Annwal Review'of Applied Linguistics (2002) 22, 52-74. Printed in the USA.
Copyright @2OOZCambridgeUniversity Press0267-1905/01$9.50
3. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES
J. R. Martin
This chaptertakesnote of the longstandingorientationSystemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL) to discoursestudiesbefore moving to a more
detailedand selectivepresentationof current developmentsin SFL with
respectto discoursemodels,developingresearchmethodologies,and
applicationsto different domains.The reinterpretationof cohesionas
discoursesemantics(identification,negotiation,conjunction, and ideation)
is reviewed with respectto metafunctions(textual, interpersonal,and
ideational). This work on texture is then relatedto social context through
the register variablestenor, field and mode alongsidegenre. The chapter
then reviews recentSFl-inspired researchthat appliesthesemodels to
analysisof discourseacrosslanguages,modalitiesof communication,and
domains. Work done on school and workplace discoursehas raised new
questions about appropriate units of discourse structure and their
relationshipto registeranalysis.It is predictedthat some of these
questionsmay be answeredby the developmentof improved software for
discourseanalysesaffording greaterspecificiryin mappingthe
relationshipsamonggenres.
SystemicFunctionalLinguistics(hereafterSFL) hasa longstandinginterest
in discourseanalysis,derivinghistoricallyfrom Firth's (1957)concernwith
meaningas functionin contextandMitchell's canonical(1957)studyof service
in the Moroccanmarketplace.Halliday(1967)built a focuson
encounters
and
discoursefunctioninto his grammarthroughhis work on Theme/Rheme
(Given)/Newstructure;andhis perspectiveon textualmeaningbeyondthe clause
(i.e., cohesion)is outlinedin Hallidayand Hasan(1976). In additionhis modelof
socialcontext(e.g., Halliday, 1978on field, tenor,and mode)stimulatedSFL
of genreanalysis,
registersnrdiesaroundthe world and led to the development
particularlyin Australia(e.g.,Hasan,1977 Martin; 1985). Thereare manySFL
publicationsfeaturingdiscourseanalysis,includingBenson,Cummings,and
Greaves.1988;BensonandGreaves,1985;DaviesandRavelli,1992:Friesand
Gregory, 1995;Ghadessy,1993,1995,1999:Gregoryand carroll, 1978;Hasan
52
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTryES
and Carter, 1998;Staintonand Devilliers,
and Fries, 1995;S6nchez-Macaffo
2001;Steinerand Veltman,1988;Ventola,1991,2000; specialissuesof Word
(14,4, 1992)andCulturalDynamics,(6, I,
(40, I-2, 1989),LanguageSciences
1993)and many issuesof Functionsof Language.
In the next section,one readingof the theory informing this work will be
outlined,basedon Martin (1992)andMartin andRose,in press. Followingthis,
somerecentdevelopmentsand currenttrendsin SFL discourseanalysiswill be
reviewed.
Modeling Discourse
Early work on cohesionwas designedto move beyondthe structural
resourcesof grammarand considerdiscourserelationswhich transcend
grammaticalstructure. Halliday (L973)treatedcohesionas involving nonstructuralrelationsbeyondthe sentence,within what he refers to as the textual
metafunction(as opposedto ideationaland interpersonalmeaning). In Halliday
andHasan(1976)the inventoryof cohesiveresourceswasorganizedas
o
a
a
a
a
reference
ellipsis
substitution
conjunction
lexicalcohesion
Gutwinski(1976)developsa closelyrelatedframework,includingthese
resources(and in additiongranrmaticalparallelism). Referencerefers to resources
for identifying a participantor circumstantialelementwhoseidentity is
recoverable. In Englishthe relevantresourcesincludedemonstratives,the definite
article, pronouns,comparatives,and the phoric adverbshere, there, now, and
for omininga clause,or somepart of a clauseor
then. Ellipsisrefersto resources
group,in contextswhereit canbe assumed.In Englishconversation,rejoinders
'Did they win?' 'Yes,
throughomissionsof this kind:
are oftenmadedependent
includingEnglish,havein additiona setof place
they did.' Somelanguages,
holderswhich can be usedto signalthe omission-e.g., so and not for clauses,do
for verbal groups andone for nominalgroups. This resourceof placeholdersis
referredto as substitution. Ellipsis andsubstitutionaresometimestreatedas a
singleresource(e.g., Halliday, 1994). From the perspectiveof English,ellipsisis
substitutionby zero;moregenerally,lookingacrosslanguages,it might be better
to think of substitutionasellipsis(signaled)by something.Reference,ellipsis,and
substitutioninvolvesmallclosedclassesof itemsor gaps,and havetogetherbeen
referredto as grammaticalcohesion(Gutwinski,I976; Hasan,1968).
53
54
J. R. MARTIN
Also includedasgrammaticalcohesionis the typicallymuchlarger
inventory of connectorswhich link clausesin discourse,referredto as conjunction.
For Hallidayand Hasan(1976),this resourcecompriseslinkerswhichconnect
sentences
to eachother, but excludesparatacticand hypotactic(coordinatingand
subordinating)linkers within sentences,
which are consideredstructuralby
Halliday. Gunvinski,however,includesall connectors,whetheror not they link
clauseswithin or betweensentences.
The complementof grammaticalcohesioninvolvesopensystemitems,and
so is referredto as lexicalcohesion.Herethe repetitionof lexicalitems,
synonymyor nearsynonymy(includinghyponymy),andcollocationare included.
Collocationwas Firth's term for expectancy
relationsbetweenlexicalitems(e.g.,
the mutualpredictabilityof strong andtea, but not poweful andtea).
The relationshipbetweena cohesiveitem and the item it presupposed
in a
text is referredto as a cohesivetie. Gut'winski(1976)contraststhe differentkinds
of cohesiveties that predominate
in writing by HemingwayandJames,with
Hemingwaydependingmoreon lexicalcohesionthandoesJames.Hallidayand
Hasan(1976)providea detailedcodingschemefor analyzingcohesiveries, which
takesinto accountthe distancebetweena cohesiveitem andthe item presupposed.
Later work concentrated
on the semanticsof thesecohesiveresourcesand
their relationto discoursestructure. Martin (1992)workedon reformulatingthe
notionof cohesiveties asdiscoursesemanticstructure,inspiredby the text-oriented
conceptionof semantics
of the Hartfordstratificationalists
(Gleason,1968;
Gutwinski, 1976)with whomhe studiedin Toronto. In his stratifiedaccount,
cohesionwas reformulatedas a setof discoursesemanticsystemsat a more
abstractlevel than lexicogrammar,with their own metafunctionalorganization.
Halliday'snonstructural
textualresourceswerethusreworkedas semanticsystems
concernedwith discoursestructure,comprising
o
o
a
o
identification
negotiation
conjunction
ideation
Identificationis concernedwith resourcesfor trackingparticipantsin
discourse.This systemsubsumes
earlierwork on referentialcohesionin a
framework which considersboth the ways in which participantsare introducedinto
a text and kept track of onceintroduced. In addition,the ways in which phoric
itemsdependon precedingor succeeding
co-text,on assumed
understandings,
or
(images,activity, soundetc.) are considered.For
on otherrelevantphenomena
definitionsof 'phora'terms(e.9., anaphora,cataphora,endophora,exophora,
homophora),seeMartin (1992).
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVES
Negotiationis concernedwith resourcesfor exchanginginformation and
goodsand servicesin dialogue. This systemsubsumessomeof the earlier work on
ellipsis and substitutionin a framework which considersthe ways in which
interlocutorsinitiate and respondin adjacencypairs. Drawing on earlier work at
Birmingham(Sinclair& Coulthard,1975)and Nottingham(Berry, 1981),a
framework for exchangesconsistingof up to five moveswas developed,alongside
(Ventola, 1987).
provisionfor additionaltrackingand challengingside-sequences
This work is closelyrelatedto studiesin conversationanalysis(CA) but with a
in Ochs, Schegloff,&
strongergrammaticalorientation(suchas that canvassed
Thompson,1996). Egginsand Slade(1997)introduceongoingSFL researchin
this areain relationto wider questionsof discoursestructureand socialcontext;
work.
Coulthard(1992)updatesthe Birmingham-based
via
Conjunctionrs concernedwith resourcesfor connectingmessages,
addition,comparison,temporaliry,and causality. This systemsubsumesearlier
work on linking betweenclausesin a frameworkwhich considers,in addition,the
ways in which connectionscan be realizedinside a clausethrough verbs,
prepositions,and nouns(e.g., resultin, becauseof, reason). Drawing on Gleason
and external
(1968),a frameworkfor analyzinginternall(pragmatic/rhetorical)
(semantic/propositional)
conjunctiverelationswas proposed,includingthe
(i.e., links
possibiliryof connectionsrealizedsimply by the contiguityof messages
unmarkedby an explicit connector).
Ideation is concernedwith the semanticsof lexical relationsdeployedto
'construe'to emphasizethe role textsplay in
constnreinstitutionalactivity. I use
making meaning-that is, knowledge-and thus constructingsocialcontext-that is,
reality; cf. Halliday and Matthiesen,1999. This systemsubsumesearlier work on
and
lexical cohesionin a frameworkwhich considershow activity sequences
taxonomicrelations(of classificationand composition)organizethe field of
discourse(Benson& Greaves,1992). Drawingon Hasan(1985),a modelfor a
more detailedaccountof lexical relationsincludingrepetition,synonymy,
hyponymy,and meronymywasproposed;in addition,collocationwas factoredout
'nuclear'relations,involving elaboration,extension,and
into variouskinds of
(as developedby Halliday, 1994,for the clausecomplex).
enhancement
The result of thesereformulationsis a semanticstratumof text-oriented
resourcesdedicatedto the analysisof cohesiverelationsas discoursestructure.
Oncestratifiedwith respectto lexicogralnmar,theseresourcescan be alignedwith
metafunctionsin the following proportions:
o
o
o
o
identification
negotiation
conjunction
ideation
textual meaning
interpersonalmeaning
logical2meaning
experientialmeaning
55
56
J. R. MARTIN
This brings us the questionof modelingsocialcontextin a functional
theory which looks at what cohesionis realizingalongsidethe waysin which it is
tealized. In SFL, socialcontextis modeledthroughregisterand genretheory.
FollowingHalliday(1978)a naturalrelationis positedbetweenthe organizationof
languageand the organizationof socialcontext,built up aroundthe notion of kinds
of meaning(Mattheissen,1993). Interpersonalmeaningis relatedto the enactment
of socialrelations(socialreality),or tenor;ideationalmeaningis relatedto the
constructionof institutionalactivity ('naturalizedreality'), or field; and textual
meaningis relatedto informationflow acrossmedia(semioticreality),or mode. A
summaryof theserelationshipsbetweentypesof meaningand registervariablesis
outlinedin Table l.
Table 1: Typesof meaningin relationto socialcontext
Interpersonal
Ideation
Textual
'Realityconstrual'
Contextualvariable
socialreality
(logical,experiential)
semioticrealitv
tenor
'natural' reality
field
mode
FollowingMartin (1992),field is concernedwith systemsof activity,
includingdescriptionsof the participants,processandcircumstances
theseactivities
involve. For illustrativework, seeHallidayandMartin (1993)andMartin and
Veel (1998). Tenor is concernedwith socialrelationsastheseareenactedthrough
the dimensionsof powerand solidarity. For foundational
work on tenorsee
Poynton(1985). Mode is concernedwith semioticdistance,asthis is affectedby
the variouschannelsof communicationthroughwhich we undertakeactivity (field)
andsimultaneously
enactsocialrelations(tenor). For exemplarywork on
differencesbetweenspeechand writing, seeHalliday(1985).
In Martin (1992),an additionallevel of context,aboveandbeyondtenor,
field, andmode,referredto as genre,hasbeendeployed.This level is concerned
with systemsof socialprocesses,
wherethe principlesfor relatingsocialprocesses
to eachotherhaveto do with texture,that is, the waysin which f,reld,modeand
tenorvariablesarephasedtogetherin a text. In Australianeducational
linguistics,
genreshavebeendefinedas staged,goal-orientedsocialprocesses(Martin, lggg),
a definition which flagsthe way in which mostgenrestakemore than a single
phaseto unfold, the senseof frustrationor incompletionthat is felt whenphases
don't unfold as expectedor planned,andthe fact thatgenresare addressed
(i.e.
formulatedwith readersandlistenersin mind), whetheror not the intended
audienceis immediatelypresentto respond.In theseterms,as a level of context,
genrerepresents
the systemof stagedgoal-oriented
socialprocesses
throughwhich
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES
socialsubjectsin a given culturelive their lives. An overview of this stratified
model of contextis presentedin Figure 1; this imageincludesLemke's (1995)
notion of metaredundancy,whereby more abstractlevels are interpretedas patterns
of lessabstractones. Thus registeris a patternof linguistic choices,and geme a
patternof registerchoices(i.e., a patternof a patternof texture). For further
discussion,seeChristieand Martin (1997), Eggins(1994), Egginsand Martin
(1997),Martin (1992,2001a),and Ventola(1987).
genre
genre//
register/
ideational \
\ t8rftnl
;;jr
metrredundancg
( rerlisrtion)
Ia n g u a g e
Figure 1: Metafunctionsin relationto registerand genre.
Recent Developments
Throughoutthe 1990s,SFL discourseanalysisdevelopedalong several
parameters,includingrelevantaspectsof phonologyand grammar. Higher levels
of phonologicalanalysis,pushingwell beyondthe tone group as far as rhythm is
concerned,are pursuedin van Leeuwen(1991), Martinec (2000a),and Watt
(2001). In grammar,researchexpandedacrosslanguagesand languagefamilies,
includingrelevantwork on textualmeaning. Caffarel, Martin, and Matthiessen(in
press)includeschapterson French,German,Telegu, Chinese,Japanese,
Vietnamese,Tagalog,and Pitjantjatjara,eachwith an emphasison showinghow
the variousgranmars operatein discourse. The papersin Steinerand Yallop
(2000) explore the implicationsof functional descriptionsof this kind for
translationand multilingualtext production.
57
58
J. R. MARTIN
For English, one significanttrend has beenthe developmentof computer
assistedanalysisprogramswhich facilitate the coding of large quantitiesof text for
SFL grammarand discoursefeatures. TheseprogramsincludeO'Halloran and
Judd (200l) : Matthiessenand Wu' s SysAm (http://minerva.Iing.mq.edu.au/
Resources/AnalysisTools/Tools.htm);
O'Donnell's SystemicCoder (O'Donnell,
1995; http://www. wagsoft.com/Coder/index.
html); and Webster's Functional
(e.g.
GrammarProcessor
Webster,1995;Webster& Kit, 1995). Thesetools are
possible
making it
to undertakelarge scalesemanticanalyseswith a view to
quantitativeinterpretationand havegiven new impetusto longstandingSFL
interestsin corpusbasedresearch(Halliday, 199L, 1992, 1993;Halliday & James,
1993;Matthiessen,1999,in press;Nesbitt& prum, lggg; plum & cowling,
1987). This work on automateddiscourseanalysisis complemented
by work on
synthesis,in, for example,the text generationresearchintroducedin Bateman
(2001), Bateman,Matthiessen,and Licheng(1999),Batemanand Rondhuis(1997),
Matthiessenand Bateman(1991),and Teich (1999).
At the level of discoursesemantics,someof the most important
developmentshave to do with interpersonalmeaning. Egginsand Slade(1997)
presenta rich model of speechfunction, especiallydesignedfor analyzinginitiating
movesand responsesin casualconversation.Recentlythis hasbeeninsightfully
appliedto human/bonobointeraction(Benson,Fries, Gredves,Iwamoto, SavageRumbaugh,& Taglialatela,in press). Hasanand her colleagues(Hasan, 1996)
have developeda finely tuned set of semanticnetworksdesignedfor the study of
adult-child interactionin home and school. Thesehave beeninstrumentalin
exploring Bernstein'stheoriesof languageand socialization(Bernstein,1996),
especiallyin relationto genderand socialclass,and representthe most important
linguistically informed body of researchinto semanticstylesand their implications
for education(seeespeciallyCloran, 1989, 1999a,b; Hasan,1990, 1991,1992,
200r; Hasan& Cloran, 1990;williams, 1995,1996,1999,2001). Hasan(1995a)
and Halliday (1995) insightfullyreview the implicationsof closetextualanalysis
for Bernstein'swork, and deal incisivelywith populistmisunderstandings;
Cloran
(2000)providesan accessibleintroductionto semanticnetworksand their
deploymentin the studyof sociosemantic
variation.
Another major developmentin interpersonaldiscoursesemanticshas been
the emergenceof appraisaltheory (seeMartin, 2000a,and the websitedesignedby
PeterWhite at htp:iiwww.grarnmatics.com/appraisal/index.html).
Appraisal
complementsnegotiationfrom the perspectiveof resourcesfor evaluation,
including systemsof auitude, engagement,and graduation. Attitude focuseson
resourcesfor construingaffect,judgment, and appreciation(roughly the lexically
reallzedrealms of emotion, ethics, and aesthetics);engagementis concernedwith
the sourcingof attitudeand acknowledgmentof alternativevoices (heteroglossia);
and graduationcovers force (intensificationof inherently gradablemeanings)and
focus ('fuzzifrcation' of inherentlynongradablecategories). Work on this
MEANING BEYOND T}IE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVES
dimensionof intersubjectivemeaninghas refocusedattentionon prosodic
realization(acrossideationalboundaries)in various registers,suchas history
(Coffin, 1997);narrativeand literary criticism(Rothery& Stenglin1997,2000);
newsstories(White, 1997);casualconversation,including humor and gossipand
their implicationsfor generation,ethnicity, and gender(Eggins& Slade, 1997);
andpopularscience(Fuller, 1998).
Ideationalsemanticsis elaboratedin Halliday and Matthiessen(1999), who
are particularly concernedwith establishinga semioticperspectiveon what is
generallyviewed as cognition. Their project includeswork on what they call
which is relevantto conjunction. Van Leeuwen(1996)developsa
sequences
complementaryperspectiveon agencywhich has beeninfluential in critical
discourseanalysis. Matthiessen(in press)exploresRhetoricalStmctureTheory
(RST) from the perspectiveof this research,continuinga dialoguebetweenSFL
conjunctionanalysisand RST (Mann, Matthiesen,& Thompson, 1992),which
beganin the 1980s(Martin, 1992). For relevantwork on causationin Dutch, see
Degand(2001). From the perspectiveof discourseanalysis,what hasbeenslow to
emergeis an understandingof different kinds of expectancyrelationslinking
clausesacrossregisters. Temporalsequencingand causalreasoningtend to be
foregroundedover tropesof other kinds, suchas description,classification,
composition,comparison,critique,review, stirring, coaxing,serving,and so on;
researchis urgentlyrequiredin theseareas.
As far as participantidentificationis concerned,the main developments
havecome from languagetypology through considerationof the ways in which
nominalgroup resourcesinteractwith Theme, and in somelanguageswith
conjunction(the so-calledsubject-switchingsystemsfound in Papuaand Australia).
Theseissuesare exploredin Caffarelet al. (in press)in relationto Martin (1983).
Textual meaninghas also beeninvestigatedin relation to information flow in
generalacrosslanguages(Downing& Lavid, 1998;Hasan& Fries, 1995;Lavid,
1997)and in relation to layersof Themeand New in English discourse(Ghadessy,
1995;Halliday & Martin, 1993). Martin (1992, 1993, 1995a)exploresthe ways in
which textsuse higher level Themesto predict information flow and higher level
News to retrospectivelydistill the point of precedingdiscourse,thus following up
'hierarchy of periodicity' as a form of
suggestionsby Pike and Halliday about
textualorganization(Fries, 1981). Halliday'swork on grarnmaticalmetaphoras a
resourcefor packagingmeaninghas beeninstrumentalin this areaof inquiry
Taverniers,
(Halliday, 1998;Halliday& Matthiessen,1999;Simon-Vandenbergen,
& Ravelli, in press).
This raisesthe questionof higher-levelunits in discourse,which has been
exploredin variousways. Oneusefultool hasbeenHasan'scohesiveharmony
(Cloran,1999b;Hasan1984,1985;Parsons,1991). In cohesiveharmony
analysis,we are askinghow ideationand identificationinteractas far as
59
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVES
dimensionof intersubjectivemeaninghas refocusedattentionon prosodic
realization(acrossideationalboundaries)in various registers,suchas history
(Coffin, 1997);narrativeand literary criticism(Rothery& Stenglin1997,2000);
newsstories(White, 1997);casualconversation,including humor and gossipand
their implicationsfor generation,ethnicity, and gender(Eggins& Slade, 1997);
andpopularscience(Fuller, 1998).
Ideationalsemanticsis elaboratedin Halliday and Matthiessen(1999), who
are particularly concernedwith establishinga semioticperspectiveon what is
generallyviewedas cognition. Their projectincludeswork on what they call
which is relevantto conjunction. Van Leeuwen(1996)developsa
sequences
complementaryperspectiveon agencywhich has beeninfluential in critical
discourseanalysis. Matthiessen(in press)exploresRhetoricalStmctureTheory
(RST) from the perspectiveof this research,continuinga dialoguebetweenSFL
conjunctionanalysisand RST (Mann, Matthiesen,& Thompson, 1992),which
beganin the 1980s(Martin, 1992). For relevantwork on causationin Dutch, see
Degand(2001). From the perspectiveof discourseanalysis,what hasbeenslow to
emergeis an understandingof different kinds of expectancyrelationslinking
clausesacrossregisters. Temporalsequencingand causalreasoningtend to be
foregroundedover tropesof otherkinds, suchas description,classification,
composition,comparison,critique,review, stirring, coaxing,serving,and so on;
researchis urgentlyrequiredin theseareas.
As far as participantidentificationis concerned,the main developments
havecome from languagetypology through considerationof the ways in which
nominalgroup resourcesinteractwith Theme, and in somelanguageswith
conjunction(the so-calledsubject-switchingsystemsfound in Papuaand Australia).
Theseissuesare exploredin Caffarelet al. (in press)in relationto Martin (1983).
Textual meaninghas also beeninvestigatedin relation to information flow in
generalacrosslanguages(Downing& Lavid, 1998;Hasan& Fries, 1995;Lavid,
1997)and in relation to layersof Themeand New in English discourse(Ghadessy,
1995;Halliday & Martin,1993). Martin (1992, 1993, 1995a)exploresthe ways in
which textsuse higher level Themesto predict information flow and higher level
News to retrospectivelydistill the point of precedingdiscourse,thus following up
'hierarchy of periodicity' as a form of
suggestionsby Pike and Halliday about
textualorgarvation(Fries, 1981). Halliday'swork on gratnmaticalmetaphoras a
resourcefor packagingmeaninghas beeninstrumentalin this areaof inquiry
Taverniers,
(Halliday, 1998;Halliday& Matthiessen,1999;Simon-Vandenbergen,
& Ravelli, in press).
This raisesthe questionof higher-levelunits in discourse,which has been
exploredin variousways. One usefultool hasbeenHasan'scohesiveharmony
(Cloran, I999b; Hasan1984,1985;Parsons,1991). In cohesiveharmony
analysis,we are askinghow ideationand identificationinteractas far as
60
J. R. MARTIN
experientialgrammaris concerned,basedon the degreeto which cohesively
relateditemsenterinto the samekind of experientialrelationshipwith other
cohesivelyrelateditems. Breaksin the patternof interactionare associated
with
discourseboundariesof one kind or anotherand so relevantto the recognitionof
higher-levelunits. This style of analysisis not unrelatedto the work of Gregory
andhis colleagues
on phasalanalysis(Gregory,1995,2001;Stainton& Devilliers,
2001),which, however,takesinto accounta full metafunctional
spectrumof
meaning(ideational,interpersonal,and textual)in order to determinephasesand
transitionsin discourse.
Cloran'swork on rhetoricalunits(RU), on the otherhand,is more
selectivein its parameters,
havingbeendesignedto focuson the registervariable
mode(Cloran, 1994,1995,1999a,b, 2000). Shelooksin particularat the contexr
dependencyof the participantfunctioningas subjectin a clauseand at the tenseof
that clause'sverb (the 'deixis' of the clause,in otherwords)andon this basissets
up classesof RU rangingfrom thosepositioninglanguageas ancillaryto the taskat
handto thosein which languageconstitutes
the socialactivity. The interdependencies
amongRUs are exploredthroughher conceptof embedding,and
usedto investigateparent-childinteractionin the homeaspart of Hasan'slanguage
and socializationprojectoutlinedabove.
The relationof all threeof theseperspectives
on unitsof discourseto work
on genrestructureis an importantissuewhichhasnot beenresolved. Certainlythe
conversationaldatathat Gregoryand his colleaguesand Cloranare investigatingis
not the kind that hasgenerallyattractedgenreanalysts(see,however,Eggins&
Slade,1997),presumablybecause
of the difficulty in recognizingclearstagesof
the kind found in the analysisof narrative,exposition,serviceencounters,
appointmentmaking,or classroomdiscourse.As a result,the issueof generalizing
discourseunitsacrossregistersremainsa pressingone in SFl-informeddiscourse
analysis(cf. Taboada,2000,in press).
As far as registeranalysisis concerned,therehasbeensignificantwork in
tenor,mode,and field. The maintenorinitiativedrawson appraisalanalysisto
exploresolidarity,asexemplifiedin EgginsandSlade(1997)andWhite (2000)
who analyzethe face work donethroughcasualconversations
involving family
members,friends,andcoworkers.The outstanding
modeinitiativeis multi-modal
discourseanalysis,inspiredby the work of O'Toole (1994)andKressandvan
Leeuwen(1996)on images(seealsovan keuwen & Jewitt,2001). Martinec
(1998,2000b,c,2001) extendsthis work to the modalityof action,andvan
Leewuen(1999)to the modalityof musicand sound. Thesetoolshaveencouraged
SFL discourseanalyststo considerthe ways in which languagenegotiatesmeaning
in cooperationwith othersemioticsystems(Baldry, 1999;Eggins& Iedema, 1997;
Iedema,20Ol; Kress& van f,eeuwen,200I:.O'Halloran,1999a)andto focuson
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTryES
someof the new kinds of discourseevolving in the print and electronic media
(Lemke,1998;Veel, 1998).
Researchinto field hasexploredseveralkinds of schooland workplace
discourse. Work on institutionalizedlearningincludesmathematics(O'Halloran,
1999a,b, 2000; Veel, 1999),science(Halliday & Martin, 1993;Kress, Jewitt,
Ogborn,& Tsatsarelis,
2001;Martin & Veel, 1998;Unsworth,1998),geography
(Martin, 2001b; van lreuwen & Humphrey, 1996;Wignell, Martin, & Eggins,
1990),history (Coffin, 1997;Martin, 2001c; Martin & Wodak, in press;Veel &
Coffin, 1996)English (Martin, 1996a:Rothery& Stenglin, 1997,2000), and
Englishfor academicpurposes(Lewin, Fine, & Young,200l; Ravelli & Ellis, in
press;Ventola, 1998; 1999,Ventola& Mauranen,1995). Work on workplace
communicationincludesadministration(Iedema,1997a,1998, 2000; Iedema&
Degeling,2001; Iedema& Scheeres,in press),scienceand technology(Rose,
1997,1998;White, 1998),speechdisorders(Armstrong,1987, 1992;Fine, 1994,
1995;Fine, Bartolucci,& Szatmari,1989;Oram, Fine, Okamoto,& Tannock,
1999:Ovadia& Fine, 1995),medicine(Jordens,Little, Paul, & Sayers,2001),
law (Gibbons,in press;Iedema,1993,1995),and museumsand galleries
(Ferguson,Maclulich, & Ravelli, 1995;Ravelli, 1996,1998).
The range of this researchhas had a number of implications for genre
analysis,including analysisof generic structuresand intertextual relations with one
another. Work on administrativedirectives(Iedema,1997a;Martin, 1998)and
print medianews stories(Iedema,I997b; White, 1997),for example,revealed
genresthat are bestcharacterized
as having a nucleus/satellite
structure(as opposed
to a more traditionalpartlwholebeginning,middle, and end organization),a kind
of orbital structurewith an obligatory core stageand optional elaboratingstages
that are not strictly sequenced.Martin (1995b, 1996b)follows up the implications
of this for experientialstructuresin general, analogizingfrom geme structureback
to grammar. Across fields, the problem of longer texts aroseand attemptswere
madeto model theseas seriesof smallergenresdrawing on Halliday's 1994
categoriesof expansion(elaboration,extension,and enhancement).This serial
perspectiveon macro-genres
as genrecomplexesis introducedin Martin 2001b
(seealso Iedema,2000; Jordenset al., 2001) and further developedin Christie
(1999,in press)for classroomdiscourse.
Another importantdimensionof genreanalysisacrossfields has to do with
mappingrelationshipsamonggenresfrom both typologicaland topological
perspectives.Using paradigmsand systemnetworksto model valeur, narrative
and factualgenresare exploredtypologicallyin Martin (2001a)and Martin and
Plum (1997);this kind of analysisdependson categoricaldistinctions. The notion
of genresas more gradientsemanticregionsis exploredtopologicallyin Martin
(2001b,c), Rose(1997, 1998),and Veel (1997)for a rangeof factualgenresfrom
science,geography,and history. The relationof work on macro-geffesand genre
6l
62 J. R. MARTIN
topology to the questionof 'genre mixing' is discussedin Martin (200lb). For
SFL work on geffe in relation to other approaches,seeHyon (1996) and Hyland
(this volume).
Connections
Obviously in a survey of this kind I have had to be selective. One of the
most obvious extensionswould be to the work of presentand past staff and
studentsat the University of Birmingham. Fortunately, this work is ably surveyed
in Coulthard(1992, 1994)and Caldas-Coulthard
and Coulthard(1996). Of these
colleagues,special mention should be made of Michael Hoey, who has developed
the Hatfield Polytechnic strain of discourseanalysisinspired by EugeneWinter
(Hoey l99l,2OOl; Scott& Thompson,2000). In America, the clearestlinks are
with west coastfunctionalism,especiallyFox (1987), becauseshebrings several
discoursesemanticregions (CA, RST, and participant identification) to bear on the
'grammar'
of text development. Some further connectionsare explored in Martin
and Rose(in press).
The strengthof SFL work on discourseprobably lies in its relatively well
developeddescriptionsof geme and functional grammar, and the adaptability of
SFL modeling acrossmodalities(to image,music, and action, for example). This
grounds researchfirmly in the materiality of both global and local perspectiveson
meaning. The challengefor future work lies in frlling in the middle ground
betweentext and clausethrough intensivecorpus-basedwork on discourse
semanticsand register. The successof this enterprisedependson the development
of relevant software to both enhanceand supplantmanual analysis. I expect this
technology to affect our conceptionof languageand attendantsemiotic systemsas
radically as the invention of writing and the tape recorder have shapedour
discipline in the past, sincefor the first time we'll be able to managelarge-scale
sociosemanticanalvsesof data.
Notes
1. The terms internal and external are from Halliday and Hasan (1976); van Dijk
(1977) opposespragmaticto semanticrelations. The contrastis betweenHe came,
becauseI just saw him (internal - 'why I'm saying he came') and,He came
becauseI saw him and told him Io (external : 'why he came').
2. In sFL the ideationalmetafunctionincludestwo subcomponents,the
experiential and the logical; experientialmeaningis associatedwith orbital
structure (mononuclear),and logical meaningwith serial structure (multinuclear;
Martin 1996b).
MEANING BEYOND TI{E CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPITY
Martin (1992)outlinesthe readingof SFL discourseanalysisassumed
here. Martin and Rose(in press)providean accessibleintroductionto this work,
focussingon writing and incorporatingrecentdevelopments;
Egginsand Slade
(1997)complementthis with a focuson spokendiscourse.Halliday and Martin
(1993),ChristieandMartin (1997),andMartin andVeel (1998)illustratethis kind
of analysisacrossa rangeof fields. Unsworth(2000)is designedfor prospective
researchers
who wantto takeup thesetools. Hasan(1996)surveysher pioneering
work on cohesion,geme,semanticnetworks,andthe relationof languageto social
context.
OTIIER REIIERENCES
Armstrong,E. (1987).Cohesiveharmonyin aphasicdiscourseandits significance
in listenerperceptionof coherence.
In R. H. Brookshire(Ed.,)
, Clinical
proceedings,Vol. 17 (pp. 210-215).
aphasiology:Conference
Minneapolis,MN: BRK Publishers.
Armstrong,E. (1992).Clausecomplexrelationsin aphasicdiscourse:A
longitudinalstudy.Journal of Neurolinguistics,7(4), 261-275.
Baldry, A. (Ed.) (1999).Multimodalityand multimedialityin the distancelearning
age. CampoBasso:Lampo.
Bateman,J. A. (2001).Benveenthe leavesof rhetoricalstructure:Staticand
of discourse
dynamicaspects
organization.
Verbatum,
23(l),31-58.
Bateman,J. A., Matthiessen,
C. M., & Licheng,Z. (1999).Multilinguallanguage
generationfor multilingualsoftware:A functionallinguisticapproach.
AppliedArtificial Intelligence,I 3(6), 607-639.
Bateman,J. A., & Rondhuis,K. (1997).Coherence
relations:Towardsgeneral
specification.DiscourseProcesses,24, 3-49.
Benson,J. D., Fries,P. Greaves,
W. S. Iwamoto,K., Savage-Rumbaugh,
S., &
Taglialatela,J. (in press).Confrontation
andsupportin bonobo-human
discourse.Functionsof l-anguage,9,2.
Benson,J. D., & Greaves,
W. S. (Eds.).(1985).Systemic
perspectives
on
discourse:Selectedtheoreticalpapersfrom the 9th InternationalSystemic
Workshop.Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
W. S. (1992).Collocation
Benson,J. D., & Greaves,
andfield of discourse.
In W.
A. Mann & S. A. Thompson(Eds.),Discoursedescription:Diverse
annlysesof a fund raisingtext (pp. 397-409).Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
M. J., & Greaves,
W. S. (Eds.).(1988).Linguisticsin
Benson,J. D., Cummings,
a systemicperspective.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
63
64 J. R. MARTIN
Bernstein,B- (1996). Pedagogy,symboliccontrol and identity: Theory,
research,
citique. London: Taylor & Francis.
Berry, M. (1981). Systemiclinguisticsand discourseanalysis:A multi-layered
approach to exchangestructure. In M. coulthard & M. Montgomery
(Eds.), Studiesin discourseanalysis(pp. 120-145). London:
Rourledge&
Kegan Paul.
caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., &Matthiessen,c. M. (Eds.). (inpress).Language
typology: A functional p erspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
caldas-coulthard, c., & coulthard, M. (Eds.). (1996). Text and practices:
Readings in citical discourseanalysis. London: Routledge.
Christie, F. (Ed.). (1999). Pedagogyand the shapingof conscio^orrr; Linguistic
and socialprocesses.London: Cassell.
Christie, F. (in press). Classroomdiscourseanalysis.London: Continuum.
christie, F., & Marrin, J. R. (Eds.) (1997). Genreand institutions:social
processesin the workplace and school. London: pinter.
Cloran, C. (1989). Learningthrough language:The socialconsrructionof gender.
In R- Hasan& J. R. Martin (Eds.). Innguage development:Learning
language,learning culture (pp. 361-a03). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cloran, C. (1994). Rhetoricalunits and decontextualisation:
An enquiry into some
relations of context, meaning and grammar. Monographs ii Systemic
Linguistics. 6. Noningham:school of English Studies,Nottingham
University.
Cloran, C. (1995). Defining and relating text segments:Subjectand theme in
discourse.In R. Hasan& p. Fries (Eds.), on subjectand theme:A
discourse functional p erspective (pp. 361-a03). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Cloran, C. (1999a).Contextsfor learning. In F. Christie (Ed.), pedagogyand the
shaping of consciousness
(pp. 3r-65). London: cassell.
Cloran, C. (1999b). Context, materialsituationand text. In M. Ghadessy(Ed.),
Text and contextinfunctional tinguistics(pp. 177-217).Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Cloran, C. (2000). Socio-semantic
variation: Different wordings, different
meanings.In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researchinglanguagein schoolsand
communitier(pp.152-183). London: Cassell.
Coffin, C- (1997) Constructingand giving value to the past: An investigationinro
secondaryschoolhistory. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genreand
institutions: Socialprocessesin the wo*place and school (pp. 196-230).
London: Pinter.
coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1992).Advancesin spokendiscourseanalysis.London:
Routledge
coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1994).Advancesin witten text analysr.s.London:
Routledge.
Davies, M., & Ravelli, L. J. (Eds.). (1992). Advancesin systemiclinguistics;
Recenttheory and practice. London: pinter.
MEANING BEYONDTHE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVES
Degand,L. (2001).Form and functionof causation:A theoreticaland empirical
investigationof causalconstructionsin Dutch. fStudiesop het gebied van
taalkunde,5.]Peeters:kuven.
de Nederlandse
strategies
in
Downing,A., & Lavid, J. (1998).Informationprogression
study.In A. Sdnchez-Macarro
&
administrativeforms: A cross-linguistic
(pp.
(Eds.),
genres
Linguisticchoiceacross
99-115).
R. Carter
Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Eggins,S. (1994).An introductionto systemic
functional linguistics.London:
Pinter.
of
Eggins,S., & Iedema,R. (1997)."Difference"withoutdiversity:The semantics
In R. Wodak(Ed.), Genderand discourse(pp.
women'smagazines.
Oaks,CA: Sage.
165-196).Thousand
(1997).
Genresandregistersof discourse.In T. A.
Eggins,S., & Martin, J. R.
van Dijk (Ed.), Discourseas structureandprocess,Vol. 1 (pp. 230-256).
London:Sage.
Eggins,S., & Slade,D. (1997).Analysingcasualconversation.London: Cassell.
Ferguson,L., Maclulich, C., & Ravelli,L. J. (1995).Meaningsand messages:
Innguage guidelines
for museumexhibitions.Sydney:AustralianMuseum.
Fine, J. (1994).How languageworks:Cohestonin normaland nonstandard
Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
communicafion.
and studyingcohesionin schizophrenic
Fine, J. (1995).Towardsunderstanding
16, 25-47.
speech.AppliedPsycholinguistics,
(1989).
Textualsystems:Theirusein
Fine,J., Bartolucci,G., &Szatmari,P.
of socialreality. Word, 40 (l-Z),65-80.
creationand miscalculation
of linguistictheory,1930-1955.Studiesin
Firth, J. R. (1957).A synopsis
LinguisticAnalysis[Specialvolumeof the PhilologicalSociety](pp.
1-31). London:Blackwell.
Fox, B. A. (1987).Discoursestructureand anaphora:Writtenand conversational
: CambridgeUniversityPress.
English.Cambridge
Fries,P. H. (1981).On the statusof themein English:Argumentsfrom discourse.
ForumLinguisticum,6(I), 1-38.
Fries,P., & Gregory,M. (Eds.).(1995).Discoursein society:Systemic
functional
perspectives.
Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Fuller, G. (1998).Cultivatingscience:Negotiatingdiscoursein the populartextsof
StephenJay Gould.In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.),Readingscience
(pp. 35-62). London:Routledge.
M. (Ed.). (1993).Registeranalysis:Theoryandpractlce.London:
Ghadessy,
Pinter.
in Englishtexts.London:
M. (Ed.). (1995).Thematicdevelopment
Ghadessy,
Pinter.
M. (Ed.). (1999).Textand contextinfunctionallingutstics.
Ghadessy,
Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Gibbons,J. P. (in press).Forensiclinguistics.Oxford: Blackwell.
65
66
J. R. MARTIN
Gleason,H. A., Jr. (1968).Contrastiveanalysisin discoursestructure.
Monograph Serieson Languagesand Linguistics, 21. Washington,DC:
GeorgetownUniversity (GeorgetownUniversity Institute of Languagesand
Linguistics).
Gregory, M. (1995). Beforeand towardscommunicationlinguistics: Essoysby
Michael Gregoryand Associates.(Jin SoonCha, Ed.). Seoul:Sookmyng
Women's University.
Gregory, M. (2001). Phasalanalysiswithin communicationlinguistics:Two
contrastivediscourses.In P. Fries, M. Cummings,D. Lockwood, & W.
Sprueill (Eds.),Relationsandfunctionswithin and around language(pp.
316-345). London: Continuum.
Gregory, M., & Carroll, S. (1978).Languageand situation:Languagevarieties
and their social contexts.London: Routledge& KeganPaul.
Gutwinski,W. (1976). Cohesionin literary texts:A studyof somegrammnticaland
lexicalfeatures of English discourse.The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967).Notesin transitivityand themein English:Part 1.
Journalof Linguistics,3(1), 37-81.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorationsin thefunctionsof language.London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978).Languageas a socialsemiotic:Thesocial
interpretationof languageand meaning.London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985).Spokenqnd writtenlanguage.Geelong,Victoria:
Deakin UniversityPress.
In E. Ventola
Halliday, M. A. K. (1991).Towardsprobabilisticinterpretations.
(Ed.), Functionaland systemiclinguistics(pp. 39-61). Berlin: Mouton
deGruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1992).Languageas systemand languageas instance:The
corpusas a theoreticalconstruct.In J. Svarwik (Ed.), Directionsin corpus
linguistics: Proceedingsof Nobel Symposium82, Stockholm,4-8 August,
1991,(pp.6l-77). Berlin:De Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993).Quantitativestudiesand probabilitiesin grammar.In
M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, description,discourse:Paperson English language
in honour of JohnMcH. Sinclair [on his sixtiethbirthday](pp. 1-25).
London: HarPerCollins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994).An introductionto functionalgrammar.London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1995).Languageand the theoryof codes.In A. Sadovnik
(Ed.), Knowledgeandpedagogy:Thesociologyof Basil Bernstein(pp.
127-144).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
experienceas
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993).Thingsand relations:Regrammaticising
technicalknowledge.In J. R. Martin & R.Veel (Eds.),Readingscience
(pp. 185-235).London:Routledge.
HatlidayM. A. K., & Hasan,R. (1976)Cohesionin English.London:Longman.
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES
Halliday,M. A. K., & Hasan,R. (1985)Innguage, context,and text: Aspectsof
perspective.Geelong,Victoria: Deakin
languagein a social-semiotic
UniversityPress.
Halliday,M. A. K., & James,Z. (1993).A quantitativestudyof polarity and
primary tensein the Englishfinite clause.In J. M. Sinclair,M. Hoey, &
G. Fox (Eds.), Techniquesof description:Spokenand written discourse
(pp. 32-66). London:Routledge.
Halliday,M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993).Writingscience:Literacy and
discursivepower. London:Falmer.
Halliday,M. A. K., & Mauhiessen,C. M. (1999). Constuing experiencethrough
approachto cognition. London: Cassell.
language:A language-based
Hasan,R. (1968). Grammaticalcohesionin spokenand written English,Part I.
Papersof the Programmein Linguisticsand EnglishTeaching,SeriesI,
No. 7. London: Departmentof GeneralLinguistics,UniversityCollege.
model.In W. Dressler(Ed.),
Hasan,R. (1977).Text in the systemic-functional
Current trendsin textlinguistics(pp. 228-246). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
andcohesiveharmony.In J. Flood (Ed.),
Hasan,R. (1984).Coherence
Understandingreading comprehension:Cognition, Ianguageand the
structureof prose (pp. 181-219).Newark, DE: InternationalReading
Association.
Hasan,R. (1985).The textureof a text. In M. A. K. Halliday& R. Hasan(Eds.),
Language,contextand text (pp. 70-96). Geelong,Victoria: Deakin
UniversityPress.
AustralianJournal of
Hasan,R. (1990).Semanticvariationand sociolinguistics.
-27
Linguistics 9(2), 221 6.
Hasan,R. (1991).Questionsas a modeof learningin everydaytalk. In M.
McCausland(Ed.), Languageeducation:Interactionand development(pp.
Universityof Tasmania.
70-119).Launceston:
Hasan,R. (1992).Meaningin sociolinguistictheory. In K. Bolton & H. Kwok
(Eds.),Sociolinguistics
today: Internationalperspectives(pp. 80-1 19).
London: Routledge.
Hasan,R. (1995a).On socialconditionsfor semioticmediation:The genesisof
mind in society.In A. Sadovnik(Ed.), Knowledgeandpedagogy(pp17l-196). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Hasan,R. (1995b).The conceptionof contextin text. In P. Fries & M. Gregory
(Eds.),Discoursein society(pp. 183-283).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hasan,R. (1996). Waysof saying, waysof meaning:Selectedpapers of Ruqaiya
Hasan(Editedby C. Cloran,D. Butt, & G. Williams). London: Cassell.
Hasan,R. (1999).Speakingwith referenceto context.In M. Ghadessy(Ed.), Text
and contextin functional linguistics(pp. 219-328). Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
language:Some
of decontextualised
Hasan,R. (2001).The ontogenesis
of classificationand framing. In A. Morais, I. Neves,B.
achievements
Davies,& H. Daniets(Eds.), Towardsa sociologyof pedagogy:The
6'l
68
J. R. MARTIN
contributionof Basil Bernsteinto research(pp. 47-79). New York: peter
Lang.
Hasan,R., & Cloran,C. (1990).A sociolinguistic
interpretation
of everydaytalk
betweenmothersandchildren.In M. A. K. Halliday,J. Gibbons,& H.
Nicholas(Eds.),Learntng,keepingand usinglanguage,vol. 1 (pp.
67-99). Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Hasan,R., & Fries,P. (Eds.).(1995).on subjectand theme;A discourse
functional perspective.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Hoey, M. J. (1991).Anotherperspective
on coherence
andcohesiveharmony.In
E. Ventola(Ed.), Functionaland systemiclinguistics(pp. 385-414).
Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.
Hoey, M. J. (2001). Textualinteraction:An intoduction to written discourse
analysis. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (this volume).Genre:Language,context,andliteracy.
Hyon, S. (1996).Genrein threetraditions:Implicationsfor ESL. TESOL
Quanerly,30,693-722.
Iedema,R. (1993).Ir-,galEnglish:Disciplinespecificliteracyandgenretheory.
AustralianReviewof AppliedLinguistics16(2),g6-122.
Iedema,R. (1995).kgal ideology:The role of languagein commonlaw appellate
judgments.TheInternationalJournalfor the Semioticsof Law, 7(22),
2r-36.
Iedema,R. (1997a).The languageof administration:
Organizinghumanactiviryin
formal institutions.In F. christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.),Genreand
institutions(pp. 73-100).London:pinter.
Iedema,R. (1997b).The historyof the accidentnewsstory.AustralianReviewof
AppliedLinguistics,20(2),95-119.
Iedema,R. (1998).Hiddenmeaningsand institutionalresponsibility.Discourse
and society,9, 481-500.
Iedema,R. (2000).Bureaucratic
planningandresemiotisation.
In E. Ventola(Ed.),
Discourseand community(pp. 47-70).Tubingen:GunterNarr.
Iedema,R. (2001).Analysingfilm andtelevision.In T. van Lreuwen& C. Jewitt
(Eds.),Handbookof visualanalysis(pp. 183-204).London:Sage.
Iedema,R., & Degeling,P. (2001).From differenceto divergence:
The
logogenesis
of interactivetension.Functionsof l-anguage,8(l), 33-56.
Iedema,R., & Scheeres,
H. (in press).From doingto talkingwork: Renegotiating
knowing,doingandidentify.In C. Candlin& S. Sarangi(Eds.),Applied
Linguistics[specialissuefor 20021.
Jordens
C. F., Little,M., Paul,K., &Sayers,E. J. (2001).Lifedisruptionand
genericcomplexity:A sociallinguisticanalysisof narrativesof cancer
illness.SocialScienceand Medicine,53, 1227-1236.
Kress,G., & van Leeuwen,T. (1996).Readingim"ages:
Thegrammarof visual
design.London:Routledge.
Kress,G., & van keuwen, T. (2001).Multimodaldiscourse-Themodesand
mediaof contemporarycommunication.London: Arnold.
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVES
Kress,G., Jewitt,C., Ogborn,J., & Tsatsarelis,
C. (2001).Multimodalteaching
and learning: The rhetoics of the classroom.London: Continuum.
Lavid, J. (1997).Specifyingthe discoursesemanticsof grammaticalthemefor
multilingual text generation:Preliminaryfindings. Revistade Ia Sociedad
Espafiolapara el Procesamientodel LenguajeNatural, 21, 57-79.
Lemke,J. (1995). Textualpolitics: Discourseand social dynamics.London:
Taylor & Francis.
Lemke,J. (1998).Multiplying meaning:Visual and verbal semioticsin scientific
text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.),Readingscience(pp. 87-113).
London: Routledge.
Irwin, B., Fine, J., & Young,L. (2001).Expositorydiscourse:A genrebased
approachto social sciencetexts. London: Continuum.
Mann,W. C., Matthiessen,
C. M., & Thompson,S. A. (1992).Rhetorical
structuretheoryand text analysis.In W. C. Marur& S. A. Thompson
(Eds.),Discoursedesciption: Diverselinguisticanalysesof a fund-raising
text (pp. 39-78). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Mann,W. C., & Thompson,S.A. (Eds.).(1992).Discoursedesciption:Diverse
linguistic analysesof a fund-raising text. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1983).Panicipantidentificationin English,Tagalogand Kdte.
AustralianJournalof Linguistics,3(l), 45-74.
Martin, J. R. (1985).Factualwriting: Exploringand challengingsocial reality.
Geelong,Victoria: DeakinUniversityPress.
Martin, J. R. (1992).Englishtext: Systemand structure. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Martin,J. R. (1993).Life as a noun In M. A. K. Halliday& J. R. Martin (Eds.),
Witing science(pp.22l-267). London:Falmer.
Martin, J. R. (1995a).More thanwhat the messageis about:Englishtheme.In M
in Englishtexts(pp.223-258).
Ghadessy(Ed.), Themnticdevelopment
London:Pinter.
Text,/5(1), 5-42.
Martin,J. R. (1995b).Text andclause:Fractalresonance.
Martin, J. R. (1996a).Evaluatingdisruption:Symbolisingthemein junior
secondarynarrative.In R. Hasan& G. Williams (Eds.),Literacy in
society(pp. Da-nD. London:Longman.
notionsof constituency
Martin, J. R. (1996b).Typesof structure:Deconstructing
(Eds.),
in clauseandtext. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott
Computational
-an
interdisciplinary account
and conversationaldiscourse: Burning issues
(pp. 39-66). Heidelberg:Springer.
Martin, J. R. (1998).Practiceinto theory: Catalyzingchange.In S. Hunston(Ed.),
Languageat work (pp. 151-167).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Martin, J. R. (1999).Modellingcontext:A crookedpath of progressin contextual
linguistics(SydneySFL). In M. Ghadessy(Ed.), Textand contextin
functionallinguistics(pp. 25-61). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (2000a).Beyondexchange:Appraisalsystemsin English.In S.
Hunston& G. Thompson(Eds.),Evaluationin text:Authorial stanceand
69
7O J. R. MARTIN
the constructionof discourse(pp. 142-175).Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Martin, J. R. (2000b).Closereading:Functionallinguisticsas a tool for critical
analysis.In L. Unsworth(Ed.), Researching
languagein schoolsand
communities(pp. 275-303). London: Longman.
Martin, J. R. (2000c).Designandpractice:Enactingfunctionallinguisticsin
Australia.AnnualReviewof AppliedLinguistics,20, 116-126.
Martin, J. R. (2001a).A contextfor genre:modellingsocialprocesses
in
functionallinguistics.In R. Stainton& J. Devilliers(Eds.),
Communicationin linguistics(pp. l-41). Toronro: GREF (Collection
Theoria).
Martin, J. R. (200lb). From little thingsbig thingsgrow: Ecogenesis
in school
geography.In R. coe, L. Lingard,& T. Teslenko(Eds.),The rhetoric
and ideologyof genre:Strategies
for stabilityand change(pp. 2a3-271).
Cresskill,NJ: HamptonPress.
Martin, J. R. (2001c).Writing history:Construingtime and valuein discoursesof
the past.In C. Colombi& M. Schleppergrell
(Eds.),Developingadvanced
literacyin first and secondlanguages(pp. 87-l l8). Mahwah,NJ:
Erlbaum.
Martin, J. R. (2001d).Giving the gameaway:Explicitness,diversifyand geffebasedliteracyin Australia.In R. wodak et al. (Eds.),Functional
Il/literacy (pp. 155-174).Vienna:Verlagder Osterreichischen
Akadamie
der Wissenschaften.
Martin, J. R., & Plum, G. (1997).Construingexperience:Somestorygeffes.
Journal of Narrativeand Life History, 7(l-4),299-308.
Martin, J. R., & Rose,D. (in press).Workingwith discourse:Meaningbeyondthe
clause.London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Veel,R. (Eds.).(1998).Readingscience:Citical andfunctional
perspectiveson discoursesof science.London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. & Wodak,R. (Eds.).(in press)Re/readingthepast: Critical and
functional perspectiveson discoursesof history. Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Martinec,R. (1998).Cohesionin action.Semiotica,
120(l/2), 161-180.
(2000a).
Martinec,R.
Rhythmin multimodaltexts.Leonardo, 33(4),289-297.
(2000b).
Martinec,R.
Typesof processin action.Semiotica,130(314),243-268.
Martinec,R. (2000c).Constructionof identityin M. Jackson's'Jam'. Social
Semiotics,10, 313-329.
Martinec,R. (2001).Interpersonal
resourcesin action.Semiotica,135(l/4),
rr7-r45.
Matthiessen,
C. M. I. M. (1993).Registerin the round:Diversityin a unified
(Ed.), Registeranalysis:Theory
theoryof registeranalysis.M. Ghadessy
(pp.
practice
221-292). London: Pinter.
and
Matthiessen,
C. M. I. M. (1999).The systemof TRANSITIVITY:An exploratory
profiles.Functionsof Innguage,6(1),1-51.
studyof text-based
MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES
Matthiessen,C. M. I. M. (in press).Combiningclausesinto clausecomplexes:A
multi-facetedview. In J. Bybee& M. Noonan(Eds.), Complexsentences
in grammar and discourse:Essaysin honor of SandraA. Thompson(pp.
237-322). Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Mauhiessen,C. M. I. M. & Bateman,J. (1991). Textgenerationand systemic
linguistics: Experiencesfrom English and Japanese.London: Pinter.
Matthiessen,C. M. I. M. & Wu, C. (2001). SysAm. [Programsfor computational
analysisl. Availableat:
http:/iminerva.ling.mq.edu.au/Resources/AnalysisTools/Tools.
htm.
Mitchell, T. F. (1957). The languageof buying and selling in Cyrenaica:A
situationalstatement.Hesperis,26, 3l-7I.
Nesbitt,C., & Plum, G. (1988). Probabilitiesin a systemic-functional
grammar:
The clausecomplexin English. In R. P. Fawcett& D. Young (Eds.), New
developmentsin systemiclinguistics, vol. 2: Theory and application (pp.
6-38). London: Pinter.
Ochs,E. Schegloff,E. A., & Thompson,S. A. (Eds.).(1996)Interactionand
grammar. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
O'Donnell, M. (1995). From corpusto codings:Semiautomating
the acquisitionof
linguistic features.In Proceedingsof the AAAI Spring Symposiumon
Empirical Methods in DiscourseInterpretationand Generation(pp.
t20-123). Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity.
O'Halloran, K. L. (1999a).Interdependence,
interactionand metaphorin
multisemiotictexts. SocialSemiotics,9, 3t7-354.
O'Halloran, K. L. (1999b).Towardsa systemicfunctionalanalysisof
multisemioticmathematicstexts. Semiotica,124(Il2), l-29.
O'Halloratr,K. L. (2000). Classroomdiscoursein mathematics:A multisemiotic
analysis.Linguisticsand Education,I 0, 359-388.
O'Halloratr,K. L., & Judd,K. (2001).Systemics(CD ROM). Singapore:
SingaporeUniversity Press.
Oram,J, Fine, J., Okamoto,C., & Tannock,R. (1999).Assessingthe languageof
children with Anention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. American Journal
of Speech-InnguagePathology, 8, 72-80.
O'Toole, M. (1994).The languageof displayedart. London: Iricester University
Press.
Ovadia,R., & Fine, J. (1995). A functionalanalysisof intonationin Asperger's
Syndrome.In J. Siegfried(Ed.), Therapeuticand everydaydiscourseas
behavior change:towards a micro-analysisin psychotherapyprocess
research(pp. a91-510).Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Parsons,G. (1991).Cohesionand coherence:Scientifictexts.In E. Ventola(Ed.),
Functionaland systemiclinguistics(pp. a15-430). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Plum, G., & Cowling, A. (1987). Someconstraintson grammaticalvariables:
Tensechoicein English.In R. Steele& T. Threadgold(Eds.), Language
7l
72
J. R, MARTIN
Topics:Essaysin honor of Michael Halliday, Vol. II (pp. 281-305).
Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Poynton,C. (1985).Languageand gender:Making the dffirence. Geelong,
Victoria: DeakinUniversityPress.
Ravelli, L. J. (1996). Making languageaccessible:Successfultext writing for
museumvisitors.Linguisticsand Education,8,367-387.
Ravelli, L. J. (1998). The consequences
of choice:Discursivepositioningin an art
institution.In A. Sdnchez-Macarro
& R. Carter(Eds.),Linguistic choice
acrossgenres(pp. 137-154).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Ravelli, L. J. (2000). Beyondshopping:Constructingthe SydneyOlympicsin
three-dimensional
text. Text, 20 (4), l-27.
Ravelli, L. J., & Ellis, R. A. (Eds.).(in press).Academicwriting in context:
perspectiveson theoryandpractice. London: Continuum
Social-functional
Press.
Rose, D. (1997). Science,technologyand technicalliteracies.In F. Christie & J.
R. Martin (Eds.), Genreand institutions(pp. a0-72). London: Pinter.
Rose,D. (1998). Sciencediscourseand industrialhierarchy.In J. R. Martin & R.
Veel (Eds.), Readingscience(pp. 236-265). London: Routledge.
Rothery, 1., & Stenglin,M. (1997).Entertainingand instructing:Exploring
experiencethroughstory. In F. Christie& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genreand
institutions(pp. 231-263). London: Pinter.
Rothery,J., & Stenglin,M. (2000).Interpretingliterature:The role of appraisal.
In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researchinglanguagein schoolsand communities
(pp. 222-244). London: Cassell.
4., & Carter,R. (Eds.)(1998).Linguisticchoiceacrossgenres:
S6nchez-Macalro,
Variation in spokenand written English. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Scoft,M., & Thompson,G.(Eds.). (2000).Patternsof text:Inhonour of Michael
Hoey. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
A. M., Taverniers,M., & Ravelli,L. J. (Eds.).(in press).
Simon-Vandenbergen,
Metaphor: Systemicandfunctional perspectives.Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard,R. M. (1975). Towardsan analysisof discourse:The
English usedby teachersand pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Stainton,R., & Devilliers,J. (Eds.).(2001).Communication
in linguistics.
Toronto: Groupede rechercheen 6tudesfrancophones(GREF).
Steiner,8., & Veltman,R. (1988).Pragmntics,discourseand text: Some
systemically-inspiredapproaches.London: Pinter.
Steiner,E., & Yallop, C. (Eds.). (2000).Exploringtranslationand multilingual
text production: Beyondcontent.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taboada,M. (2000). Cohesionas a measurein genericanalysis.In A. Melby &
A. Lommel (Eds.),LACUSForum )C{W (pp. 35-49). Fullerton, CA: The
Linguistic Associationof Canadaand the United States.
MEANING BEYONDTHE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES
Taboada,M. (in press).Rhetoricalrelationsin dialogue:A contrastivestudy.In C.
L. Moder & A. Martinovic-Zic(Eds.),Discourseacrosslanguagesand
cultures. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Teich,E. (1999). Systemic
functionalgrammarin naturallanguagegeneration:
Linguisticdescriptionand computationalrepresentationLondon: Cassell.
Unsworth,L. (1998)."Sound"explanations
in schoolscience:A functional
linguisticsperspectiveon effectiveapprenticingtexts.Linguisticsand
Education,9(2), 199-726.
languagein schoolsand communities:
Unsworth,L. (Ed.). (2000).Researching
Functionallinguisticperspectives.London: Cassell.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977).Textand context:Explorationsin the semanticsand
pragmaticsof discourse.London: Longman.
van lreuwen, T. (1991).Rhythmandsocialcontext.In P. Tench(Ed.), Studiesin
systemicphonology(pp. 231-262).London: Pinter.
van lreuwen, T. (1996).The representation
of socialactors.In C. CaldasCoulthard& M. Coulthard(Eds.), Textsandpractices:Readingsin
critical discourseanalysis(pp. 32-70). London: Routledge.
van Leeuwen,T. (1999). Speech,music,sound.London:Macmillan.
van Leeuwen,T., & Humphrey,S. (1996).On learningto look througha
geographer's
eyes.In R. Hasan& G.Williams(Eds.),Literacyin soctety
(pp.2e-a\.
van Leeuwen,T., & Jewitt,C. (2001).Handbookof visualanalysis.London:
Sage.
Veel, R. (1997).Learninghow to mean-scientificallyspeaking:Apprenticeship
into scientificdiscoursein the secondary
school.In F. Christie& J. R.
Manin (Eds.),Genreand institutions(pp. 161-195).London:Pinter.
in secondary
Veel, R. (1998).The greeningof schoolscience:Ecogenesis
In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.),Readingscience(pp.
classrooms.
tt4-151). London:Routledge.
In F.
Veel, R. (1999).Language,knowledgeandauthorityin schoolmathematics.
(pp. 185-2L6).
Christie(Ed.), Pedagogyand the shapingof consciousness
London:Cassell.
Veel, R., & Coffin, C. (1996).Learningto think like an historian:the languageof
schoolhistory.In R. Hasan& A. Williams (Eds.),Literacyin
secondary
society(pp. 191-231).London:Longman.
Ventola,E. (1987). Thestructureof social interaction:A systemicapproachto the
semioticsof semiceencounters.London: Pinter.
and
Ventola,E. (Ed.). (1991).Functionaland systemiclinguistics:Approaches
uses.Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.
choicesin academicwork. In A. S6nchezVentola,E. (1998).Interpersonal
Macarro& R. Carter(Eds.),Linguisticchoicesacrossgenres(pp.
ll7 -136). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
in
Cohesionandcoherence
Ventola,E. (1999).Semioticspanningat conferences:
papersandtheir discussions.
In W. Bublitz, U.
andacrossconference
73
74
J. R. MARTIN
knk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherencein spokenand written discourse:
How to creoteit and how to describeit (pp. 101-125). Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Ventola, E. (Fd.). (2000). Discourseand community: Doing functionallinguistics.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Ventola, E., & Mauranen,A. (Eds.). (1995). Academicwriting: Interculturaland
textual issues.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Watt, D. L. E. (2001). Intonationalcohesionand tone sequencesin English. In
Stainton,R., & Devilliers, J. (Eds.), Communicationin tinguistics(pp.
361-378). Toronto: Groupe de rechercheen 6tudesfrancophones(GREF).
Webster, J. (1995). Studying thematic developmentin on-line help documentarion
using the functionalsemanticprocessor.In M. Ghadessy(Ed.), Text and
context infunctional linguistics (pp. 259-271). London: pinter.
Webster,L, & Kit, C. (1995). Computationalanalysisof Chineseand English
texts with the functional semanticprocessorand the C-LFG Parser.
Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing, 10, ZO3-ZLI.
White, P. (1997). Death, disruption and the moral order: The narrative impulse in
mass 'hard news' reporting. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre
and institutions(pp. 101-133). London: Pinter.
White, P. (1998). Extendedreality, proto-nounsand the vernacular:Distinguishing
the technologicalfrom the scientific.J. R. Martin & R. veel (Eds.),
Reading science(pp. 266-296). London: Routledge.
White, P. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semanricsof
modality and hedging.In M. Coulthard,J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (Eds.),
Working with dialogue(pp.67-80). Tubingen: Neimeyer.
Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1990). The discourseof geography:
Ordering and explaining the experiential world. Linguistics and Education,
1 ,3 5 9 -3 9 2 .
Williams, G. (1995). Joint book-readingand literacy pedagogy:A socio-semantic
examination. Volume l. Current Oiginal Resourcesin Education
(CORE),I9(3). Fiche 2 801-Fiche 6 B01.
Williams, G. (1996). Joint book-readingand literacy pedagogy:A socio-semantic
examination. Volume 2. Current Oiginal Resourcesin Education
(CORE),20(l). Fiche 3 B01- Fiche 8 E10.
williams, G. (1999). The pedagogicdeviceand the productionof pedagogic
discourse:A caseexamplein early literacy education.In F. Christie (Ed.),
Pedagogyand the shaping of consciousness(pp. 88-122). London:
Cassell.
Williams, G. (2001). Literacy pedagogyprior to schooling:Relationsbetween
socialpositioningand semanticvariation. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B.
Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The
contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. n-ail. New York: Peter
Lang.