48th International Systemic Functional Congress, ISFC48
SFAX, TUNISIA Pre-Congress Institute:
16-17 March 2023 SOUSSE, TUNISIA
Congress: 18-21 March 2023
16-17 March 2023 SOUSSE, TUNISIA
Congress: 18-21 March 2023
8.30 – 9.00 Registration
9.00 – 11.00 Miriam Taverniers (University of Ghent, Belgium) Ergativity in SFL
11.00 – 11.30 Coffee break
11.30 – 13.30 Isaac Mwinlaaru (University of Cape Coast, Ghana) Deploying TRANSITIVITY in Critical Discourse Analysis
13.30 – 15.00 Lunch Break
15.00 – 17.00 Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (Complutense University, Spain)
Texts as logico-semantic complexes, varying in organization according to fields of activity within context
9.00 – 11.00 Mick O’Donnell (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain) Automating CDA: how to identify meaningful differences in text using UAM Corpustool
12.00 Departure to Sousse
In this workshop, the focus is on ergativity: ergativity as defined by Halliday (1967), further refined by Davidse (1992), and integrated into the ideational system networks of SFL under the heading of TRANSITIVITY (MODEL) (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 27; Halliday 2003 [1966]: 61).
We will first review principles of verb typology in relation to different theoretical methodological axes recognized in SFL (esp. stratification, the grammar-lexis relation and delicacy, system-structure) in order to broadly situate the notion of ergativity, in the SFL theoretical and descriptive model.
Then we will zoom in on ergativity in two moves. First, we will explore ‘ergative construal’ from the descriptive perspective of English. The focus here will be on: (i) the lexicogrammatical and semantic features of the ergative construal paradigm; (ii) the question of which English processes typically occur with ergative construal; (iii) ‘ergativization’ as a relatively recent type of language change and (iv) the possible effects of this semogenic development in different types of discourse. In a second part, we will open up the perspective both theoretically and typologically, (i) by exploring complementary and competing perspectives on ergativity in linguistics and within SFL; (ii) by exploring various ways in which ergative construal can be encoded in languages other than English; and (iii) by further exploring ergative construal in a wider paradigm of related constructions (middles/mediopassives) and possible other sub-systems (VOICE; AGENCY; MODALITY).
References
Davidse, Kristin. 1992. Transitivity/ergativity: The Janus-headed grammar of actions and
events. In: Davies, Martin & Louise Ravelli (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent theory and practice. London: Pinter. 105-135.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part I. Journal of Linguistics 3: 37-81.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2003 [1966]. Grammar, society and the noun. Lecture given at
University College London, 24 November 1966. Reprinted in: Halliday, M.A.K. (2006) On 2
Language and Linguistics, edited by Jonathan Webster. (Collected Works of M.A.K.
Halliday, 3.) London: Continuum. 50-73.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. (Open Linguistics Series.) London: Cassell/Continuum.
The objective of this workshop is to guide participants to deploy the system of TRANSITIVITY in critical discourse analysis in general and in corpus-based critical discourse analysis in particular. Participants are expected to have a basic knowledge of the system of TRANSITIVITY. The workshop will first guide participants to review the resources of the TRANSITIVITY system and the objectives of CDA research. Secondly, a series of practical activities will be used to guide participants to identify and analyse clauses and to move from process type analysis to identifying transitivity frames (i.e., regular patterns) and interpreting. Participants will also be guided to explore techniques of downsizing from a large corpus to a manageable selection of data for analysis.
Recommended Perquisite Reading
Martin, J.R., Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Painter, Clare. 2010. Deploying functional grammar. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Chapter 4.
Thompson, Geoff. 2008. From process to pattern: Methodological considerations in analysing transitivity in text. In Carys Jones & Eija Ventola (eds.), From language to
multimodality: New developments in the study of ideational meaning (pp. 17-33). Oakville: Equinox. 3
The meaning potential of any given language covers all metafunctional modes of meaning: ideational (logical and experiential), interpersonal and textual. These are complementary in the semantics of text in context: speakers processing (producing or understanding) texts choose among options within systems belonging to all metafunctions within the metafunctional spectrum. These systems resonate with different parameters within context (ideational with field, interpersonal with tenor, and textual with mode: Halliday, 1978) and they engender different modes of structure (e.g. Halliday, 1981; Matthiessen, 1991; Martin, 1996). In this Pre-Congress Institute course, I will focus on the logical system of RHETORICAL RELATION, and interpret texts as logico-semantic complexes, based on a systemicized version. (Matthiessen, forthcoming) of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), originally developed by Bill Mann, Sandy Thompson and myself, starting in the early 1980s (e.g. Mann, Matthiessen & Thompson, 1992).
As a logico-semantic complex, a text is developed segment by segment, each segment being related to another by means of a logico-semantic (or rhetorical) relation such as elaboration, restatement; addition, contrast; temporal sequence, reason, evidence, motivation. This mode of organization is thus emergent and contrasts with other modes of organization of text where the text is treated as an organic whole. Such logico-semantic complexes are realized lexicogrammatically both directly by TAXIS & LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE in the formation of clause complexes (e.g. Matthiessen & Thompson, 1988; Matthiessen, 2002) and cohesive CONJUNCTION, and indirectly textual systems, prominently THEME and LEXICAL COHESION (Matthiessen & Teruya, 2015).
Moving up from the stratum of semantics to that of context, I will relate the logico- semantic organization of texts to the context they operate in, more specifically to the field parameter within context. I will present a description of different fields of activity (e.g. Matthiessen, 2015a,b), and explore how the registers that texts instantiate vary from one field of activity to another in terms of their logico-semantic organization (e.g. Matthiessen & Teruya, 2015; Matthiessen, forthcoming). This variation is noticeable in the global organization of texts belonging to different registers in the first instance; for example, historical recounts operating in reporting: chronicling contexts are organized globally in terms of relations of temporal sequence, whereas historical expositions operating in exploring: arguing contexts are organized globally in terms relations of evidence, relating arguments to a nuclear claim (the thesis).
I will suggest how the account of the organization of texts that I present here can support applications in various areas, e.g. how the resources of logico-semantic relations can provide writers with semantic strategies for developing texts in different contexts. In this way, they mediate between descriptions of contextual structures (in accounts of “genres”) and of lexicogrammatical resources.
References
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language
and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1981. “Text semantics and clause grammar: some patterns of
realization.” Seventh LACUS Forum. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. 31-59. Reprinted as “Text semantics and clause grammar: how is a text like a clause?” in Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. On grammar. Volume 1 of Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan Webster. London & New York: Continuum. Chapter 9: 219-260.
Mann, William C., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson. 1992.
Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund Raising Text.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 39-78.
Martin, J.R. 1996. “Types of structure: deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text.” In Eduard Hovy & Donia Scott (eds.) Burning issues in discourse: a multidisciplinary perspective. Heidelberg: Springer. 39-66.
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1991. “Metafunctional complementarity and resonance
in syntagmatic organization.” MS. In Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. Systemic functional linguistics Part 2. Volume 2 of Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen’s Collected works, edited
by Kazuhiro Teruya and Diana Slade. Sheffield and Bristol: Equinox. Chapter 5. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. “Combining clauses into clause complexes: a multi faceted view.” In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 237-322. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015a. “Register in the round: registerial cartography.” Functional Linguistics 2(9): 1-48.
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2015b. “Registerial cartography: context-based mapping of text types and their rhetorical-relational organization.” In Proceedings of PACLIC 28, 12-14 December, Thailand. 5 Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. forthcoming. Rhetorical System and Structure Theory:
the semantic system of rhetorical relations. Volume 1: Foundations. Book MS. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2015. “Grammatical realization of rhetorical relations in different registers.” Word 61(3): 232-281.
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “The structure of discourse
and “subordination”.” In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 275-329.
Since its inception, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has been moving from the anecdotal (making analytical decisions based on single instances of language use) to systematic study (basing analytical decisions on patterns of linguistic selections in discourse). The use of corpus linguistics to this end has been central.
This workshop will explore the use of UAM Corpustool (UAMCT) to discover systematic patterns in discourse. In the first session, we will construct a small corpus of political speeches by various heads-of-state, and we will then use this corpus to automatically identify differences in how the politicians use words (keyword analysis), register (in terms of more or less academic language, more or less personal), and how patterns of grammatical choices can reflect underlying meaning stances (systematic patterns of choice in tense-aspect, modality, voice, polarity, transitivity, etc.).
Automatic analysis by itself is fairly limited to what it can reveal, as more semantic analysis is difficult for computers. For this reason, the second session will address the use of UAMCT for manual annotation. We will code a portion of our corpus using the Judgement subsystem from Martin and White (2005)’s Appraisal Analysis. This should reveal systematic differences in how each head-of-state evaluates the individuals and groups that they talk about. 6
SYFLAT is an academic association interested in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), a school of linguistics founded by the British linguist M. A. K. Halliday in 1961, and then developed and applied to many other fields.
