THE APPLICATION OF SFLS
TO SACRED TEXT
Qur’anic Verses as an Example
Hassan S. ALDOSSARY
@Hassan S. ALDOSSARY
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Halliday’s Contributions ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Systemic Functional Linguistics Terminology............................................................................................................. 4
I.
The Ideational Metafunction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.
Material Verbs................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.
Projecting Verbs ............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.
Relational Verbs ............................................................................................................................................. 5
II.
The Interpersonal Metafunction ................................................................................................................... 5
III.
The Textual Metafunction ............................................................................................................................. 5
Choosing the Targeted Text .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Analysing the Text ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Outcome: What Is Concluded ..................................................................................................................................... 10
References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
1
Introduction
In order to expand the circle of research in written discourse, an attempt to apply Systemic Functional
Linguistics to a sacred text has been an interest. It is worth examining that type of texts using the
aforementioned approach and validating its application, whether it would prove beneficial or not. I have
chosen some Qur’anic verses in particular to exemplify one type of holy texts and test the SFLs approach.
Systemic Functional Linguistics, abbreviated as SFLs, is an approach to linguistics that considers language
as a social semiotic system. Michael Halliday, who took the notion of system from his teacher, J. R. Firth,
developed it. SFLs consists of two features, they are 1) systemic, in that it considers language as a network
of interrelated systems or set of choices for expressing meaning, and 2) functional, which deals with what
language does and how language works, giving language’s structure less attention (Halliday, 1977), which
is the focus of other theoretical schools, i.e. Generative School.
Halliday’s Contributions
Halliday is a renowned linguist for his grammatical description and theory, presented in his book An
Introduction to Functional Grammar, originally authored in 1985. A later and revised edition was released
in 1994, and then followed by a third edition, in which he and Christian Matthiessen co-authored in 2004.
However, Halliday’s notion of grammar – or "lexicogrammar" (a term he coined to argue that lexis and
grammar are part of the same phenomenon) – is built on a broader theory of language as a social semiotic
resource, or a ‘meaning potential’. Halliday adopts Hjelmslev and Firth’s view in differentiating between
the two categories of descriptive and theoretical linguistics (Halliday, 2005). He argues that theoretical
categories, and their inter-relations, interpret an intangible type of language and they are intertwining and
conjointly describing (Halliday, 2005). The theoretical structure originates from efforts on the depiction of
natural discourse, and intrinsically there is a fine line drawn between ‘theoretical linguistics’ and ‘applied
linguistics’ (Halliday, 2002). Therefore, the theory is persistently progressing as it is employed in order to
2
find solutions for problems of a research or practical nature (Halliday, 2005). In an attempt to contrast,
Halliday distinguishes between the two categories: theoretical and descriptive, described as "categories set
up in the description of particular languages" (Halliday, 2005). English and Chinese have been the focus of
his descriptive work.
Halliday discards openly the assertions about language related to the generative convention. He argues that
language cannot be associated with the combination of all grammatical sentences, whether that combination
is perceived of as finite or infinite (Halliday, 1985). He does not accept the usage of a) formal logic in the
theories of linguistics as irrelevant to language comprehension and b) the usage of such approaches as
detrimental for linguistics (Halliday, 1995). Regarding Chomsky, he marks that unreal difficulties were
produced by the total successions of oppositions that Chomsky presented, or assumed unproblematic: not
only syntax/semantics but also grammar/lexis, language/thought, competence/performance. Once these
dichotomies had been set up, the problem arose of locating and maintaining the boundaries between them
(Halliday, 1995).
Methodology
I have started by including a general introduction about SFLs, what it is about and some development it has
gone through. Then I specifically included a part about Halliday, and how he and his influencer developed
the systemic functional linguistics.
After that, I have provided some terminology explanations regarding SFLs basic terms and the main
categories each element involves. Following the explanation, I have chosen the holy text, which is from the
Holy Qur’an, two verses take from chapter 31 (Luqman), verses 14-15.
In the following sections, I started the analysis process, providing explanations on the process, source text
and then the target text.
For the rest of the essay, I provided a commentary on some of the limitations when applying the SFLs
approach to this this text.
3
Systemic Functional Linguistics Terminology
In this section, the process of analysis will start using the three metafunctions of SFLs and they are:
1) Ideational, 2) Interpersonal, and 3) Textual, in accordance with the Contextual Parameters and
Lexicogrammar. Before commencing the analysis, we need to comprehend what the metafunctions,
contextual parameters and lexicogrammar features are.
I. The Ideational Metafunction
It is concerned with objects, actions and participants in certain circumstances. The objects can be real or
imaginary, concrete or abstract, e.g. car, aliens, love…etc. In other words, it is the lexis (vocabulary)
representing these objects, traditionally the “nominal group”. It also covers actions, events, or states (verbs),
e.g. run, eat, swim…etc., and are referred to as “processes” in SFLs, traditionally the “verbal group”, which
in return require a kind of “participants” or interactants performing actions, i.e. he, she, weather. All of these
elements must have a space or “circumstances” which contain them in order to establish functioning texts,
i.e. how, when, where. Consequently, these elements, objects, processes, participants, and circumstances,
are bound to interact with one another to be meaningful. Therefore, they necessitate a logical connection
between them all, referred to as the “logical component”. Moreover, the ideational metafunction overlaps
with the contextual parameter of field (which answers the questions: what is the purpose of the interaction?
About what?), involving the lexicogrammar features when using them, i.e. lexis (vocabulary) and transitivity
(types of processes/verbs). The core of the SFLs lies in the different types of processes, which are the focus
of the functional aspect of this theory (Tamer, 2014). These types can be grouped into the following:
1. Material Verbs
Material verbs can be categorised as doing and happening verbs. This includes actions, activities and events.
As well as the term Material these verbs can also be termed Behavioural Processes. Both can be used to
portray experiences in the external world but Behavioural Processes relate more to physiological and
psychological behaviour (Butt, 2000; Ruddick, 2014).
4
2. Projecting Verbs
Projecting verbs can be categorized as Mental and Verbal. Mental verbs refer to cognition, emotion,
intention and perception (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997). These verbs encapsulate the inner mind and
consciousness. Verbal Processes are verbs of “saying” (Thompson, 2004, p.100) and encode the physical act
of speaking (Ruddick 2014).
3. Relational Verbs
Relational Processes can be sub-divided into Existential and Relational verbs. Existential Processes are
identified by the use of is, are, was, were and signal the existence of a relationship between two concepts
(Thompson, 2004, p.96). The function of Relational verbs is to “identify one entity in favour of another”
(Thompson, 2004, p.96). The use of was, were, have, felt and belong to are typical of these processes
(Ruddick 2014).
II.
The Interpersonal Metafunction
This metafunction deals with the relationships between participants in written and spoken texts. It is related
to the situational context of “tenor”, which is concerned with the interactants or participants, answering the
questions “who and whom.” They feature the following: 1) mood of verbs/processes, 2) modality, dealing
with ability, permission, probability…etc. and 3) person, showing connections between speakers/writers and
listeners/readers in a text (personal or impersonal) (Tamer, 2014).
III.
The Textual Metafunction
This metafunction deals with how a text is constructed or organised, i.e. what holds it together. It goes in
accordance with the contextual parameter of the mode, dealing with lexicogrammar features such as
cohesion (linking between text units, e.g. personal pronouns such as they and their…etc.), theme (a topic of
text, e.g. pollution) and rheme or thematic development (elaboration of/contributions to text) (Tamer, 2014).
5
Choosing the Targeted Text
To apply different levels of analysis of SFLs, I have chosen verses from a chapter with different yet related
contexts. They are extracted from chapter 31 (Luqman), verses 14-15. The different levels of analysis used
in SFLs are: 1) metafunctions, and 2) lexicogrammar. All the levels will be applied in relation with
contextual parameters (field, tenor, and mode) in order to see how they deal with the selected verses.
Analysing the Text
After the elaboration of the aforementioned metafunctions, contextual parameters and lexicogrammar
aspects, we are now going to analyse the selected text. Here are the verses and their translation below:
Source text
﴾١٤﴿ ‫صير‬
َّ ‫َو َو‬
ِ ‫ي ْال َم‬
َ ‫اْلن‬
َ ِ‫سانَ ِب َوا ِلدَ ْي ِه َح َملَتْه أ ُّمه َو ْهنًا َعلَ ٰى َو ْه ٍن َوف‬
ِ ْ ‫ص ْينَا‬
َّ َ‫صاله فِي َعا َمي ِْن أ َ ِن ا ْشك ْر ِلي َو ِل َوا ِلدَيْكَ إِل‬
Target text
And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore
him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two
years, give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination.
Source text
‫س ِبي َل َم ْن‬
ِ ‫ص‬
َ َ‫َو ِإن َجا َهدَاك‬
َ ‫احبْه َما ِفي الدُّ ْن َيا َم ْعروفًا ۖ َواتَّ ِب ْع‬
َ ‫ْس َلكَ ِب ِه ِع ْل ٌم فَ ََل ت ِط ْعه َما ۖ َو‬
َ ‫ع َل ٰى أَن ت ْش ِركَ ِبي َما َلي‬
﴾١٥﴿ َ‫ي َم ْر ِجعك ْم فَأنَبِِّئكم بِ َما كنت ْم تَ ْع َملون‬
َ ‫أَن‬
َّ َ‫ي ۖ ث َّم إِل‬
َّ َ‫َاب إِل‬
Target text
But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of
which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world
kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience.
Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do.
Fig. 1. Verses taken from chapter 31:14-15
For the first verse, its field is about parents, how a person should treat them, and why it is important to be
good to them considering all hardships they have struggled to overcome in raising their children, with more
attention giving to the mother in particular. All of that is evident in the lexis used: parents, mother, bore,
hardship, weakness, weaning. The meaning is conveyed by and to participants ‘tenor’ which is one
parameter of the contextual parameters that specifically deals with the relationship(s) between the
participants in a context, spoken or written. The participants are overt and covert (particularly in the source
text) and in the translation they include: We, man, his parents, his mother, him, Me, and your parents. By
examining the relationship between the participants, we find that the speaker is God (Allah), representing
Himself with the collective pronoun We (an independent clitic pronoun in English, while it is an enclitic
6
pronoun in Arabic, dependant on nouns, prepositions and verbs, which is the case here) and accusative case
Me, commending people, man, to respect their parents and treat them well. Following these contextual
parameters, the intended meaning of the text is constructed in systemic pattern, and that is referred to as the
mode of the text. The use of the verbal process clause “have enjoined” can be clearly seen at the initial part
of the first verse. However, a shift in the mode from the initial part to the second part using the (mood)
exclusive imperative process clause “give thanks”, followed by another shift using the relational process
clause “unto Me is the final destination”. Transitioning from analysing the target text to the source text, we
will try to see how the ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions deal with it.
Source text
‫َو ْه ًنا َعلَ ٰى َو ْه ٍن‬
‫أ ُّمه‬
‫َح َم َل ْته‬
‫ب ِ َوا ِلد َ ْي ِه‬
َ‫سان‬
َ ‫اْلن‬
ِْ
‫ص ْينَا‬
َّ ‫ َو َو‬
Ideational
Circumstance
Actor
Material
process + goal
Goal
Goal
Verbal process + actor
Back
translation
in weakness
and hardship
upon weakness
and hardship
His
mother
bore him
to his
parents
man
And have enjoined on We
(to be dutiful and good)
Target text
And We
have
enjoined
on
ideational
Actor
Verbal
process
man (to be
dutiful and
good)
to his
parents,
His
mother
bore
him
in weakness and
hardship upon
weakness and
hardship
Goal
Goal
Actor
Material
process
Goal
Circumstance
Fig. 2. Comparison between the analyses of the two texts
By comparison, we see that there are differences between the source and target texts, mainly in the
functionality of the mood and the structure. In English, pronouns are not affixed to verbs nor are they
attached to prepositions, whereas in Arabic it is not the case and means of affixation of enclitic pronouns
can be seen, featuring a characteristic of the language and how it functions when conveying meaning in its
structure.
7
Regarding the other verse, the analysis is as follows:
Source
text
‫فِي الدُّ ْنيَا َم ْعروفًا‬
Ideational
Behavioural Behavioural
process +
process +
circumstance
behaver +
behaver +
behaver
behaver
Back
translation
and
accompany
them
Target
text
in the life
kindly
in the world
kindly
‫احبْه َما‬
ِ ‫ص‬
َ ‫َو‬
‫فَ ََل ت ِط ْعه َما‬
‫ْس َلكَ ِب ِه‬
َ ‫َما لَي‬
ْ‫ِعل ٌم‬
Relational
process +
identifier
that of
which for
Then obey
you no
them not
knowledge
of
others that
of which
but behave
obey them
you have
with them
not then
no
knowledge
Fig. 3 Analysis of chapter 31:15
َ‫أَن ت ْش ِرك‬
‫بِي‬
material
process
+ actor
+ goal
‫َجا َهدَاكَ َعلَى‬
‫َو ِإن‬
Behaver +
behavioural
process
Subjunctive
(conditional)
to join
in
worship
by me
strive they
with you to
make you
And if
join in
worship
with Me
they (both)
strive with
you to make
you
But if
As can be seen from the analysis above, this verse has multiple processes and structures for conveying
specific meaning or message(s). It includes a contrastive clause, conditional clause, prohibition, negation
and imperative modes/moods. All of these vary in terms of the function and the processes they are
concerned with. Consequently, this proves to be challenging when attempting to classify this verse into a
process, even more categorising them all into one single process clause type. I have suggested to include a
separate and independent process type category, namely “Compound/Multi-Process Clause”, to cover such
anomaly.
Limitations
When SFLs is applied to the holy text taken from the Holy Quran, there are a number of limitations that can
hinder the process. These are the resulting conclusions following this analysis exclusively. For instance,
SFLs does not take into account the Islamic monotheism, which establishes that God cannot be personified,
represented, compared to and with, exemplified, pictured, portrayed, or depicted in any way for God is
absolutely incomprehensible (Al-Othaimeen, 2006). The only way to comprehend God’s existence is
8
through God’s attributes, actions and names (Al-Othaimeen, 2006). So, it is not acceptable to apply the
same psychological, physiological, behavioural, material, and even the verbal aspects of humans and then
apply to God, resulting in inevitable controversies. However, it is only applicable to apply SFLs to some
very limited and restricted texts found in some Hadiths (Prophet’s Mohammad’s sayings and actions) which
include some of Allah’s actions, attributes and names, giving that there is more flexibility when translating
the Hadiths. Nevertheless, it is still a very limited application of the theory for the aforementioned reasons,
and it could be the case with holy texts in general, the Holy Quran in particular. The ability of the structure
to formulate, influence and create thought and sense in a serious issue when dealing with Quranic verses,
particularly the verses deals with God’s existence.
Another limitation could be that SFLs is not compatible with different languages’ structures. In the previous
examples (see fig.2-3), the different categories did not necessarily match that of the English structure model,
as Arabic and English originated from different language families. These structural differences showed a
kind of inaccuracies when applied to the Arabic texts. It can be seen clearly in the word order, roots,
lexemes and the different participants, e.g. actors, behavers, goals…etc. Such inconsistency could result in
misrepresentation or inaccurate application of the SFL approach to the Arabic texts. As a result, this may
necessitates some modification to this approach in order to have wider range of implications on different
languages.
One major limitation is its incompetence to unify multi-process complex sentences. This is seen in verse
31:15 (fig. 3) when it has different structure, different meaning and messages. This verse contains a
conditional clause, relative clause, behavioural process, prohibitive, negative, directive…etc., with different
types of participants. One process may not suffice to fully and accurately analyse the text, an issue that
could lead to confusion when dealing with the analysis.
While it may seem a positive point when working on a simple text, it can be quite difficult to deal with more
complex clauses. In the first verse, it tends to be more direct when it addresses readers, with a less number
9
of process. However, the second verse has a more complex structure, multiple processes involved and
inadequate approach application to amend the anomalies and differences in the structures from English to
Arabic.
Outcome: What Is Concluded
To conclude, the SFLs approach may not be perfect for every type of text, however, it can be used to
examine how a text works and functions to convey intended messages and meanings. A further research in
this field in Arabic in particular would definitely stretch out the application of this approach to the Qur’anic
text in particular and increase the accuracy rate of the approach. Not only it can be used to analyse holy text,
but it can also be used on different types of texts, i.e. poetry, prose…etc., to see the strengths and weakness
of it.
10
References
1. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Spinks, S. and Yallop, C., 2000. Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide.
Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University
2. Firth, J.R. 1968. Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952-1959. London: Longman. p183.
3. Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. Introduction: How Big is a Language? On the Power of Language. In The
Language of Science: Volume 5 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Edited by J.J.Webster. London and
New York: Continuum. p. xv-xi.
4. Halliday, M.A.K. 2003. Introduction: On the "architecture" of human language. In On Language and
Linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan Webster. London
and New York: Continuum.
5. Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. A Personal Perspective". In On Grammar, Vol. 1 in The Collected Works, p. 12.
6. Halliday, M.A.K. 1995. "A Recent View of 'Missteps' in Linguistic Theory". In Functions of Language
2.2. Vol. 3 of The Collected Works, p. 236.
7. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992. Systemic Grammar and the Concept of a “Science of Language”. In Waiguoyu
(Journal of Foreign Languages), No. 2 (General Series No. 78), pp1-9. Reprinted in Full in Volume 3 in
The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum. p. 209.
8. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Systemic Background. In "Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1: Selected
Theoretical Papers" from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop, James D. Benson and William S.
Greaves (eds). Ablex. Reprinted in Full in Volume 3 in The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday.
London: Continuum. p. 186.
9. Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. Reprinted in full in Linguistic
Studies of Text and Discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by J, J.
Webster. London and New York: Continuum. pp. 23–81.
10. Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. Categories of the Theory of Grammar. Word. 17 (3). pp241-92. Reprinted in
Full in On Grammar: Volume 1 of the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London and New York:
Continuum. P. 40-52.
11. Ruddick, M., 2014. Comparative Analysis of Two Texts Using Halliday’s Systemic Functional
Linguistics. | Michael Ruddick - Academia.edu. Retrieved January 02, 2015, from
https://www.academia.edu/3230814/A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Two_Texts_Using_Hallidays_Syste
mic_Functional_Linguistics
12. Tamer, Youssef, Ph. D., 2014. Lecture on Systemic Functional Linguistics.
13. ‫ الموافق‬1427 ‫ ذو الحجة‬10 ،‫ باب األسماء والصفات‬،‫ المجلد األول‬،‫مجموع رسائل وفتاوى الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين‬
.2006\12\1
11