Abstract This paper examines nominalisation in scientific discourse in English, focusing on a distinction between what I will refer to as ‘live’ and ‘dead’ grammatical metaphors. Live metaphors refer to a nominal realisation of an ideational discourse semantic figure; dead metaphors are found in the same nominalisations as live metaphors, but they realise an entity rather than a figure. The distinction is made by drawing on a tristratal approach that is informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics and that considers nominalisation simultaneously from the perspectives of field, discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar. Although the paper focuses on nominalisation, it illustrates a broader line of argumentation that can be extended to the analysis of ideational discourse semantic meanings in general.

Abstract Previous studies of Chinese modal verbs in the traditional framework (e.g.Lu 2004;Peng 2007;Tang 2000;Tiee 1985;Tsang 1981;Xie 2002;Xu 2007) have mainly focused on the description of semantic and syntactic features of modals that occur in the middle of the clause and attached little significance to the functions that modal verbs serve when they appear at different positions in the clause. Similarly, in a systemic functional framework, modal verbs in the middle of the clause receive the most attention. Their interpersonal functions are thoroughly explored; however, their textual functions are seldom discussed as they are believed to mainly appear in the middle of the clause buried in the Rheme rather than at the beginning or at the end of the clause. This paper examines the functions that modal verbs serve when they occur in different places in the clause from the perspective of systemic functional grammar. It argues that modal verbs are functionally motivated and the position of the modal verbs in the clause expresses particular meanings. When situated medially in the clause, modal verbs function as the Modality in the interpersonal structure of the clause, and as part of the Rheme in the thematic structure of the clause, marking the transition between Theme and Rheme. When occurring at the beginning or in the middle of the clause before a nominal group, some modal verbs of obligation serve as focus markers and identify the subsequent nominal group as the marked information focus of the clause. In the thematic structure of the clause, clause-initial modal verbs of obligation and probability function as interpersonal Themes to foreground the speaker’s modal assessment. Finally, when placed at the end of the clause, modal verbs serve either as the Predicator or Modality in the interpersonal structure of the clause and as the unmarked information focus of the clause.

Abstract Motivated by the frequent omission of interjections from film subtitles, this study investigates the interpersonal functions of interjections, and seeks to disentangle their meaning relations. Based on the analysis of interjections from six English language films under the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the study primarily classifies the functions of interjections in terms of whether the interjections independently realize moves in exchange. The function of the interjection which realizes a move on its own is described at the semantic stratum in terms of a minor speech function, and the function of the interjection which realizes a move together with a clause is described at the lexicogrammatical stratum in terms of an optional clausal function referred to as a ‘latched function’. The study highlights the distinction between latched functions and their agnate minor speech functions, and offers more delicate accounts of the functions of interjections. It proposes a system network of the minor speech functions, which can facilitate a more systematic analysis of the functions realized by interjections. This study contributes to the SFL description of English interjections, and can offer methodological insights into further research on the functionality of interjections.

Abstract This article focuses on two types of constructional effects of indirect evidential marking in Harakmbut (isolate, Peru). Both types originate in a clash of interpretation: the use of indirect evidential marking indicates a shift of perspective away from the speaker (as if they did not witness the event, thus disclaiming epistemic authority), while the events referred to are in principle directly accessible to them. As the signalled shift is not fully realized in interpretation, the effects will be characterized as showing perspective persistence. The first type involves constructions with a first person agent, and indirect evidential marking is found to produce the interpretation that the speaker performed the action referred to unintentionally, finding out about the outcome of this action only later. Other types of non-volitional events – without pragmatic inference on the part of the speaker – are found not to carry indirect evidential marking; they use different linguistic means to signal non-volitionality. The second type involves constructions with impersonal predicates referring to the cycle of the sun, and the use of indirect evidential marking yields emphasis on the completion of the event referred to. It is proposed that both types of effects can be explained in terms of endpoint emphasis (cf.DeLancey 1985).

Preview this article: Preface, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/fol.00012.pre-1.gif

Preview this article: Textual analysis, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/fol.00015.dav-1.gif

Although I came into contact with Systemic Functional Linguistics in Canada in the early 1980s, it was not until I was at Warwick University in the UK, teaching Systemic Functional Grammar with Meriel Bloor, that I properly encountered Margaret Berry’s work through a then PhD student of Hilary Nesi’s, Paul Wickens.<br/>

Abstract History texts are not just disciplinary artefacts for describing, explaining or making arguments about the past. They play a key role in defining present-day group identities and their terms of affiliation. As such, they have generated a great deal of interest among functional linguists interested in how ideology is construed through language. But the ways history texts evaluate the past is not straightforward; they include a complex interplay of discourse participants putting forward a range of views toward the subject-matter. This article presents a framework for investigating evaluative meaning in historical discourse that aims to untangle this complex web of voices, showing how they work together to position readers to take up particular views toward the past. The framework brings together two prominent approaches to the study of evaluation:Martin &amp; White’s (2005)Appraisal framework andHunston’s (2000)notions of Status Value and Relevance. It posits four levels of evaluation (inter-, super-, extra- and meta-evaluation) that are grounded in insights from the field of historiography and reflect key disciplinary activities of historians.