<i>WORD</i>

ISSN: 0043-7956 (Print) 2373-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwrd20

Meaning matters: a short history of systemic

functional linguistics

J. R. Martin

To cite this article: J. R. Martin (2016) Meaning matters: a short history of systemic functional
linguistics, <i>WORD</i>, 62:1, 35-58, DOI: 10.1080/00437956.2016.1141939

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2016.1141939

Published online: 21 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 54

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwrd20

Download by: [La Trobe University] Date: 31 May 2016, At: 08:08
 WORD, 2016
Vol. 62, No. 1, 35–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2016.1141939

Meaning matters: a short history of systemic functional linguistics

J. R. Martina,b*
a
Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; bMartin Centre
for Appliable Linguistics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

This paper presents a brief history of systemic functional linguistics (hereafter

SFL), taking Halliday’s 1961 WORD paper, ‘Categories of the theory of
grammar’, as point of departure. It outlines the key strands of thought which
have informed the development of SFL, focusing on (i) why it is referred to as
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

systemic, as functional and as systemic functional, (ii) how it developed this

orientation with reference to phonology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics
and (iii) how it has extended this perspective to models of context (register and
genre) and multimodality (taking into consideration modalities of
communication beyond language). The paper ends with a brief note on recent
developments and a comment on the dialectic of theory and practice through
which SFL positions itself as an appliable linguistics.
Keywords: Systemic Functional Linguistics; stratification; metafunction; axis;
context

1. Before and after

Halliday’s (1961) article, ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’, published in WORD,
is generally landmarked as the founding paper for what evolved as systemic functional
linguistics (hereafter SFL). Figure 1, reproduced from that article, outlines the basic
architecture of the theory – which at this early stage was referred to as ‘scale and cat-
egory’ grammar. At first blush the framework looks to combine ideas from Hjelmslev
(1961) (the levels of form and substance) and Firth (1957a) (the level of context, where
contemporary readers might have expected some reference to semantics); Halliday
cites both elders in his footnotes. Halliday et al. (1964: 18) elaborate the framework
slightly, for example unpacking phonology as the relation of form and phonic sub-
stance, and unpacking context as the relation of form and situation.
The particular conception of levels of language outlined in Figure 1 raises ques-
tions about both its family history and progeny. In this paper I offer a brief sketch
of this lineage. For more detailed accounts of the evolution of SFL, see Matthiessen
(2007a; 2007b; 2009; 2010; 2015). The key collections of review articles are Hasan
et al. (2005; 2007), Halliday and Webster (2009), Webster (2015), Bartlett and
O’Grady (in press) and Thompson et al. to appear. Foundational papers are collected
in Martin and Doran (2015a; 2015b; 2015c; 2015d; 2015e) (including references to
three series of collected papers, by Halliday, Hasan and Martin). The assembly of
interviews with Halliday in Martin (2013a) is revealing. Matthiessen et al. (2010)
provide a glossary of key terms.

*Email: james.martin@sydney.edu.au
© 2016 International Linguistic Association
 36 J.R. Martin

Figure 1. Levels of language (Halliday 1961: 244).

Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

2. Language as a semiotic system

SFL is well known for its conception of language as a semiotic system – as reflected for
example in the title of Halliday’s (1978) Language as Social Semiotic. This suggests we
need to begin our brief history with Saussure (1916; 1966), and his conception of the
sign as an inextricable bonding of signifié and signifiant. I have modeled this bond
using yin/yang symbolization in Figure 2. I do so out of respect for three of the ana-
logies Saussure offers by way of superseding the common sense notion of a sign as
standing for something (e.g. for a concept in the mind or for a referent in the
world). One is to liken the sign to a coin, another to a piece of paper and yet
another to waves on a body of water; in each case Saussure strives to emphasize the
sign as the coupling of phonic substance with thought – not the head or the tail of
the coin but the union of the two; not one side of the paper or the other but the
union of the two; not the water or the wind but the union of the two (i.e. the
waves). And language, like other semiotic systems, is thereby conceived as a system
of signs.

Figure 2. Saussure’s concept of the sign.

Faithful to this pedigree, Hjelsmlev (1961) similarly emphasizes that language is

form not substance. And he takes the further step of clarifying that language is not
a simple system of signs (like animal communication systems and infant’s
 WORD 37

Table 1. Hjelmslev’s intersection of form/substance with content/expression.

Content Expression

Form Content form Expression form

Substance Content substance Expression substance

protolanguage) but rather a stratified system of signs. His well-known intersection of

form vs. substance with content vs. expression is outlined in Table 1. In this articula-
tion, language comprises the levels of content form and expression form (his content
and expression planes), with no privileging of one over the other; contrast Figure 1
where content form (Halliday’s grammar and lexis) is central and phonology, like
context, is treated as an inter-level.
In SFL the relation of content form to expression form would come to be inter-
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

preted as a hierarchy, a position articulated by W S Allen (contra Firth, who did

not privilege any one level over others) and later foregrounded by Lamb and
Gleason in their development of stratificational grammar (both of these linguists
had a direct influence on the development of SFL; Martin 2014). By at least Martin
and Matthiessen (1991), this hierarchy was being represented as co-tangential circles
(a suggestion of Halliday’s), beginning in the lower right-hand corner with expression
form, and ascending upwards to the left for higher strata. The circles get bigger as we
ascend, reflecting the increasing size of the central unit of analysis (e.g. syllable vs.
clause in Figure 3). And the relation between levels reflects the emergent complexity
of language as a dynamic open system, with the more abstract systems interpreted
as patterns of lower level ones (this ‘pattern of patterns’ motif is termed metaredun-
dancy in Lemke 1995).

Figure 3. Conventional SFL representation of language strata.

By the 1980s Halliday had taken the further step of stratifying Hjelmslev’s content
plane as lexicogrammar and semantics (Figure 4). This means that language is con-
ceived as having two meaning-making strata – lexicogrammar, concerned with the
semogenic potential of clauses, and semantics, focused on the semogenic potential
of texts. This conception of grammar as a meaning-making resource is one of the dis-
tinctive features of SFL, and one not hard to appreciate in relation to the rich descrip-
tions of languages SFL grammatical architecture affords (of which the various
editions of Halliday’s description of English in his Introduction to Functional
 38 J.R. Martin
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Figure 4. Halliday’s articulation of language as a stratified system of signs.

Grammar are the outstanding exemplars; 1985; 1994; 2004; 2014). This model can be
usefully compared with that in Figure 1, where Firth’s interpretation of meaning as
function in context is reflected in the labeling of the level relating form to situation
as context. The term semantics was in fact first introduced for this level in Halliday
et al. (1964: 18), where it is positioned as a specific label for what is there glossed as
an ‘inter-level’. We return to the relation of semantics and context in Section 7.1.

3. Systemic grammar
Having outlined the stratification dimension of SFL’s evolving conception of language
as a semiotic system, let us return to Saussure for another key strand of SFL lineage.
This is Saussure’s concept of valeur. Superseding a common sense representational
perspective on the meaning of a sign, as advocated by Saussure, raises the question
of how signs do in fact mean. In this respect, Saussure’s analogy between signs and
coins is probably the most instructive, since the value of any coin is obviously its
relation to other ones. Saussure places great emphasis on this conception of the
value of signs, arguing that in language there is nothing but difference; there are no
positive terms (Dans la langue il n’y a que les différences, sans termes positifs; 1916:
120). Hjelmslev (1947) uses the example of traffic lights to illustrate Saussure’s
concept of valeur and I have adapted his illustration below by setting up a system
network with three opposing signs: stop/red, speed-up/yellow and go/green. In choos-
ing labels for the opposing signs, I have used words coupling signifié with signifiant, so
as not to re-invoke the representational conception of meaning Saussure was in fact
arguing against (Figure 5).
Saussure and Hjelmslev’s notion of language as a network of relationships has been
championed most strongly in linguistics by Lamb in his development of stratificational
linguistics, including development of a formalism in which descriptions are rep-
resented in purely relational terms (e.g. Lamb 1966, Lockwood 1972, Makkai and
Lockwood 1973, Garcia in press). As Saussure notes, ‘Linguistics … works in the bor-
derland where the elements of sounds and thoughts combine: their combination
produces a form, not a substance’ (his emphasis; 1916; 1966: 113). In Figure 6 I
 WORD 39
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Figure 5. Traffic lights: valeur in a simple system of signs.

interpret linguistics and semiotics along these lines as focusing their attention on the
nature of the relationships binding signifié with signifiant, It is this network of relation-
ships which constitutes their object of study, with stratification and valeur key foun-
dation stones as far as modeling the cartography of this network of relations is
concerned. The ‘x’ symbols in Figure 6 are intended to reinforce the fact that in the
Saussure/Hjelmslev/Lamb traditions, linguistics and semiotics are concerned with
form not substance, an orientation SFL shares with these theorists.

Figure 6. The bonding relation of signifié and signifiant – the object of study in linguistics and
semiotics.

Another key foundation stone in this lineage is the distinction Saussure makes
between what we now refer to, following Hjlemslev, as syntagmatic and paradigmatic
relations (rapports syntagmatiques and rapports associatifs for Saussure). For Saussure
 40 J.R. Martin

and Hjelmslev (and later Lamb), as for Firth (his structure and system), these relations
were treated as complementarities, with neither privileged over the other. In SFL
however, as the name of the theory indicates, system is privileged over structure.
System in other words is taken as the basic organizing principle as far as the
network of relationships binding signifié and signifiant is concerned, with structure
derived from systemic choice. SFL models these paradigmatic relations in a formalism
known as system networks. This is illustrated in Figure 7, for English pronouns. The
curly bracket represents logical ‘and’, the square bracket logical ‘or’. The downward
slanting arrows relate system to structure (for just the third person singular English
pronouns in Figure 7). For an introduction to this formalism, and the way in which
syntagmatic relations are used to both realize and motivate paradigmatic ones (the
dimension of axis in SFL), see Matthiessen and Halliday (2009) and Martin (2013b).
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Figure 7. Paradigmatic relations among English pronouns.

4. Functional grammar
To appreciate SFL’s perspective on paradigmatic relations, it is important to review the
rich syntagmatic descriptions through which they are realized. For this dimension of
SFL lineage we need to turn to the work of Whorf. For Whorf it was important in lin-
guistic description to distinguish between phenotypes and cryptotypes. By phenotypes
he was referring to categories manifested explicitly, essentially in the morphology of a
language; by cryptotypes he meant categories that are in a sense hidden, but which
manifest themselves when structures are mutated in particular ways. One of his
examples concerns English adjectives, which form ‘two main cryptotypes with sub-
classes … A group referring to ‘inherent’ qualities … has the reactance of being
placed nearer the noun than the other group … of noninherent qualities’ (1942;
1956: 93). So on the surface, what appears to be a single class of adjectives …

a pretty girl
a French girl

… turns out two be two classes, as reflected in their ‘reactance’ when combined:

a pretty French girl

*a French pretty girl

Fillmore drew on Whorf’s notion of cryptotype in his original formulation of case

grammar, drawing attention to the ‘affectum/effectum’ distinction in the clauses
below (1968: 4):
 WORD 41

John ruined the table.

John built the table.

The relevant reactance in this case manifests itself when we interrogate the process
with do to:

What did John do to the table?

- Ruined it.

What did John do to the table?

- *Built it.

The ‘mutations’ relevant to this kind of exploration of reactances were formalized in

Gleason (1965) in relation to his concepts of enation (roughly same structure, different
words) and agnation (roughly different structures, same words). Pursuing Whorf’s
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

example, the following structures would be treated as enate:

a pretty French girl

a pretty Spanish girl
a pretty Australian girl

… and the following structural pairs as agnate:

a pretty French girl

a very pretty French girl

a pretty Spanish girl

a very pretty Spanish girl

a pretty Australian girl

a very pretty Australian girl

Whorf felt that an analysis of cryptotypes was a crucial part of linguistic description,
especially if one wanted to explore the ways of analysing and reporting experience
which have become fixed in the language as integrated ‘fashions of speaking’ and
which cut across the typical grammatical classifications, so that such a ‘fashion’
may include lexical, morphological, syntactic, and otherwise systemically diverse
means coordinated in a certain frame of consistency. (1942; 1956: 158)
This expanded vision as far as what counts as grammatical description is con-
cerned is fundamental to Halliday’s work on grammatical analysis. For Halliday
one key reactance distinguishing inherent from non-inherent qualities would be grad-
ability (note that in the following pairs, the second nominal group is grammatical only
if French and Australian are read as non-inherent qualities):

a very pretty girl

*a very French girl

a very lovely girl

*a very Australian girl
 42 J.R. Martin

Rather than introduce an indefinite number of subclasses of adjectives based on these

and other reactances, Halliday’s strategy is to distinguish between function (the role an
item plays in a structure) and class (what the item is) – and so between labels for func-
tions (aka relations) and labels for classes (aka categories). So pretty, French and
Spanish would all be classified as adjectives in the analyses below (since for example
both can appear as descriptors in a relational attributive clause like She’s French/
Spanish), and simultaneously interpreted functionally as an Epithet ^ Classifier struc-
ture (since they can’t be graded when specifying a type of girl).
A pretty French girl
function Deictic Epithet Classifier Thing
class determiner adjective adjective noun

A pretty Spanish girl

function Deictic Epithet Classifier Thing
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

class determiner adjective adjective noun

This demonstrates one respect in which grammatical descriptions in SFL are func-
tional – since they distinguish between function and class, and thus between syntagms
(sequences of classes) and structures (configurations of functions). The complementar-
ity of function and class makes room for classes to perform more than one function
(e.g. a red dress vs. some red wine) and for the function to be realized by different
classes (e.g. some red wine vs. some sparkling wine). This in turn allows a wide range
of reactances to be brought into the picture and used to motivate distinctive function
structures. To give an example comparable to Fillmore’s reasoning about cases above,
Halliday’s functional descriptions of English distinguish verbal group ^ nominal group
syntagms in which a nominal group ‘complement’ is affected by the verbal group and
comparable syntagms where it is not. The ‘do to/do with’ reactance noted by Fillmore1
is relevant here, in relation to agnate textual and interpersonal variations of the foot-
ball examples below:

Messi kicked the ball.

Messi kicked the goal (making the score 3-2 for Barcelona).

What Messi did with the ball was kick it.

*What Messi did with the goal was kick it.

What did Messi do with the ball?

- Kicked it.

What did Messi do with the goal?

- *Kicked it.2

This is part of the cryptogrammatical reasoning leading Halliday to distinguish

Process Goal structures from Process Scope ones, although the two structures may
be realized by the same syntagm.
Messi kicked the ball
function structure Actor Process Goal
class syntagm nominal group verbal group nominal group
 WORD 43

Messi kicked the goal

function structure Actor Process Scope
class syntagm nominal group verbal group nominal group

SFL cryptogrammars typically provide rich functional interpretations of the gram-

mars of specific languages by reasoning along these lines. This raises the question of
how function structures are related to one another, to which we now turn (SFL
does not in other words propose that a grammar consists of a catalog of structures rea-
lized through a catalog of syntagms; the paradigmatic relations from which these
structures derive are crucial).

5. Systemic functional grammar

As noted above, SFL inherits the complementarity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relations from Saussure, Hjelsmlev and Firth, but privileges paradigmatic relations
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

over syntagmatic ones. How is this done? The most popular way to illustrate this has
been with reference to English MOOD. As is well known English realizes the negotiability
of its clauses early rather than late (like say Tagalog, but unlike Korean or Japanese
which realize negotiability late, in culminative position). Unlike most languages
English hives off the negotiability of the clause from its realization of process type
– as Subject (the nominal nub of negotiability) and as Finite (the verbal terms of
negotiability). And unlike most languages, English uses the sequence of the Subject
and Finite functions, or their absence, to distinguish moods. Accordingly, Halliday
proposes the following function structures to distinguish basic English mood types:
[declarative] Real Madrid have stopped Messi
Subject Finite Predicator Complement
nominal group verbal group nominal group
[interrogative] have Real Madrid stopped Messi
Finite Subject Predicator Complement
verbal … nominal group … group nominal group
[imperative] stop Messi
Predicator Complement
verbal group nominal group

From a paradigmatic perspective, declarative and interrogative can be grouped

together (as indicative), since they have both Subject and Finite functions (as
opposed to imperative which in the unmarked case has neither). And declarative
can be distinguished from interrogative with respect to the sequence of functions
(we’ll set aside wh- interrogative clauses to simplify the discussion here). The system

Figure 8. Two MOOD systems in relation to the function structures realizing them.
 44 J.R. Martin

network in Figure 8 below formalizes these options in relation to one another (as fea-
tures in systems ordered in delicacy) and specifies the contribution each selection
makes to English mood structure (+S means insert Subject, S^F means sequence
Subject before Finite); for a detailed introduction see Martin et al. (2013).
Formalization of this perspective has been mainly developed by Matthiessen and
his colleagues (e.g. Matthiessen and Bateman 1991, Matthiessen 1995 and the 3rd and
4th editions of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar). What is most signifi-
cant about privileging system over structure along these lines is that where class syn-
tagms and function structures (whether displayed as strings or ‘trees’) give us a look at
the organization of specific instances of language use, system networks give us a
synoptic perspective on the meaning potential of a language as a whole. This
enables SFL to model languages in cartographic terms as resources for meaning
rather than as lists of rules and this goes a long way to explaining why SFL is both
systemic and functional and what this affords.
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Perhaps the most powerful affordance of privileging paradigmatic relations as the

basic organizing principle in SFL theory and descriptions has been the emergence of
Halliday’s well-known concept of metafunctions. The foundational papers here are
Halliday’s often-cited (but I suspect seldom read) ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in
English’ (1967a; 1967b; 1968), alongside ‘Functional diversity of language as seen
from a consideration of modality and mood in English’ (1970a) and the more accessible
‘Options and functions in the English clause’ (1969); the ideas are popularized in Halli-
day (1970c). The 1969 paper was in fact published in the Czech Republic, underscoring
the affinity which Halliday acknowledges between this aspect of his functional perspec-
tive and the work of the Prague School (especially the work of Daneš 1964; cf. Firbas
1964, Vachek 1964; 1966). Halliday’s initial observations are based on the bundling of
systems in the system networks he and his colleagues in London were developing for
descriptions of various languages (including English, French, Nzema and Mbembe).
They observed that clause rank systems in particular displayed varying degrees of inter-
connectivity, with a high degree of interdependency tending to organize systems into
three groups – reflecting choices in what were referred to in general terms as TRANSI-
TIVITY, MOOD and THEME systems. These system bundles, Halliday argued, were
reflecting the intrinsic functional organization of language as far as what he called idea-
tional, interpersonal and textual meaning was concerned. These metafunctions came to
be generalized across ranks and strata, with ideational resources construing the world
around us (and inside us), interpersonal resources enacting social relations and textual
resources composing discourse. And over time, as research developed, they came to be
associated with different types of structure realization – ideational meaning with par-
ticulate structure (serial or orbital), interpersonal meaning with prosodic structure
and textual meaning with periodic structure (Halliday 1979, Martin 1996).
This highlights then the second main sense in which SFL is functional: it treats linguis-
tic systems and structures are intrinsically organized with respect to the complementary
kinds of meaning they construe, enact and compose. Note however that this metafunc-
tional perspective is not unrelated to the discussion of function structures in Section 4.
Without the cryptogrammatical reasoning motivating function structures introduced
there, the rich network of paradigmatic relations constituting the ‘deep grammar of
SFL’ would not have emerged. And without this rich network of relations to explore,
Halliday’s metafunctions would not have been conceived. Various motifs have been
proposed to image the metafunctional organization of language across ranks and strata
 WORD 45
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Figure 9. Mapping metafunctions across strata in SFL.

(e.g. the colored columns cutting across stratal rows on the front cover of the third edition
of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar). A crude outline3 of this cross-classifi-
cation is offered as Figure 9, which maps metafunctions across strata.

6. Systemic functional linguistics

As highlighted in Figure 9, SFL is a theory of language, not just grammar (although
many linguists still follow Chomsky’s unfortunate equivocation around the term
grammar – as referring the rule-governed nature of language as a whole rather than
simply to one of its strata – and so may refer to SFL as SFG). I will make some com-
ments on phonology, lexis and (discourse) semantics here.
SFL inherits its distinctive top-down perspective on phonology from Firth, who
championed a focus on trans-segmental dimensions of expression form (Palmer
1970) and was strongly critical of phoneme-based approaches which he dismissed as
theories of phonology based on alphabetic writing systems rather than the distinctive
features of sound systems themselves (Firth 1957b). Halliday developed this work
from an SFL perspective, most notably in his work on Chinese syllables (Halliday
1992) and English rhythm and intonation (Halliday 1967c; 1970b, Halliday and
Greaves 2008). Useful collections of SFL studies of expression form can be found
in Tench (1992) and Bowcher and Smith (2014).
From Firth SFL also inherits a concern with lexis as a linguistic level (Halliday
1966; cf. Figure 1). Firth’s interest in collocation (‘the company words keep’) has
been developed in corpus linguistic research – chiefly by Sinclair and his colleagues
(e.g. 1966; 1991) but less so in SFL where Halliday’s early acknowledgement of the dis-
tinction between words and lexical items and the need for a syntagmatic perspective on
expectancy relations among lexical items has tended to be backgrounded in relation to
an interest in lexis as delicate grammar (the ‘grammarian’s dream’, pursued by Hasan
1987, and others). The idea here is that the less delicate systems in system networks at
clause and group rank tend to be realized through structures and function words while
more delicate distinctions are realized through lexical items. Hasan’s initiative
 46 J.R. Martin

notwithstanding, SFL has been slow to develop reactance-based reasoning in pursuit

of this dream; and even if this unwieldy enterprise proves viable, it is not clear that it
obviates the need for collocation studies such as those pursued in corpus linguistics. As
Bateman (2008b) has cautioned, excessive privileging of paradigmatic relations in
SFL has some drawbacks, which need to be balanced by a stronger focus on syntag-
matic relations than has sometimes featured in SFL practice. Tucker (2007) engages
productively in this debate in an attempt to reconcile what he positions as the Halliday
(lexis as delicate grammar)/Sinclair (collocation patterns) division of labour.
As far as meaning beyond grammar is concerned, SFL is well known for its work
on cohesion (e.g. Halliday and Hasan 1976). From its conception, cohesion is regu-
larly positioned as a non-structural component of the textual metafunction in outlines
of the grammar of English by Halliday (e.g. 1970c4). Hasan (in Halliday and Hasan
1980; 1985: 82; 1989) pushes this work in the direction of semantics, including in
her framework reference, substitution, ellipsis, lexical cohesion and conjunction, as
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

well as adjacency pairs, continuatives and the structural contribution of parallelism,

Theme-Rheme development and Given-New organization (for discussion see
Martin in press a, in press b). Martin (as consolidated in Martin 1992) re-contextua-
lizes cohesion as discourse semantics, drawing together work by Gleason (e.g. 1968)
and Halliday and Hasan (1976). In his framework cohesive ties are re-interpreted as
discourse structures (mainly co-variate ones in Lemke’s (1985) terms); and discourse
semantic systems are organized metafunctionally in the proportions – ideation and
conjunction are to ideational meaning, as negotiation and appraisal are to interper-
sonal meaning, as identification and periodicity are to textual meaning (implicating
an association of particulate structure with ideation and conjunction, prosodic struc-
ture with negotiation and appraisal, and periodic structure with identification and
periodicity). An outline of this model of discourse semantics and implicated structural
motifs is presented as Figure 10; Martin and Rose (2003; 2007) provides an accessible
introduction. Significantly, this reconfiguration of cohesion as discourse semantic
system and structure made room for the development of appraisal, SFL’s model of
evaluation (covering values, stance, hedging, intensity and the like); the basic introduc-
tion is Martin and White (2005). Appraisal analysis, as noted by Tucker (2007),

Figure 10. Martin’s model of discourse semantic systems (and implicated structures).
 WORD 47

refocuses attention on the importance of the lexical items and their collocations as far
as making meaning is concerned; Bednarek (e.g. 2006; 2007; 2008) pursues this tack
in her corpus-based and corpus-driven studies of the language of evaluation.
Alternative approaches to semantics in SFL have tended to be based on the
meaning of clauses rather than a re-contextualization of cohesion. Hasan developed
earlier work by Turner and Halliday (e.g. Turner 1973) on sociosemantic networks
in the delicate semantic networks underpinning her work on the coding orientation
of mothers talking with their pre-school children, focusing on the variables of
gender and social class (as consolidated in Hasan 2009). The better known of these
networks (e.g. Hasan 2009: 283) can be read as foregrounding the semantics of
interpersonal meaning, and providing fine-grained distinctions sensitive to gender
and class as the networks are developed in delicacy (for further discussion see
Hasan et al. 2007).
Halliday himself has tended to foreground his theory of grammatical metaphor in
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

work demonstrating the need for a stratified content plane in SFL. His publications on
the evolution of the language of science (collected as Halliday 2004) focus on idea-
tional metaphor and the possibility of congruent and metaphorical encodings of enti-
ties, events and relators as participants, processes and circumstances. The basic
contrast here is between a clause complex such as they played poorly and so were elimi-
nated vs. their poor play led to their elimination. This work has had a major influence on
various applications of SFL, especially in education (e.g. Halliday and Martin 1993,
Martin and Maton 2013). The most comprehensive presentation of this work on idea-
tional metaphor is Halliday and Matthiessen (1999). Halliday (1984) focuses on the
complementary phenomenon of interpersonal metaphor, providing as he does so his
first clear model of distinct generalized semantic and grammatical paradigms – in
this case his semantic SPEECH FUNCTION network, which is realized congruently or
incongruently through MOOD. For an accessible introduction to this strand of reason-
ing as far as the need for a stratified content plane is concerned (cf. Figures 1 and 9),
see the grammatical metaphor chapters in any of the editions of Halliday’s Introduc-
tion to Functional Grammar; for more detailed studies see Simon-Vandenbergen
et al. (2003).

7. Systemic functional semiotics

7.1. Register and genre
At this point let us return to the tension arising from the models of language in
Figures 1 and 4. Recall that in Figure 1, Firth is in a sense reconciled with
Hjelmslev; language is configured as having complementary expression and
content planes (the Hjelmslevian inheritance), with context as an inter-level relating
grammar and lexis to extra-textual features (the Firthian inheritance). This model
pays respect to Firth’s orientation to meaning as function in context, a perspective
he in turn inherits from Malinowski (1923; 1935); cf. Firth (1957a; 1957c). By
Figure 4, however, we have a stratified model, featuring a stratified content plane
(so phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar and semantics) – with the apparent influ-
ence of Lamb foregrounded over that of Firth (probably reflecting Halliday’s
 48 J.R. Martin

dialogue with stratificational linguistics, which developed from the late 1960s when
he was a visiting Professor at Yale). This tri-stratal model of language, however,
gives us a misleading picture of the development of SFL as far as work on
context is concerned, as demonstrated in the papers collected in Language as
Social Semiotic (Halliday 1978), especially chapters 6, 7 and 10 therein. These
papers clarify that the levels of lexicogrammar and semantics in Figure 4 involve
stratification of Hjelmlev’s content form, not an outright replacement of the inter-
level of context5 with semantics.
Halliday’s (1961) notion of context is first developed in Halliday et al. (1964) as
field, mode and style. There field refers to what is going on, mode to the part language
plays in this activity and style to the relations among the participants. In order to
avoid confusion between this sense of the term style and work in literary stylistics,
Gregory’s term tenor (introduced in Spencer and Gregory 1964) is preferred in
later work. Note that this tri-partite model of context is formulated slightly before
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

the development of metafunctions as SFL’s paradigmatic formalization of deep

grammar evolves in the mid-1960s. By at least Halliday (1975) however (e.g. Halli-
day’s ‘Language as social semiotic’ published in The First LACUS Forum), the
field, mode and tenor dimensions of context are correlated with the ideational,
textual and interpersonal metafunctions, respectively, with extrinsic functionality
(i.e. contextual categories) variously described as ‘reflected in, determining, activat-
ing, associated with and realized through’ intrinsic functionality (i.e. metafunctions).
Table 2 outlines these correlations.

Table 2. SFL’s register (field, mode and tenor) and metafunction ‘hook-up’.

Extrinsic functionality (context) ‘reflected in … ’ Intrinsic functionality (metafunction)

Field construed by Ideational resources

Mode composed by Textual resources
Tenor enacted by Interpersonal resources

Martin and Matthiessen (1991) use the co-tangential circle motif to model
context as an additional stratum of meaning, by way of reflecting SFL’s developing
concern with networking field, mode and tenor as patterns of linguistic patterns (see
Halliday 2002; 2005: 255–6 for a clear articulation of this agenda). In Hjelmslev’s
terms context is being modeled as a connotative semiotic, with language (a deno-
tative semiotic) as its expression plane. Halliday (Martin 2013a: 215) comments
on privileging context as a more abstract stratum of meaning along these lines as
follows: ‘Can we actually model and represent and interpret context within the fra-
mework of what is generally involved as a theory of language? Firth thought you
could and I think so too if only because it’s the best chance you’ve got.’ This con-
ception of the relation of context to the model of language outlined in Figure 4 is
presented in Figure 11.
 WORD 49
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Figure 11. Context as a stratum of meaning (in relation to Hjelmslev’s notion of connotative
and denotative semiotics).

Alternative models of context developed in the 1960s proposed four variables

instead of three. Gregory (1967) suggests field, mode, personal tenor and functional
tenor; and Ellis and Ure (1969) (see also Ure and Ellis, published 1977) suggest
field, mode, formality and role. Fawcett (1980) later on suggests subject matter,
channel, relationship purpose and pragmatic purpose. The first three variables in
each of these proposals map naturally onto metafunctions along the lines Halliday
pursued. The relation of the ‘purpose’ variable (i.e. functional tenor, role, pragmatic
purpose) to metafunctions is less clear. It was this, in part, that prompted Martin
and his students to develop a stratified model of context in the 1980s, with the
social purpose of a text as a more abstract variable, realized through field, mode
and tenor – see Figure 12. This model is consolidated in Martin (1992) (see Martin
1999; 2001, in press c for clarification), with context stratified as genre realized
through register (with register used as a cover term for field, mode and tenor
systems). Martin and Rose (2008) focuses on these higher order genre systems, with
genre treated as a level of emergent complexity beyond register systems (a metaredun-
dant pattern of field, mode and tenor patterns in other words). Martin (1984) is a
popularization of this model for language educators.

7.2. Multimodality
The other main development in systemic functional semiotics (hereafter SFS) since the
1980s has been the emergence of multimodal discourse analysis, initially inspired by
the work of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) and O’Toole (1994). Both initiatives
take metafunctions as a crucial point of departure. Kress and van Leeuwen concen-
trated on images, and proposed ideational, interpersonal and textual systems realized
by distinctive image structures. Martinec (2005) and O’Halloran et al. (2015) review
this strand of SFL-inspired research, which has pushed beyond single static images
to model picture books, film, embodied behavior, paralanguage, music and sound,
 50 J.R. Martin
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Figure 12. Martin’s stratified mode of context in relation to metafunctions and language
strata.

sculpture, architecture and typography as semiotic systems. In this respect, SFS has in
effect consummated the vision of Saussure and Hjelmslev by construing a range of
modalities of communication other than language as semiotic systems in their own
right. The crucial step in this enterprise has been SFL’s privileging of paradigmatic
relations, allowing systemic functional semioticians to range across a wide range of
modalities which make meaning through very different ‘structural’ resources. For a
critical discussion of these developments, see Martin (2011); and for a critical intro-
duction, see Bateman (2014).
This work by SFS scholars has transformed discourse analysis, moving it on from
an analysis of linguistic patterns in discourse to a necessarily intermodal consideration
of language in relation to attendant modalities of communication. In relation to
Figure 1, it reconfigures an indefinitely large proportion of what is there referred to
as ‘extra-textual reality’ as semiotic systems. And this makes the ‘extra-textual’ amen-
able both to analysis in its own terms and to consideration in relation to language in
ways that have considerably enriched our understanding of social semiosis. For key
multimodal exemplars, see Bateman (2008a) and Painter et al. (2013). The major
theoretical challenge arising from this work has to do with developing ways of model-
ing the seamless integration of resources from different modalities as they are instan-
tiated in a single text. Some suggestions for pursuing this challenge are introduced in
Bednarek and Martin (2010) and the papers in the special double issue of Text & Talk
(2013) edited by Geoff Thompson and comprising papers dedicated to Michael Halli-
day as he approached his 90th birthday (in April 2015). At stake here is some kind of
resolution of SFL’s conception of instantiation (the relation of system to text) in
relation to its hierarchy of abstraction (the strata and metafunctions introduced
 WORD 51

above). Critical to this resolution is Halliday’s perspective on instantiation as a cline

rather than an opposition – his Hjelmslev influenced reworking of Saussure’s language
and parole (e.g. Halliday 2008b on complementarities in language).

8. Meaning matters
It is of course impossible in a short survey paper of this kind to do justice to all of the
significant moments and movements in the development of SFL. Regrettably, I have
set aside the enduring tradition of descriptive work across languages and language
families; Caffarel et al. (2004) provides a window on this work (see also Matthiessen
et al. 2008, Teruya and Matthiessen 2015). The relation of these studies to work on
translation has also been set aside; see Steiner and Yallop (2001) and de Souza
(2010) for important studies. In addition I have concentrated on theory rather than
applications, and so have not attended to the important dialectic of theory and prac-
tice unfolding as SFL/SFS scholars have pursued action research in the fields of edu-
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

cational linguistics, forensic linguistics and clinical linguistics, among others. The
review articles and foundational papers noted in Section 1 survey these initiatives;
Rose and Martin (2012) canvass one of the best known of these – the genre-based lit-
eracy programmes of the so-called ‘Sydney School’ (Martin 2012 collects some of his
key papers related to this action research).
What has been possible in this short survey is a tour of the intellectual genealogy of
SFL, which as we have seen has drawn various strands of European and North Amer-
ican inquiry and then flourished in the more encouraging intellectual climes of the
southern hemisphere and Asia. As Matthiessen (2015) notes, many of the foundational
concepts reviewed here were less than fashionable when introduced, but have become
more widely accepted over time. The paradigm shifts he references include:

– a more integrated perspective on the relation of grammar to lexis (as opposed to

separate modules)
– increasing interest in the probabilistic nature of language (as opposed to cata-
logues of categorical rules)
– indications of a more balanced approach to paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relations (as opposed to a primarily structural approach)
– a more prosodic approach to phonology, featuring ‘long components’, rhythm
and intonation (as opposed to a segmental ‘phonemes composed of features’
model)
– a social interactive perspective on language development (as opposed to innately
constrained acquisition)
– acceptance of the dialectic of theory and practice (as opposed to linguistics and
applied linguistics as distinct disciplines)

It is perhaps the last of these that has been the hallmark of SFL, as flagged early on
in Halliday’s (1964) ‘Syntax and the consumer’ paper – presented at a Georgetown
Roundtable meeting where he was apparently laughed out of court because ‘there
could only be one true theory of grammar’ (Matthiessen 2015: 196). Halliday
(2008a: 7) has returned to this enduring theme more recently, with reference to what
he has christened ‘appliable linguistics’; this he characterizes as a comprehensive
and theoretically powerful model of language which, precisely because it was
 52 J.R. Martin

comprehensive and powerful, would be capable of being applied to the problems, both
research problems and practical problems, that are being faced all the time by the
many groups of people in our modern society who are in some way or other having
to engage with language.
Few linguists I suspect would laugh this vision out of court today. There are too
many fellow travelers around, committed to studying language in use and engaging
with practical communication problems in their communities. But to succeed in this
endeavour, you need more than good will. You need an evolving functional theory
of language and semiosis to power you along. Through what complementary and over-
lapping strands of lineage will our fellow travelers develop the theory and descriptions
they need to find their way?

Disclosure statement
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes
1. Interestingly, Halliday does not use this reactance to distinguish ‘affectum’ from ‘effectum’
function structures in his description of English, although it is part of the motivation for
his paradigmatic distinction between creative and dispositive types of material process
(both involving a generalized Goal function); more delicate function structures reflecting
this creative/dispositive opposition would of course be possible.
2. Unless we mean something like ‘kicked the goal post’.
3. The space enclosed by the curved lines in Figure 9 in the smallest circle (expression form) has
no significance; it arises simply from an only partly successful attempt in the image to give
more equal weight (i.e. area) to each metafunction as we move from one stratum to the next.
4. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 29) actually refer to a diagram of this kind as an outline of
English semantics, with cohesion positioned alongside familiar TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and
THEME systems. I take this simply as an attempt by Halliday to offer readers a way of inter-
preting his rich descriptions during a McCarthyist phase of linguistics when work outside of
Chomsky’s formalization of American structuralist immediate constituent analysis was pro-
scribed. By the 1980s comparable function/rank matrices are regularly referred to as maps of
grammatical, not semantic resources.
5. Halliday (1961), footnote 13, clarifies that the term context is preferred in the Figure 1 model
because the term semantics is usually understood in terms of attempts to relate linguistic
forms to concepts (to relate observables to unobservables in other words), whereas work
on context focuses attention on the relation of linguistic form to abstractions from extralin-
guistic observables.

References
Bartlett, T. & G. O’Grady. in press. The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics.
London: Routledge.
Bateman, J. 2008a. Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multi-
modal documents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bateman, J. A. 2008b. Systemic functional linguistics and the notion of linguistics structure:
Unanswered questions, new possibilities. In J. J. Webster (ed.), 2008, Meaning in context:
Strategies for implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 24–58. London:
Continuum.
Bateman, J. A. 2014. Text and image: A critical introduction to the verbal/visual divide. London:
Routledge.
 WORD 53

Bednarek, M. 2006. Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London/

New York: Continuum.
Bednarek, M. 2007. Polyphony in appraisal: Typological and topological perspectives.
Linguistics and the Human Sciences 3.2. 107–36.
Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bednarek, M. & J. R. Martin (eds.). 2010. New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on
multimodality, identity and affiliation. London: Continuum.
Bowcher, W. L. & B. A. Smith (eds.). 2014. Systemic phonology: Recent studies in English.
London: Equinox.
Caffarel, A., J. R. Martin & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A func-
tional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Daneš, F. 1964. A three-level approach to syntax. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1. 225–40.
Ellis, J. & J. Ure. 1969. Language varieties: Register. In A. R. Meetham (ed.), Encyclopedia of
linguistics: Information and control, 251–9. Oxford: Pergamon.
Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a
systemic functional grammar and the other components of an interacting mind. Heidelberg:
Julius Gross.
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory,
1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Firbas, J. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective. Travaux Linguistiques
de Prague 1. 267–80.
Firth, J. R. 1957a. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In Studies in linguistic analysis
(Special volume of the Philological Society), 1–31. London: Blackwell. [reprinted in
F. R. Palmer. 1968. Selected papers of J R Firth 1952–1959. 168–205. London: Longman.]
Firth, J. R. 1957b. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.
Firth, J. R. 1957c. Ethnographic analysis and language with reference to Malinowski’s views. In
R. W. Firth (ed.), Man and culture: An evaluation of the work of Bronislaw Malinowski, 93–
118. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [reprinted in F. R. Palmer. 1968. Selected papers of
J R Firth 1952–1959. 137–67. London: Longman.]
Garcia, A. in press. An introduction to relational network theory. London: Equinox.
Gleason, H. A. Jr. 1965. Linguistics and English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gleason, H. A. Jr. 1968. Contrastive analysis in discourse structure. Monograph Series on
Languages and Linguistics 21 (Georgetown University Institute of Languages and
Linguistics). [reprinted in Makkai & Lockwood 1973: 258–76].
Gregory, M. 1967. Aspects of varieties differentiation. Journal of Linguistics 3. 177–98.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. WORD 17.3. 241–92. [reprinted
in J. J. Webster (ed.) On Grammar. 37–94. (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K.
Halliday). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1964. Syntax and the consumer. In Georgetown monograph series in
languages and linguistics, 17. Georgetown, D.C.: Georgetown University Press [reprinted in
Halliday & Martin. (eds.) 1981. Readings in systemic linguistics. 21–28. London: Batsford;
and in J. J. Webster (ed.) 2003. On language and linguistics. 36–49 (Vol. 3 in the Collected
Works of M. A. K. Halliday) London: Continuum.]
Halliday, M. A. K. 1966. Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford & M. A. K.
Halliday (eds.), In memory of J R Firth, 148–62. London: Longman. [reprinted in J. J. Webster
(ed.) 2002. On grammar. 158–72 (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday)
London: Continuum.]
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967a. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal
of Linguistics 3.1. 37–81. [reprinted in J. J. Webster (ed.) 2005. Studies in English language.
5–54. (Vol. 7 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday) London: Continuum.]
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal
of Linguistics 3.2. 199–244. [reprinted in Webster (ed.) 2005. Studies in English language.
55–109]. (Vol. 6 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967c. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 3. Journal of
Linguistics 4.2. 179–215. [reprinted in Webster (ed.) 2005. Studies in English language. 110–
53]. (Vol. 6 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday). London: Continuum.
 54 J.R. Martin

Halliday, M. A. K. 1969. Options and functions in the English clause. Brno Studies in English 8.
81–8. [reprinted in Halliday & Martin (ed.) 1981. Readings in systemic linguistics. 138–45.
London: Batsford].
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970a. Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of
modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6.3. 322–61. [reprinted in part as
Modality and modulation in English. In G. Kress (ed.) 1976. Halliday: System and function
in language. 189–213. Oxford: OUP; and in J. J. Webster (ed.) 2005. Studies in English
language. 164–204]. (Vol. 6 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday). London:
Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970b. A course in spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University
Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970c. Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (ed.), New
horizons in linguistics, 140–65. Harmondsworth: Penguin [reprinted in J. J. Webster (ed.)
2002. On grammar. 173–95]. (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday).
London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Language as social semiotic. In A. Makkai & V. B. Makkai (eds.), The
first LACUS forum, 241–92. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press [reprinted in J. J. Webster (ed.)
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

2007. Language and society. 169–201. (Vol. 10 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday).
London: Continuum. Halliday 1978: 108–126].
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 D. J. Allerton, E.
Carney & D. Holcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistics analysis: Essays offers to
William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [reprinted in J. J. Webster
(ed.) 2002. On grammar. 196–218]. (Vol. 1 of the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday)
London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional
interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In R. Fawcett, M. A. K. Halliday, S.
M. Lamb & A. Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture: Vol. 1: Language as
social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter [reprinted in J. J. Webster (ed.) 2003. The language of
early childhood. 227–50. (Vol. 4 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday) London:
Continuum].
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
[revised 2nd edition 1994; revised 3rd edition, with C. M. I. M. Matthiessen 2004; revised
4th edition, by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen 2014].
Halliday, M. A. K. 1992. A systemic interpretation of Peking syllable finals. In Tench 1992: 98–
121. [reprinted in J. J. Webster (ed.) 2005. Studies in Chinese language. 294–320. (Vol. 8 in the
Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday) London: Continuum].
Halliday, M. A. K. 2002. Computing meaning: Some reflections on past experience and present
prospects. In G. W. Huang & Z. Y. Wang (eds.), Discourse and language functions, 3–25.
Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [reprinted in J. J. Webster (ed.)
2005. Computational and quantitative studies. 239–67]. (Vol. 6 in the Collected Works of
M. A. K. Halliday). London: Continuum).
Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. The language of science (Vol. 5 in the Collected Works of M. A. K.
Halliday, edited by J. J. Webster). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2008a. Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. In J. J.
Webster (ed.) 2008, Meaning in context: Strategies for implementing intelligent applications
of language studies, 7–23. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2008b. Complementarities in language. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & W. S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the grammar of English. London:
Equinox.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman (English
Language Series 9).
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1980. Text and context: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Sophia Linguistica VI. Tokyo: The Graduate School of Languages and
Linguistics & the Linguistic Institute for International Communication, Sophia University.
 WORD 55

[new edition published as M. A. K. Halliday & R Hasan. 1985. Language, context, and text:
Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press]
[republished by Oxford University Press 1989].
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy & discursive power. London:
Falmer and Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A
language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh & P. Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teach-
ing. London: Longman (Longmans’ Linguistics Library).
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. J. Webster (eds.). 2009. Continuum companion to systemic functional lin-
guistics. London: Continuum.
Hasan, R. 1987. The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar. In M. A. K.
Halliday & R. P. Fawcett (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics Vol. 1: Theory
and description, 184–211. London: Pinter [reprinted in R. Hasan 1966 Ways of saying:
Ways of meaning (Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan edited by C. Cloran, D. Butt &
G. Williams). London: Cassell. 73–103].
Hasan, R. 2009. Semantic variation: Meaning in society and sociolinguistics. London: Equinox
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

(Vol. 2 in the Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, edited by J. J. Webster).

Hasan, R., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & J. J. Webster (eds.). 2005. Continuing discourse on
language: A functional perspective. Vol. 1. London: Equinox.
Hasan, R., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & J. J. Webster (eds.). 2007. Continuing discourse on
language: A functional perspective. Vol. 2. London: Equinox.
Hjelmslev, L. 1947. Structural analysis of language. Studia Linguistica 1. 69–78.
Hjelmslev, L. 1961. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Kress, G. & T. van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London:
Routledge [revised 2nd edition 2006].
Lamb, S. 1966. Epilegomena to a theory of language. Romance Philology. 19: 531–73.
Lemke, J. L. 1985. Ideology, intertextuality and the notion of register. In J. D. Benson & W. S.
Greaves (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse Vol. 1: Selected theoretical papers from the
9th International Systemic Workshop, 275–94. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. 1995 Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
Lockwood, D. G. 1972. Introduction to stratificational linguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.
Makkai, A. & D. Lockwood. 1973. Readings in stratificational linguistics. University, Al:
Alabama University Press.
Malinowski, B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement I to
C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards, The meaning of meaning, 296–336. New York: Harcourt
Brace & World.
Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral gardens and their magic. London: Allen & Unwin.
Martin, J. R. 1984. Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (ed.), Children writing: Reader,
21–30. Geelong: Deakin University Press (ECT language studies: Children writing) [revised
for A. Burns & C. Coffin (eds.) 2001, Analyzing English in a global context: A reader. 149–
66. Clevedon: Routledge (Teaching English Language Worldwide)] [Japanese translation
by Hiro Tsukada published in Shidonii Gakuha no SFL: Haridei Gengo Riron no Tenkai.
Toktyo: Liber Press. 2005.] [further revised for C. Coffin, T. Lillis & K. O’Halloran (eds.)
2010, Applied linguistics methods: A reader. London: Routledge. 12–32] [reprinted in
Martin 2012. Genre studies. 47–68]. (Volume 3 in the Collected Works of J. R. Martin
edited by Wang Zhenhua). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
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 E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (ed.), Computational and conversational discourse:
Burning issues - an interdisciplinary account, 39–66. Heidelberg: Springer (NATO
Advanced Science Institute Series F - Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 151) [reprinted
in Martin 2010. SFL Theory. 343–85 (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of J. R. Martin edited
by Wang Zhenhua). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University Press].
 56 J.R. Martin

Martin, J. R. 1999. Modelling context: The crooked path of progress in contextual linguistics
(Sydney SFL). In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics, 25–61.
Amsterdam: Benjamins (CILT Series IV) [reprinted in Martin 2012. Genre studies. 222–47.
(Vol. 3 in the Collected Works of J. R. Martin edited by Wang Zhenhua). Shanghai:
Shanghai Jiaotong University Press.]
Martin, J. R. 2001. A context for genre: Modelling social processes in functional linguistics. In J.
Devilliers & R. Stainton (eds.), Communication in linguistics: Papers in honour of Michael
Gregory, 287–328. Toronto: GREF (Theoria Series 10) [reprinted in Martin 2012. Genre
studies. 248–77]. (Volume 3 in the Collected Works of J. R. Martin edited by Wang
Zhenhua). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. 2011. Multimodal semiotics: Theoretical challenges. In S. Dreyfus, S. Hood & M.
Stenglin (eds.), Semiotic margins: Reclaiming meaning, 243–70. London: Continuum [re-
printed in J. R. Martin & Y. J. Doran 2015c: 352–78].
Martin, J. R. 2012. Language in education (Vol. 7 in the Collected Works of J. R. Martin edited
by Wang Zhenhua). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. (ed.). 2013a. Interviews with Michael Halliday: Language turned back on himself.
London: Bloomsbury.
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Martin, J. R. 2013b. Modelling context: Matter as meaning. In C. Gouveia & M. Alexandre

(eds.), Languages, metalanguages, modalities, cultures: Functional and socio-discursive per-
spectives, 10–64. Lisbon: BonD & ILTEC.
Martin, J. R. 2014. Evolving systemic functional linguistics: Beyond the clause. Functional
Linguistics 1.3. 2014. http://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/
Martin, J. R. in press a. Discourse semantics. In G. Thompson, W. Boucher, L. Fontaine & J. Y.
Liang (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. in press b. Meaning beyond the clause: Co-textual relations. In X. T. Cheng, X. W.
Peng & J. J. Webster (eds.), The making of meaning: Grammar, society and consciousness.
London: Bloomsbury.
Martin, J. R. in press c. One of three traditions: Genre, functional linguistics and the ‘Sydney
School’. In N. Artemeva & A. Freedman (eds.), Trends and traditions in genre studies.
Edmonton, AB: Inkshed Publications.
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran (eds.). 2015a. Grammatics. London: Routledge (Critical concepts in
linguistics: Systemic functional linguistics, Vol. 1).
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran (eds.). 2015b. Grammatical descriptions. London: Routledge (Critical
concepts in linguistics: Systemic functional linguistics, Vol. 2).
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran (eds.). 2015c. Around grammar: Phonology, discourse semantics and
multimodality. London: Routledge (Critical concepts in linguistics: Systemic functional lin-
guistics, Vol. 3).
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran (eds.). 2015d. Context: Register and genre. London: Routledge
(Critical concepts in linguistics: Systemic functional linguistics, Vol. 4).
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran (eds.). 2015e. Language in education. London: Routledge (Critical
concepts in linguistics: Systemic functional linguistics, Vol. 5).
Martin, J. R. & K. Maton. 2013. Cumulative knowledge-building in secondary schooling.
Special Issue of Linguistics and Education 24.1.
Martin, J. R. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1991. Systemic typology and topology. In F. Christie
(ed.), Literacy in social processes: Papers from the inaugural Australian Systemic Linguistics
Conference, held at Deakin University, January 1990, 345–383. Darwin: Centre for Studies
in Language in Education, Northern Territory University [reprinted in Martin 2010. SFL
Theory. 343–85 (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of J. R. Martin edited by Wang Zhenhua).
Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University Press, 167–215].
Martin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2003/2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd
revised edition). London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R. & P. R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London:
Palgrave.
Martin, J. R., Y. S. Zhu & P. Wang. 2013. Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the
theory – axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
 WORD 57

Martinec, R. 2005. Topics in multimodality. In Hasan et al. (eds.), Continuing discourse on

language: A functional perspective, 157–81, Vol. 1. London: Equinox.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo:
International Language Sciences Publishers.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2007a. The ‘architecture’ of language according to systemic functional
theory: Developments since the 1970s. In R. Hasan et al. (eds.), Continuing discourse on
language: A functional perspective, 505–62, Vol. 2. London: Equinox.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2007b. Lexicogrammar in systemic functional linguistics: Descriptive
and theoretical developments in the “IFG” tradition since the 1970s. In R. Hasan et al. (eds.),
765–858. London: Equinox.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2009. Ideas and new directions. In M.A.K. Halliday & J. J. Webster
(eds.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics, 12–58. London: Continuum.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2010. Systemic functional linguistics developing. Annual Review of
Functional Linguistics 2. 64–93 (Higher Education Press, Beijing).
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2015. Halliday on language. In J. J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury
companion to M A K Halliday, 137–202. London: Bloomsbury.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & J. Bateman. 1991. Text generation and systemic linguistics:
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016

Experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & M. A. K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic functional grammar: A first step
into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., K. Teruya & M. Lam. 2010. Key terms in systemic functional linguis-
tics. London: Continuum.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., K. Teruya & C. Wu. 2008. Multilingual studies as a multi-dimen-
sional space of interconnected language studies. In J. J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context:
Strategies for implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 146–220. London:
Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L., S. Tan & K. L. E. Marissa. 2015. Multimodal semiosis and semiotics. In J. J.
Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday, 386–411. London:
Bloomsbury.
O’Toole, M. 1994. The language of displayed art. London: Leicester University Press (a division
of Pinter) [2nd revised edition Routledge 2011].
Painter, C., J. R. Martin & L. Unsworth. 2013. Reading visual narratives: Image analysis in chil-
dren’s picture books. London: Equinox.
Palmer, F. R. (ed.). 1970. Prosodic analysis. London: Oxford University Press.
Rose, D. & J. R. Martin. 2012. Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and peda-
gogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.
Saussure, F. 1916/1966. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A-M., M. Taverniers & L. J. Ravelli. (eds.) 2003. Grammatical metaphor:
Systemic and functional perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. McH. 1966. Beginning the study of lexis. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford & M. A. K.
Halliday (eds.), In memory of J R Firth, 410–30. London: Longman.
Sinclair, J. McH. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Souza, L. M. F. 2010. Interlingual re-instantiation: A model for a new and more comprehensive
systemic functional perspective on translation. PhD thesis. Santa Catarina: Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina.
Spencer, J. & M. J. Gregory. 1964. An approach to the study of style. In N. E. Enkvist, J. Spencer
& M. J. Gregory (eds.), Linguistics and style, 57–105. London: Oxford (Language and
Language Learning).
Steiner, E. & C. Yallop. (eds.). 2001. Exploring translation and multilingual text production:
Beyond content. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tench, P. (ed.). 1992. Studies in systemic phonology. London: Pinter Publishers.
Teruya, K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2015. Halliday in relation to language comparison and
typology. In J. J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M A K Halliday, 427–52.
London: Bloomsbury.
Thompson, G. (ed.). 2013. Text & talk 33. 4–5. (Special Issue in Honour of Michael Halliday).
Thompson, T., W. Boucher, L. Fontaine & J. Y. Liang. (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of sys-
temic functional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.
 58 J.R. Martin

Tucker, G. 2007. Between lexis and grammar: Towards a systemic functional approach to phra-
seology. In R. Hasan et al. (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective,
953–78. London: Equinox.
Turner, G. J. 1973. Social class and children’s language of control. In B. Bernstein (ed.), Class,
codes and control 2: Applied studies towards a sociology of language, 135–201. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul (Primary socialisation, language and education).
Ure, J. & J. Ellis. 1977. Register in descriptive linguistics and linguistic sociology. In O. Uribe-
Villas (ed.), Issues in sociolinguistics, 197–243. The Hague: Mouton.
Vachek, J. (ed.). 1964. A Prague school reader in linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Vachek, J. 1966. The linguistic school of Prague: An introduction to its theory and practice.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Webster, J. J. (ed.). 2015. The Bloomsbury companion to M A K Halliday. London: Bloomsbury.
Whorf, B. L. 1942/1956. Language, thought and reality: Selected writings. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 08:08 31 May 2016