vásquez-Rocca, Liliana. 2018. “Challenges for the development of a disciplinary multimodal competence: The genre monetary policy report case (MPR).” Signa 27: 1095–1123. World Bank. Accessed on April 23, 2021. https://data​.worldbank​.org/.

9

Christian Matthiessen and Systemic Functional Linguistics in Europe Jorge Arús-Hita

9.1 Introduction Christian Matthiessen’s works encompass a wide variety of research areas, always within the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). One of those areas is particularly apt to introduce this chapter: the language of motion and space. Several of his papers and conference talks have been devoted to mapping out the resources deployed by different languages to represent processes of motion (e.g. Matthiessen, 2009; Kashyap & Matthiessen, 2017, 2018; Matthiessen, Arús-Hita & Teruya, 2021) as well as to construe experiences of space (e.g. Matthiessen, 2012, 2015a; Matthiessen & Kashyap, 2014). When talking about motion, two typical notions are those of “direction of motion” and “manner of motion” (see Matthiessen, 2015a: 31–32). Christian Matthiessen’s direction of motion throughout the years has been mostly westwards: from Sweden to California, then further West into the Easternmost time zones of the globe, i.e. Sydney and then Hong Kong, all of this peppered with visits to different countries, North, South, East, and West, including, of course, a large number of European countries. Concerning Matthiessen’s manner of motion, we could safely say that it has been of an eminently dual nature. The westward journey just mentioned has taken place, we can imagine, by airplane, whereas his ideas have reached all the confines of the world through semiotic travel, resulting from either Matthiessen’s own physical presence or, notably, his vast number of publications (see also Chapters 7–8). Incidentally, at the time in which this chapter is being written, Christian Matthiessen has been staying in the northwest of Spain for several months because of travel restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. This temporary return to Europe, again in a westward motion, and the lockdown imposed by the pandemic, will no doubt have beneficial consequences in terms of the development of new ideas that will later be disseminated all around the world. Time will tell whether this temporary return to Europe becomes permanent. Figure 9.1 illustrates Matthiessen’s westward motion, as described in the previous lines. DOI: 10.4324/9781003041238-12

316  Jorge Arús-Hita

Figure 9.1  Matthiessen’s westward lifelong journey

The relationship between Matthiessen and Europe is bidirectional. During his days as a university student in Sweden, he became acquainted with the ideas of the most prominent European linguists, which had a decisive influence on his own development as a linguist, as will be seen in the next section. This, however, does not mean that the linguistic environment in his formative years was geared towards SFL. In Matthiessen’s own words (personal communication, 27 October 2020; henceforth PC; cf. Matthiessen et al., 2018; Matthiessen et al., 2022: Chapters 1–3): I arrived at SFL from the outside, as it were; but I came across it in a context where I understood that as far as theoretical linguistics was concerned, it was one of the few major linguistic theories to emerge in the second half of the 20th century – and seen today, in 2020, it is one of the very few theories from the mid-20th century that’s still around, and one that is not only just surviving but rather expanding, with growing communities of metalinguistic speakers around the world. No one reading these lines will doubt that one of the main contributors to the international growth of SFL has been, and continues to be, Christian Matthiessen himself. Although he modestly claims that, regarding the European linguistic context, his “influence has been limited” (PC), this chapter intends to show that Matthiessen’s work within the systemic functional model has been a constant source of inspiration for linguists in Europe. The chapter is structured as follows: Section 9.2 covers Christian Matthiessen’s student years in Sweden; Section 9.3 tries to identify the

Matthiessen in Europe  317 distribution of his influence in Europe according to research areas; Section 9.4 focuses on specific collaborations with different researchers and research centers across Europe; Section 9.5 is devoted to the collaboration between Matthiessen and Halliday and the effect it has had on European linguistics; the final section provides some concluding remarks in light of the previous discussion. This discussion is based both on findings from the scrutiny of SFL bibliography and personal communications with Christian Matthiessen. 9.2 Early years: Matthiessen in Sweden As said above, Christian Matthiessen’s studies in Sweden gave him the opportunity to become acquainted with the most relevant linguistic theories of the time. As early as the first half of the 1970s, and still in high school, he “began to get a sense of European Structuralism … and of US generative linguistics – largely generative semantics” thanks to his reading, respectively, of Malmberg (1969), the scholar who introduced European Structuralism to Sweden, and Ellegård (1971), who, following generative semantics, showed how grammatical structure is semantically transparent (PC). Also before finishing high school, Matthiessen started to read Otto Jespersen’s work, in particular, Essentials of English Grammar (Jespersen, 1964), which in his own words, he “read with great fascination”. Jespersen is one of the most respected representatives of traditional linguistics nowadays. For instance, in the context of SFL, he is cited in IFG as an early source in the treatment of different linguistic aspects (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 57, 122, 241, 426). As an undergraduate student in Lund, Matthiessen got to know Malmberg in person. Among other actions undertaken in the bourgeoning linguistic context of that time, Malmberg invited André Martinet to Lund University for a talk on functional syntax. This happened sometime around 1977 and Matthiessen, who had already come across Michael Halliday’s work, had the opportunity to start confronting Halliday’s ideas with those of the great linguists of the time. By then, Matthiessen had already noticed that the two fundamental insights into languages offered by the different linguistic theories, those focusing on the paradigmatic axis and those focusing on the syntagmatic axis, were completely disconnected (Matthiessen et al., 2018). Halliday’s work brought sense to both currents; in Matthiessen’s own words: “It wasn’t until I started reading Michael Halliday’s work (initially, Halliday’s [1973] Explorations in the Functions of Language) that I began to see the connection between these two fundamental insights. This was one of those moments of revelation that we’re sometimes lucky enough to experience” (PC). Structuralism was dominant in European linguistics at the time when Matthiessen was pursuing his undergraduate studies at Lund University. This allowed him to become acquainted with the work of structuralists

318  Jorge Arús-Hita such as Eugenio Coseriu and Gustave Guillaume. The writings of the latter were important in Matthiessen’s linguistic training: Guillaume’s work was tough to understand but fascinating and rewarding – he helped me see that certain key principles of the organization of language are construed by the linguistic systems of particular languages, which is helpful, e.g. in trying to get a deep understanding of (verbal) mode and tense. (PC) Another important aspect of Matthiessen’s development as a linguist was being able to read publications in Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian. Thanks to this, he could read, for instance, Adolf Noreen’s (1903) Vårt spårk (Our Language), “which among other things includes a fairly detailed discussion of semiotic systems other than language as he tries to define language (an insight into the ‘signifying body’)” (PC). His knowledge of Scandinavian languages also allowed him to read overviews of work by linguists not referenced in the linguistic literature in English, such as “Harald Weinreich (1972) (his notion of the Textpartitur), Paul Diderichsen (1946) (his field model of sentential syntax) … and Lucien Tesnière’s (1959) posthumous work on dependency grammar” (PC). Of special relevance was Matthiessen’s access to the work and ideas of Hjelmslev, thanks, first of all, to the course he took with Thore Petterson in the Department of Linguistics. There, the main course reading was Hjelmslev’s (1943) Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse (Prolegomena to a Theory of Language). This book presented Matthiessen with an opportunity to think through a number of fundamental theoretical constructs, like the stratification of the content and expression planes in terms of form and substance. As Matthiessen himself recognizes, it was also helpful when he later came across references to Hjelmslev in the work by Michael Halliday and other key systemicists like Jim Martin and Sydney Lamb. Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse was not the only influence Matthiessen received from Hjelmslev’s work while at Lund University. One of the instructors, Sven Platzack, developed his own ideas based on Hjelmslev’s relational conception of language and also on his interest in mathematics. Through Platzack’s teaching, Matthiessen came to know about the mathematical aspects of Hjelmslev’s linguistic theories and their applications. As a final reflection before bringing this section to an end, it might also be worth pointing out that, around the same time Matthiessen was pursuing his linguistics degree at Lund University, he also studied philosophy. If to his solid linguistic training we add the philosophical component, we may understand his capacity to go into great depth into the discussion of linguistic issues, as his writings and conference lectures are renowned for.

Matthiessen in Europe  319 9.3 Influence of Matthiessen’s research Christian Matthiessen’s work comprises several areas of research, always within the SFL framework. These are listed in Table 9.1, which is based on information obtained from his CV – several of them recognizable as different chapters in this book; the highlighting indicates those areas which arguably have had a larger impact on Europe-based researchers, as this section intends to show. Of the areas in Table 9.1, the first one, i.e. systemic functional theory and metatheory in general, can be arguably said to reach Europe mostly through his joint work with Michael Halliday (e.g. IFG3, IFG4), so we will leave it for Section 9.5, devoted to this collaboration. The rest of the areas in bold in Table 9.1 can be associated, to a larger or a lesser extent, with different European countries, as discussed next. Thus, Matthiessen’s work on computational modelling has been particularly well received in the UK and Germany, the latter often in relation Table 9.1 Christian Matthiessen’s research interests (i) Systemic-functional theory and metatheory in general. (ii) Development of theoretical and computational models of semiotic systems. (iii) Modelling of the meaning base (ideation base, interaction base, and text base) of a text processing system. (iv) Investigation of multilinguality through analysis of parallel and comparable texts, research into translation issues in various languages through research students, and modelling of it in text processing systems: multilingual textgeneration; text-based and “target language” oriented translation. (v) Revision and extension of a systemic functional description of the grammar of English. (vi) Development of comparable accounts of grammars of languages other than English. (vii) Development of comprehensive, text-based systemic functional typology, translation model, and other aspects of the field of multilingual studies. (viii) Exploration of the evolution of language as a key part in the evolution of humans. (ix) Application of functional theory and description in discourse interpretation and profiling of persons and institutions (e.g. in clinical contexts in hospitals). (x) Exploration of language and the brain in reference to an ordered typology of systems (physical – biological – social – semiotic), with a focus on “resonances” across these different systemic orders. Areas associated with European countries are highlighted in bold.

320  Jorge Arús-Hita to translation studies. These two countries can be considered those where Matthiessen’s influence was first felt, as his work on computational issues happens to be his earliest. Publications from early and the mid-1980s, such as “Systemic Grammar in Computation: The Nigel Case” (1983a), “Choosing Primary Tense in English” (1983b, in the context of text generation), and “The Systemic Framework in Text Generation: Nigel” (1985) are cited by European researchers, mostly from the two countries just mentioned. The case of Germany-based researchers is special in that it is easier to single out specific names with whom there has been a mutual influence across the years. Such is the case with John Bateman, in the area of text generation (see, for instance, their joint 1991 publication Text Generation and Systemic-functional Linguistics: Experiences from Japanese and English), and Erich Steiner, Elke Teich, or Juliane House, in translation studies, among others. It comes as no surprise, then, that Matthiessen (2014a) contributed a chapter to the festschrift for Erich Steiner, which was published on the occasion of the latter’s 60th birthday, with a chapter on choice in translation. The relationship between Matthiessen and German scholars goes beyond research, as he also served, for instance, as an external examiner of Elke Teich’s Habilitationsschrift (“habilitation thesis”, later published as Teich, 2003). The next section will detail some aspects of specific collaborations between Matthiessen and German researchers. A research area very much related to computational modelling in Matthiessen’s work is that of functional descriptions of the grammar of English. Some of the most relevant publications in this area concern the Nigel grammar, which is the systemic base of much work done in the context of text generation, as in Matthiessen and Bateman (1991), or “Systemic Grammar in Computation: The Nigel Case” (1983a) and “The Systemic Framework in Text Generation: Nigel” (with W.C. Mann, i.e. Mann & Matthiessen, 1985). These publications have, again, been particularly followed by researchers in Germany and the UK, whereas the more multipurpose and detailed description of English lexicogrammar provided in Lexicogrammatical Cartography (Matthiessen, 1995a), undoubtedly Matthiessen’s most widely known solo publication, has received countless citations from all over Europe, notably the UK, Germany, and Spain. Some research, such as Arús-Hita (2003) or Arús-Hita and Lavid (2001), is primarily based on the descriptions made in this reference book. As further evidence of the good reception of Lexicogrammatical Cartography in Europe, we can cite the review made by Kristin Davidse for Functions of Language, where she claims that this book is “a colossal piece of intellectual work” (2001: 165) and concludes that “the Cartography is an invaluable reference work and an important phase in the interpretation and co-authoring of the categories set up by Halliday to understand the meaning of English” (2001: 167).

Matthiessen in Europe  321 The research published by Matthiessen on the lexicogrammar of English is of course not limited to Nigel. There are numerous other publications that have been cited all over the European continent, the strongest influence being felt, besides the three countries mentioned above, in Belgium, Italy, and Scandinavia as a whole, notably Norway. Major works in terms of the citations received from European researchers are “Interpreting the Textual Metafunction” (1992), arguably his second most influential work on English lexicogrammar, “Theme as a Resource in Ideational ‘Knowledge’ Construction” (1995b), “Tense in English Seen through Systemic-functional Theory” (1996), “The System of transitivity: An Exploratory Study of Text-based Profiles” (1999), “Lexicogrammar in Discourse Development: Logogenetic Patterns of Wording” (2002), “Lexicogrammar in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Developments in the ‘IFG’ Tradition since the 1970s” (2007), and “Extending the Description of Process Type within the System of Transitivity in Delicacy Based on Levinian Verb Classes” (2014b). Matthiessen’s works on English lexicogrammar have received, at the time of writing this chapter, over 200 citations from Europe-based scholars, according to Google Scholar. Matthiessen’s works on translation, both computationally or more generally oriented, have also been well received in different parts of Europe (see also Wang & Ma forthcoming). Publications such as “The Environments of Translation” (2001) and the more recent “Choice in Translation: Metafunctional Consideration” (2014a) and “Ways to Move Forward in Translation Studies: A Textual Perspective” (Kim & Matthiessen, 2015) are cited by researchers from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, and, especially, Finland. Germany is, in any case, the country with the highest number of citations of these publications, notably Matthiessen (2001). Among the German researchers most frequently citing this publication, we can find well-known systemicists such as Erich Steiner (e.g. 2002, 2008, 2015), Elke Teich (e.g. 2003, 2009), and Stella Neumann (e.g. 2010, 2012, 2020). Another area of research by Matthiessen that has had its share of influence on researchers in Europe is that of language typology and multilinguality (see also Chapter 4, this volume). His chapter “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations” (Matthiessen, 2004), which closes the 2004 Language Typology book, co-edited by Christian Matthiessen with Alice Caffarel and Jim Martin, is one of his most oft-cited references worldwide, and this is also reflected in Europe. Germany, Belgium, Romania, Spain, and Portugal are the countries where we find researchers most frequently citing this reference. Other publications in this area also cited from Europe are “Multilingual Studies as a Multi-dimensional Space of Interconnected Language Studies” (Matthiessen, Teruya & Wu, 2008) and the more recent “The Notion of a Multilingual Meaning Potential: A

322  Jorge Arús-Hita Systemic Exploration” (Matthiessen, 2018). Conversely to what we saw above, it is hard in the area of linguistic typology and multilinguality to single out specific authors who have cited Matthiessen’s work more than others, his typological and multilingual research having been evenly cited by a large number of linguists in Europe. What is undeniable is that the influence of this research on Europe-based linguists has traveled over the years, as it has continued receiving citations in recent times (e.g. Cordeiro, 2018; Hill-Madsen, 2020; Arús-Hita, 2021). The discussion in this section has hopefully managed to give an idea of the vast influence of Matthiessen’s works on SFL researchers in Europe. His influence actually embraces more countries than the ones mentioned in the previous paragraphs. In addition to the places mentioned above, reference to his publications is also found in research originating in Greece, France, Croatia, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Latvia, Serbia, and Austria. The map in Figure 9.2 tries to capture Matthiessen’s influence in Europe by research and geographical areas. 9.4 Specific collaborations Matthiessen’s influence on Europe-based researchers has not taken place solely through his publications. It is well known that some of the most fulfilling and productive experiences in academic life come through research stays and other kinds of academic collaborations. These provide an excellent opportunity for cross-fertilization of ideas and often lead to the publication of joint research. In this section, we will see how much of the influence seen above derives from specific collaborations between Matthiessen and colleagues across Europe, notably in the form of research stays and exchanges as well as participation in intensive courses. Table 9.2, generously supplied by Matthiessen, summarizes his collaborations with systemicists in Europe. A quick look at Table 9.2 suffices to explain much of what was seen in Section 9.3 while making the picture more complete. Thus, we can appreciate the collaboration with colleagues in Germany across time, starting with John Bateman in the context of text generation in the 1990s, continuing with Juliane House in the field of translation and typology at the beginning of the 20th century, and extending to the second decade of this century with Erich Steiner and other colleagues in translation studies. These collaborations explain, on the one hand, the pervasiveness of citations of Matthiessen’s works by researchers from Germany, and, on the other hand, the existence of co-authored publications such as Matthiessen and Bateman (1991), Bateman, Matthiessen, and Zeng (1999), and contributions to joint efforts such as his chapter on “Choice in Translation” (Matthiessen, 2014a) in the festschrift for Erich Steiner, edited by Kunz et al. (2014).

Matthiessen in Europe  323

Figure 9.2   Influence of Matthiessen’s research in Europe (1 = computational modelling; 2 = translation studies; 3 = functional descriptions of the grammar of English; 4 = language typology and multilinguality; 5= miscellaneous)

Among Matthiessen’s earliest collaborations, Table 9.2 includes seminars and intensive courses organized by Eija Ventola in Finland in the 1980s. More recent participation in events in Finland includes his plenary talk at MUST (Multisemiotic Talks) 4, held at the University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, in November 2011. All of these collaborations may lie behind his popularity among Finnish researchers, who, besides citing his work on translation studies, as seen above (e.g. Matthiessen, 2001, 2014a; Kim & Matthiessen, 2015), also show interest in his work on lexicogrammar (Matthiessen, 1995a, 1995b), cognition (Matthiessen, 1993), and register (Matthiessen, 2015b). Moving across time, at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, we find Matthiessen in Denmark, arguably the Scandinavian

Jorge Arús-Hita

Juliane House (and her research group) at the Sonderforschungsbereich für Mehrsprachigkeit, University of Hamburg

Spain

SFL: typology, RST

Erich Steiner, Elke Teich ..…

Bessie Dendrinos and her group

SFL: translation studies, various

John Bateman

Germany

Greece

SFL: text generation (multimodal, multilingual)

The group at (what is now) University of Southern Denmark: Uwe Helm Petersen, Thomas Hestbaek Andersen …

Denmark

SFL: comparison, general

SFL: general

SFL: general theory and framework

SFL: multimodality

Eija Ventola

Finland

Area

Researchers

Country

Table 9.2 Christian Matthiessen’s collaborations with SFL researchers in Europe

Kazuhiro Teruya’s projection project; text-based comparison Spanish-English

Symposium, University of Athens

Visiting professorship in 2004

Matthiessen (2014)

Matthiessen & Bateman (1991), Bateman, Matthiessen & Zeng (1999)

Intensive course; participation in Danish-Norwegian documentation of social semiotics

Seminar, talks at MUST, Aalto University; intensive course with Halliday in 1989

Nature of collaboration, references

324  Jorge Arús-Hita

Matthiessen in Europe  325 country where his ideas have had the largest impact. His main collaborations were, as seen in Table 9.2, with a research group led by Uwe Helm Petersen at what is now the University of Southern Denmark, in Odense (organizers of the International Systemic Functional Conference in 2007, where Matthiessen again participated intensively in the pre-conference Summer School a few years later). Previously, in 1999, he had taken part in the Linguistics Postgraduate Summer School, jointly with M.A.K. Halliday, and, in 2000, in a Linguistics Postgraduate weeklong course, jointly with Kazuhiro Teruya. Some years later, Matthiessen co-authored a publication with Uwe Helm Petersen, Thomas Hestbaek Andersen, and others (Teruya et al., 2007) and was involved in a publication resulting from an interview with the latter researcher (Matthiessen, 2015c). As in other parts of Europe, Matthiessen’s (1995a) Lexicogrammatical Cartography is his most oft-cited reference in Denmark, his research on lexicogrammar in general having been cited by different authors, but also publications in the areas of multilinguality (e.g. Matthiessen, Teruya & Wu, 2008) and translation studies (e.g. Matthiessen, 2001), and even an area of his research that has not had a large impact in Europe, as is the application of SFL to healthcare contexts (e.g. Matthiessen, 2013; cf. Chapter 5, this volume). Other countries present in Table 9.2 are Greece and Spain. Concerning the former, Matthiessen has paid academic visits to Bessie Dendrinos and her research group at the University of Athens, where, besides delivering a plenary talk (Matthiessen, 2010a), he also participated in a symposium (Matthiessen, 2010b). His collaboration with researchers in Spain has primarily taken place through invitations by systemicists at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in recent years (2019 and 2020) to carry out joint research on projection and processes of motion across languages. As an output of this collaboration, we can mention the paper “Translations of Representations of Moving and Saying from English into Spanish”, coauthored by Matthiessen, Arús-Hita, and Teruya (2021). It is also worth noting that one of the most prominent SFL researchers in Europe – Mick O’Donnell, from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid – did his PhD thesis under Matthiessen’s supervision in the early 1990s (O’Donnell, 1994), which brought about a number of research collaborations between both of them at the time in the form of papers (Matthiessen, O’Donnell & Zeng, 1991; Rowles et al., 1993) and research reports (Matthiessen & O’Donnell, 1991; O’Donnell et al., 1991). Although this academic relationship took place mostly when they were both in Sydney, it certainly provided a way for Matthiessen’s ideas to reach Europe when O’Donnell later settled in Spain. When Matthiessen started supervising O’Donnell’s thesis, the former was still a research linguist at the Information Sciences Institute, University

326  Jorge Arús-Hita of Southern California, where O’Donnell had later stayed for a year. At that same institute, Matthiessen also coincided with Julia Lavid, from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. That encounter also had repercussions for the dissemination of Matthiessen’s ideas in Europe, as Julia Lavid, upon returning to Spain, incorporated the teaching of the Nigel grammar into the curriculum of the English Linguistics doctoral program at the Universidad Complutense. This, in turn, resulted in the completion of several PhD theses supervised by Julia Lavid and informed by Matthiessen’s research (Taboada Gómez, 2001; Arús-Hita, 2003; Zamorano-Mansilla, 2006; Moratón Gutiérrez, 2015), as well as the SFL framework in general (Mora López, 2017; Avilés Mariño, 2019). Besides the collaborations reflected in Table 9.2, Matthiessen has engaged with different European researchers over the years. Italy is another European country where an area of collaboration can be identified, notably with scholars such as Donna R. Miller, Chris Taylor, and Carol Taylor Torsello. The last two were invited to the first SFL Symposium on Translation at PolyU, Hong Kong, in 2012, organized by Elaine Espindola with the support of Christian Matthiessen and Kazuhiro Teruya, while a few years later Matthiessen and Teruya (2016) had a joint chapter published in a volume co-edited by Donna R. Miller and Paul Bayley. More recently, Matthiessen was invited by Maria Bondi to UNIMORE, in Modena, for linguistic discussions. Francisco Veloso, an academic staff member there at the time, has also co-authored publications with Matthiessen (Matthiessen & Veloso, 2023; Slade et al., 2015). As a way of concluding this section, Figure 9.3 shows the different European countries with which Matthiessen has had lasting and/or noteworthy collaborations. Not surprisingly, the geographical areas of academic activity reflected in this map were also highlighted in Figure 9.2. 9.5 Christian and Michael One important way in which Matthiessen’s linguistic cosmology arrived in Europe has been through his career-long collaboration with Michael Halliday. This resulted, among other things, in the co-authoring of some of the most widely cited and appreciated SFL publications in Europe as well as in the rest of the world (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999, 2004, 2014; Matthiessen & Halliday, 2009). This collaboration, however, goes far beyond the mere publication of joint work. As Matthiessen himself puts it: “I feel that the most important contribution I can make is to continue to try to elucidate and develop Michael Halliday’s ideas” (PC), thus honoring a tradition of transmission and interpretation of ideas that in the European context can be said to date back to Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece. In the same way as Plato defended his master’s ideas and developed on them,

Matthiessen in Europe  327

Figure 9.3  Matthiessen’s collaborations in Europe (GT = general theory; TS = translation studies; TG = text generation; LT = language typology; MM = multimodality; P = projection; PM = processes of motion)

Christian Matthiessen has shaped many of Halliday’s ideas to make them available to a wide readership: I’ve tried to continue to work out and develop Michael’s proposals and insights – not by proposing alternatives, but by focusing on elaborations. This was not because I just accepted him as an authority but because I learned from nearly 40 years of working with him that he always had excellent reasons for his positions even if he hadn’t had an opportunity to document them – or even if he hadn’t articulated them … Outside SFL but also inside SFL there are enough people trying to dismiss his work, criticize it or revise it in what seems to me to be a shallow way. And I was so fortunate to have so many opportunities since the 1980s to explore alternatives to his ideas that I have come to

328  Jorge Arús-Hita realize that he always had deep reasons for his theoretical and descriptive contributions. (PC) It is no surprise, then, that some of Matthiessen’s publications are devoted to the discussion of Halliday’s theories (Matthiessen, 2015d, 2015e; Teruya & Matthiessen, 2015; Matthiessen, Wang & Ma, 2019, 2020), reflecting an admiration which started early in his career, when he was still a student in Sweden (let us remember the “moment of revelation” mentioned in Section 9.2; see also Matthiessen et al., 2022: Chapters 1–2). Interestingly enough, Halliday was also still in Europe when he started developing the SFL model, before blazing, in the 1970s, the Europe-USAustralia trail which Matthiessen would later follow (with an additional stop in Hong Kong). Matthiessen’s ideas, the same as Halliday’s, can thus be said to have followed a round trip, by originating in Europe, traveling to different parts of the world, and then returning to Europe in the different ways sketched in this chapter. Focusing on Halliday and Matthiessen’s most famous contributions, i.e. Construing Experience through Meaning and IFG3 and IFG4, the three of them total around 50,000 citations worldwide, many of them coming from Europe. It is interesting to note that, probably because of Halliday’s academic background in the UK, researchers from this European country have most overwhelmingly cited their joint publications. These arguably represent an important means of transmission of the above-mentioned elucidation and development of Michael Halliday’s ideas by Matthiessen. It can be felt, for instance, in much of the new content in IFG3 and IFG4 with respect to the first and second editions. As pointed out by Marilyn Lewis (2014: 70) in her review of IFG4, “[o]f the twenty pages of references, Halliday’s own work fills four and a half and Matthiessen’s nearly three”, which clearly indicates the strong presence of Matthiessen in these later editions. One interesting effect of Matthiessen’s collaboration with Halliday in IFG3 and IFG4 is that, as agreed by different reviewers (e.g. Lewis, 2014; Foley, 2014), these editions are no longer textbooks, as IFG1 and IFG2 were, but reference books. Construing Experience through Meaning, the book where Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) “do a marvelous job of portraying the intricate detail of the paradigmatic organization of ideational semantics” (Muntigl, 2002: 88) is not as widely cited as IFG, but is also an important reference book in SFL, with over 2,300 citations, hundreds of them coming from Europe – mostly from the UK, as said above. As all those who have handled the paper version of the book know, its main drawback is its bulkiness – more than 650 pages, something which led one of the book’s reviewers to lament that “the result is a heavy, unwieldy tome with a great deal of wasted paper, a generally unfinished appearance” (Sowa, 2001:

Matthiessen in Europe  329 142), which, of course, has not deterred researchers from venturing into its insightful pages. So insightful indeed that the very same reviewer just quoted suggested that “professional societies such as the ACL [Association for Computational Linguistics] should put books such as these on their Web sites” (Sowa, 2001: 142). Matthiessen and Halliday’s collaborations have also involved occasional joint teaching invitations, some of which took place in Europe, mostly in the 1990s. The first of such was at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, where they participated in the Finnish Summer School of Linguistics in 1990, a place and time which, as seen above, marks some of Matthiessen’s earlier collaboration with European institutions. A few years later, in 1998, Matthiessen assisted Halliday in teaching a course on “Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar in the Framework of an Overall Model of Language” at the International Systemic Functional Institute prior to the Silver Jubilee ISFC conference in Cardiff, Wales. Incidentally, and on a personal note, that Silver Jubilee conference, which marked the 25th anniversary of the International Systemic Functional Conference, was also for me an occasion for jubilation as it was there that I first met both Michael Halliday and Christian Matthiessen in person, after years of semiotic involvement with their writings. One year later, both of them would return to Europe, this time to teach at the Linguistics Postgraduate Summer School, University of Odense, Denmark. As we can see, the places where their joint teaching took place are among those European countries mentioned in the previous sections, which shows that these joint visits in the 1990s made a lasting mark.

9.6 Conclusion This chapter has presented Christian Matthiessen’s relationship with Europe as a permanent round trip in which his gradual westward movement has been peppered with semiotic and personal returns. Matthiessen humbly claims that his research on motion has not had much impact within SFL, and that would include Europe: “I think it’s like a number of areas I’ve worked on: they’re of interest outside SFL but not within SFL. So neither non-SF linguists nor SF linguists will pay much attention to what I’ve said” (PC). It is a fact that his publications on this topic are in general among the least referenced. This is only too bad; I personally consider his insights into the grammar of motion to be of great value, which has led me to use motion as a metaphor to articulate the chapter. We have seen that Matthiessen’s permanent contact and collaboration with researchers in Europe have helped to bridge the gap of his migration from the continent. This, together with the insightfulness of his multiple publications, has resulted in an ever-increasing influence on Europe-based

330  Jorge Arús-Hita researchers, who are eager to embrace his ideas and use them to guide their research. The maps used in Sections 9.3 and 9.4 have helped to illustrate the extent of his physical and semiotic presence in Europe, from north to south and from east to west. Thus, despite his claim that he is now displaced from Europe both in time and space (“I’m reminded of L.P. Hartley’s oft-quoted insight from The Go-Between: ‘The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there’” [PC]), his work across the last four decades has provided a semiotic bridge between him and this continent which has vastly made up for the spatial distance. Matthiessen’s influence actually extends beyond the geographical areas covered in this book. The African continent is an example of that. Countries like Ghana, Nigeria, and Tunisia, to mention but a few, have received Matthiessen’s influence not only from his writings but also from academic contact, either in the form of PhD thesis supervisions of students coming from Africa or via research collaborations. Among the former, we can name theses by Isaac Mwinlaaru on the grammar of Dagaare (2017), Mohamed Ali Bardi on the grammar of Arabic (2008), and Ernest Akerejola on the grammar of Òkó (2006), as well as derived co-authored publications (e.g. Mwinlaaru, Matthiessen & Akerejola, 2018). As for research collaborations, we can mention his participation as a plenary speaker at the First Tunisian Systemic Functional Conference (2015) as well as a chapter in the book with selected papers from that conference (Matthiessen, 2018). In recent times, Matthiessen has had a long-term collaboration with Isaac Mwinlaaru and Mohamed Ali Bardi through participation in the PolySystemic Research Group led by Kazuhiro Teruya. Let us bring this metaphorical journey to an end by once again quoting its protagonist: When I studied philosophy, first in high school and then at Lund University, I remember being told that Sweden’s only contribution of European philosophy was the fact that Queen Christina invited Descartes to her court in Stockholm – where he died of pneumonia during the winter season because her castle was cold and draughty. (PC; see also Matthiessen et al., 2022: Chapters 1–3) Fortunately, the same cannot be said of the contribution of Sweden to linguistics; some Swedish linguists have been mentioned above, and several others immediately spring to mind. Christian Matthiessen is certainly among the great Swedish contributors to European, and worldwide, linguistics. His intellectual legacy can no doubt be said to be here to stay.

Matthiessen in Europe  331 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Christian Matthiessen for generously answering the different questions I asked him while writing this chapter as well as for revising the final draft for factual inaccuracies. Of course, the responsibility for any erroneous claims lies entirely with me. The graphic work for all figures in this paper is by Clara Arús. References Akerejola, Ernest. 2006. A systemic functional grammar of Òkó. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Arús-Hita, Jorge. 2003. Hacia una especificación computacional de la transitividad en el español: Estudio contrastivo con el inglés [Towards a computational specification of transitivity in Spanish: A contrastive study with English]. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid. Arús-Hita, Jorge. 2021. “Pushing SFL out of its comfort zone: The role of SPCA structure in English and Spanish.” Lingua 261: 102909. Arús-Hita, Jorge & Julia Lavid. 2001. “The grammar of relational processes in English and Spanish: Implications for machine-aided translation and multilingual generation.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 9: 61–79. Avilés Mariño, Estefanía. 2019. Translation correspondences in English and Spanish: The case of elaboration markers. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Bardi, Mohamed Ali. 2008. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Arabic. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Bateman, John A., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Zeng Licheng. 1999. “Multilingual language generation for multilingual software: A functional linguistic approach.” Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal 13(6): 607–639. Cordeiro, Cheryl Marie. 2018. “Using Systemic Functional Linguistics as method in identifying semogenic strategies in intercultural communication: A study of the collocation of ‘time’ and ‘different’ by Swedish managers with international management experiences.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 47(3): 207–225. Davidse, Kristin. 2001. “Review of ‘Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems’ by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” Functions of Language 8(1): 162–168. Diderichsen, Paul. 1946. Elementær dansk grammatik [Elementary Danish grammar]. Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag. Ellegård, Alvar. 1971. Transformationell svensk-engelsk satslära [Transformational Swedish-English syntax]. Lund: Gleerup. Foley, Joseph A. 2014. “Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (fourth edition).” The New English Teacher 8(1): 162–164. Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.

332  Jorge Arús-Hita Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. London & New York: Routledge. Hill-Madsen, Aage. 2020. “SFL and descriptive translation studies: Systemicfunctional grammar as a framework for the analysis of shifts in translation.” Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication 10: 143–169. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1943. Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. København: Akademisk Forlag. Jespersen, Otto. 1964. Essentials of English grammar. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2017. “FIGURE and GROUND in the construal of motion: A registerial perspective.” WORD 63(1): 62–91. Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2018. “The representation of motion in discourse: Variation across registers.” Language Sciences 72: 71–92. Kim, Mira & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. “Ways to move forward in translation studies: A textual perspective.” Target 27(3): 335–350. Kunz, Kerstin, Elke Teich, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Peggy Daut (eds.). 2014. Caught in the middle – language use and translation: A festschrift for Erich Steiner on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press. Lewis, Marilyn. 2014. “Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition).” Reflections 17: 70–72. Malmberg, Bertil. 1969. Nya vägar inom språkforskningen: En orientering i modern lingvistik [New avenues in language research: An orientation in modern linguistics]. 4th edition. Stockholm: Svenska Bokförlaget. Mann, William C. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1985. “Demonstration of the Nigel text generation computer program.” In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (volume 1): Selected theoretical papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 50–83. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1983a. “Systemic grammar in computation: The Nigel case.” In Proceedings of the First Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Pisa. 155–164. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1983b. “Choosing primary tense in English.” Studies in Language 7(3): 369–430. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1985. “The systemic framework in text generation: Nigel.” In James D. Benson & William Greaves (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 96–118. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1992. “Interpreting the textual metafunction.” In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics. London: Pinter. 37–82.

Matthiessen in Europe  333 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. “The object of study in cognitive science in relation to its construal and enactment in language.” Cultural Dynamics 6(1–2): 187–243. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995a. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995b. “THEME as a resource in ideational ‘knowledge’ construction.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic developments in English texts. London: Pinter. 20–54. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1996. “Tense in English seen through systemicfunctional theory.” In Margaret Berry, Christopher S. Butler, Robin P. Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 431–99. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1999. “The system of TRANSITIVITY: An exploratory study of text-based profiles.” Functions of Language 6(1): 1–51. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2001. “The environments of translation.” In Erich Steiner & Colin Yallop (eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–124. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. “Lexicogrammar in discourse development: Logogenetic patterns of wording.” In Guowen Huang & Zongyan Wang (eds.), Discourse and language functions. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 91–127. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004. “Descriptive motifs and generalizations.” In Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 537–673. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2007. “Lexicogrammar in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical developments in the ‘IFG’ tradition since the 1970s.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language (volume 2). London: Equinox. 765–858. Reprinted in Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics. Part 1. Volume 1 in the Collected works of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Edited by Kazuhiro Teruya, Canzhong Wu & Diana Slade. Sheffield: Equinox. 89–134. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2009. “Moving between languages: Comparison of systems for construing motion and translations of journeys.” Invited symposium talk, International Symposium: Towards an empirical theory of translation, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany, 31 July–1 August. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2010a. “Systemic Functional Linguistics as a resource for research and application: The potential in 2010.” Plenary talk at the University of Athens, 16 January. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2010b. “Resourcing researchers and tooling teachers: Exploring workbenches for linguistic description and analysis.” Symposium participation, the University of Athens, Athens, Greece, January 19. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2012. “The language of space: Semiotic resources for construing our experience of space.” Plenary talk at JASFL conference, Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan, 6–7 October.

334  Jorge Arús-Hita Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2013. “Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics in healthcare contexts.” Text & Talk 33(4–5): 437–466. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2014a. “Choice in translation: Metafunctional consideration.” In Kerstin Kunz, Elke Teich, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Peggy Daut (eds.), Caught in the middle – Language use and translation: A festschrift for Erich Steiner on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press. 271–334. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2014b. “Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes.” Functions of Language 21(2): 139–175. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “The language of space: Semiotic resources for construing our experience of space.” Japanese Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics 8: 1–64. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Register in the round: Registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1–48. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015c. “Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” [An interview of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen by Eva Maagerø & Thomas Hestbaek Andersen]. In Thomas Hestbaek Andersen, Morten Boeriis, Eva Maagerø & Elise Seip Tønnessen (eds.), Social semiotics: Key figures, new directions. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 16–41. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015d. “Halliday on language.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 137–202. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015e. “Halliday’s probabilistic theory of language.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 203–241. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2018. “The notion of a multilingual meaning potential: A systemic exploration.” In Akila Sellami-Baklouti & Lise Fontaine (eds.), Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 90–120. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & John Bateman. 1991. Text generation and systemic-functional linguistics: Experiences from Japanese and English. London: Frances Pinter. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & M.A.K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Bilingual edition, with an introduction by Huang Guowen. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Abhishek Kumar Kashyap. 2014. “The construal of space in different registers: An exploratory study.” Language Sciences 45: 1–27. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Michael O’Donnell. 1991. Generating a move. Research report, Dialogue project. Departments of Linguistics and Electrical Engineering, the University of Sydney. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2016. “Registerial hybridity: Indeterminacy among fields of activity.” In Donna R. Miller & Paul Bayley (eds.), Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Grammar, text and discursive context. London: Equinox. 205–239.

Matthiessen in Europe  335 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Francisco O. D. Veloso. 2023. “‘Real’ and imaginary worlds in children’s fiction: The Velveteen Rabbit.” Semiotica 1–31. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Jorge Arús-Hita & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2021. “Translations of representations of moving and saying from English into Spanish.” WORD 67(2): 188–207. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Michael O’Donnell & Licheng Zeng. 1991. “Discourse analysis and the need for functionally complex grammars in parsing.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Australia symposium on natural language processing, Japan. 274–293. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Wu Canzhong. 2008. “Multilingual studies as a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies. London & New York: Continuum. 146–221. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang & Ma Yuanyi. 2019. “Matthiessen on Halliday: An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (part I).” Language, Context and Text 1(2): 366–387. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang & Ma Yuanyi. 2020. “Matthiessen on Halliday: An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (part II).” Language, Context and Text 2(1): 187–207. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Isaac N. Mwinlaaru & Yuanyi Ma. 2018. “The ‘axial rethink’ – making sense of language: An interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.” Functional Linguistics 5(8): 1–19. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru. 2022. Systemic functional insights on language and linguistics. Singapore: Springer. Mora López, Natalia. 2017. Annotating appraisal in English and Spanish product reviews from mobile application stores: A contrastive study for linguistic and computational purposes. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Moratón Gutiérrez, Lara. 2015. Thematic patterning in English and Spanish: Contrastive annotation of a bilingual corpus of journalistic texts for linguistic and computational applications. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Muntigl, Peter. 2002. “Review of M.A.K. Halliday and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 47(1–2): 88–93. Mwinlaaru, Isaac Nuokyaa-Ire. 2017. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Dagaare. PhD thesis, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Mwinlaaru, Isaac N., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Ernest Akerejola. 2018. “A system-based typology of MOOD in African languages.” In Augustine Agwuele & Adam Bodomo (eds.), The Routledge handbook of African languages. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 93–117. Neumann, Stella. 2010. “Quantitative register analysis across languages.” In Elizabeth Swain (ed.), Thresholds and potentialities of Systemic Functional

336  Jorge Arús-Hita Linguistics: Multilingual, multimodal and other specialised discourses. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. 85–113. Neumann, Stella. 2012. “Conclusions and outlook: An empirical perspective on translation studies.” In Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner. Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair English-German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 281–288. Neumann, Stella. 2020. “Abralin ao Vivo 2020: Translation: Enriching our understanding of language use. Linguists Online Talk.” Retrieved from https:// aovivo​.abralin​.org​/en​/lives​/stella​-neumann​-2/. Noreen, Adolf. 1903. Vårt språk: nysvensk grammatik i utförlig framställning [Our language: New Swedish grammar in detail]. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. O’Donnell, Michael. 1994. Sentence analysis and generation: A systemic perspective. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. O’Donnell, Michael, Peter Sefton & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1991. “Resources in dialogue modelling.” Research report, Dialogue project. Departments of Linguistics and Electrical Engineering, the University of Sydney. Rowles, Chris, Xiuming Huang, Muriel de Beler, Julie Vonwiller, Robin King, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Peter Sefton & Mick O’Donnell. 1993. “Understanding spoken English using a systemic-functional framework.” Talk at the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics (PACLING), Vancouver, Canada. Slade, Diana, Eloise Chandler, Jack Pun, Marvin Lam, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Geoff Williams, Elaine Espindola, Francisco Veloso, Kl Tsui, Syh Tang & Ks Tang. 2015. “Effective healthcare worker-patient communication in Hong Kong accident and emergency departments.” Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine 22(2): 69–83. Sowa, John F. 2001. “Review of Construing experience through meaning: A language based approach to cognition.” Computational Linguistics 27(1): 140–142. Steiner, Erich. 2002. “Ideational grammatical metaphor: Exploring some implications for the overall model.” Languages in Contrast 4(1): 137–164. Steiner, Erich. 2008. “Empirical studies of translations as a mode of language contact.” In Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds.), Explicitness of lexicogrammatical encoding as a relevant dimension: Language contact and contact languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 317–346. Steiner, Erich. 2015. “Contrastive studies of cohesion and their impact on our knowledge of translation (English-German).” Target 27(3): 351–369. Taboada Gómez, Maite. 2001. La colaboración a través de la conversación: la construcción interactiva de diálogos orientados a tareas en inglés y español [Collaboration through conversation: The interactive construction of task-oriented dialogues in English and Spanish]. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Extended and published as Taboada, Maite. 2004. Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Matthiessen in Europe  337 Teich, Elke. 2009. “Translation as linguistic variation.” Symposium: Towards an empirical theory of translation. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. Germany. Teruya, Kazuhiro & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2015. “Halliday in relation to language comparison and typology.” In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 427–452. Teruya, Kazuhiro, Ernest Akerejola, Thomas H. Andersen, Alice Caffarel, Julia Lavid, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, Uwe Helm Petersen, Pattama Patpong & Flemming Smedegaard. 2007. “Typology of MOOD: A text-based and systembased functional view.” In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language (volume 2). London: Equinox. 859–920. Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Wang, Bo & Yuanyi Ma. forthcoming. “Christian Matthiessen and translation viewed in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics.” In Bo Wang & Yuanyi Ma (eds.), Theorizing and developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Developments by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Weinreich, Harald. 1972. “Die Textpartitur als heuristische Methode.” Der Deutschunterricht 24(4): 43–60. Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael. 2006. La generación del tiempo, aspecto y modalidad en inglés y español: un estudio funcional-contrastivo [The generation of tense, aspect and modality in English and Spanish: A functional-contrastive study]. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.

Index

accusative 15, 23, 178 Actor 24, 114, 163, 169 Adjunct 134, 184 affix 172, 179–180 affricate 80, 84, 90, 96 African languages 184, 289 Agbayani, Brian 168 Agent 15, 56, 109, 172–173, 303 agnation 11, 127, 129, 175, 197, 291 Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 111, 183 Akan 73–74, 162–163, 172, 186, 189, 196, 203, 289 Akerejola, Ernest S. 113, 190, 287, 289–290, 292, 330 Alves, Fabio 61–62 alveolar 82, 84, 92 Ameka, Felix K. 162 Anatomically Modern Human (AMH) 110, 113, 158, 164, 192, 207 Anderson, Stephen R. 13 Anthony, Laurence 299 anthropological linguistics 103 anthropology 8, 153, 164, 195 appliable discourse analysis (ADA) 271, 304, 308 appliable linguistics 10, 28–29, 32, 54, 241, 271, 304 appraisal 265–266 Araque, Alfonso 13 archaic language 105, 110, 113, 156–157, 174, 191, 193, 204, 207 architecture of language 9, 18, 21, 24, 30, 39, 41, 43–45, 47, 59, 61–62, 76, 104–105, 108–110, 116–118, 121, 157, 176, 179, 182, 192–194, 202, 204, 240, 247–248, 285, 289 articulatory gesture 70, 72, 78, 88

artificial intelligence (AI) 4, 7, 25, 27–28 Asano, Michiko 94 aspect 16, 103, 110, 117, 122–127, 129, 131, 133, 152, 159, 178, 189, 196, 199–200, 205 assimilation 76 associated motion 111 Avant, Kay C. 233 Avilés Mariño, Estefanía 326 axis 9, 18, 44–45, 71, 105–106, 108, 110, 116, 121, 123, 129, 131–132, 134–136, 140, 176–177, 179, 290, 305, 317 Badawi, Elsaid 123, 130, 147 Bajjika 116, 190, 287 Bakhtin, Mikhail 6, 45 Baldry, Anthony 305 Balint, Enid 32 Barabási, Albert László 194 Bárbara, Leila 302–303 Bardi, Mohamed Ali 123, 127, 129, 149, 190, 199, 287, 330 Barletta, Norma Patricia 303 Barrett, Lisa Feldman 30, 165, 192 Barrientos, Rosa María Gutiérrez 303–305 Barrow, John D. 13 Bartlett, Tom 61–62, 88, 106, 199 Bateman, John A. 6, 9, 18, 43, 60, 135, 241, 272, 320, 322, 324 Bateson, Gregory 8 Bayley, Paul 326 Beavers, John 136, 164 Benítez, Teresa 304 Benson, James D. 9 

340 Index Bernstein, Basil 146, 292 Berry, Margaret 9 Bhatia, Vijay K. 45 Biber, Douglas 41–42, 45, 59, 61–62 Bigelow, Julian 8 biological system 10, 30–31, 104–109, 191, 194–195, 235, 319 Birdsong, David 96 Bisang, Walter 159, 196–197 Blasi, Damián E. 197, 202 Bloomfield, Leonard 197 Boas, Franz 45, 103, 111, 185, 195 Bohm, David 122–123, 132 Boland, Angela 296, 308 Bolinger, Dwight 11, 170 Boltzmann, Ludwig 26 Bondi, Maria 326 Börner, Katy 13 Boroditsky, Lera 165 Boudon, Enrique 306–307 Bowcher, Wendy L. 62, 70, 253 Bower, Peter 233–236 Boxwell, Maurice 188 brain 7, 12–13, 30–31, 142, 192–193, 319 Bresnan, Joan 171 Brown, Judith B. 232 Brown, Roger 137, 200 Butler, Christopher S. 9, 22 Butt, David G. 9, 18, 27, 30, 249, 271, 283, 285, 292 Bybee, Joan 176, 187, 205 Bynon, Theodora 104 Caffarel, Alice 5, 18, 21, 104, 106, 108, 110, 190, 283, 287, 292, 304, 321 Callow, Kathleen 119 Campbell, Lyle 28, 183–184 Cantonese 241 Capra, Fritjof 194 Carroll, Mary 166 Carter, Rita 13 Cartesian linguistics 4, 7 cartography 4–5, 8–9, 13, 18, 20, 49–50, 54, 248, 259, 261, 289, 301–302, 320, 325 Cash, Johnny 264, 272 case 15, 21–22, 108–110, 119, 123, 131, 169, 172, 174, 178, 198 Castro, Claudia 302 causation 25

Chafe, Wallace 111 Chamorro, Diana 303 Chandler, Eloise 238, 240–241 characterology 4, 32, 110, 131 Chase, Greg 231 Chater, Nick 193–194, 207 Chaves, Fernanda 307 Cherry, Gemma 308 child language development 6, 56 Chinese 12, 21, 26, 71–72, 96, 103, 129–131, 141, 147, 158, 174, 177, 183, 198, 204, 231 choice 4, 14, 18, 20, 26–28, 30–31, 40, 48, 70, 78, 80, 82–84, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96–97, 107, 134, 137, 140, 151, 173, 198, 202–203, 233–236, 250–251, 302–304, 306, 320–322 Chomsky, Noam 4, 7, 9, 12–13, 22, 26, 29, 103, 161, 170–171, 182, 185–187, 196–197, 202–203, 205–206 Christaller, Johann Gottlieb 186, 196 Christian, David 193 Christiansen, Morten H. 193–194 Christie, Frances 56, 292 circumfix 170 circumstance 16, 129, 137, 152, 163, 184, 263–264, 288 clause 7, 9, 15–16, 19, 21, 27, 51, 53, 60, 104, 107–108, 113–115, 118, 120, 122–127, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143, 149, 151–153, 155–156, 159–162, 168, 170–171, 174–175, 177–179, 183–184, 189–190, 196–197, 199–201, 203–204, 207, 263, 287, 302–303, 305–306 clause complexing 9, 151–152, 162 Clérigh, Chris 76, 292 Cloran, Carmel 62, 292 coda 74, 95–96 codal variation 18, 105, 107, 143, 146, 195 code 9, 14, 26, 146 cognition 11, 323 cognitive linguistics 8–9, 11 cohesion 41, 51, 53, 59 collocation 178, 188 comparability 116–117, 119–121, 183, 197–198 computation 4, 6–7, 22, 25, 44–45, 56, 59–60, 188, 191, 248, 270, 289, 319–321, 323, 329

Index  computational linguistics 6, 25, 191, 289, 329 computational modelling 319–320, 323 Comrie, Bernard 22–23, 104, 134, 185 conceptual metaphor 187 concordance 237, 299 conjunction 16, 156 connotation 16, 266 Conrad, Susan 42, 45, 59 consonant 70–71, 75–76, 78, 82–84, 86–88, 90, 95–96 consonant cluster 82–84, 86–88, 90, 96 content plane 70, 74, 119, 144, 155–157, 174–175, 192, 197, 257, 262, 264, 272, 285 context 4, 9, 11, 14–15, 18, 23–25, 27, 39–45, 47–51, 53–54, 56, 58–62, 71, 76, 97, 104–105, 109–110, 116–123, 129, 139, 143–144, 147–153, 157–158, 165, 170–171, 173, 175–177, 179–180, 182–183, 192–193, 197–199, 202, 204, 207, 231–232, 234–237, 240, 247–248, 250–255, 257–272, 279–282, 285, 288, 290, 297, 301–308, 316–317, 319–320, 322, 325–326 context of culture 40, 48, 105, 153, 165, 193, 236, 240, 265, 267 context of situation 9, 40, 44, 48, 236, 251–252, 265, 303, 306 Cordeiro, Cheryl Marie 322 Cornejo, Fabiola 304–305 corpus 4, 26–27, 31, 37, 42, 45, 59, 72, 105, 108–110, 116, 119, 121, 139, 141–142, 151, 153, 182–183, 189, 201, 205, 217, 231, 272, 281, 285, 287–288, 299, 302, 306 corpus linguistics 182 Coseriu, Eugenio 42, 318 countersegmentation 72 Covington, Michael A. 113 Craig, Colette G. 158 creolization 114 critical discourse analysis (CDA) 61 Croft, William 23, 25, 207 cross-cultural pragmatics 119 cryptogrammar 114 Cruz, Priscilla Angela T. 129 culture 4, 14, 20, 25, 29, 31, 40, 45, 48–49, 105, 142, 146–147, 152– 153, 164–166, 177, 192–193, 195,

341

202, 205, 236, 240, 249, 254, 261, 264–267, 272, 284 Cummings, Michael J. 9 Czech 139–140, 183, 201 Dagaare 116, 190, 330 Dahl, Östen 205 Damasio, Antonio 13, 30–31 D’Andrade, Roy 164 Danish 21, 318, 324 Darwin, Charles 28 Davidse, Kristin 320 Deacon, Terrence 192 de-automatization 250–252, 255, 263, 267 Debashish, Meena 70 Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO) 230–231, 242 DeLancey, Scott 111 delicacy 22, 44–45, 50, 108 de Lima-Lopes, Rodrigo 305–306 de Melo, Lívia 303 Dendrinos, Bessie 324–325 denotation 16, 265 Derewianka, Beverly 292 Derrida, Jacques 6 description 4, 11–12, 15, 20, 22, 25, 27–28, 60, 71, 78, 82, 96, 103–118, 120, 122, 127, 129, 131, 133, 139– 141, 143–144, 146–147, 149–151, 153, 157, 161–163, 166, 168, 170, 173, 178, 182, 184–191, 195–200, 202, 204, 206–207, 235–237, 240– 241, 247–248, 254, 257, 261, 270, 272, 282, 285, 287–288, 290, 301, 304–305, 308, 319, 320–321, 323 descriptive linguistics 111, 153, 197 de Souza, Ladjane Maria Farias 305–306 de Souza Romero, Tania 302 De Sutter, Gert 56 dialect 8–9, 105, 143–147, 153, 174, 195, 201 Diamond, Jared 25, 167 diathesis 118, 140 Dickson, Rumona 296, 308 Diderichsen, Paul 318 Dik, Simon C. 12 discourse 6, 8, 11, 15, 25, 29, 41–45, 47, 50, 53–54, 57–58, 61, 111, 117, 149, 152, 184, 203, 230–231, 241, 248, 250, 254, 259, 261–262,

342 Index 270–271, 281–282, 287, 289–290, 303–304, 308, 319, 321 discourse analysis 61, 271, 282, 290, 304, 308 discourse marker 184 discourse semantics 8, 41, 281–282 Dixon, R.M.W. 187, 195–196, 206–207 Dong, Hongyuan 183 Doran, Y.J. 104 Douglas, Mary 42, 146, 202 downranking 110, 160–161 Dravidian languages 188–189 Dryer, Matthew S. 114 Dubinsky, Janet M. 13 Dupuy, Jean-Pierre 8 Dyirbal 12, 196 Earle, Timothy 195, 202 Eco, Umberto 6 Edelman, Gerald M. 30 education 4, 6, 54, 56, 84, 89, 233, 241, 280–282, 304 Egbert, Jesse 42 Eggins, Suzanne 9, 52, 292 Einstein, Albert 10 Ekman, Paul 165, 192 Ellegård, Alvar 5, 141, 180, 182, 317 embedding 45, 47, 110, 160, 194, 202 Emergency Department Communication (EDCOM) 235, 238, 240–241 English 5–6, 8–12, 17–19, 21, 23, 27, 41–43, 49, 54, 60, 70–74, 78, 82–84, 88, 92, 94, 96–97, 103, 111, 113, 117–120, 122, 126–127, 129–131, 133–134, 137, 139–142, 146–147, 152–156, 158–166, 171–175, 177, 182–184, 200–201, 203–207, 231, 248, 281, 287, 289, 304, 306, 317–321, 323–326 Epithet 25, 173 Epstein, Ronald M. 234 equivalence 120, 306 ergativity 15, 23, 25, 111, 133, 172, 196 Erickson, Lucy C. 142 Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 139 Espindola, Elaine 305–306, 326 Etwen 73–74 Evans, Nicholas 103, 113, 115, 135, 154, 161, 164, 166, 173, 191, 194, 197, 206

Everett, Daniel L. 161 Evert, Stefan 56, 61 evidentiality 103, 107, 111, 117, 131, 133, 158, 174, 183, 185, 196 evolution 7–8, 13–14, 20, 26, 28–31, 96, 105, 113, 120, 147, 157, 161, 192–195, 197, 201–202, 204, 207, 319 Ewe 162, 196, 203 explicate order 122–123, 132 expression plane 70, 74, 76, 144, 158, 192, 197, 201, 285, 318 Fawcett, Robin P. 9, 157 Ferguson, Charles A. 146 Féry, Caroline 171, 173, 203 Feynman, Richard 13 field 20, 40–41, 43–44, 47–58, 62, 136, 147–153, 202, 235, 248, 250–252, 254, 257–259, 261–262, 265–266 field of activity 49–50, 53–58, 149– 150, 152, 250, 257–258 field of experience 50, 136, 148, 150 Figueredo, Giacomo 104, 113, 149, 302–304 Figueredo, Grazziela 303–304 Finite 21, 103–131, 156 Firth, J.R. 8, 12, 18, 23–24, 40, 43, 45, 48, 71–72, 74, 83, 92, 103, 109, 191, 195, 202, 204 Fitch, W. Tecumseh 203 Flecken, Monique 166 Fleming, Ilah 187 Flynn, James R. 31 Fodor, Jerry A. 7–8 Foley, Joseph A. 328 Foley, William A. 161 Fontaine, Lise 106 foot 73, 96 foregrounding 129, 249–251, 262– 263, 267 formal correspondence 120 formalism 14 Foucault, Michel 235 fractal 44, 108, 121, 198 Frake, Charles O. 164 French 21, 117, 120, 146, 190, 204, 287 fricative 78, 80, 84, 90, 97 Fries, Peter H. 9, 151 function-rank matrix 15–16, 21, 108, 186–187

Index  Fung, Andy 240–241 Fusaroli, Riccardo 193 Fuzer, Cristiane 302–303 Gally, Joseph A. 30 Gangopadhyay, Nivedita 193 García, Adolfo M. 304, 307 Garcia de Oliveira, Simone 305–306 García-Marrugo Alexandra 303 Garcia-Sierra, Adrian 142 Gazdar, Gerald 187 GeM (genre and multimodality) 241 gender 122, 177, 297 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) 187 generative linguistics 7, 170, 317 generic structure 20–21, 49–50, 241 Geneva School 10 genre 30, 41–42, 45, 50, 52, 54, 59–60, 62, 144, 162, 202, 241, 272, 302 Gerwien, Johannes 166 Gilman, Albert 137, 200 Givón, Talmy 12, 25, 139 glottal 74 Goldsmith, John A. 187, 207 Goodenough, Ward H. 164 Graeber, David 167, 195, 201 grammar 3–4, 8–12, 16, 22, 24–25, 28, 30–31, 41, 44–45, 49, 51, 54, 60, 62, 74, 103, 108, 111, 113–116, 120–127, 129, 131–133, 136–137, 139, 143–144, 149, 151–152, 155– 158, 167, 170, 175–179, 185–192, 196, 198–199, 204, 206–207, 231, 236, 240, 250–251, 255, 262–265, 267, 272, 281, 285, 287, 289, 298, 301–303, 306, 317–321, 323, 325–326, 329–330 grammatical category 10, 72, 118, 120, 199, 302 grammatical metaphor 44, 161, 182 grammaticalization 114, 175–184, 204–206 graphology 20, 44, 122, 255 Golston, Chris 168 Greaves, William S. 9, 70, 72, 76, 287 Greenberg, Joseph H. 104, 114, 134, 187 Gregory, Michael J. 8, 45, 106, 143–144 Grimes, Joe 187–188

343

Gross, Maurice 197 Guerra-Lyons, Jesús David 303–304 Guillaume, Antoine 111 Guillaume, Gustave 318 Gutiérrez, Rosa María 302 Hagège, Claude 176, 178, 205 Haiman, John 167, 187 Hajek, John 135 Hale, Ken 170–173, 196, 203 Halle, Morris 24 Halliday, M.A.K. 3–6, 8–14, 16, 18, 20, 22–24, 26, 28–30, 39–41, 43, 45, 47, 54, 60, 62, 70–74, 76, 94, 96, 103–104, 106–110, 113–114, 116– 118, 120–121, 123, 131–132, 134, 139–144, 146–147, 149, 153–165, 167–168, 171, 173–179, 182, 187, 191–193, 195–196, 198–200, 203– 207, 235–237, 240–242, 247–254, 257, 263, 265–267, 271, 280–281, 283–287, 289–290, 292, 297–298, 301–303, 317–320, 324–329 Hansen-Schirra, Silvia 42, 59, 121, 201 Harari, Yuval Noah 195 Hardie, Andrew 7 Harrington, Jonathan 201 Harris, Alice C. 183–184 Harrison, K. David 166 Hartley, L.P. 330 Hasan, Ruqaiya 3, 6, 20, 28, 39–41, 45, 48–50, 56, 106, 143, 146, 155, 162, 207, 237, 241, 247–255, 257, 262–265, 267–268, 270–272, 280, 284, 291–292 Haspelmath, Martin 114 Hauser, Marc D. 203 Heath, Jeffrey 188 Heine, Bernd 176, 184 Henderson, Eugénie J.A. 18 Herke-Couchman, Maria (Herke, Maria) 283, 289, 292 Hickey, Raymond 114 Hickmann, Maya 165 Hill-Madsen, Aage 322 Hiltunen, Turo 59 Hinton, Leanne 93 HINTS 231 Hjelmslev, Louis 28, 74, 109, 192, 318 Hockett, Charles F. 194, 197 Holes, Clive 123, 126–127, 147–149, 199

344 Index homonymy 72 Hopper, Paul J. 25, 132, 149, 175– 176, 178, 185–187 Hori, Motoko 165 honorification 114, 189 House, Juliane 119, 158, 188, 320, 322, 324 Howes, David 164–165 Huddleston, Rodney D. 60 Huumo, Tuomas 205 Hyon, Sunny 45 hypotaxis 159–160, 163, 196 Ibáñez, Agustin Mariano 303 ideology 30, 62, 237, 264–266, 282 ideophone 93–94, 202 Ignatieva, Natalia302–303 imperfective 124–127, 178, 199 implicate order 122–123, 132 individuation 41, 43, 47–48, 66, 283, 306 Indo-Aryan languages 133, 188–190, 287 Indo-European languages 94, 140, 190, 204, 287 infix 170 Ingkaphirom, Preeya 133 instantiation 9, 20, 24, 31, 41, 44–45, 48–49, 54, 60, 63, 66, 68, 96, 105–106, 108, 110, 119–121, 139, 143, 147, 158, 171, 176, 179–180, 182, 193–194, 197, 201, 248, 254–255, 263, 166–269, 284, 290, 303, 305 International Research Center for Communication in Healthcare (IRCCH) 240 intonation 15, 70, 116, 131, 157, 159, 167–169, 174, 305 Ishihara, Shinichiro 171, 173, 203 isomorphism 28, 51, 155 Iwasaki, Shoichi 133 Jacaltec 158 Jakobson, Roman 8, 29, 250 Jäger, Gerhard 188, 197 Janda, Richard D. 28 Japanese 18–19, 21, 70–71, 78–79, 82, 93–96, 96–97, 113–114, 129–131, 142, 151, 155–156, 165, 174–175, 190, 204, 207, 231, 287, 320 Javanese 174

Jenkins, Jennifer 96 Jespersen, Otto 317 Johansson, Niklas Erben 202 Johnson, Allen W. 195, 202 Johnson, Mark 8 Joo, Ian 202 Joseph, Brian D. 28 Joseph, John E. 30 Julio, Cristóbal 306–307 Kádár, Dániel Z. 119, 158 Kalam 159–160, 162, 203 Kanero, Junko 93 Kaplan, Ronald 171 Karimi, Neda 15, 237 Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar (Kumar, Abhishek) 60, 104, 106, 110, 116, 151, 190, 272, 287, 315 Kâte 118–120, 152 Katz, Jerrold J. 7 Kay, Martin 188 Kazakh 172 Keenan, Edward L. 114, 134, 187, 206 Kenny, Charles 197 Khorchin Mongolian 144, 149 Kim, Mira 189, 287, 292, 306, 321, 323 Koch, Harold 111 Korean 133, 137, 174, 287 Kress, Gunter R. 8, 241 Kretzschmar, William A. 88 Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju 188–189, 200 Krishnamurti, Jiddu 132 Kronenfeld, David 164 Kruspe, Nicole 165 Kuhl, Patricia K. 142, 207 Kunz, Kerstin 42, 59, 61, 121, 201, 322 Kuteva, Tania 176 Kwakuitl 111, 185 labialization 72, 74, 78, 80 LACUS (Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States) 9–10 Ladefoged, Peter 185 Lakhota 12 Lakoff, George 8, 11, 187 Lam, Marvin 240, 284, 301–302 Lamb, Sydney M. 6, 9, 318 Lane, Jonathan 160, 162 langue 7, 182 Lantolf, James 134 LaPolla, Randy J. 11–12, 23 Lascaratou, Chryssoula 165

Index  Laughren, Mary 170, 172–173, 203 Laver, John 8 Lavid, Julia 113, 119, 149, 152, 320, 326 Leakey, Richard 8, 31 Leão, Norma de 302 Lee, Jackson L. 207 Lee, Penny 192, 207 Lemke, Jay 6, 26 Levin, Beth 136, 162, 164, 321 Levinson, Stephen C. 103, 113, 115, 135, 154, 161, 164–165, 173, 191, 194, 197, 206 Levshina, Natalia 31, 56, 141 Lewis, Marilyn 328 Lewontin, Richard C. 29 Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) 170–171, 173 lexicogrammar 4, 11, 16, 28, 41, 44–45, 49, 54, 60, 62, 74, 108, 116, 120–121, 127, 129, 132–133, 136–137, 139, 144, 149, 155–158, 167, 175, 177, 186, 189, 231, 236, 240, 250, 255, 262, 264, 267, 285, 320–321, 323, 325 lexis 18, 27, 44, 88, 111, 132–133, 135–137, 141, 143–144, 162, 164–165, 170, 175–180, 182, 188, 198, 200, 202–203, 205 Li, Eden Sum-hung 190 Lieberman, Daniel E. 192 Lieberman, Philip 192 Lightfoot, David W. 13 Linguistically Modern Human (LMH) 192 logic 4, 8, 32 logico-semantic type 51, 53, 108, 151, 159 logogenesis 9, 44, 175, 204, 263, 321 London School 40 Longacre, Robert E. 45, 187 Lord, Carol 196 Lounsbury, Floyd G. 164 Loureda, Óscar 306–307 Lovelock, James 158 Luisi, Pier Luigi 194 Lukin, Annabelle 29–30, 62, 237, 249, 292 Ma, Yuanyi (马园艺) 4, 28, 61, 109, 158, 195, 198, 248, 272, 279, 321, 328

345

machine learning 7 MacNeilage, Peter F. 96 macrofunction 156–157, 192 Maddieson, Ian 185 Majid, Asifa 165 Malinowski, Bronisław 14–15, 40, 45, 195 Malmberg, Bertil 5, 205–206, 317 Mandarin 73–74, 131, 144, 149, 183, 190 Mann, William C. 6, 50, 185, 199, 206, 320 manner of articulation 78 Mapuche 163 Marathi 189 Marshall, Amy 238 Martin, J.R. 6, 8, 11, 18, 21, 39, 41, 44–45, 48, 50, 52, 56, 59, 61–62, 70, 104, 106–108, 110, 113, 117–119, 123, 129, 137, 149, 152, 154, 156–157, 167–168, 190, 266, 283, 292, 301–302, 304, 306, 318, 321 Martin, Samuel E. 187 Martinec, Radan 149, 152 Martinet, André 156, 317 Marx, Steven 272 Mathesius, Vilém 4, 28, 139–140, 183, 201 Matsumoto, Katsumi 113 Maya 11 McCawley, James D. 204 McCulloch, Warren 8 McDonald, Edward 141, 157, 168, 189, 292 McEnery, Tony 7 McGregor, William B. 73, 188 McIntosh, Angus 106, 116–117, 120, 143–144, 198 McVeigh, Joe 59 McWhinney, Ian R. 234 Mead, Nicola 233–236 meaning 4–5, 7, 9–11, 13–15, 18, 20–26, 29–32, 40–41, 44, 47–48, 63, 65–66, 68, 72, 76, 83, 92–93, 96, 104, 107, 113, 115–117, 119, 121, 123, 126–127, 134, 146, 149, 153–157, 164, 167–170, 174–175, 177, 179, 188, 192–193, 195, 198, 200–203, 205, 230–231, 233, 235–236, 247, 249–250, 252–253, 255, 257, 259, 263–268, 270, 281,

346 Index 284–285, 287, 290, 297, 301, 303, 306–207, 319–321, 328 meaning base 230–231, 319 meaning potential 7, 18, 20, 26, 104– 105, 123, 134, 175, 193, 195, 198, 201, 205, 247, 249, 255, 266–268, 275, 284–285, 321 medium of expression 17, 157, 168–170, 172–173 Meillet, Antoine 175, 204 Mel’čuk, Igor 6, 188 Menéndez, Salvio Martín 303 metafunction 6, 9, 15, 17, 20–21, 23, 43–45, 62, 104, 106–108, 113, 116, 118–119, 121, 133, 149, 151, 155– 159, 166–170, 173–177, 183–184, 192, 198, 200, 202–203, 205–206, 248, 254, 264–266, 285, 287–288, 290, 305–306, 308, 321 experiential 16, 21, 31, 63, 76, 107–108, 110, 114, 124, 126, 133, 135, 137, 158–163, 167– 170, 174, 183–184, 192, 194, 200, 202–204, 206, 264–265, 285, 287–288, 302, 306 ideational 14, 20, 43–44, 47, 107–108, 133, 149, 151, 161, 163–164, 166, 169, 171, 182– 183, 192, 202, 205, 264–265, 287, 303, 305–306, 321, 328 interpersonal 10, 16, 20–21, 43–44, 47, 76, 104, 107–108, 113–114, 118–119, 123–127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 144, 149, 152, 155–156, 158–159, 166–170, 174–175, 177, 183– 184, 192, 198–200, 202–204, 206, 234, 264–265, 285, 287– 288, 305 logical 16, 53, 82, 108–110, 133, 151, 156, 158–162, 167, 169, 174–175, 177, 192, 194, 196– 197, 203, 265, 287, 305–306 textual 16, 20–21, 43–44, 47, 76, 107–108, 114, 118–120, 140, 149, 151, 155–156, 158–159, 161, 166–167, 169–171, 174–175, 183–184, 189, 192, 200–204, 206, 265, 285, 287–288, 303, 321 metaphor 13, 20, 44, 49, 53, 161, 175, 182, 187, 194, 198, 261, 267, 272, 329–330

Meurer, José Luiz 27 microfunction 156, 193 Mielke, Jeff 71 Miller, Donna R. 8, 249, 251–253, 267, 271, 326 mirativity 111 Mishler, Elliot G. 236 Mizuno, Jorge 303 modality 24, 26, 103, 107, 117, 174, 241 modalization 131, 133, 152, 174 mode 20–22, 40–41, 43–44, 49–50, 53, 56–57, 147–148, 150, 251, 257, 259, 265 mode of expression 21, 107, 157, 167–169, 173–174, 202, 204, 287 mode of meaning 48, 107, 146, 149, 155–157, 167–169, 174, 192–193, 198, 203, 265 modern language 108, 110–111, 113, 157, 171, 174, 191, 193–194, 197, 202, 204, 207 Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 123–127, 129–130, 133, 146, 149, 152, 199, 207 Modistic grammarian 113 modulation 114, 302 Monaghan, Padraic 94 mood 9, 16, 24, 103–104, 107, 113–115, 117, 122–127, 129– 131, 133, 135, 137–138, 152, 158–159, 174, 180, 199–200, 204, 285, 287 Moore, Alison Rotha 236–237, 292 Mora López, Natalia326 Moran, Steven 141 Moratón Gutiérrez, Lara 326 Moravcsik, Edith A. 196 Morgan, Stephanie 233 morpheme 16, 72, 108 morphology 22, 24, 103, 132, 144, 178, 195, 198–199, 206–207 Moss, Margaret Gillian 303 Moyano, Estela Inés 302, 304–305 Muhamedowa, Raihan 172 Mukařovský, Jan 249–250 Multex 230–231 multidimensional analysis 42 multilingual studies 107–108, 191, 201, 319, 321 multilinguality 188, 319, 322–323, 325

Index  multimodality 13, 47–48, 60–61, 230–231, 241, 264, 272, 281, 306, 324, 327 multivariate 61, 160, 162, 305 Muñoz, Claudia 304–305 Munro, Pamela 114, 186 Muntigl, Peter 328 Murcia-Bielsa, Susana 119, 149, 152 Muskogean 186 Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. 106, 110, 113, 116, 151, 185, 190, 195, 289, 330 nasal 74–76, 78, 80, 96, 132, 135 nasalization 96, 132, 135 natural language processing (NLP) 7, 28, 131 Nanri, Keizo 202 Narrog, Heiko 176 negation 127, 204 Nesbitt, Christopher N. 106, 292 Nettle, Daniel 166 Neumann, Stella 42, 56, 59, 61, 121, 201, 321 neuroscience 7–8, 13, 31, 165, 303 Newman, Eric A. 13 Nichols, Johanna 111, 129, 167 Nida, Eugene 187 Nigel 320–321, 326 Nikolaeva, Irina 103, 184 node 118, 121, 126 nominal group 10, 111, 114, 117, 152, 161, 171–173 Nordlinger, Rachel 111 Noreen, Adolf 318 Norwegian 318, 324 obligation 152, 155, 302 Ochi, Ayako 189, 290, 292 Ochs, Eleanor 188 O’Donnell, Mick 284, 325–326 Oesterreicher, Wolfgang 42 O’Grady, Gerard 61–62, 84, 88, 106 Ohala, John J. 93 Ọ̀kọ 190, 287, 289, 330 Old English 184 olfaction 165 Oliveira, Francieli 304 Oliveira, Kicila Ferreguetti 302 Ong, Walter J. 164–165 onset 71–72, 74, 78, 82–84, 88, 90–91, 94, 96–97, 283

347

ontogenesis 9, 26, 29, 44, 143, 157, 175, 202, 204, 302 Oteíza, T. 302 Pagano, Adriana 302, 304 Pagel, Mark 110, 114, 207 Pagliuca, William 176, 205 Painter, Clare 6, 70, 292, 302 Palethorpe, Sallyanne 201 Palmer, F.R. 23–24 Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 189 paradigmatic 9, 13, 45, 71–72, 96, 105–108, 121–123, 126, 129–132, 134–135, 140, 156, 176–177, 179, 187, 204, 317, 328 paraphone 73 parataxis 160 paratone 73 Parodi, Giovanni 306–307 parole 7, 182 Parrott, Roxanne 242 patient-centered care 232–237 Patient-Centered Clinical Model (PCCM) 232 Patpong, Pattama 190, 287, 292 Patrick, Jon 27 Patten, Terry 60 Pawley, Andrew 160, 162, 188 Payne, Thomas E. 196 Peng, Ke 238 Penman 4, 6, 199 Perkins, Revere 176, 205 Pessoa, Fernando 306 Petterson, Thore 318 philosophy 4, 6–8, 17, 25, 318, 330 phonaestheme 83, 92, 94 phonaesthesia 71 phonematic unit 71, 83 phoneme 18, 23, 73–74, 78, 82–84, 94, 96–97, 116, 132, 134 phonetics 18, 24, 27, 70, 72, 76, 78, 108, 113, 192, 197, 262 phonology 7, 11, 16, 41, 44, 70–74, 76, 78–80, 93, 96, 108, 113, 115–116, 129, 132, 135, 139, 141, 155–157, 178–180, 182 phylogenesis 9, 20, 26, 29, 44, 175, 204 physical system 10, 27, 104, 109, 194, 235, 297, 319 physics 13, 15, 123, 198 Pike, Evelyn 188 Pike, Kenneth L. 76, 111, 187

348 Index Pinuer, Claudio 302 Pirahã 161 Pittjantjatjara 149 Pitts, Walter 8 place of articulation 76, 78, 83 Plato 7, 31, 326 Platzack, Sven 318 Plum, Guenter 106 polarity 9, 16, 27, 122, 124–127, 129, 133, 137, 141, 156, 159, 177, 180, 202 polysystemicity 6, 24, 43, 71–72, 83, 103, 195, 330 Portuguese 149, 296–297, 302, 304–306, 308, 321 Posner, Michael I. 13 potential 4, 7–8, 18, 20, 26, 30, 39, 45, 47–49, 59, 61, 70–71, 74, 76, 78, 104–105, 107–111, 119, 123, 134–135, 139, 152, 155, 158, 160–161, 170, 172, 174–175, 193–195, 198–199, 201–202, 205, 207, 236–237, 241, 247, 249, 255, 259, 266–268, 270, 282, 284–285, 290–291, 304, 321 potentiality 45, 152 pragmatics 11, 14–15, 21–22, 24, 119, 158, 170, 193 Prague School 4, 12, 104, 139, 203, 249–250 Prakasam, V. 73, 96, 284 Predicator 21, 104, 124–127, 129– 131, 156, 174 prefix 126 prepositional phrase 16, 203 Priestley, J.B. 250 probability 5, 20, 25–26, 28–29, 43, 94, 105–106, 134, 139–143, 180, 183, 201, 205, 302–303 process 10, 15, 23–24, 26, 124, 127, 129, 137, 141, 155, 159, 162–163, 165, 169, 173–175, 183, 194, 250, 263, 302–303, 305, 315, 321, 325, 327 projection 31, 43, 108, 159, 183, 264, 283, 324–325, 327 prosodic phonology 71–72, 74, 96, 157 prosody 4, 21, 71–72, 74, 96, 116, 156–157, 167–169, 174, 189, 194, 202 protolanguage 105, 110, 113, 142, 156–157, 191, 193, 204, 207

psycholinguistics 5, 9, 44, 308 psychology 13, 28, 56, 59, 61, 96, 233 Pullum, Geoff 187 Pun, Jack K.H. 240–241 Quechua 158, 185, 201 Quirk, Randolph 41 Quiroz, Beatriz 104, 113, 149, 304–305 Raichle, Marcus E. 13 Ramer, Alexis Manaster 196 Ramón y Cajal, Santiago 13 rank 9, 15–18, 21, 24, 44, 53, 59, 70, 72–74, 78, 83, 94, 96, 108, 110, 115, 121–122, 126–127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 144, 156–157, 159–162, 176–177, 179–181, 186–187, 194, 198–200, 203, 302, 305 Ravelli, Louis J. 292 realization 3–4, 6, 25, 41, 44, 47–50, 53, 63, 74, 76, 105, 119, 121–130, 135–136, 140–141, 149, 152, 157–159, 166, 172, 178, 204, 235, 241, 255, 261, 303–304 realization statement 121, 123–127, 204 recursion 7, 110, 160–162, 194, 202–203 reference grammar 116, 127, 189 Regan, John 6 register 4–5, 9, 15, 18, 20, 25–26, 29–31, 39–50, 53–54, 56, 59–63, 104–105, 107–110, 116, 119–120, 139–140, 142–147, 149–153, 158, 161, 168, 171, 173, 180, 182–183, 189, 193–195, 198, 200–202, 207, 235, 237, 240, 247–249, 253–255, 257, 261, 263, 266–270, 272, 282, 285, 288, 291–292, 301–303, 306–307, 323 registerial cartography 54, 248 Reh, Mechthild 184 Reid, Thomas B.W. 45, 144 relational network 118 Residue 104, 204 resonance 75, 116, 135–136, 167, 319 rhetorical relation 53, 241 Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) 4, 25, 50, 241, 301, 307, 324 rhyme 72, 74, 82, 84, 88, 92 rhythm 116

Index  Robert, Stéphane 165 Robins, R.H. 40, 196 Robinson, Jane 188 Rodrigues-Júnior, Adail 305–306 Rodríguez-Vergara, Daniel 304 Romaine, Suzanne 166 Romance language 178, 205–206 Rorty, Richard 26 Rosado, Nayibe 304 Rose, David 39, 45, 52, 147, 149, 152–153, 188 Ross, Haj 187 Rosenblueth, Arturo 8 Röthlisberger, Melanie 144 Rowles, Chris 325 Russian 117 Sadler, Louisa 111 Sapir, Edward 4, 12, 20, 28, 45, 103, 164, 166 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 164, 166 Saussure, Ferdinand de 10–11, 18, 22–23, 28, 74, 182 Scandinavian languages 318, 321, 323 Schachter, Paul 113, 186, 196 Schank, Roger 7 Schwabe, Kerstin 171, 173, 203 Scotta-Cabral, Sara 302–303 Scottish Gaelic 149, 199 segmentation 72 Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 73 semantics 4, 6, 8–11, 14–16, 18, 20, 22, 24–25, 28, 40–41, 43–44, 47–51, 53–54, 60–61, 72, 74, 108–109, 113, 116–121, 126–127, 129, 135, 139, 144, 146, 149, 151, 154–160, 166–167, 175–176, 178–179, 187, 192–193, 198–200, 202, 231, 235–237, 240–241, 248, 250–251, 255, 262–263, 265, 267–268, 270–272, 281–282, 303, 306, 317, 328 semiotic system 4, 6, 8, 14–15, 18, 20–21, 24, 26–32, 40, 43–44, 47–48, 50, 52, 60–63, 70, 74, 76, 104–105, 108–110, 113, 117–118, 121, 129, 134, 142, 146, 153, 155, 157–168, 163–166, 176–177, 179–180, 191–195, 197, 203, 232, 234–237, 240–241, 247–248, 251– 252, 254–255, 258–259, 261–262, 264, 266, 271–272, 285, 288–289,

349

292, 297, 306–308, 315, 318–319, 323–324, 329–330 semogenesis 11, 14, 28, 175, 303 sentence 7, 23, 60, 122, 140, 203, 231 serial verb construction 111, 159, 162–163, 171, 189, 196, 203 Seuren, Pieter A.M. 22, 113, 197, 206 Shannon, Claude E. 8, 26–27 Shapiro, James A. 29 Shibatani, Masayoshi 104 Shopen, Timothy 196 Simpson, Jane 170–173, 203 Sino-Tibetan language 110, 190, 287 situation type 21, 48–49, 51, 54, 63, 193, 207, 235, 240, 259, 266 Slade, Diana 52, 151, 235, 238–241, 292, 307, 333 Slavic 133 Slavonic language 139 Slobin, Dan I. 164, 166, 203 Smeets, Ineke 163 Smith, Bradley Alexander 287, 290, 292 social system 29, 47–48, 50, 76, 104, 109, 146, 150, 191, 194–195, 197, 201–202, 232–233, 235–236, 252, 292, 308, 319, 324 sociolinguistics 48, 146 sociology 31, 56, 60–61 Socrates 326 Solms, Mark 13 sonority 82, 84 sounding 71–72, 74, 76, 78, 107, 123, 154, 192, 194, 201, 255 Sowa, John F. 328–329 Spanish 21, 113, 129–131, 134, 149, 203, 296–297, 302, 304–305, 308, 324–325 speech act 29, 119, 166 speech function 76, 117, 126, 199, 203, 240–241 speech level 133 Steiner, Erich 4, 9, 15, 18, 40–41, 48, 59, 61, 118, 121, 140, 194, 201, 248, 257, 284, 320–322, 324 Stewart, J.M. 111 Stewart, Moira 232 Stockwell, Robert 187 stop (consonant) 75–76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 90, 97 stratification 9, 18, 30, 39, 44, 47, 49, 54, 108, 110, 118–121, 175–176,

350 Index 179, 188, 195, 248, 254–256, 261– 263, 267, 290, 303, 305, 308, 318 stratum 4, 16, 18, 24, 26, 28, 39, 42, 44–45, 49–51, 59, 61, 76, 110, 113, 115–117, 119–121, 127, 129, 132, 144, 155, 157–158, 175–176, 197–198, 248, 254–258, 261–265, 285 Strevens, Peter 12, 106, 116–117, 120, 143–144, 198 structuralism 182, 206, 317 structure 4, 9, 11, 20–21, 25, 31, 39, 48–51, 53, 62, 71–72, 76, 82–83, 92, 94, 96, 105–106, 110, 113–114, 129, 146, 160–163, 166, 171, 173, 184, 187, 196, 198, 203–204, 231, 240–241, 266, 272, 296, 301, 303, 305, 307–308, 317 stylistics 203, 249, 254, 271 subject 9–11, 17, 22, 24, 54, 104, 109–110, 113–114, 118–119, 125–126, 130–131, 134, 140, 156, 171, 200–201, 206 subpotential 48, 255, 268, 270 suffix 96, 127, 170 Sussex, Roland 165 Svartvik, Jan 140 Swales, John M. 45 Swedish 21, 318, 330 syllable 23, 71–74, 76, 78–79, 82, 84, 88, 92, 94, 96, 132, 144, 168, 185 syntagm 173, 204 syntagmatic 18, 21, 45, 49, 71–72, 105–106, 121–123, 126, 129, 131–132, 135–136, 140–141, 167, 188, 305, 317 syntax 4, 7–8, 10–12, 14, 22–23, 29, 108, 167, 187, 198, 317–318 system network 82, 121, 123–124, 127, 135–136, 139, 281, 290 systemic functional stylistics (SFS) 249, 253–254, 259, 261, 271 Systemic Meaning Modelling Group 230–231 Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 59, 61–62, 144 Taboada Gómez, Maite 326 Tagalog 12, 18–19, 21, 113, 118–120, 129, 137, 149, 152, 154 Taine, Hippolyte 4 Talmy, Leonard 136, 164, 185, 203 Tann, Ken 41, 48, 56

taxis 16, 117, 151, 159–160, 162–163, 169, 196 Taylor, Chris 305, 326 Teich, Elke 9, 18, 59–61, 116, 119, 121, 149, 152, 201, 284, 320–321, 324 temporality 133 Tench, Paul 34, 70–74, 82–83 tense 16, 27, 103, 109–111, 117, 119, 122, 126, 129, 131, 133, 135, 152, 158–159, 177–178, 185, 196, 198– 199, 204–206, 279, 318, 320–321 tenor 20, 40–41, 43–44, 47, 49–50, 53, 56, 58, 114, 119, 129, 135, 137, 147–150, 153, 158, 167, 174, 200, 235, 251–252, 257, 259, 262, 265–266, 287, 290 Teruya, Kazuhiro 18, 104, 106–110, 113–114, 118, 120, 126, 129, 135, 151, 164, 190–191, 198, 200–201, 203, 207, 241, 248, 261, 287, 290, 292, 301–302, 315, 321, 324–326, 328, 330 Tesnière, Lucien 318 Tessier, Suzan 232 text analysis 183, 267, 282, 304 text generation 6, 59–60, 206, 230, 320, 322, 324, 327 text type 40–42, 51, 54, 63, 119, 259, 266, 285, 288 Thai 133, 190, 287 Thai, Minh Duc 190 Thao, Shiao Wei 137, 164 theme 9, 16, 24, 53, 107, 109, 117, 119, 125, 130–131, 140, 151, 156, 171, 184, 197, 199, 201, 203–204, 263, 285, 302, 304–306, 321 Thibault, Paul J. 76 Thiessen, Erik D. 142 Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth 194 Thompson, Geoff 61 Thompson, Sandra A. 25, 132, 149, 185, 187, 200, 241 Timberlake, Alan 187 tone 8, 16, 72–73, 76, 96, 116, 129–132, 157, 168–169, 287 tone group 73, 96, 131, 157 tone language 168 Torsello, Carol Taylor 326 Tozzer, Alfred M. 111 traditional grammar 108, 113, 122, 127, 131, 170, 196, 198

Index  transfer comparison 116 transitivity 9, 16, 23, 103, 107, 117–119, 129, 132–133, 135, 141, 149, 159, 162, 174, 184–187, 196, 200, 203, 207, 237, 241, 264, 285, 302, 321 translation 4, 15, 17–18, 23, 25, 27, 61, 109, 117, 120–121, 158, 188, 196–197, 201, 205, 230, 241–242, 248, 281–282, 299, 301, 305–306, 319–323 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 175–176, 178, 184 Trebble, Timothy 238 Trevarthen, Colwyn 28 Trevisan, Piergiorgio 304, 307 trinocular vision (trinocularity, trinocular view) 15, 45, 94–95, 107–108, 117, 236, 248, 254, 256– 257, 261, 264, 268, 287, 303, 308 from above 4, 15, 60, 70, 95, 108, 117, 122, 127, 129, 149–150, 153–155, 236–237, 251, 254– 255, 257, 264, 272, 287 from below 4, 14–15, 21, 25, 60, 70, 108, 117, 122, 127, 129, 153–155, 178, 199–200, 236– 237, 254–255, 287 from roundabout 70, 108, 117, 153, 155, 236–237, 254–255, 264, 268, 287 Trubetzkoy, Nikolaus S. 201 Tucker, Gordon H. 94 Turnbull, David 13 Tylén, Kristian 193 univariate 160, 196 universal 7, 10, 15, 18, 31, 71–73, 96, 103, 114–115, 118–119, 134, 141, 161, 164–165, 185, 191–193, 196–197, 205–207 Urdu 155 Ure, Jean N. 50, 62 Vachek, Josef 139 valeur 18, 22–24, 28, 136 Van Eck, Nees Jan 299 van Leeuwen, Theo 241, 292 Van Valin, Robert D. 11–12, 23 Vasconcellos, María Lucía 305 Vásquez-Rocca, Liliana 306–307 Veel, Robert 50

351

velarization 74 Veloso, Francisco 248, 253, 259, 264, 266, 271–272, 326 Ventola, Eija 323–324 verbal art 247–255, 257–259, 261– 262, 265–268, 270–272 verbal group 120, 124, 126–127, 129, 159, 162–163, 172–173, 196, 199, 305 Versteegh, C.H.M. 123, 199 Versteegh, Kees 123, 199 Viberg, Åke 164–165 vocabulary 196–197 voice 8, 78, 80, 82, 84 VOICE 107, 109, 117–118, 129, 139–141, 183, 196 Vološinov, Valentin Nikolaevich 6, 28 von Stutterheim, Christiane 164, 166 von Uexküll, Jakob 158 vowel 71–72, 74–76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 88–90, 92–94, 97, 135 Vygotsky, Lev 292 Walker, Lorraine O. 233 Wallis, Peter 231 Waltman, Ludo 299 Wang, Bo (王博) 4, 28, 61, 109, 158, 195, 198, 248, 271–272, 279, 321, 328 Wang, Pin (王品) 104 Warlpiri 170–173, 203 Watson, Catherine I. 201 Watters, David E. 200 Weaver, Warren 8, 27 Weber, David J. 158, 185, 201 Webster, Jonathan J. 249, 283 Weinreich, Harald 318 Wells, John 88 Welmers, William E. 186 Wengrow, David 167, 195, 201 Westermann, Diedrich 196 Whaley, Lindsay J. 196 White, Peter R.R. 39, 266, 292 Whorf, Benjamin Lee 103, 109, 111, 164, 166, 186, 192, 292 Wichmann, Søren 188, 197 Wiener, Norbert 7–8 Wiessner, Polly W. 202 Wilde, Oscar 306 Wilkins, David P. 164–165 Willett, Michael 83 William, Margery 264

352 Index Williams, Geoff 253, 284, 292 Wilson, Deirdre 187 Winkler, Susanne 171, 173, 203 Winograd, Terry 7, 22, 206 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 17 word 16, 20–21, 53, 71, 73–74, 76, 83, 88, 92, 96–97, 103, 107–108, 114, 119, 122–123, 126, 129, 131–132, 140, 149, 154, 157, 161, 167–168, 170–171, 175, 177–180, 188, 192, 194, 198, 201, 203–205, 207, 255, 264, 299, 321 word order 21, 108, 114, 123, 131, 149, 157, 167–168, 170–171, 175, 203–204 World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) 104, 114–115, 131, 153, 174, 198

Wu, Canzhong (吴灿中) 18, 107–108, 200–201, 283, 289, 292, 321, 325 Yallop, Colin 292 Yoder, Linda H. 233 Yong, Ed 158, 163 Young, David 82–83 Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael 113, 326 Zamudio, Victoria 302 Zeng, Licheng 135, 322, 324–325 Zhang, Dongbing (Mus) 144, 149 Zhang, Peijia (Kaela) 240–241 Zipf, George Kingsley 140, 180, 182 Zwiebach, Barton 198 Žolkovsky, Alexander 188