JA-2002-Meaning Beyond Clause SFL Perspective

8/12/2019 JA-2002-Meaning Beyond Clause SFL Perspective

1/24

AnnwalReview'of AppliedLinguistics (2002) 22, 52-74. Printed in the USA.Copyright@2OOZCambridgeUniversityPress0267-1905/01 9.50

3. MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES

J. R. Martin

This chapter akesnote of the longstanding rientationSystemicFunctionalLinguistics(SFL) to discourse tudiesbeforemoving to a moredetailedandselective resentation f current developmentsn SFL withrespect o discoursemodels,developing esearchmethodologies, ndapplicationso differentdomains.The reinterpretation f cohesionasdiscoursesemanticsidentification,negotiation,conjunction,and deation)is reviewedwith respect o metafunctionstextual, nterpersonal,andideational). This work on texture s then related o socialcontext hroughthe registervariables enor, field andmode alongside enre. The chapterthen reviewsrecentSFl-inspired researchhat applies hesemodels oanalysisof discourse cross anguages,modalitiesof communication,anddomains. Work doneon schoolandworkplacediscoursehasraisednewquestions aboutappropriateunits of discoursestructure and theirrelationship o registeranalysis. t is predicted hat someof thesequestionsmay be answered y the development f improvedsoftware ordiscourseanalyses ffordinggreaterspecificiry n mapping herelationships monggenres.

Systemic unctional inguisticshereafter FL)hasa longstandingnterestin discourse nalysis, erivinghistoricallyrom Firth's (1957)concernwithmeaning s unction n context ndMitchell'scanonical1957)studyof serviceencountersn the Moroccanmarketplace.Halliday 1967)built a focusondiscourseunction ntohisgrammar hroughhis work on Theme/Rhemend(Given)/New tructure; ndhisperspective n textualmeaning eyond he clause(i.e., cohesion)s outlinedn HallidayandHasan 1976). In additionhis modelofsocialcontext e.g., Halliday,1978on field, tenor,andmode)stimulated FLregister nrdies round heworldand ed to thedevelopment f genreanalysis,particularlyn Australiae.g.,Hasan,1977 Martin;1985).TherearemanySFLpublicationseaturing iscoursenalysis,ncludingBenson,Cummings, ndGreaves. 988;Benson ndGreaves, 985;Davies ndRavelli,1992:FriesandGregory,1995;Ghadessy, 993,1995,1999:Gregoryandcarroll, 1978;Hasan52


2/24

MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTryESandFries, 1995;S6nchez-MacaffondCarter,1998;Stainton ndDevilliers,2001;Steiner ndVeltman,1988;Ventola,1991,2000; specialssues f Word(40, I-2, 1989),LanguageSciences14,4, 1992)andCulturalDynamics, 6, I,1993)andmany ssues f Functions f Language.

In thenext section,onereadingof the theory nforming this work will beoutlined,based n Martin (1992)andMartin andRose, n press. Following his,some ecentdevelopmentsnd current rends n SFL discourse nalysiswill bereviewed.Modeling Discourse

Early work on cohesionwas designedo move beyond he structuralresources f grammarandconsiderdiscourse elationswhich transcendgrammatical tructure. Halliday(L973) reated ohesionas nvolving non-structural elationsbeyond he sentence, ithin what he refers o as he textualmetafunctionasopposedo ideationaland nterpersonalmeaning). In HallidayandHasan 1976) he nventoryof cohesiveesources asorganized s

referenceellipsissubstitutionconjunctionlexicalcohesionGutwinski 1976)develops closely elated ramework, ncluding heseresourcesand n additiongranrmatical arallelism). Referenceefers o resourcesfor identifyinga participantor circumstantial lementwhose dentity isrecoverable. n English he relevant esourcesncludedemonstratives,he definitearticle,pronouns,comparatives, nd hephoricadverbs ere, there,now, andthen. Ellipsis efers o resourcesor omininga clause, r somepartof a clause rgroup, n contextswhere t canbe assumed. n Englishconversation,ejoindersare oftenmadedependenthroughomissions f thiskind: 'Did theywin?' 'Yes,theydid.' Someanguages,ncludingEnglish,have n additiona setof place

holderswhichcanbeused o signal heomission-e.g.,so andnot for clauses, ofor verbalgroupsandone or nominalgroups. This resourceof placeholders sreferred o as substitution.Ellipsis andsubstitutionaresometimesreatedasasingle esourcee.g.,Halliday,1994). From heperspectivef English,ellipsis ssubstitutiony zero;moregenerally,ookingacrossanguages,t might bebetterto think of substitutionsellipsis signaled) y something.Reference, llipsis,andsubstitutionnvolvesmallclosed lasses f itemsor gaps,andhave ogether eenreferredo asgrammatical ohesionGutwinski, 976; Hasan,1968).

53

oaaaa


3/24

54 J. R. MARTINAlso includedasgrammaticalohesions thetypicallymuch argerinventoryof connectorswhich ink clausesn discourse,eferred o asconjunction.For HallidayandHasan 1976), hisresourceomprisesinkerswhichconnectsentenceso eachother,but excludes aratactic nd hypotactic coordinatingand

subordinating)inkerswithin sentences, hichareconsidered tructuralbyHalliday. Gunvinski,however,ncludes ll connectors, hetheror not they inkclauseswithinor between entences.The complement f grammaticalohesionnvolvesopensystemtems,andso s referred o as exicalcohesion.Here herepetition f lexical tems,synonymy r nearsynonymyincluding yponymy),andcollocation re ncluded.CollocationwasFirth'sterm or expectancyelations etweenexical tems e.g.,themutualpredictabilityof strong and ea,but notpoweful and ea).The relationship etween cohesivetemand he tem it presupposedn atext s referred o asa cohesiveie. Gut'winski1976)contrastshedifferentkindsof cohesiveies hatpredominaten writingby Hemingway ndJames,withHemingway ependingmoreon lexicalcohesionhandoes ames.HallidayandHasan 1976)providea detailed odingschemeor analyzingohesiveies,whichtakesnto accounthedistance etween cohesivetemand he tem presupposed.Laterwork concentratedn thesemantics f these ohesiveesources ndtheir relation o discourse tructure.Martin (1992)workedon reformulatinghenotionof cohesiveiesasdiscourseemantic tructure,nspired y the ext-orientedconception f semanticsf the HartfordstratificationalistsGleason, 968;Gutwinski,1976)with whomhe studiedn Toronto. In hisstratified ccount,cohesionwas eformulatedsa setof discourseemanticystems t a moreabstract evel than exicogrammar,with their own metafunctional rganization.Halliday'snonstructuralextual esources ere hus eworked s semantic ystemsconcerned ith discoursetructure, omprising

identificationnegotiationconjunctionideation

Identification s concernedwith resourcesor trackingparticipantsndiscourse.This system ubsumesarlierwork on referential ohesionn aframeworkwhichconsiders oth theways n whichparticipants re ntroducedntoa text and kept trackof once ntroduced. In addition, he ways n whichphoricitemsdepend n preceding r succeedingo-text,on assumednderstandings,ron other elevant henomenaimages, ctivity,sound tc.) areconsidered.Fordefinitions f 'phora'terms(e.9.,anaphora, ataphora, ndophora, xophora,homophora), eeMartin(1992).

ooao


4/24

MEANING BEYONDTHE CLAUSE:SFL PERSPECTTVES 55Negotiation s concernedwith resources or exchangingnformation andgoodsandservicesn dialogue.This system ubsumesomeof theearlier work onellipsisandsubstitutionn a frameworkwhich considers he ways n whichinterlocutorsnitiate andrespondn adjacency airs. Drawing on earlier work at

Birmingham Sinclair& Coulthard,1975)and Nottingham Berry, 1981),aframeworkfor exchanges onsistingof up to five moveswasdeveloped,alongsideprovision or additional rackingand challenging ide-sequencesVentola,1987).Thiswork is closely elated o studiesn conversationnalysis CA) but with astrongergrammatical rientationsuchas hat canvassedn Ochs, Schegloff,&Thompson,1996). Egginsand Slade 1997) ntroduceongoingSFL researchnthisarea n relation o widerquestions f discourse tructure ndsocialcontext;Coulthard 1992)updateshe Birmingham-basedork.Conjunctions concerned ith resourcesor connectingmessages,iaaddition,comparison,emporaliry, nd causality.This system ubsumesarlierwork on linking between lausesn a frameworkwhich considers,n addition, heways n which connections an be realized nside a clause hroughverbs,prepositions, ndnouns e.g., result n, because f, reason). Drawing on Gleason(1968),a framework or analyzingnternall pragmatic/rhetorical)nd external(semantic/propositional)onjunctiveelationswasproposed,ncluding hepossibiliryof connectionsealized implyby the contiguityof messagesi.e., linksunmarked y an explicitconnector).Ideation is concernedwith the semantics f lexical relationsdeployed oconstnrenstitutional ctivity. I use construe'to emphasizehe role textsplay inmakingmeaning-that is, knowledge-and thus constructingsocialcontext-that is,reality;cf. HallidayandMatthiesen, 999. This system ubsumesarlierwork onlexicalcohesionn a frameworkwhich considers ow activitysequencesndtaxonomicelations of classificationndcomposition) rganize he field ofdiscourseBenson Greaves, 992). Drawingon Hasan 1985),a model or amoredetailedaccount f lexicalrelationsncluding epetition,synonymy,

hyponymy,andmeronymywasproposed;n addition,collocationwas actoredoutinto variouskinds of 'nuclear'relations,nvolving elaboration, xtension, ndenhancementasdeveloped y Halliday, 1994, or the clause omplex).The resultof these eformulationss a semantic tratumof text-orientedresourcesedicatedo the analysis f cohesiveelationsas discourse tructure.Oncestratifiedwith respecto lexicogralnmar,hese esourcesanbe alignedwithmetafunctionsn the following proportions:o identificationo negotiationo conjunctiono ideation

textualmeaninginterpersonalmeaninglogical2meaningexperientialmeaning


5/24

56 J. R. MARTINThis bringsus thequestion f modelingsocialcontext n a functionaltheorywhich looksat whatcohesions realizingalongsideheways n which it istealized. In SFL, socialcontext s modeledhrough egisterandgenre heory.FollowingHalliday 1978)a natural elations posited etweenheorganizationflanguage nd he organization f socialcontext,built up around henotionof kindsof meaning Mattheissen, 993). Interpersonalmeanings related o theenactmentof social elationssocial eality),or tenor; deationalmeanings relatedo theconstruction f institutionalactivity('naturalizedeality'), or field; and extualmeanings relatedo informationlow acrossmedia semioticeality),or mode. Asummaryof these elationshipsetweenypesof meaningand registervariablessoutlinedn Table .

Table1: Typesof meaningn relationo social ontext

InterpersonalIdeationTextual

'Realityconstrual'social eality(logical,experiential)semiotic ealitv

Contextual ariabletenor'natural' reality fieldmode

FollowingMartin(1992), ield s concerned ith systems f activity,includingdescriptionsf theparticipants,rocess ndcircumstanceshese ctivitiesinvolve. For illustrativework, seeHallidayandMartin(1993)andMartinandVeel(1998). Tenor s concerned ith social elations s hese reenactedhroughthe dimensions f powerandsolidarity.For foundational ork on tenorseePoynton 1985). Mode s concerned ith semiotic istance, s his s affected ythe variouschannels f communicationhroughwhichwe undertake ctivity (field)andsimultaneouslynact ocial elationstenor). For exemplarywork ondifferencesetween peech ndwriting,seeHalliday 1985).In Martin (1992),an additionalevelof context, boveandbeyond enor,field,andmode, eferredo asgenre,hasbeendeployed.This evel s concernedwith systems f socialprocesses,here heprinciplesor relatingsocialprocessesto eachotherhave o do with texture, hat s, the ways n which f,reld,modeandtenorvariables rephasedogethern a text. In Australian ducationalinguistics,genreshavebeendefinedasstaged, oal-orientedocialprocessesMartin, lggg),a definitionwhich flags he way in whichmostgenresake more hana singlephaseo unfold, thesense f frustrationor incompletionhat s felt whenphasesdon't unfoldasexpectedr planned, nd hefact hatgenres readdressedi.e.formulatedwith readers nd istenersn mind), whetheror not the ntendedaudiences immediately resento respond. n theseerms,asa levelof context,genre epresentshe system f staged oal-orientedocialprocesseshroughwhich


6/24

MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTIVES 57socialsubjectsn a givenculture ive their lives. An overview of this stratifiedmodel of context s presentedn Figure 1; this image ncludesLemke's(1995)notion of metaredundancy,whereby more abstract evelsare interpretedaspatternsof lessabstractones. Thus register s a patternof linguisticchoices,andgemeapatternof registerchoices i.e., a patternof a patternof texture). For furtherdiscussion, eeChristieand Martin (1997),Eggins 1994),Egginsand Martin(1997),Martin (1992,2001a), ndVentola 1987).

genre/ /

regi ter/ metrredundancg( rer l is r t ion)

Ianguage

Figure 1: Metafunctionsn relation o registerandgenre.

RecentDevelopmentsThroughout he 1990s,SFL discourse nalysis eveloped long severalparameters,ncluding elevantaspects f phonologyandgrammar. Higher levels

of phonological nalysis, ushingwell beyond he tonegroupasfar as rhythm isconcerned, repursued n van Leeuwen 1991),Martinec(2000a),andWatt(2001). In grammar, esearch xpanded cross anguages nd anguage amilies,including elevantwork on textualmeaning. Caffarel,Martin, andMatthiesseninpress)ncludes hapters n French,German,Telegu,Chinese, apanese,Vietnamese, agalog,andPitjantjatjara, achwith an emphasis n showinghowthevariousgranmarsoperaten discourse. Thepapersn SteinerandYallop(2000)explorethe implicationsof functionaldescriptionsof this kind fortranslation ndmultilingual extproduction.

genre

ideational \\ t8rftnl;;jr


7/24

58 J. R. MARTINFor English, onesignificant rendhasbeen he developmentof computerassisted nalysisprogramswhich facilitate he codingof large quantitiesof text forSFL grammaranddiscourseeatures.TheseprogramsncludeO'HalloranandJudd(200 ) : Matthiessen ndWu's SysAm(http /minerva.ing.mq.edu. u/Resources/AnalysisTools/Tools.htm);'Donnell'sSystemicCoder(O'Donnell,1995 http /www.wagsoftcom/Coder/index.tml) and Webster' FunctionalGrammarProcessore.g.Webster,1995;Webster& Kit, 1995). These oolsaremaking it possible o undertakeargescalesemanticanalyseswith a view toquantitative nterpretationand havegiven new impetus o longstandingSFLinterestsn corpusbased esearchHalliday, 199L,1992,1993;Halliday& James,1993;Matthiessen, 999, n press;Nesbitt& prum, lggg; plum & cowling,1987). This work on automated iscourse nalysiss complementedy work on

synthesis,n, for example,he text generationesearchntroducedn Bateman(2001),Bateman,Matthiessen,ndLicheng 1999),Bateman nd Rondhuis 1997),Matthiessen nd Bateman1991),and Teich(1999).At the evel of discourse emantics,omeof the most mportantdevelopmentsave o do with interpersonalmeaning.EgginsandSlade 1997)presenta rich model of speechunction,especiallydesigned or analyzingnitiatingmovesand responsesn casual onversation.Recentlyhis hasbeen nsightfullyapplied o human/bonobonteractionBenson,Fries,Gredves,wamoto,Savage-

Rumbaugh,& Taglialatela,n press). Hasanandher colleaguesHasan,1996)havedevelopeda finely tunedsetof semanticnetworksdesignedor the study ofadult-child interaction n homeandschool. Thesehavebeen nstrumental nexploringBernstein'sheories f language ndsocializationBernstein,1996),especiallyn relation o genderandsocialclass,andrepresenthe most mportantlinguistically informedbody of researchnto semanticstylesandtheir implicationsfor educationseeespecially loran,1989,1999a, ; Hasan,1990,1991,1992,200r; Hasan& Cloran, 1990;williams, 1995,1996,1999,2001).Hasan 1995a)andHalliday(1995) nsightfully eview he mplications f close extualanalysisfor Bernstein'swork, and deal ncisivelywith populistmisunderstandings;loran(2000)providesan accessiblentroductiono semantic etworksand heirdeploymentn the studyof sociosemanticariation.

Another majordevelopmentn interpersonal iscourse emantics asbeentheemergence f appraisalheory(seeMartin, 2000a,and he websitedesigned yPeterWhite at htp:iiwww.grarnmatics.com/appraisal/index.html).ppraisalcomplementsegotiation rom theperspective f resourcesor evaluation,including systemsof auitude, engagement, ndgraduation. Attitude focusesonresourcesor construingaffect, udgment,andappreciation roughly the lexicallyreallzed ealmsof emotion, ethics, andaesthetics); ngagements concernedwiththe sourcing of attitudeand acknowledgment f alternativevoices(heteroglossia);andgraduationcovers orce (intensificationof inherentlygradablemeanings)andfocus ('fuzzifrcation' of inherentlynongradable ategories).Work on this


8/24

MEANING BEYOND T}IE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVESdimensionof intersubjectivemeaninghas refocusedattentionon prosodicrealization acrossdeationalboundaries)n various registers,suchas history(Coffin, 1997);narrativeand iterary criticism Rothery& Stenglin1997,2000);newsstories White, 1997);casualconversation, ncluding humor andgossipandtheir implications or generation,ethnicity,andgender Eggins& Slade, 1997);andpopularscienceFuller, 1998).

Ideational emanticss elaboratedn Halliday and Matthiessen1999),whoareparticularlyconcernedwith establishing semioticperspective n what isgenerallyviewed as cognition. Their project ncludeswork on what they callsequenceshich s relevant o conjunction.Van Leeuwen 1996)developscomplementary erspective n agencywhich has been nfluential in criticaldiscourse nalysis. Matthiessenin press)exploresRhetoricalStmctureTheory(RST)from theperspective f this research, ontinuinga dialoguebetweenSFLconjunctionanalysisandRST (Mann,Matthiesen,& Thompson, 1992),whichbegan n the 1980s Martin, 1992). For relevantwork on causation n Dutch, seeDegand 2001). From theperspectivef discourse nalysis,whathasbeenslow toemerges an understanding f different kinds of expectancy elations inkingclauses cross egisters. Temporalsequencing nd causal easoning end to beforegrounded ver tropesof otherkinds, suchas description,classification,composition, omparison, ritique, eview,stirring, coaxing,serving,and so on;researchs urgently equired n theseareas.As far asparticipant dentification s concerned, he main developmentshavecome rom language ypology through consideration f the ways n whichnominalgroupresourcesnteractwith Theme,and n some anguageswithconjunction theso-calledsubject-switchingystems ound in PapuaandAustralia).These ssues re exploredn Caffarelet al. (in press)n relation o Martin (1983).Textualmeaninghasalso been nvestigatedn relation to informationflow ingeneral crossanguagesDowning& Lavid, 1998;Hasan& Fries, 1995;Lavid,1997)and n relation o layers of ThemeandNew in English discourse Ghadessy,1995;Halliday& Martin, 1993). Martin (1992,1993, 1995a) xplores heways n

which textsusehigher evel Themes o predict nformationflow and higher levelNews o retrospectively istill thepoint of precedingdiscourse, husfollowing upsuggestionsy Pike andHallidayabout hierarchyof periodicity' as a form oftextualorganizationFries,1981). Halliday'swork on grarnmaticalmetaphoras aresourceor packagingmeaninghas been nstrumental n this areaof inquiry(Halliday,1998;Halliday& Matthiessen, 999;Simon-Vandenbergen,averniers,& Ravelli, n press).This raises hequestion f higher-level nits n discourse,which hasbeen

exploredn variousways. Oneuseful ool hasbeenHasan's ohesive armony(Cloran,1999b;Hasan1984,1985;Parsons, 991). In cohesive armonyanalysis,we are askinghow ideationand dentification nteractas far as

59


9/24

MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVESdimensionof intersubjectivemeaninghasrefocusedattentionon prosodicrealization acrossdeationalboundaries)n various registers,suchashistory(Coffin, 1997);narrativeand iterarycriticism Rothery& Stenglin1997,2000);news stories White, 1997);casualconversation,ncluding humor andgossipandtheir implications or generation,ethnicity,andgender Eggins& Slade,1997);andpopularscienceFuller, 1998).

Ideational emanticss elaboratedn Halliday and Matthiessen1999),whoareparticularlyconcernedwith establishing semioticperspective n what isgenerally iewedascognition. Their project ncludeswork on what hey callsequenceshich s relevant o conjunction. Van Leeuwen 1996)developscomplementary erspective n agencywhich has been nfluential in criticaldiscourse nalysis. Matthiessenin press)exploresRhetoricalStmctureTheory(RST)from theperspective f this research, ontinuinga dialoguebetweenSFLconjunctionanalysisand RST (Mann,Matthiesen,& Thompson, 1992), whichbegan n the 1980s Martin, 1992). For relevantwork on causation n Dutch, seeDegand 2001). From theperspectivef discourse nalysis,what hasbeenslowtoemerges an understanding f differentkindsof expectancyelations inkingclauses cross egisters. Temporalsequencing nd causal easoning end to beforegrounded ver tropesof otherkinds,suchas description, lassification,composition, omparison, ritique, eview, stirring,coaxing,serving,and so on;researchs urgently equired n theseareas.As far asparticipant dentification s concerned, he maindevelopmentshavecome rom languageypology through consideration f the ways n whichnominalgroupresourcesnteractwith Theme,and n some anguageswithconjunction theso-calledsubject-switching ystemsound in Papuaand Australia).Thesessues re exploredn Caffarelet al. (in press)n relation o Martin (1983).Textual meaninghas alsobeen nvestigatedn relation o informationflow ingeneral crossanguagesDowning& Lavid, 1998;Hasan& Fries, 1995;Lavid,1997)and n relation o layers of Themeand New in Englishdiscourse Ghadessy,1995;Halliday& Martin,1993). Martin (1992,1993, 1995a) xploreshe ways n

which textsuse higher evel Themes o predict nformationflow andhigher levelNews o retrospectively istill thepoint of precedingdiscourse, hus following upsuggestionsy Pike andHallidayabout hierarchyof periodicity' as a form oftextualorgarvation Fries,1981). Halliday'swork on gratnmaticalmetaphoras aresourceor packagingmeaninghas been nstrumentaln this areaof inquiry(Halliday,1998;Halliday& Matthiessen, 999;Simon-Vandenbergen,averniers,& Ravelli, n press).This raiseshequestion f higher-level nits n discourse,whichhasbeen

exploredn variousways. Oneuseful ool hasbeenHasan's ohesive armony(Cloran,I999b;Hasan1984,1985;Parsons, 991). In cohesive armonyanalysis,we areaskinghow ideationand dentification nteract asfar as


10/24

60 J. R. MARTINexperiential rammars concerned,ased n the degreeo whichcohesivelyrelated temsenter nto thesame ind of experientialelationshipwith othercohesivelyelatedtems. Breaksn thepattern f interaction reassociatedithdiscourse oundaries f one kind or anotherandso relevant o the recognitionofhigher-levelunits. This style of analysiss notunrelatedo the work of Gregoryandhiscolleaguesnphasal nalysisGregory,1995,2001;Stainton Devilliers,2001),which, however,akesntoaccount full metafunctionalpectrum fmeaning ideational,nterpersonal, nd extual) n order o determine hases ndtransitionsn discourse.

Cloran'swork on rhetorical nits RU),on the otherhand, s moreselectiven its parameters,avingbeendesignedo focuson the register ariablemode Cloran,1994,1995,1999a, , 2000). She ooks n particular t thecontexrdependencyf theparticipantunctioningassubjectn a clauseandat the tenseofthatclause's erb (the deixis'of theclause,n otherwords)andon thisbasissetsup classes f RU rangingromthose ositioninganguage s ancillary o the taskathand o those n which anguageonstituteshesocialactivity. The nter-dependenciesmongRUs areexploredhroughherconcept f embedding, ndused o investigate arent-childnteractionn the homeaspartof Hasan'sanguageandsocializationrojectoutlined bove.

The relationof all threeof these erspectivesn unitsof discourseo workon genrestructures an mportantssuewhichhasnotbeen esolved.Certainlyheconversationalata hatGregoryandhis colleaguesnd Cloranare nvestigatingsnot thekind thathasgenerally ttracted enreanalystssee,however,Eggins&Slade,1997),presumablyecausef thedifficulty n recognizing learstages fthe kind found n the analysis f narrative,exposition,serviceencounters,appointment aking,or classroomiscourse.As a result, he ssueof generalizingdiscourse nitsacross egistersemains pressing ne n SFl-informeddiscourseanalysiscf. Taboada, 000, n press).As far as register nalysiss concerned,herehasbeensignificantwork in

tenor,mode,and ield. Themain enor nitiativedrawson appraisal nalysisoexploresolidarity,asexemplifiedn EgginsandSlade 1997)andWhite(2000)who analyze heface work done hroughcasual onversationsnvolving familymembers,riends,andcoworkers.Theoutstanding ode nitiative s multi-modaldiscourse nalysis,nspired y the work of O'Toole(1994)andKressandvanLeeuwen1996)on imagesseealsovankeuwen & Jewitt,2001). Martinec(1998,2000b,c,2001) extendshis work to the modalityof action,andvanLeewuen 1999) o themodalityof musicandsound. These oolshaveencouragedSFL discourse nalysts o consider heways n which anguage egotiatesmeaningin cooperation ith othersemiotic ystemsBaldry,1999;Eggins& Iedema 1997;Iedema,20Ol; Kress& van ,eeuwen, 00I:.O'Halloran,1999a) nd o focuson


11/24

MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTryESsomeof the new kindsof discourseevolving in the print and electronicmedia(Lemke,1998;Veel, 1998).

Researchnto field hasexploredseveral indsof schooland workplacediscourse. Work on institutionalizedearning ncludesmathematicsO'Halloran,1999a,b, 2000; Veel, 1999),scienceHalliday& Martin, 1993;Kress, Jewitt,Ogborn,& Tsatsarelis, 001;Martin& Veel, 1998;Unsworth,1998),geography(Martin, 2001b; van lreuwen & Humphrey,1996;Wignell, Martin, & Eggins,1990),history(Coffin, 1997;Martin, 2001c;Martin & Wodak, in press;Veel &Coffin, 1996)English(Martin, 1996a:Rothery& Stenglin, 19972000), andEnglish or academic urposesLewin, Fine, & Young,200l; Ravelli & Ellis, inpress;Ventola,1998;1999,Ventola& Mauranen,1995). Work on workplacecommunicationncludesadministrationIedema,1997a,1998,2000; Iedema&Degeling,2001; Iedema& Scheeres,n press),science nd echnology Rose,1997,1998;White, 1998), peech isordersArmstrong,1987,1992;Fine, 1994,1995;Fine, Bartolucci,& Szatmari,1989;Oram, Fine, Okamoto,& Tannock,1999:Ovadia& Fine, 1995),medicine Jordens, ittle, Paul,& Sayers, 001),law (Gibbons,n press; edema,1993,1995),and museums ndgalleries(Ferguson,Maclulich, & Ravelli, 1995;Ravelli, 1996,1998).

The rangeof this researchhas had a numberof implications for genreanalysis, ncluding analysisof genericstructuresand intertextual relations with oneanother. Work on administrative irectives Iedema,1997a;Martin, 1998)andprint medianews stories Iedema, 997b; White, 1997), or example, evealedgenreshat are bestcharacterizeds havinga nucleus/satellitetructure asopposedto a more traditionalpartlwholebeginning,middle, andend organization),a kindof orbital structurewith an obligatory core stageandoptionalelaboratingstagesthat arenot strictly sequenced.Martin (1995b,1996b) ollowsup the implicationsof this for experientialstructuresn general,analogizing rom geme structure backto grammar. Across ields, theproblemof longer exts aroseand attemptsweremade o model heseas seriesof smallergenresdrawingon Halliday's 1994categories f expansion elaboration, xtension, nd enhancement).This serialperspective n macro-genressgenrecomplexess introducedn Martin 2001b(seealso edema,2000; Jordens t al., 2001)and urtherdevelopedn Christie(1999, n press) or classroom iscourse.

Another mportantdimensionof genreanalysisacross ieldshas o do withmapping elationships monggenres rom both typologicaland opologicalperspectives.Usingparadigms nd systemnetworks o modelvaleur,narrativeand actualgenresare explored ypologically n Martin (2001a)and Martin andPlum(1997); his kind of analysis epends n categorical istinctions. The notionof genresasmoregradientsemanticegions s explored opologically n Martin(2001b, ), Rose 1997,1998),andVeel (1997) or a rangeof factualgenres romscience, eography,andhistory. The relationof work on macro-geffesandgenre

6 l


12/24


13/24

MEANINGBEYONDTI{E CLAUSE: SFLPERSPECTIVES 63ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPITY

Martin (1992)outlines he readingof SFL discourse nalysis ssumedhere. Martin andRose in press)providean accessiblentroductiono this work,focussing n writing and ncorporatingecentdevelopments; gginsandSlade(1997)complementhis with a focuson spoken iscourse.HallidayandMartin(1993),ChristieandMartin(1997),andMartinandVeel(1998) llustratehis kindof analysis cross rangeof fields. Unsworth2000) s designedor prospectiveresearchersho want o takeup theseools. Hasan 1996)surveys erpioneeringworkon cohesion, eme,semanticetworks, nd he relationof languageo socialcontext.

OTIIER REIIERENCESArmstrong,E. (1987).Cohesivearmonyn aphasic iscourse nd ts significancein listener erceptionf coherence.n R. H. BrookshireEd.,) Clinicalaphasiology:Conferenceroceedings,Vol. 17(pp. 210-215).Minneapolis,MN: BRK Publishers.Armstrong,E. (1992).Clause omplexelationsn aphasic iscourse:longitudinalstudy.Journal of Neurolinguistics, (4), 261-275.Baldry, A. (Ed.) (1999).Multimodalityand multimedialityn the distanceearningage.CampoBasso: ampo.Bateman,. A. (2001).Benveenhe eaves f rhetorical tructure: taticanddynamic spectsf discourserganization.erbatum,3(l),31-58.Bateman, . A., Matthiessen, . M., & Licheng,Z. (1999).Multilingual anguagegenerationor multilingualsoftware:A functional inguisticapproach.AppliedArtificial Intelligence, 3(6), 607 639Bateman, . A., & Rondhuis, . (1997).Coherenceelations: owards eneralspecification. iscourseProcesses,4, 3-49.Benson,. D., Fries,P. Greaves, . S. Iwamoto, ., Savage-Rumbaugh,., &Taglialatela,. (in press).Confrontationndsupportn bonobo-human

discourse. unctions f -anguage, ,2.Benson,. D., & Greaves, . S. (Eds.). 1985).Systemicerspectivesndiscourse:Selectedheoretical apersfrom the 9th InternationalSystemicWorkshop. orwood,NJ: Ablex.Benson,. D., & Greaves, . S. (1992).Collocationnd ieldof discourse.n W.A. Mann& S. A. ThompsonEds.),Discourse escription: iverseannlyses f afund raising ext(pp. 397-409).Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.Benson,. D., Cummings, . J., & Greaves,W. S. (Eds.). 1988). inguisticsna systemicerspective. msterdam: ohnBenjamins.


14/24

64 J. R. MARTINBernstein,B- (1996). Pedagogy, ymboliccontroland identity:Theory,research,citique. London: Taylor & Francis.Berry, M. (1981).Systemicinguisticsanddiscourse nalysis:A multi-layeredapproach o exchangestructure.In M. coulthard & M. Montgomery

(Eds.), Studiesn discourse nalysis pp. 120-145). London: Rourledge&KeganPaul.caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., &Matthiessen,c. M. (Eds.). inpress).Languagetypology A functional perspe tive. Amsterdam JohnBenjamins.caldas-coulthard,c., & coulthard, M. (Eds.). (1996). Textandpractices:Readings n citical discourseanalysis. London: Routledge.Christie, F. (Ed.). (1999).Pedagogyand theshapingof conscio^orrr; Linguisticand socialprocesses. ondon: Cassell.Christie, F. (in press).Classroom iscourseanalysis.London: Continuum.christie, F., & Marrin, J. R. (Eds.) (1997).Genreand institutions:socialprocesses n the workplaceand school. London: pinter.Cloran, C. (1989).Learning hrough anguage:The socialconsrruction f gender.In R- Hasan& J. R. Martin (Eds.). nnguage development: earninglanguage, earningculture (pp. 361-a03). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Cloran, C. (1994). Rhetoricalunitsanddecontextualisation:n enquiry nto somerelationsof context, meaningand grammar.Monographs i SystemicLinguistics.6. Noningham:school of EnglishStudies,NottinghamUniversity.Cloran, C. (1995). Definingand relating ext segments: ubjectandtheme ndiscourse. n R. Hasan& p. Fries (Eds.), on subjectand theme:Adiscours unctionalpersp ctive (pp. 361 a03). Amsterdam:Benjamins.Cloran, C. (1999a).Contexts or learning. n F. Christie(Ed.), pedagogyand theshapingof consciousnesspp. 3r-65). London: cassell.Cloran, C. (1999b).Context,materialsituationandtext. In M. GhadessyEd.),Textand contextnfunctional tinguistics pp. 177-217).Amsterdam:Benjamins.Cloran, C. (2000).Socio-semanticariation:Different wordings,differentmeanings. n L. Unsworth(Ed.), Researchinganguage n schoolsandcommunitier pp.152-183). London:Cassell.

Coffin, C- (1997)Constructing nd giving value o the past: An investigationnrosecondary choolhistory. In F. Christie& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genreandinstitutions: Socialprocessesn the wo*place and school (pp. 196-230).London: Pinter.coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1992).Advancesn spokendiscourseanalysis. ondon:Routledgecoulthard, M. (Ed.). (1994).Advancesn witten textanalysr.s.ondon:Routledge.Davies,M., & Ravelli, L. J. (Eds.). (1992).Advancesn systemicinguistics;Recent heoryandpractice. London: pinter.


15/24

MEANING BEYONDTHE CLAUSE:SFLPERSPECTTVES 65Degand,L. (2001).Formand unctionof causation: theoretical ndempiricalinvestigationof causal onstructionsn Dutch. fStudiesop hetgebied vande Nederlandseaalkunde,5.]Peeters: uven.Downing,A., & Lavid,J. (1998). nformation rogressiontrategiesnadministrativeorms: A cross-linguistictudy. n A. Sdnchez-MacarroR. Carter Eds.), inguistic hoice cross enres pp. 99-115).Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.Eggins,S. (1994).An introductiono systemicunctional inguistics.London:Pinter.Eggins,S., & Iedema,R. (1997). Differencewithoutdiversity:Thesemanticsfwomen'smagazines.n R. Wodak Ed.), Gender nd discoursepp.165-196).Thousand aks,CA: Sage.Eggins,S., & Martin,J. R. (1997).Genres nd egisters f discourse.n T. A.van Dijk (Ed.),Discourse s structure ndprocess,Vol. 1 (pp. 230-256).

London:Sage.Eggins,S., & Slade,D. (1997).Analysing asualconversation.ondon: Cassell.Ferguson, ., Maclulich, C., & Ravelli,L. J. (1995).Meanings nd messages:Innguageguidelinesor museum xhibitions.Sydney:AustralianMuseum.Fine, J. (1994).How languageworks:Cohestonn normalandnonstandardcommunicafion.orwood,NJ: Ablex.Fine, J. (1995).Towardsunderstandingnd studying ohesionn schizophrenicspeech. ppliedPsycholinguistics,6, 25-47.Fine,J., Bartolucci,G., &Szatmari,P. (1989).Textual ystems: heiruse ncreationandmiscalculationf social eality. Word,40 (l-Z),65-80.Firth, J. R. (1957).A synopsis f linguisticheory,1930-1955. tudiesnLinguisticAnalysisSpecial olumeof thePhilologicalSociety] pp.1-31). London:Blackwell.Fox, B. A. (1987).Discourse tructure nd anaphora:WrittenandconversationalEnglish.CambridgeCambridgeUniversityPress.Fries,P. H. (1981).On thestatus f theme n English:Argumentsrom discourse.ForumLinguisticum, (I), 1-38.Fries,P., & Gregory,M. (Eds.). 1995).Discoursen society:Systemicunctionalperspectives. orwood,NJ: Ablex.Fuller, G. (1998).Cultivating cience:Negotiating iscoursen thepopular extsofStephenayGould. n J. R. Martin& R. Veel (Eds.),Reading cience(pp.35-62).London:Routledge.Ghadessy, . (Ed.). (1993).Register nalysis: heory ndpractlce.London:Pinter.Ghadessy, . (Ed.). (1995).Thematic evelopmentn English exts.London:Pinter.Ghadessy, . (Ed.). (1999).Textand contextnfunctional ingutstics.Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.Gibbons, . P. (in press).Forensicinguistics.Oxford:Blackwell.


16/24

66 J. R. MARTINGleason,H. A., Jr. (1968).Contrastive nalysis n discourse tructure.Monograph Serieson Languagesand Linguistics, 21. Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversity (GeorgetownUniversity Instituteof Languages nd

Linguistics).Gregory,M. (1995).Beforeand towardscommunicationinguistics: EssoysbyMichael Gregoryand Associates.JinSoonCha, Ed.). Seoul:SookmyngWomen'sUniversity.Gregory,M. (2001).Phasal nalysiswithin communicationinguistics:Twocontrastive iscourses.n P. Fries,M. Cummings,D. Lockwood, & W.Sprueill (Eds.),Relations ndfunctionswithinand around anguage pp.316-345).London: Continuum.Gregory,M., & Carroll, S. (1978).Language ndsituation:Language arietiesand their social contexts.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.Gutwinski,W. (1976).Cohesionn literary texts:A studyof somegrammnticalandlexical eaturesof English discourse.The Hague:Mouton.Halliday,M. A. K. (1967).Notes n transitivityand heme n English:Part 1.Journalof Linguistics, (1),37-81.Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorationsn the unctionsof language.London:EdwardArnold.Halliday,M. A. K. (1978).Language s a socialsemiotic:Thesocialinterpretationof languageand meaning.London:Edward Arnold.

Halliday,M. A. K. (1985).Spoken nd written anguage.Geelong,Victoria:Deakin UniversityPress.Halliday,M. A. K. (1991).Towardsprobabilisticnterpretations.n E. Ventola(Ed.), Functionaland systemicinguistics pp. 39-61).Berlin: MoutondeGruyter.Halliday,M. A. K. (1992).Language s system nd anguage s nstance: hecorpusas a theoretical onstruct.n J. Svarwik(Ed.),Directions n corpuslinguistics:Proceedings f NobelSymposium 2, Stockholm,4-8 August,1991, pp.6l-77). Berlin:De Gruyter.Halliday,M. A. K. (1993).Quantitative tudies ndprobabilitiesn grammar. nM. Hoey (Ed.), Data, description,discourse:Paperson English anguagein honour of JohnMcH. Sinclair on his sixtiethbirthday] pp. 1-25).London:HarPerCollins.Halliday,M. A. K. (1994).An introductiono functionalgrammar.London:EdwardArnold.Halliday,M. A. K. (1995).Language nd he theoryof codes. n A. Sadovnik(Ed.), Knowledge ndpedagogy:Thesociology f BasilBernsteinpp.127-144).Norwood,NJ: Ablex.Halliday,M. A. K. (1993).Thingsandrelations:Regrammaticisingxperience stechnical nowledge.n J. R. Martin & R.Veel(Eds.),Reading cience(pp. 185-235).London:Routledge.HatlidayM. A. K., & Hasan,R. (1976)Cohesionn English.London:Longman.


17/24


18/24

68 J. R. MARTINcontributionof BasilBernsteino research pp. 47-79).New York: peterLang.Hasan,R., & Cloran,C. (1990).A sociolinguisticnterpretationf everydayalkbetweenmothers ndchildren. n M. A. K. Halliday,J. Gibbons,& H.Nicholas Eds.),Learntng, eeping ndusing anguage, ol. 1 (pp.67 99). Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.Hasan,R., & Fries,P. (Eds.). 1995). n subject nd heme; discoursefunctionalperspective.Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.Hoey,M. J. (1991).Anotherperspectiven coherencendcohesive armony. nE. Ventola Ed.),Functional ndsystemicinguisticspp. 385-414).Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.Hoey, M. J. (2001).Textualnteraction:An intoduction to writtendiscourseanalysis London:Routledge.Hyland,K. (thisvolume).Genre:Language,ontext,and iteracy.

Hyon, S. (1996).Genre n three raditions:mplicationsor ESL. TESOLQuanerly,30,693-722.Iedema,R. (1993).Ir-,galEnglish:Discipline pecificiteracyandgenre heory.AustralianReview f AppliedLinguistics 6(2),g6-122.Iedema,R. (1995).kgal ideology:Theroleof languagen commonaw appellatejudgments.The nternational ournal or theSemiotics f Law, 7(22),2r-36.Iedema,R. (1997a).The anguage f administration: rganizing umanactiviry nformal nstitutions.n F. christie& J. R. Martin(Eds.),Genreandinstitutionspp.73-100).London:pinter.Iedema,R. (1997b).The historyof theaccident ewsstory.AustralianReviewofAppliedLinguistics, 0(2),95-119.Iedema,R. (1998).Hiddenmeaningsnd nstitutionalesponsibility. iscourseandsociety, , 481-500.Iedema,R. (2000).Bureaucraticlanningand esemiotisation.n E. Ventola Ed.),Discourse nd communitypp. 47-70).Tubingen:GunterNarr.Iedema,R. (2001).Analysingilm and elevision.n T. vanLreuwen& C. Jewitt(Eds.),Handbook f visualanalysispp. 183-204).London:Sage.Iedema,R., & Degeling, . (2001).Fromdifferenceo divergence:helogogenesisf interactiveension. unctions f l-anguage, (l), 33-56.Iedema,R., & Scheeres, . (in press).Fromdoing o talkingwork: Renegotiatingknowing,doingand dentify. n C. Candlin& S. SarangiEds.),AppliedLinguistics specialssue or 20021.Jordens . F., Little,M., Paul,K., &Sayers,E. J. (2001). ifedisruptionandgeneric omplexity:A social inguisticanalysis f narratives f cancerillness.SocialScience nd Medicine,53, 1227-1236.Kress,G., & van Leeuwen, . (1996).Readingm ages:hegrammarof visualdesign.London:Routledge.

Kress,G., & vankeuwen, T. (2001).Multimodaldiscourse-Themodes ndmediaof contemporaryommunication.ondon:Arnold.


19/24

MEANING BEYOND THE CLAUSE: SFL PERSPECTTVES 69Kress,G., Jewitt,C., Ogborn, ., & Tsatsarelis, . (2001).Multimodal eachingand learning: The rhetoics of the classroom.London: Continuum.Lavid,J. (1997).Specifying he discourse emantics f grammaticalheme ormultilingual text generation:Preliminary indings. Revistade Ia SociedadEspafiolapara el Procesamientoel LenguajeNatural, 21, 57-79.Lemke,J. (1995).Textual olitics:Discourse ndsocial dynamics. ondon:Taylor& Francis.Lemke,J. (1998).Multiplying meaning:Visualandverbalsemioticsn scientifictext. n J. R. Martin & R. Veel(Eds.),Reading ciencepp. 87-113).London: Routledge.Irwin, B., Fine, J., & Young,L. (2001).Expository iscourse: genrebasedapproach o social science exts.London:Continuum.Mann,W. C., Matthiessen,. M., & Thompson, . A. (1992).Rhetoricalstructureheoryand ext analysis.n W. C. Marur& S. A. Thompson

(Eds.),Discourse esciption:Diverse inguisticanalyses f afund-raisingtext(pp. 39-78). Amsterdam:Benjamins.Mann,W. C., & Thompson, .A. (Eds.). 1992).Discourse esciption:Diverselinguistic analyses f a fund-raisingtext. Amsterdam:Benjamins.Martin, J. R. (1983).Panicipantdentificationn English,Tagalogand Kdte.AustralianJournalof Linguistics,3(l), 45-74.Martin,J. R. (1985).Factualwriting:Exploringand challenging ocialreality.Geelong,Victoria: DeakinUniversityPress.Martin,J. R. (1992).English ext: System nd structure.Amsterdam: enjamins.Martin,J. R. (1993). ife as a noun In M. A. K. Halliday& J. R. Martin (Eds.),Witing sciencepp.22l-267). London:Falmer.Martin,J. R. (1995a).More thanwhat he messages about:English heme. n MGhadessyEd.), Themntic evelopmentn English exts pp.223-258).London:Pinter.Martin,J. R. (1995b).Text andclause: ractal esonance. ext, 5(1), 5-42.Martin,J. R. (1996a).Evaluating isruption:Symbolisingheme n juniorsecondaryarrative.n R. Hasan& G. Williams(Eds.),Literacy nsocietypp. Da-nD. London:Longman.Martin, J. R. (1996b).Typesof structure:Deconstructing otionsof constituencyin clauseand ext. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott Eds.),Computationaland conv rsationaldiscours Burning issue an inte disciplinary account(pp. 39-66).Heidelberg:Springer.Martin, J. R. (1998).Practicento theory: Catalyzing hange. n S. Hunston Ed.),Language t work(pp. 151-167).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.Martin, J. R. (1999).Modellingcontext:A crookedpathof progressn contextuallinguistics SydneySFL). In M. GhadessyEd.), Textand context n

functional inguisticspp. 25-61). Amsterdam:Benjamins.Martin, J. R. (2000a).Beyondexchange: ppraisalsystemsn English. n S.Hunston& G. ThompsonEds.),Evaluation n text:Authorial stanceand


20/24

7O J. R. MARTINthe constructionof discourse pp. 142-175).Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Martin, J. R. (2000b).Close eading:Functionalinguistics s a tool for criticalanalysis. n L. Unsworth Ed.),Researchinganguagen schools ndcommunitiespp. 275-303).London:Longman.Martin, J. R. (2000c).Designandpractice:EnactingunctionalinguisticsnAustralia.AnnualReviewof AppliedLinguistics,20, 116-126.Martin, J. R. (2001a).A context or genre:modellingsocialprocessesnfunctionalinguistics.n R. Stainton& J. Devilliers Eds.),Communicationn linguistics pp. l-41). Toronro:GREF(CollectionTheoria).Martin, J. R. (200lb). From ittle thingsbig thingsgrow: Ecogenesisn schoolgeography.n R. coe, L. Lingard,& T. TeslenkoEds.),The hetoricand deology f genre:Strategiesor stabilityand change pp. 2a3-271).Cresskill,NJ: HamptonPress.Martin, J. R. (2001c).Writing history:Construingimeandvalue n discoursesfthepast. n C. Colombi& M. SchleppergrellEds.),Developing dvancedliteracy nfirst and secondanguagespp. 87-l l8). Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.Martin, J. R. (2001d).Giving hegameaway:Explicitness, iversifyandgeffe-basediteracy n Australia. n R. wodak et al. (Eds.),FunctionalIl/literacy(pp. 155-174).Vienna:Verlagder Osterreichischenkadamieder Wissenschaften.

Martin, J. R., & Plum,G. (1997).Construing xperience: omestorygeffes.Journalof NarrativeandLife History,7(l-4),299-308.Martin, J. R., & Rose,D. (in press).Workingwithdiscourse:Meaningbeyond heclause.London:Continuum.Martin,J. R., & Veel,R. (Eds.). 1998).Reading cience: itical andfunctionalperspectives n discourses f science.London:Routledge.Martin, J. R. & Wodak,R. (Eds.). in press)Re/readinghepast: Critical andfunctionalperspectivesn discourses f history.Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.Martinec,R. (1998).Cohesionn action.Semiotica,20(l/2), 161-180.Martinec,R. (2000a).Rhythm n multimodalexts.Leonardo,33(4),289-297.Martinec,R. (2000b).Typesof processn action.Semiotica,130(314),243-268.Martinec,R. (2000c).Construction f identity n M. Jackson'sJam'. SocialSemiotics, 0, 313-329.Martinec,R. (2001). nterpersonalesourcesn action.Semiotica, 35(l/4),rr7-r45.Matthiessen, . M. I. M. (1993).Registern the ound:Diversityn a unifiedtheoryof register nalysis.M. GhadessyEd.),Register nalysis:Theoryandpractice (pp. 221-292).London:Pinter.

Matthiessen,. M. I. M. (1999).Thesystem f TRANSITIVITY:An exploratorystudyof text-basedrofiles.Functions f Innguage,6(1),1-51.


21/24


22/24


23/24


24/24

74 J. R. MARTINknk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherencen spokenand written discourse:How to creote t and how to describet (pp. 101-125).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Ventola,E. (Fd.). (2000).Discourseandcommunity:Doing functional inguistics.Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Ventola,E., & Mauranen,A. (Eds.). (1995).Academicwriting: Interculturalandtextual ssues.Amsterdam:Benjamins.Watt, D. L. E. (2001). ntonational ohesionandtonesequencesn English.InStainton,R., & Devilliers, J. (Eds.), Communicationn tinguistics pp.361-378). Toronto: Groupede rechercheen 6tudes rancophones GREF).Webster, J. (1995). Studying hematicdevelopmentn on-line help documentarionusingthe functionalsemantic rocessor.n M. GhadessyEd.), Textandcontext nfunctional linguistics (pp. 259-271). London: pinter.Webster,L, & Kit, C. (1995).Computational nalysisof ChineseandEnglishtexts with the functional semanticprocessorand the C-LFG Parser.Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing,10, ZO3-ZLI.White, P. (1997). Death,disruptionand the moral order: The narrative impulse inmass hard news' reporting. n F. Christie& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genreand institutions pp. 101-133).London: Pinter.White, P. (1998). Extended eality, proto-nouns nd the vernacular:Distinguishingthe technologicalrom the scientific.J. R. Martin & R. veel (Eds.),Reading science pp. 266-296). London: Routledge.White, P. (2000). Dialogueand inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting he semanricsofmodalityand hedging. n M. Coulthard,J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (Eds.),Workingwith dialogue pp.67-80). Tubingen:Neimeyer.Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins,S. (1990).The discourseof geography:Ordering and explaining the experientialworld. Linguistics and Education,1,359-392.Williams, G. (1995).Joint book-reading nd iteracypedagogy:A socio-semanticexamination.Volume l. Current Oiginal Resourcesn Education(CORE), 9(3). Fiche2 801-Fiche6 B01.Williams, G. (1996).Jointbook-reading nd iteracy pedagogy:A socio-semanticexamination. Volume 2. Current Oiginal Resourcesn Education(CORE),20(l). Fiche3 B01-Fiche8 E10.williams, G. (1999). The pedagogic eviceandthe productionof pedagogicdiscourse:A caseexample n early literacyeducation.n F. Christie(Ed.),Pedagogyand the shapingof consciousnesspp. 88-122). London:Cassell.Williams, G. (2001). Literacypedagogy rior to schooling:Relations etweensocialpositioningand semantic ariation.In A. Morais, I. Neves,B.Davies, & H. Daniels(Eds.), Towardsa sociologyof pedagogy: Thecontribution of Basil Bernstein o research(pp. n-ail. New York: PeterLang.

Documents

JA-2002-Meaning Beyond Clause SFL Perspective