Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as a model deployed in the criticism of language was developed by M. A. K. Halliday in the 1960s. Halliday was influenced by works of linguists like Saussure, Louis Hjelmslev, Malinowski, J.R. Firth, Boas, Sapir, the Prague school of linguistics and Benjamin Lee Whorf, whom Halliday asserts,

‘‘showed how it is that human beings do not all mean alike, and how their unconscious ways of meaning are among the most significant manifestations of their culture’’

(Halliday, 1985:188). With this in the background, the concept of SFL is formulated on the principles of broad social semiotic approach to account for the functions of language called systemic functional linguistics.

Halliday’s SFL considers language as ‘systemic’ in the sense that it comprises of

‘network of systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning’ (Halliday, 1994:

5). And that language has been ‘Functional’ because of the functions it is made to accomplish, as opposed to formal grammar, which focuses on compositional semantics, syntax, and lexical categories such as nouns and verbs. The concern of SFL is therefore on how language functions. Though, while SFL accounts for the syntactic functions of language, emphasis is on the functions language performs (what language does and how it does it) in preference to mere structural breakdown, which are still considered as points of emphasis that are central in analysis of discourses by SFL. Apparently, SFL explores the various options grammar makes available to speakers and writers; these choices relate the speakers’ and writers’ intentions to the concrete forms of language. Language, in this respect, is considered as a resource that people use to accomplish their purposes of expressing meanings in context. The available alternatives people enjoy in the selection process therefore depend on the context in which language is being used. Ordinarily, the choices are viewed in terms of either content or the structure of the language in question.

An SFL analysis of language involves, therefore, the description of grammar as a system and not as rules based on the evidence that the set of grammatical configuration is concerned with selection of linguistic items from a describable set of options. Language

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

is therefore a system of networks which construe meanings of different kinds. In English, for instance, the system is described as being ‘closed’ and ‘open’ set of options. The

‘closed system’ is portrayed as having a finite set of linguistic options while the ‘open system’ as containing lexical sets with capabilities of accommodating new items into the language at any given moment. The conception of language as a system forms the basis of Halliday’s assertion that each language is meta-functionally organised to perform ideational, interpersonal and textual functions. These components demonstrate the fact that language has the resources of construing experience, enacting the diverse and complex social relations and possess the capabilities to enact ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings in a coherent text. Apparently, each grammatical system is related to meta-function. The grammatical system of ‘mood’, for instance, is related to the expression of interpersonal meanings, ‘process types’ is associated with the expression of experiential meaning, and ‘theme’ is linked with textual meaning (Halliday, 1985).

The point of emphasis in the analysis of linguistic choices available to language users is positioned within the use of system network in SFL to represent the choices present in making an utterance. The choices in this network are called ‘features’; a simplified lexico-grammatical network is represented in the following manner:

Figure 2.1 ( http: // www. isfla. Org / systemic)

The choices on each stratum, as represented in figure (2.1) above, are constrained by those of others. As such, the decision to use a nominal group (noun-phrase), rather than a clause, to express a semantic process, is therefore determined by both the textual structure of the text as a whole, and also by the social context. Each structure is also associated with the structural consequences of that choice. For instance, the ‘finite’ is realised as: +subject, +finite, subject: (nominal group). This implies that to select the

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

‘finite (finite verb)’- a subject and finite element are required. The subject is filled by a nominal group and the finite by a finite verb. Further selection in the clause network is constrained by the fillers of these roles, which specify the presence and order in which these elements are arranged. Consequently, SFL theory describes language in terms of both structure (grammar) and words (lexis), and analyse language in three different strata:

semantics, phonology and lexicography. These analyses are based on the functional properties of language, and are systematically carried out so that the grammatical and phonological representations could be freed from constraints of rigid structures of the language.

The framework of SFL within linguistic analysis is, therefore, a concern for the network of discourse systems which afford us choices at various levels of language descriptions. Ogunsiji (2001:7) is of the view that this method of discourse analysis:

…approaches linguistic events from different levels of analysis, embodying basically the primary levels of substance, form and context. The phonic and the graphic materials of language constitute the substance realized by phonology and graphology respectively. The form relates to the structuring of the substance to constitute meaningful events and it is subdivided into grammar and lexis. Context is the inter-level which relates form to the non-linguistic features of the situation as well as to the linguistic features apart from those items under reference.

Systemic Functional Linguistics considers the text as a describable patterned language structure that extends to embrace other related signifying systems in the texture of discourses (Cumming and Ono, 1997). This consideration might have informed Ogunsiji’s (2001) description of SFL as a model that recognises the formal linguistic properties in discourses for description. The concern of this mode of analysis is with the linguistic network; the relationship between the various elements of language and how these constituents enhance the construction of the textual quality. Ogunsiji (2001) substantiates further that SFL, therefore, is concerned with the analysis of the lexico-grammatical properties in a discourse such as the phonological and, or graphological, grammatical and lexical variables in the texture of texts. Apparently, analysis of the discourse by means of SFL model provides explanations about the choice of the various linguistic elements.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

SFL uses the techniques obtained from grammar, and applies these principles to the social theories in an attempt to provide insights and explanations for meanings available in the texture of discourses. Martin and Rose (1991) provide a summary of the above discussion as illustrated in a diagram below, showing the operation of SFL strata and meta-functions in texts:

(Figure 2.2: Martin and Rose, 1991:4)

It is apparent from the above illustration that SFL considers language in a discourse as an event that embraces both the grammatical and social variables. The text is regarded as being more than just a mere instance of grammar but as substances that involve both grammatical and contextual variables. So you have a grammar manifesting within discourse which is again a by-product of the larger social activity.

In regard to the above dimension, SFL introduces two general perspectives to the phenomena of discourse: the strata, and the meta-functions. The strata, according to Martin and Rose (2004), embrace the three levels, which include: grammar, discourse, and social context. This implies a combination of grammatical features within the analysis of the discourse in the social context. This is done owing to the fact that, social constructs manifest in texts, but since social theorists are more interested in how social contexts are related to one another, CDA, is however, more interested in how both the internal structures and contextual features are deployed as analytical tools to account for the texture of texts so as to provide explanations as to why they make the meanings they do (van Dijk, 1997; Martins and Rose, 2004 and Locke, 2004). This is also as a result of the fact that the context often provides clues to relevant functional pressures not detectable with the linguistic sign alone (Cumming and Ono, 1997), but a fusion of the three features: grammar-discourse-social activity. This view is illustrated in a diagram by Martin and Rose (2004):

Social Activity

Grammar Discourse

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

(Figure 2.3: Martin and Rose, 2004: p.4)

In the above diagram (figure 2.3), Martin and Rose (2004) illustrate grammar, discourse and social activity as a series of circles, in which discourse nestles within social activity, and grammar does same within the discourse, suggesting a three complementary outlook within a single complex phenomenon. What is apparent in the above postulations is the insinuation that social contexts are realised as texts (discourses) which are in turn recognised as sequences of grammatical structures which operate in texts as part of the social process.