BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY
3.8 Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1978)
Coffin and Donohue (2012) describe Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday 1978; 1985a) as a theory of language which highlights the relationship between language, text and context. It sets out to explain how humans make meaning through language and other semiotic resources, and to understand the relationship between language and society (65). This means that language cannot be separated from either its speakers or its context (Holtz, 2009). For Polias (2004), context is the non-verbal environment of the text. It is made up of two parts: the broad context of culture and the more specific context of situation.
Halliday and Martin (1993) summarize the five orientations of SFL as:
● the description of language as a resource rather than a system of
85 rules;
● concern[ed] with texts - rather than sentences – as the basic unit through which meaning is negotiated;
● focuses on the solidary relations between texts and social contexts rather than on texts as decontextualized structural entities in their own right;
● concern[ed] with language as a system for construing meaning and;
● developing an elaborate model in which language ... can be viewed in communicative (i.e. semiotic ) terms (22).
Halliday (1994) sees language as a social phenomenon and language is explained as a result of countless social interactions. “Halliday’s (1994) Systemic Functional Linguistics model sees language as a social meaning system where text is situated in context. Hence, every interaction reveals some information about the situational context itself and the cultural context in which that language is used” (Polias, 2004: 3). As a theory of language, SFL is particularly relevant for this study in terms of the way in which it highlights the relationship between language, text and context. One of the key tenets of SFL is that language is a resource for making meaning. In this study, students need to understand how language is used to convey meaning in specific contexts of situation, showing the interrelationship between language and context. In SFL, texts are analysed in terms of linguistics as well as its social meaning, fitting in with the NLS view of literacy as being a social phenomenon. Critical research question 1 of this study outlines this relationship between language, text and context. SFL sees language and social context as complementary abstractions, which is outlined in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2: Language as the Realization of Social Context (Martin, 1997: 4)
In the model (Halliday and Martin, 1993; Martin, 1997) above, concentric circles are used to illustrate the establishment of one semiotic system (language) as the realization of
86
another more abstract semiotic system (social context). Halliday and Martin (1993) explain that “the notion of ‘realization’ implies that one system redounds with the other: language construes, is construed by and (over time) reconstrues and is reconstrued by social context.
Their use of the double headed arrow in the diagram symbolizes this mutual determination”
(24). Expanding on this, Derewianka (2007) notes that “context and language are co- constructed: the context helps to shape [the] use of language and the language choices [made] to help to shape the context” (849).
In SFL, the immediate context of a text is described in terms of the main variables that influence the way language is used (Mohan and Slater, 2005: 155): ‘field’ (the subject matter or the activity being developed), ‘tenor’ (the social role and relationships between the interactants) and ‘mode’ (the medium and role of language) (Derewianka, 2007: 849).
In terms of this study, SFL is necessary in exploring the role of language in disciplinary meaning making and this is explored through critical research question 1 which pays attention to ‘field’ and ‘mode’. The way in which ‘tenor’ influences how language is used in context is explored through critical research question 3. By doing so, this satisfies the dictates of SFL which is to expand students’ meaning making resources by providing them with the linguistic competencies necessary to do so, allowing them to engage with the discourses of the academy.
For Halliday (1985a), the structure of language reflects the functions it serves, as indicated in the following metafunctions:
● experiential or ideational function (representing our experiences of the world);
● the interpersonal function (mediating interaction) and;
● textual function (structuring the flow of information) (Derewianka, 2007: 849).
The three main variables (field, tenor and mode) are respectively related to each of the three metafunctions as indicated in the Table 2 below.
Metafunction Contextual correlate
Experiential or ideational Field
Interpersonal Tenor
Textual Mode
Table 2: Metafunctions and Contextual Categories (Adapted from Halliday and Martin, 1993: 30)
87
In representing the social action, the field refers to the nature of the social action that is taking place: what is it that the participants are engaged in? Depending on the field being developed, certain choices will be made from the experiential or ideational system. Tenor is indicative of the role structure, referring to who is taking part, the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles: and what kinds of role relationships are obtained among the participants. Depending on the tenor of the situation, certain choices will be made from the interpersonal system. Mode, in representing the symbolic organization, refers to the role language is playing, in other words, what is it that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in the situation. Depending on the mode and medium, certain choices will be made from the textual system. In any given utterance, all three metafunctions operate simultaneously (Halliday, 1985a; Halliday and Martin, 1993;
Schleppegrell, 2002; Derewianka, 2007). Halliday and Martin (1993) describe this as the metafunctional cross-classification of planes which they have represented diagrammatically in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Meta-functional solidarity across planes (Halliday and Martin, 1993: 30)
Figure 4 on the following page is a comprehensive diagrammatic representation of Halliday’s (1994) SFL (adapted from Polias, 2004; Halliday and Martin, 1993: 30).
88
Figure 4: Halliday’s Functional Model of Language (adapted from Polias, 2004: 3; Halliday and Martin, 1993: 30)
In the diagram above, Polias (2004) explains that context is the non-verbal environment of the text and it is made up of the broad context of culture and the more specific context of situation. The context of situation is organized according to field, tenor and mode. The combination of these three variables makes up the register (4). A register is the constellation of lexical and grammatical features that characterizes particular uses of language (Halliday and Hasan, 1989; Martin, 1992). “Registers refer to the fact that the language we speak or write varies according to the type of situation” (Halliday, 1978: 31).
On the subject of registers, Schleppegrell (2001) states that:
Registers vary because what we do with language varies from context to context. The choice of different lexical and grammatical options is related to the functional purposes that are foregrounded by speakers/writers in responding to the demands of various tasks. Texts produced for different purposes in different contexts have different features ... In other words, the grammatical choices are made on the basis of the speaker’s perception of the social context, and those choices then also serve to instantiate that
social context (432).
Register, which outlines the link between context and lexicogrammatical choices, is a fundamental element in this study as students studying the disciplines of science need to become conscious of register as a mode of conveying science content knowledge. Register
89
distinguishes one type of genre from another. Furthermore, the register that is required in academic reading and writing differs immensely from that of everyday conversation.
(Register, in the context of language in science, is discussed in Chapter 4 in this study).
The social context determines grammatical options. The social context includes what is talked about (field), the relationship between speaker and hearer or between writer and reader (tenor), and expectations for how particular text types should be organized (mode) (Halliday, 1994). Hasan and Perrett (1994) mention that the Systemic Functional (SF) model recognizes three strata that are internal to language (as denoted in Figure 5 below):
1.) semantics; 2.) lexicogrammar; and 3.) phonology (188). Derewianka (2007) draws attention to language that operates at each level: the semantic plane (meanings), the content plane (lexico-grammar), and the expression plane (phonology: sounds and graphology:
letters). These levels are related through a process of realization (850). Meanings are expressed through words and patterns; and sounds and letters.
Figure 5: The Four Strata of the SF model (Hasan and Perrett, 1994: 189)
In terms of semantics and metafunctions, experiential meaning considers the use of grammar in construing [one’s] experiences of the world (in terms of the kinds of events taking place, the participants in the events and the circumstances surrounding the events);
interpersonal meaning is concerned with the grammatical resources for interacting and the development of subjectivity (e.g. speech functions and speech roles); and textual resources which make a text coherent and cohesive, organizing the flow of information in particular ways (Hasan and Perrett, 1994: 183; Derewianka, 2007: 850).
90 In summary, Gibbons (2007) states of SFL that:
the experiential and the interpersonal metafunctions of language exist in any instance of language use at one and the same time; language not only is the means by which experiential learning is constructed but also, through its interpersonal resources, constructs the role of relationships and the identities of interactants in a particular situational context (706).
Briones et al. (2003) regard Halliday’s (1985a) Systemic Functional Theory as being functional in three respects:
a) it is designed to account for how language is used and the way it is organized to fulfil communicative functions;
b) each element in a language is explained by reference to its function in the total linguistic system; i.e. each part is functional with respect to the whole system; and,
c) it aims to account for three basic kinds of meaning – ideational, interpersonal and textual (136).