Analyzing Genre: Functional Parameters

James R. Martin

(The University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, 2006)

1. Resources

This paper considers in a little more detail some recent developments that bear critically on the analyses undertaken. Essentially, these analyses are informed by the model of language known as systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL), especially the variety of that model which has evolved in Australia since 1975. The most accessible introduction to this variety of SFL is Eggins (1994).

The functional grammar of English assumed here is that outlined in Halliday (1985), and as elaborated by Matthiessen (1995). Beyond this, the discourse analyses undertaken draw on Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Martin (1992a). The model of context in focus here has evolved out of earlier work by Martin (1985/1989) and Ventola (1987) and will be considered in more detail below.

We should also clarify here that a substantial portion of the research impelling the development of the model since the early 80s has been carried out in the field of educational linguistics. The papers by Coffin, Iedema, Rose, Rothery and Stenglin, Veel and White in fact draw on research into secondary school and workplace literacy based in the Metropolitan East Region of the NSW Department of Education’s Disadvantaged Schools Program in the early 90s. This research and the materials deriving from it represented the second phase of literacy initiatives informed by SFL in the region (the first being the late 80s primary school focussed Language and Social Power Project). For a critical introduction to the issues contextualising this work see Cope and Kalantzis (1993). Martin was the chief academic consultant for both phases of this research, and was in addition supervisor of doctoral research by Christie, Iedema, Rose, Rothery and White. As a result it would be fair to say that the variety of SFL deployed here has been strongly influenced by University of Sydney SFL and its involvement in the development of “genre-based” literacy pedagogy and curriculum (for mid-term reviews see Christie 1992; Martin 1993a).

2. SFL-modelling Language in Context

Functional linguistics is centrally concerned with showing how the organisation of language is related to its use. In SFL this concern is pursued by modelling both language and social context as semiotic systems in a relationship of realisation with one another. In such a model social context and language meta-redound (Lemke 1995)—which is to say that social context comprises patterns of language patterns. Realisation also entails that language construes, is construed by, and (over time) reconstrues social context. One of the images commonly used to outline this relationship is presented in Figure 1, with language and social context as co-tangential circles.

Figure 1 Language as the realisation of social context

Adding to this model, SFL treats the organisation of language and of social context as functionally diversified along similar lines. With language, functional diversification is modelled through metafunctions—ideational, interpersonal, and textual. Ideational linguistic resources are concerned with representation, interpersonal resources with interaction and textual resources information flow. In SFL this intrinsic functional organisation is projected onto context, redounding with the variables of field, tenor and mode—where field focuses on institutional practices, tenor on social relations and mode on channel. Useful discussions of linguistic metafunctions in relation to register variables are found in Halliday (1978), Halliday and Hasan (1980/1985/1989), Martin (1991). The functional diversification reviewed here is laid over the language/social context relation in Figure 2; note the proportionality①of the intrinsic and extrinsic functionality—field is to ideational resources as tenor is to interpersonal resources as mode is to textual resources.

To begin with, we look at the issue of realisation in relation to the relationship between language and social context. At this point we return to realisation, by way of unpacking the “internal” organisation of language and of social context. As far as language is concerned, SFL follows Hjelmslev in assuming a fundamental separation of content and expression planes. The content plane is concerned with the construal of meaning; the expression plane with the organisation of segmental and prosodic realisations of meaning in spoken or written language (phonology/graphology), or sign. Developing Hjelmslev, SFL takes the step of stratifying his content plane—as lexicogrammar and discourse semantics. Lexicogrammar focuses on resources for incorporating ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning as clauses and smaller units (groups/phrases, words and morphemes), as in Halliday (1985/1994), Matthiessen (1995), with lexis integrated as a more delicate perspective on grammar (Hasan 1987). Discourse semantics focuses on resources for integrating clauses with one another as cohesive text, as in Halliday and Hasan (1976), and Martin (1992a). If we unpack the inner circle of language in Figures 1 and 2, we arrive at the stratified model outlined in Figure 3—as discourse semantics metaredounding with lexicogrammar, metaredounding in its turn with phonology/graphology.

Figure 2 Functional diversification of language & social context

Figure 3 Stratification within language as metaredundancy

Social context, in the model assumed here, is also treated as a stratified system②—comprising the levels of register and genre (as in Eggins and Martin in press). Register is used as a general composite term for the field, mode and tenor variables introduced earlier③. Set up as a level in this way, register is designed to interface the analysis of social context naturally with the metafunctionally diversified organisation of language resources. Genre on the other hand is set up above and beyond metafunctions (at a higher level of abstraction) to account for relations among social processes in more holistic terms, with a special focus on the stages through which most texts unfold. The relation of genre to register as complementary perspectives on the social “content” of language (i.e. context) is thus comparable in some respects to the relation of discourse semantics to lexicogrammar as complementary perspectives on language’s own content plane. Genre and register constitute a stratified perspective on what Hjelmslev referred to as connotative semiotics—semiotic systems that make use of another semiotic system as their expression plane (as opposed to denotative semiotics that have an expression plane of their own). The relation of connotative to denotative semiosis in the model is outlined in Hjelmslev’s terms in Figure 4 (for further discussion see Martin 1992a).

Figure 4 Language’s stratified content form in relation to a stratified model of social context

In earlier models of context (e.g. Martin 1992a), an additional layer of context was set up, referred to as ideology, to focus attention on the distribution of discursive resources in a culture, and the divergent ways in which social subjects construe social occasions. This modelling strategy does not appear to have fostered the dialogue among functional linguists and critical theorists that was intended (cf. Threadgold 1991, 1993, 1994). An alternative strategy for enhancing this dialogue will be suggested below. In the metaredundancy④model outlined in Figure 5, register (encompassing field, tenor and mode) contextualises language and is in turn contextualised by genre.

Figure 5 Language metaredounding with register, metaredounding with genre

3. Genesis (and Subjectivity)

Halliday and Matthiessen were drawing increasing attention to language change (e.g. Halliday 1993b; Halliday & Matthiessen to appear). The central issue here has to do with instantiation—the manifestation of system in process, and the way in which manifestations rebound on and ultimately reconstrue the system from which they derive. Halliday (e.g. 1991, 1992a, b, c, 1993a) suggests a model in which language is conceived as a set of probabilistic systems, each instantiation of which in some way re-inflects probability—just as a cricketer’s batting average fluctuates slightly with every run scored. What we call “change” has to do with a drift of reverberations over time that in some way perturbs the system, making way for new resources. Nesbitt and Plum (1988) provide the classic insight into this process of semantic evolution in the context of clause complex relations. Note that a probabilistic model of this kind highlights the way in which connotative semiotics like register and genre are realised through language—namely, by reweighting the probabilities of certain linguistic choices being taken up (i.e. by putting different kinds of meaning at risk).

Halliday and Matthiessen suggest a framework for modelling semiotic change according to the “time depth“ involved. For relatively short time frames such as that involved in the unfolding of a text, they suggest the term logogenesis⑤(Matthiessen mimeo); for the longer time frame of the development of language in the individual, they use the term ontogenesis (Painter 1984); and for maximum time depth, phylogenesis (as in Halliday’s reading of the history of scientific English; Halliday & Martin 1993). This framework is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Framing Semiotic Change

In a model of this kind, phylogenesis provides the environment for ontogenesis which in turn provides the environment for logogenesis; in other words, the stage a culture has reached in its evolution provides the social context for the linguistic development of the individual, and the stage this development has reached in the individual provides resources for the instantiation of unfolding texts. Conversely, logogenesis provides the material (i.e. semiotic goods) for ontogenesis, which in turn provides the material for phylogenesis; in other words, texts provide the means through which individuals interact to learn the system, and it is through the heteroglossic aggregation of individual (always already social) systems that the semiotic trajectory of a culture evolves. Language change in this model is read in terms of an expanding meaning potential, a key feature of semiotic systems as they adapt to new discursive and non-discursive (physical and biological) environments.

Figure 6 Time frames and semogenesis

At this point in the discussion we might resume the question of ideology, passed over above. The fundamental issue here has to do with the ways in which social subjects are positioned in a culture. To interpret this semiotically, we need to be able to model the meaning potential available to social subjects and, as well, the different ways in which they draw on this potential as they interact with each other. Traditionally, the variables which affect this positioning are generalised under headings such as gender, ethnicity, class and generation. SFL research in this area has been strongly influenced by Bernstein’s notions of coding orientation (e.g. Cloran 1989; Hasan 1990), with Martin (1992a) suggesting that ideology might be conceived as the system of coding orientations engendering subjectivity at a higher level of abstraction than genre.

One of the dangers inherent in modelling subjectivity along these lines is that of locking subjects in and eliding agency, thereby effacing their potential for resistance and transformation. One way to defuse this danger might be to approach subjectivity dynamically, from the perspective of the genesis theory just outlined. This would enable us to foreground the ways in which subjects engage dynamically with texts as they unfold (logogenesis), the ways in which they are positioned and re-positioned socially throughout their life (ontogenesis) and the ways in which a culture reworks hegemony across generations (phylogenesis). In a model of this kind, it would be more natural to interpret language, register and genre as the projection of semohistory (across all three time frames) than as realising an abstract and reified ideology (as Martin’s model has at times been read to imply). In these terms, language, register and genre constitute the meaning potential that is immanent, from moment to moment as a text unfolds, for the social subjects involved, at the point in the evolution of the culture where meanings are being made. An outline of this perspective is presented as Figure 7, including some indication of the way in which links might be drawn with the work of central post-structuralist theorists in a model of this kind. In Figure 7 Halliday’s (1985/1994) notation for projecting clause complexes has been borrowed to represent one of the senses in which history (i.e. semogenesis) gives meaning to synchronic (albeit always changing) semiosis.

Figure 7 Language, register and genre as the projection of their semohistory across time frames

4. A Glance at Register

Since the early 80s, researchers involved in developing the model of context outlined here have been working towards a semiotic construal of field, tenor and mode variables—inspired by Halliday’s (e.g. 1978) construal of language as a social semiotic. This has proved an ambitious undertaking, and has been shaped in various ways by the availability of research funding and consumer needs with educational concerns compelling a good deal of the research. The descriptive responsibilities of the field, tenor and mode analyses assumed is essentially that outlined in Martin (1992a).

Field is concerned with systems of activity, including descriptions of the participants, process and circumstances these activities involve. From the perspective of field, the principles for relating activities to one another have to do with the institutional focus of the activities—the ways in which the activities co-articulate everyday and public institutions such as domestic life, bridge, rugby, information technology, sociology, science, bureaucracy and so on. The co-articulating activities of a field tend to share participants, which are organised taxonomically—via hyponymy (class/subclass) or meronymy (part/whole). Participants enter into activities by bonding with processes and circumstances, so that when we hear thatWaughhasjustnotchedupadoublecenturyatSabinaParkwe know the field of cricket is at stake⑥(or, if outsiders, we simply have no idea what is going on). For illustrative work on activity sequences and taxonomies in the field of science see Roseetal. (1992), Halliday and Martin (1993) and Martin and Veel (to appear).

Tenor is concerned with social relations, as these are enacted through the dimensions of power and solidarity. Following Poynton (1985/1989) work on the “vertical” status dimension has focussed on reciprocity of semiotic choice—taking up her suggestion that interlocutors of equal status have access to the same kinds of meanings whereas interlocutors of unequal status take up semantic choices of different kinds. Work on the “horizontal” contact dimension has been slower to evolve, dependent as it was on the development of better descriptions of evaluative language and its bonding potential (see section 6 below). For important work on tenor in administrative contexts see Iedema (in press) and this paper.

Mode is concerned with semiotic distance, as this is affected by the various channels of communication through which we undertake activity (field) and simultaneously enact social relations (tenor). From the perspective of field, semiotic distance has to do with the role played by language in the activity—part of what is going on, live commentary on what is going on, reconstruction of what was going on... and on to abstract and theoretical texts in which language reconstitutes activity (see section 7 below). From the perspective of tenor, semiotic distance has to do with the kinds of interaction various channels enable or disable—from the two-way aural and visual feedback of face to face conversation through telephone, radio and television to the no immediate feedback context of reading and writing. Recently, partly as a result of emergence of communication via electronic texts (e-mail; the world wide web), the role of image in relation to verbiage has received increasing attention (as inspired by Kress & van Leeuwen 1990 and O’Toole 1994); the study of multi-modal texts is currently a dynamic growth area as far as mode research is concerned (e.g. Lemke to appear).

5. A Glance at Genre

As with register (field, tenor and mode) the framework for analysing genre is essentially that outlined in Martin (1992a; for illustrative implementations see Ventola 1987, 1989, 1995). As such, genre is concerned with systems of social processes, where the principles for relating social processes to each other have to do with texture—the ways in which field, mode and tenor variables are phased together in a text. This means that the principles for relating texts to one another at the level of genre complement those at the level of register. For example, from the perspective of field (register), the instructions for doing a science experiment are immediately related to actually doing the experiment, the procedural recount of that experiment, the explanation the experiment is designed to illustrate (and so on; see Veel below). From the perspective of genre, on the other hand, the instructions are immediately related to a range of procedural texts (e.g directions, recipes, instruction manuals) with closely related texture (i.e. a sequence of commands, potentially prefaced by a list of tools, ingredients, or relevant apparatus, potentially headed by the purpose of the procedure and so on; see Rose below).

In Australian educational linguistics, genres have been defined as staged, goal-oriented social processes (e.g. Martinetal1987), a definition which flags the way in which most genres take more than a single phase to unfold, the sense of frustration or incompletion that is felt when phases don’t unfold as expected or planned, and the fact that genres are addressed (i.e. formulated with readers and listeners in mind), whether or not the intended audience is immediately present to respond. In these terms, as a level of context, genre represents the system of staged goal-oriented social processes through which social subjects in a given culture live their lives.

Recent work has foregrounded the question of modelling relations among genres and the nature of generic structure. The impetus for the concern with modelling genres relations stems from two sources—the availability of descriptions of an ever-widening range of genres, especially in educational contexts (families of stories, procedures, explanations etc.), and countering resistance to the notion of a distinct level of genre as part of a model of social context (as voiced by Hasan 1995).

5.1 genre agnation

As far as strategies for modelling genre as system are concerned, two approaches have been explored. One involves the traditional SFL approach to agnation, via typology. With this approach, categorical distinctions are set up as oppositions and used to factor out similarities and differences among genres. For simple sets of oppositions, a paradigm can be used to display the relevant valeur, as in Table 2⑦(from Martin in press).

Table 2 Using a Paradigm to Express Genre Agnation

Paradigms quickly become saturated as a display mechanism as additional oppositions are taken into account and more complicated typologies are better imaged as system networks. In Figure 8 (taken from Martin in press), procedural genres are added to the picture. The network shows procedures to be immediately agnate to historical recounts with which genres they share a generalised focus on activity; but whereas historical recounts make a statement about the past, procedures direct activity which has yet to be undertaken.

Figure 8 Using a system network to model genre agnation

Typological description of this kind and its formalisation in system networks is of course the cornerstone of SFL theory and description. The categorical precision with which it sets up its oppositions and renders meaning as valeur is at the same time its weakness. In grammar, for example, clauses are classified according to process type—and for purposes of analysis and description they have to be one type or another. But as the front cover of Halliday’s 2nd edition of hisIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammarillustrates, process types can also be interpreted as blending into one another as does one colour to another in a rainbow. Behaving (laughing,pondering,looking) is between acting (material processing) and sensing (mental processing) just as purple can be read as a cline between red and blue (for a discussion of typology and process type see Martin 1996a). As a result it is necessary to complement typological analysis with a topological perspective. Lemke introduces the notion of topology in relation to genre relations as follows (the significance of topology elsewhere in the model is taken up in Martin & Matthiessen 1991):

A topology, in mathematical terms, is A SET OF CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING DEGREES OF NEARNESS OR PROXIMITY AMONG THE MEMBERS OF SOME CATEGORY. It turns a “collection” or set of objects into aspacedefined by the relations of those objects. Objects which are more alike by the criteria are represented in this space as being closer together; those which are less alike are further apart. There can be multiple criteria, which may be more or less independent of one another, so that two texts, for instance, may be closer together in one dimension (say horizontal distance), but further apart in another (vertical distance). What is essential, obviously, is our choice of the criteria, theparameters, that define similarity and difference on each dimension. These parameters can be represented as more or less alike. The same set of parameters allows us to describe both the similarities and the differences among texts, or text-types (genres). [from Lemke “The topology of genre...” unpublished earlier draft of Lemke in press]

By way of brief illustration, consider the genre topology in Table 3, involving a set of secondary school history genres. The display arranges the history genres in a pedagogic developmental sequence, as a scaffolding for apprenticeship into the discipline. It begins on the left with genres that are likely to be more accessible to students because of their similarity to recounting genres in their oral cultures; it ends on the right with genres that involved a great deal of grammatical metaphor as far as text organisation is concerned, and thus depend on levels of literacy commonly associated with senior secondary school.

Table 3 A Topological Perspective on Genre Agnation (for Secondary School History Genres)

In Table 3 we have boxed in the genres—but the relation of one to another needs to be seen as a cline. For example, from the typological perspective, the categorical difference between historical recounts and accounts has to do with whether history unfolds sequentially or causally—whether one event is followed by another or leads to another. But many texts use a combination of sequential and causal relations. For purposes of typological classification, we have to define just what percentage of causal relations is required for a text to qualify as an account. The topological perspective on the other hand allows us to position texts on a cline, as more or less prototypical recounts or accounts according to the time/cause parameter.

Generally, when articulating a pedagogic sequence like that in Table 3, there is more than one parameter to consider. Six parameters are in fact deployed above. And note that these parameters group the history genres in different ways. The “mood” parameter (proposition vs proposition/proposal) opposes most of the genres to the argumentative ones on the right since in general it is only the argumentative genres that include commands on one kind or another (e.g. exhortative appeals to redress past injustices). Conversely, the “identification” parameter opposes most of the history genres to the autobiographical and biographical recounts since in general it is only the auto/biographical recounts that focus on individual participants (as opposed to generic classes of participant). As with all topological parameters these distinctions are matters of degree—most mainstream history, for example, foregrounds male individuals who shape the course of history for generic classes of participant, right across the historical recount, account, explanation and argument spectrum.

We have found the topological perspective on genre agnation to be a particularly significant one in educational contexts for a number of reasons. For one thing, it facilitates the development of learner pathways (as in Table 3)—outlines of what kinds of developmental sequence will help students move smoothly from control of one genre to another. For another, it helps teachers and students make sense of the real life instantiations of genres they come across in their reading and marking which are not always prototypical examples of canonical genres. And finally, the topological perspective provides principled tools for reasoning about genre mixing and semogenesis—as with the greening of secondary school science (Veel to appear); topologically, the new green genres can be read as involving additional ecological discourse parameters, above and beyond the traditional parameters associated with the discipline.

5.2 genre structure

Turning to the question of genre structure, the main developments have involved moving away from simple constituency representations of genre staging. This development first arose in the context of dealing with longer texts, such as those comprising so much of the reading and writing in secondary school subjects. Martin (1994, 1995a) proposes the term macro-genre for texts which combine familiar elemental genres such as recount, report, explanation, exposition and so on. He suggests that logico-semantic relations such as those outlined by Halliday for clause complexes (elaboration, extension, enhancement) can be deployed to reason about genre complexing in longer texts. In the course of this research Martin also noted periodic and prosodic patterns ranging over combinations of genre complexes for example, the introduction and conclusion of an essay, or the evaluative stance of a review. This raised the issue of whether the staging of elemental genres should be reconsidered in light of Halliday (1979) and Matthiessen’s work (1988) on types of structure in grammatical description.

Martin (1996b) suggests that the structure of even elemental genres can indeed be factored out according to a range of structuring principles, and that constituency representation offers only a relatively compromised image of genre phasing. Martin’s rendering of Halliday and Matthiessen’s types of structure is outlined in Figure 9, which in addition associates the various structuring principles with metafunctions. The basic division is between particulate, prosodic and periodic structure. Particulate structure organises text segmentally, into either orbital or serial patterns. Orbital structure takes one segment as nuclear, and associates other segments with this nucleus as satellites (see White 1997); with serial structure, there is no nuclear segment on which others depend—the text unfolds step by step, with each step dependent on the immediately preceding. Prosodic structure is supra-segmental; it spreads itself across a text, more and less intensely as required, in a way akin to tone contours in phonology. Periodic structure is wave-like; it organises a text into a rhythm of peaks and troughs, as the demands of information flow prescribe.

Figure 9 Types of structure in relation to modes of meaning

It follows from this factoring of kinds of structure that genre structure is best interpreted simultaneously from the perspective of particulate, prosodic and periodic representations. By way of illustration, consider the analyses of an exemplum (one of the narrative genres discussed in Rothery & Stenglin 1997). Read from the perspective on constituency, an exemplum like Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” (Cranny-Francis and Martin 1991) consists of an Orientation, followed by an Incident, followed by an Interpretation, followed by a Coda. Read from the perspective of a multi-structural analysis on the other hand, the song has a nuclear stage (the Incident), with Orientation, Interpretation and Coda satellites; alongside this, the song has a chorus (“Born in the USA”) which interacts with the Interpretation in such a way that Springsteen’s scathing deconstruction of America’s military exploitation of its working class reverberates through the song; and punctuating this, the song begins with an Orientation and ends with a Coda that foreground, through relational clauses and low-key musical accompaniment, the powerless position of the veteran Springsteen has written the exemplum about. A crude synopsis of the complementarity of these readings is outlined in Figure 10, which includes some attempt to outline the sense in which constituency representation compromises the factored analysis.

Figure 10 Types of structure in relation to constituency representation

6. A Brief Outline of APPRAISAL

In the course of the secondary school and workplace literacy research noted above, it became necessary to expand our analyses of interpersonal meaning to include more work on evaluative language (building on Martin 1992b, 1995b, 1996c). We tackled this first in the context of narrative analysis in English, moving on to the issue of objectivity in the media and finally focussing on responses to verbal and non-verbal artefacts in English and Creative Arts. Partly in line with this trajectory, we concentrated first on AFFECT (resources for construing emotion), then on JUDGEMENT (resources for judging behaviour in “ethical” terms) and finally on APPRECIATION (resources for valuing objects “aesthetically”). Collectively, we refer to these resources as APPRAISAL, including additional resources for AMPLIFICATION and ENGAGEMENT (a more detailed discussion of these resources is presented in Martin to appear).

Before looking at the scaffolding we developed for categorising AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION, let’s illustrate the domains of meaning at issue here. The examples are taken from the opening scene of the movieEducatingRita—the first meeting between Rita and her tutor, Frank. In the first example, Rita expresses her emotional response to the view from Frank’s window, drawing on mental processes of affection (relevant appraisal in bold face in these examples):

AFFECT (emotions; reacting to behaviour, text/process, phenomena)

Rita: I love this room. I love the view from this window. Do you like it?

Frank: I don’t often consider it actually.

In the following example, Frank makes judgements about the propriety of his appalling teaching as far as most of his students and Rita are concerned:

JUDGEMENT (ethics; evaluating behaviour)

Frank: You want a lot and I can’t give it. Between you, and me, and the walls, actually I am an appalling teacher. That’s all right most of the time. Appalling teaching is quite in order for most of my appalling students. But it is not good enough for you young woman.

In the next example, Rita comments on the value of a book she’s been reading:

APPRECIATION (aesthetics; evaluating text/process, phenomena)

Rita: Rita Mae Brown, who wrote “Rubyfruit Jungle”. Haven’t...haven’t you read it?

Frank: No.

Rita: It’s a fantastic book, you know. Do you want to lend it?

Frank: Ah yes.

Rita: Here.

Frank: Yes. Well, thank you very much.

Rita: That’s okay.

Alongside these evaluative resources, we also considered systems for adjusting a speaker’s commitment to what they are saying (ENGAGEMENT). In the following example Frank uses explicitly subjective modality metaphors (Halliday 1994: 358) to hedge his reply (exasperating Rita in the process).

ENGAGEMENT (resources for adjusting modal responsibility)

Rita: ...That’s a nice picture, isn’t it Frank?

Frank: Uh yes, I suppose it is.

Rita: It’s very erotic.

Frank: Actually I don’t think I’ve looked at that picture in 10 years, but, uh, yes, it is, I suppose so.

Rita: Well, there’s no suppose about it.

Appraisal resources also include systems for grading evaluations—turning up the volume as in the first example, or playing things down as in the second.

AMPLIFICATION (resources for grading)

Rita: ...You know like when I’m in the hair-dressers where I work, I’ll say something like um “Oh, I’m really fucked.” dead loud. I mean, it doesn’t half cause a fuss...

Frank: [laughs]

Frank: ...What is your name?

Rita: Me first name?

Frank: Well, that would at least constitute some sort of start, wouldn’t it?

Rita: Rita.

Frank: Rita. Uh, here we are. Rita. It says here “Mrs S White.”

Grading is an essential feature of APPRAISAL, which means that a number of related resources for negotiating solidarity are treated separately, under the heading INVOLVEMENT. These resources include the use of names, slang and taboo lexis, specialised and technical terms, standard and non-standard features and the like to orchestrate group membership.

INVOLVEMENT (lexical in/exclusion; not graded)

Rita: It’s a fantastic book, you know. Do you want to lend it?

...Rita: Yes, but with educated people, they don’t worry, do they? It’s the aristocracy that swears more than anyone. It’s all “Pass me the fucking pheasant.” with them...

Rita: ...And oh what do they call you round here?

Frank: Sir. But you may call me Frank.

Rita: Okay, Frank. That’s a nice picture, isn’t it Frank?

A rough outline of interpersonal resources is presented as Table 4, organised by strata. In the table, NEGOTIATION refers to MOOD-based resources for exchanging information and goods/services, as outlined in Martin (1992). The APPRAISAL and INVOLVEMENT systems are designed to complement the traditional focus on dialogue into terms of turn-taking and exchange. They are of special relevance to work on the discourse dynamics of solidarity.

Table 4 A Survey of Interpersonal Resources (Across Strata)

(續(xù)表)

Unfortunately, space does not permit a detailed presentation of APPRAISAL resources. Our framework for AFFECT stabilised around the variables outlined in Table 5. Note that at this stage it does not include resources for desire (wanting, wishing, longing etc.), which is elsewhere grouped with modality (modulations of inclination); nor does it include resources for surprise (being shocked, startled, taken aback etc.). AFFECT variables consider:

1. Are the feelings popularly construed by the culture as positive (good vibes that are enjoyable to experience) or negative ones (bad vibes that are better avoided)?

—(positive affect) The boy was HAPPY

—(negative affect) The boy was SAD

2. Are the feelings realised as a surge of emotion involving some kind of embodied paralinguistic or extra-linguistic manifestation, or more prosodically experienced as a kind of predisposition or ongoing mental state?

—(behavioural surge) The boy LAUGHED

—(mental disposition) The boy LIKED the present

3. Are the feelings construed as directed at or reacting to some specific external agency or as a general ongoing mood for which one might pose the question “Why are you feeling that way?” and get the answer “I’m not sure.”

—(reaction to other) The boy LIKED the present/the present PLEASED the boy

—(undirected mood) The boy was HAPPY

4. How are the feelings graded-towards the lower valued end of a scale of intensity or towards the higher end; or between?

—(low) The boy LIKED the present

—(“median”) The boy LOVED the present

—(high) The boy ADORED the present

5. The final variable in our typology of affect groups emotions into three major sets. The in/security variable covers emotions concerned with eco-social well-being-anxiety, fear, confidence and trust; the dis/satisfaction variable covers emotions concerned with telos (including frustration)-ennui, anger, curiosity, respect; the un/happiness variable covers emotions concerned with sadness, antipathy, happiness and love.

—(in/security) The boy was ANXIOUS/CONFIDENT

—(dis/satisfaction) The boy was FED UP/ABSORBED

—(un/happiness) The boy was SAD/HAPPY

Our framework for JUDGEMENT is outlined in Table 6 (for a partial exemplification see Martin 1995c). Judgement can perhaps be thought of as the institutionalisation of feeling, in the context of proposals (norms about how people should and shouldn’t behave). Like AFFECT, it has a positive and negative dimension—corresponding to positive and negative judgements about behaviour. Our media research led us to divide judgements into two major groups, social esteem and social sanction (Iedemaetal. 1994). Judgements of esteem have to do with normality (how unusual someone is), capacity (how capable they are) and tenacity (how resolute they are); judgements of sanction have to do with veracity (how truthful someone is) and propriety (how ethical someone is).⑧

Table 5 A Framework for Analyzing English AFFECT (with Examples)

(續(xù)表)

Table 6 A Framework for Analyzing JUDGEMENT in English

SOCIAL SANCTION‘mortal’POSITIVE[praise]NEGATIVE[condemn]veracity [truth] truthful, honest,credible...;dishonest,deceitful...;real, authentic,genuine...;glitzy, bogus,fake...;“is s/he honest?” frank, direct... deceptive,manipulative...propriety [ethics] good, moral,ethical...;bad, immoral,evil...;law abiding, fair,just...;corrupt, unfair,unjust...;“is s/he beyondreproach?”sensitive, kind,caring...insensitive, mean,cruel...

Social esteem involves admiration and criticism, typically without legal implications; if you have difficulties in this area you may need a therapist. Social sanction on the other hand involves praise, and condemnation, often with legal implications; if you have problems in this area you may need a lawyer. The kinds of judgement speakers take up is very sensitive to their institutional position. For example, only journalists with responsibility for writing editorials and other comment have a full range of judgemental resources at their disposal; reporters writing hard news that is meant to sound objective have to avoid explicit judgements completely.

Our framework for APPRECIATION is outlined in Table 7. Appreciation can perhaps be thought of as the institutionalisation of feeling, in the context of propositions (norms about how products and performances are valued). Like AFFECT and JUDGEMENT it has a positive and negative dimension—corresponding to positive and negative evaluations of texts and processes (and natural phenomena). The system is organised around three variables-reaction, composition and valuation.⑨Reaction has to do with the degree to which the text/process in question captures our attention (reaction:impact) and the emotional impact it has on us. Composition has to do with our perceptions of proportionality (composition:balance) and detail (composition:complexity) in a text/process. Valuation has to do with our assessment of the social significance of the text/process.

Table 7 A Framework for Analysing APPRECIATION in English

Of these dimensions, valuation is especially tied up with field, since the criteria for valuing a text/process are for the most part institutionally specific. But beyond this, since both JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION are in a sense institutionalisations of feeling, all of the dimensions involved will prove sensitive to field. An example of this coupling of ideational and interpersonal meaning is presented for appreciations of research in the field of linguistics in Table 8.

Table 8 Field Specific Appreciation (for Linguistics)

Further complicating this issue is the implicit coupling of field with appraisal. This means that ideational meanings can be used to appraise, even though explicitly evaluative lexis is avoided. For example, when Rita mentions Rita Mae Brown’sRubyfruitJunglein the example noted above, it is clearly the case that her tutor Frank and anyone else naively apprenticed into mainstream literary sensibilities are being positioned by Willie Russell to value the book as insignificant, judge Rita as ignorant and feel dislike for the book, its author and Rita as well. Mere mention of the book evokes these feelings, without any explicit appraisal having to be construed at all. Every institution is loaded with couplings of this kind, and socialisation into a discipline involves both an alignment with the institutional practices involved and an affinity with the attitudes one is expected to have towards those practices.

In practical terms this means that when analysing APPRAISAL in a text, one has to take into account the APPRAISAL that is evoked by ideational tokens, alongside that which is explicitly inscribed; and beyond this it means that analysts need to declare their reading position—since the evaluation one makes of evocations depends on the institutional position one is reading from. There are many readers, for example, who would have aligned with Rita rather than Frank with respect to a popular culture text likeRubyfruitJungle. Similarly, according to reading position, formal and functional linguists will evaluate terms in the following sets of oppositions in complementary ways—with firm convictions about what the good guys and the bad guys should celebrate⑩:

rule/resource∷cognitive/social∷acquisition/development∷syntagmatic/paradigmatic∷form/function∷language/parole∷system/process∷psychology & philosophy/sociology & anthropology∷cognitive/social∷theory/description∷intuition/corpus∷knowledge/meaning∷syntax/discourse∷pragmatics/context∷parsimony/extravagance∷cognitive/critical∷technicist/humanist∷truth/social action∷performance/instantiation∷categorical/probabilistic∷contradictory/complementary∷proof/exemplification∷reductive/comprehensive∷arbitrary/natural∷modular/fractal∷syntax & lexicon/lexicogrammar...

By way of summary, a topological perspective on APPRAISAL resources is offered in Figure 11. It tries to align types of AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION in terms of their affinities across appraisal variables. For example, capacity is aligned with valuation, because of the close relation between judging someone’s behaviour as capable and appreciating the text/process arising from the behaviour (e.g. a skilful cricketer/a skilful innings; a gifted painter/an innovative painting etc.). Similarly, reaction is aligned with the relevant types of AFFECT. ENGAGEMENT (modality, projection, mitigation etc.) and AMPLIFICATION (grading, intensity, etc.) have been included as attendant resources for hedging how committed we are to what we feel and how strongly we feel about it.

Figure 11 A topological perspective on APPRAISAL resources

7. Grammatical and Contextual Metaphor

At this point in the discussion I would like to return to the stratification parameter introduced in section 2 above, and elaborate a little on the way a stratified content plane (lexicogrammar and discourse semantics) is used by Halliday to interpret abstraction, particularly in written English. Then, in closing, I will briefly consider the way in which analogous reasoning in relation to a stratified context plane (register and genre) might be used to interpret one of the kinds of texts that emerge around the issue of “mixed genres”.

First, stratification and abstraction. Halliday has described the realisation relationship between lexicogrammar and discourse semantics (modelled in images like Figure 3 above) as “natural”. This reading suggests that there is an unmarked correlation between meanings and wordings—that all things being equal we expect, interpersonally, that statements will be realised as declaratives, questions as interrogatives and commands as imperatives, or ideationally, that participants will be realised as nouns, processes as verbs, properties as adjectives and logical relations as conjunctions. Things not being equal, the model allows for tensions to arise between semantics and grammar, opening up the possibility of indirect speech acts (one mood acting as another) or nominalisations (e.g. processes dressed up as nouns). Halliday refers to the realisation and instantiation processes whereby meaning and wording are denaturalised along these lines as grammatical metaphor (see especially Halliday 1985/1994, Chapter 10).

Interpersonal grammatical metaphors of the indirect speech act variety are well known in the discipline. In the following example from a bureaucratic context, a declarative clause (Iaskthat...) is used in an “imperative” context, in place of the direct imperativeGivethemyourfullsupport:

(The guidelines have been developed as a resource for staff and students and have my personal endorsement.) I ask that you give them your full support.

Halliday refers to these indirect speech acts as grammatical metaphors because firstly, they must be read on two levels, with the literal declarative mood taken as standing for the underlying command (it is the interaction of the two levels that makes the meaning); and secondly, the literal level in some sense symbolises the underlying reading (in the example just considered the clause complex, with its first person, present tense projecting verbal process (Iask) and irrealis projection (thatyougive) deconstructs the meaning of imperative in ideational terms).

Whereas speech act theory focuses on interpersonal metaphors of mood, Halliday’s theory generalises the phenomenon to other interpersonal resources, including modality. Grammatical metaphor in relation to modality was illustrated in the context of the discussion of ENGAGEMENT above, with Frank using first person present tense mental processes of cognition (Isuppose) instead of modal verbs to realise low probability. Borrowing ideational resources to construe interpersonal meanings in this way opens up, among other things, opportunities for verbal play. Russel takes up one of these in the opening scene of the playEducatingRita, with Frank facetiously reconstruing his partner’s modality metaphor as a misplaced query about his ideational desires.

Frank: ...What do you mean am I determined to go to the pub? —I don’t need determination to get me into a pub... (Russel 1985:2)

For detailed analyses of interpersonal metaphor across a range of texts see Halliday 1982, Martin 1992a, 1995b.

Halliday further generalises the notion of grammatical metaphor across metafunctions, to cover tensions between ideational wordings and meanings. These have been extensively reviewed in Martin (1992a, 1993b), and Halliday and Martin (1993), especially in the context of their role in constructing the uncommon sense discourses of science and humanities. Ideational metaphors also abound in bureaucratic contexts, as illustrated in the following example:

The Passive Restraint Guide is designed to prevent intentional abuse by children. Excessive towel loop length could make intentional abuse more likely. Failure to follow loading instructions could result in serious injury or death. [notice on towel dispenser in the men’s loo in The 99er Diner, north of Vancouver in Canada]

If we paraphrase the second sentence as “If you don’t act as you’ve been instructed to when loading, you could injure yourself seriously or die”, then various features of the metaphorical version are foregrounded—for example, the realisation of cause as a verb (couldresultin), and processes as nouns (failure,loadinginstructions,seriousinjuryanddeath). Note that grammatical metaphor facilitates metaphor in its more traditional literary usage—how else can playing cricket catch an ear?

On a mid-week evening the sound of willow and leather in violent collision caught my ear and I hurried along. (Colin Luckhurst “I do like to be beside the seaside”,GuardianWeeklyAugust 21 1994.)

Grammatical metaphor also facilitates the organisation of APPRAISAL, across institutions. In the following example two judgements (of tenacity and capacity) are nominalised (courageandtoughness) and placed in a causal relationship (contributedto) with the success of the Long March. The advantage of nominalising the judgements for the historian is that s/he can make them Agents in a range of causative processes whose meaning potential is subtle and differentiated enough to support the interpretation of why things happened as they did.

This question has often been raised by historians, and a number of factors have been suggested to explain the success of the Long March...The courage and toughness of the young members of the Red Army, many of whom were teenagers, also contributed to its success.

The educational implications of grammatical metaphor are immense, especially in light of Halliday’s suggestion (e.g. 1993c) that grammatical metaphor develops out of non-metaphorical text across all three of the time frames discussed abovetending to unfold later in text (logogenesis), tending to develop later in the maturation of the individual (ontogenesis) and tending to evolve later in the history of a culture (phylogenesis). In other words, if we take the fracturing of glass as an example, Halliday is claiming that a series of realisations which unfolds as follows is in some sense a natural one as far as semogenesis is concerned.

(the question of how) glass cracks, (the stress needed to) crack glass, (the mechanism by which) glass cracks, as a crack grows, the crack has advanced, will make slow cracks grow, speed up the rate at which cracks grow, the rate of crack growth, we can increase the crack growth rate 1,000 times... (Halliday & Martin 1993: 56)

If we add to this Halliday’s association of the emergence ideational metaphor with the development of writing systems (Halliday 1985/1989), and the association of ideational metaphor with discipline specific secondary school literacy (Martin 1993b)—then we arrive at a foundational sequencing principle as far as institutionalised learning is concerned, namely, grammatically metaphorical text after non-metaphorical. The principle has certainly shaped genre-based literacy programs in Australia (as reflected in the genre topology in Table 3 above). Its implications and implementations are likely to reverberate through language in education initiatives for years to come.

The move from non-metaphorical to metaphorical text is in some sense symbolised across literate cultures by the separation of primary and secondary schooling and the drift from thematically organised multi-disciplinary units of work in primary school to strongly classified discipline specific work in secondary school. Halliday (1993c) also suggests a semiotic interpretation of the beginning of school, which has been explored in detail by Painter (1993). What seems to be emerging from this research is that the move to primary schooling symbolises the ability to deal with abstractions. The example I often draw on to illustrate this point comes from my daughter, then aged 4. At Manly pier in Sydney, there is a famous sign which greets visitors: 7milesfromSydneyand1000milesfromcare. Upon my reciting this on arrival, my daughter asked “Where’s care?” Over the next year or two, she learned not to ask questions like this, and then to laugh at her younger brother making mistakes of just that kind.

A rough frameworkfor classifying types of thing is outlined in Figure 12. Note that the network distinguishes specialised and technical language. Specialised things, like everyday things, can be ostensively defined; you can point them out to apprentices. Technical things on the other hand are abstractions, that have to be linguistically defined (and even if you can point to them, as with the gene in a microscope, just pointing doesn’t fully explain what they mean; Halliday has referred in passing to technical terms as “semiotic ratchets”). Alongside the technical abstraction of science, we find institutional abstractions (bureaucratic ratchets if you will) that organise our lives. Abstractions also include terms for semiosis (e.g. fact, idea, concept, notion) and terms for generic dimensions of meaning (such as size, shape, colour, means, manner, way, etc.).

Figure 12 Kinds of thing-covering abstractions and grammatical metaphors

Analysis of the abstract and metaphorical things is not just a matter of derivation. The nounregulationfor example may refer to an institutional abstract, as intheregulationsdon’tpermitthatactivity, or it may be a metaphorical process, as inexcessiveregulationofstudents’behaviourmaynotalwaysbeintheschool’sbestinterests. Analysis is further complicated by the fact that technical and institutional terms are engendered through grammatical metaphor-in other words, grammatical metaphor is used to define and explain these meanings, which are then intended to transcend the metaphors and carry on as abstractions in their own right. The following text from Halliday and Martin (1993: 223) illustrates this process for the termscompression,rarefaction, andcompressionwave, leading to the definition of the once concrete, but now abstract meaningsound.

(a) If we look at how a tuning fork produces sound (b) we can learn just what sound is. (c) By looking closely at one of the prongs (d) you can see that it is moving to and fro (vibrating). (e) As the prong moves outwards (f) it squashes, or compresses, the surrounding air. (g) The particles of air are pushed outwards (h) crowding against and bashing into their neighbours (i) before they bounce back. (j) The neighbouring air particles are then pushed out (k) to hit the next air particles and so on. (l) This region of slightly “squashed” together air moving out from the prong is called a compression. (m) When the prong of the tuning fork moves back again (n) the rebounding air particles move back into the space that is left. (o) This region where the air goes “thinner“ is called a rarefaction (p) and also moves outwards. (q) The particles of air move to and fro in the same direction in which the wave moves. (r) Thus sound is a compression wave that can be heard.

For purposes of analysis, these terms are probably best treated as metaphorical at their point of genesis, and as technical abstractions thereafter. In order to help clarify the boundary between metaphorical and abstract things, Halliday’s inventory of types of grammatical metaphor has been included here as Table 9.

Table 9 Types of Grammatical Metaphor

(續(xù)表)

This brief discussion of the educational significance of grammatical metaphor puts us in a position to raise the issue of contextual metaphor and ask whether similar kinds of tension across strata can be found at the level of context. The following text, discussed in Cranny-Francis and Martin (1995), lends itself to an interpretation of this kind. On the surface, the text is organised as a kind of story—a psychological quest narrative; the story, however, was intended in its context to stand for an information report about dolphins as part of an attack on genre-based literacy pedagogy, along the lines of “Why can’t students hand in a range of genres in science? Why are you trying to limit them to boring old information reports?” Informally, then, we might describe the text as a story standing for a report (analogous to informally describing an indirect speech act as a declarative standing for an imperative).

Rephrasing this in terms of stratal tension at the level of context, we could argue that the register of the texts (its field, mode and tenor selections) invoke narrative, but that certain features of the story (the Socratic dialogue, the technical information about dolphins, the fact that the object of the quest is information, etc.) indicate that at a deeper level that text is intended to instantiate a report genre. As with grammatical metaphor, it is the tension between levels (between genre and register in this instance) that construes the meaning. Contextual metaphors of this kind represent an excursion of English discipline discourse across the curriculum which has been promoted by radical progressive pedagogies around the English speaking world.

Is this a report or a recount or a discussion?

Yesterday I went to the library and found a book about dolphins. I had seen dolphins on TV and I was interested in them. I wanted to find the answer to the question, why are dolphins so interesting to humans?

The book said that dolphins were sea mammals. I bet you didn’t know that dolphins have to breathe air! If they don’t breathe air, they will die.

I have often wondered what dolphins like to eat, so I looked in the book for information about this. Do they eat other fish, I wondered? I found out that they do.

I suppose you know what dolphins look like, of course. I found out some interesting things, such as what that dorsal fin is for and how they keep warm.

Why do we humans like dolphins so much, I often wonder. I searched in the book for the answer to this question, but could not get down to the real reason. The book talked about their tricks and stunts and their general friendliness. As I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that it had something to do with the fact that they, like us, are mammals.

It may well be that a notion of contextual metaphor, interpreted along these lines, will turn out to be as educationally significant as Halliday’s work on grammatical metaphor-particularly with respect to success in secondary school. In progressive history classrooms, for example, students are often encouraged to write stories from the point of view of participants in historical processes. To succeed in this task, they have to realise that the story they tell must not only be accurate in historical detail, but ought as well to symbolise and focus attention on issues the historian considers significant. The task, in other words, has to be read not as an opportunity to depart from history discourse, but as an opportunity to use a story to stand for historical interpretation.

Looking beyond education, the notion of grammatical metaphor (interpreted as stratal tension within language) has been developed by systemic linguists as an important insight into the way in which a culture increases its linguistic meaning potential (e.g. Halliday 1992a,c, 1993b; Martin 1993b; Halliday & Martin 1993). By refocussing attention on the issue of contextual metaphor (interpreted as stratal tension at the level of context) we should be able to gain some valuable insights into one of the trajectories along which the social processes of a culture expand-by deploying register variables metaphorically (as figure), to symbolise a complementary genre (as ground).

附注:

① One problem with this image is that it implies that field/ideational resources are in some sense more extensive than mode/textual ot tenor/interpersonal ones; theoretically, this is not the case.

② For critique of this stratified model see Hasan (1995); Martin (in press) offers a partial reply.

③ In this sense of the term, register is thus comparable to what Halliday and Hasan (e.g. 1985/1989) refer to as context of situation; see Matthiessen (1993) for discussion.

④ In Figure 5, a single slash is used to represent metaredundancy, and a double slash to represent meta-metaredundancy—thus language/register∥genre is read as language metaredounding with register, meta-metaredounding with genre.

⑤ Along this dimension Halliday and Matthiessen are refocusing a long standing SFL interest in the dynamics of text as process (Martin 1985a; Bateman 1989).

⑥ For the record, Steve Waugh is an Australian cricketer, who performed the remarkable feat of scoring more than 200 runs in a single innings against the West Indies in 1995; in this field, 100 runs is considered an outstanding contribution.

⑦ Procedural recounts give an after the fact account of a procedure that has been enacted; historical recounts record two or more generations of human endeavour; descriptions characterise a specific participant; descriptive reports characterises a generic class of participants.

⑧ At this level of delicacy the types of JUDGEMENT are related to MODALITY (Halliday 1994), in the following proportions-normality is to usuality, as capacity is to ability, as tenacity is to inclination, as veracity is to probability, as propriety is to obligation.

⑨ These variables are relatable to the kind of mental processing (Halliday 1994) involved in the appreciation, in following proportions-reaction is to affection, as composition is to perception as valuation is to cognition.

⑩ For these complementarities, “/” stands for “is to” and “∷” stands for “as”; they can thus be read asruleistoresourceascognitiveistosocial... etc.

Bateman, J. 1989. Dynamic systemic-functional grammar: a new frontier [J].Word(40): 1-2. (Systems, structures and discourse: selected papers from the Fifteenth International Systemic Congress): 263-286.

Christie, F. 1992. Literacy in Australia [J].ARAL(12): 142-155.

Cloran, C. 1989. Learning through language: the social construction of gender [A]. In R. Hasan & J. R. Martin (eds.).LanguageDevelopment:LearningLanguage,LearningCulture[C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex (Meaning and Choice in Language: studies for Michael Halliday): 111-151.

Cope, W. & M. Kalantzis (eds.). 1993.ThePowersofLiteracy:AGenreApproachtoTeachingLiteracy[M]. London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education) & Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press (Pittsburg Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).

Cranny-Francis, A. & J. R. Martin. 1991. Contratextuality: the poetics of subversion [A]. In F. Christie (ed.).LiteracyinSocialProcesses:PapersfromtheFirstAustralianSystemicLingusiticsConference,HeldatDeakinUniversity,January1990 [C]. Darwin: Centre for Studies of Language in Education, Northern Territory University: 286-344.

Cranny-Francis, A. & J. R. Martin. 1995. Writings/readings: how to know a genre [J].Interpretations:JournaloftheEnglishTeachers’AssociationofWesternAustralia28(3): 1-32.

Eggins, S. 1994.AnIntroductiontoSystemicFunctionalLinguistics[M]. London: Pinter.

Eggins, S. & J. R. Martin. in press. Genres and registers of discourse [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.).Discourse:AMultidisciplinaryIntroduction[C]. London: Sage.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978.LanguageasaSocialSemiotic:thesocialinterpretationoflanguageandmeaning[M]. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions [A]. In D. J. Allerton, E. Carney & D. Holdcroft (eds.).FunctionandContextinLinguisticAnalysis:EssaysOfferstoWilliamHaas[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 57-79.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1982. The de-automatization of grammar: from Priestley’s ‘An Inspector Calls’ [A]. In J. M. Anderson (ed.).LanguageFormandLinguisticVariation:PapersDedicatedtoAngusMacIntosh[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 129-159.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985a/1994AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985b.SpokenandWrittenLanguage[M]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press [republished by Oxford University Press 1989].

Halliday, M. A. K .1991. Towards probabilistic interpretations [A]. In E. Ventola (ed.).FunctionalandSystemicLinguistics:ApproahcesandUses[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 55): 39-61.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1992a. How do you mean? [A]. In M. Davies & L. Ravelli (eds.).RecentAdvancesinSystemicLinguistics[C]. London: Pinter: 20-35.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1992b. Language as system and language as instance: the corpus as a theoretical construct [A]. In J. Svartvik (ed.).DirectionsinCorpusLinguistics:ProceedingsofNobelSymposium82,Stockholm, 4-8August1991 [C]. Berlin: De Gruyter.(Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 65): 61-77.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1992c. The act of meaning [A]. In J. E. Alatis (ed.).GeorgetownUniversityRoundTableonLanguagesandLinguistics1992:Language,CommunicationandSocialmeaning[C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1993a. Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar [A]. In M. Hoey (ed.).Data,Description,Discourse:PapersonEnglishLanguageinHonourofJohnMcH.Sinclair[onhissixtiethbirthday] [C]. London: Harper Collins: 1-25

Halliday, M. A. K. 1993b.LanguageinaChangingWorld[M]. Canberra, ACT: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional paper 13).

Halliday, M. A. K. 1993c. Towards a language-based theory of learning [J].LinguisticsandEducation5.2: 93-116.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994.AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994.AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. to appear. On language in relation to the evolution of human consciousness [R]. (paper prepared for Nobel Symposium 92 “The relation between languae and mind”. Stockholm, 8-12 August 1994).

Halliday, M. A. K. to appear. Things and relations: regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge [A]. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (eds.).Readingscience:criticalandfunctionalperspectivesondiscoursesofscience[C].

Halliday M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976.CohesioninEnglish[M]. London: Longman (English Language Series 9).

Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1980. Text and Context: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective [J].SophiaLinguisticaVI. Tokyo: The Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics & the Linguistic Institute for International Communication, Sophia University. [new edition published as M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan. 1985.Language,context,andtext:aspectsoflanguageinasocial-semioticperspective. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press [republished by Oxford University Press 1989]]

Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. 1993.WritingScience:LiteracyandDiscursivePower[M]. London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education).

Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. to appear.ConstruingExperiencethroughLanguage:ALanguage-basedApproachtoCognition[M]. Berlin: De Gruyter (Foundations of Communication and Cognition).

Hasan, R. 1987. The grammarian’s dream: lexis as most delicate grammar [A]. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. P. Fawcett (eds.).NewDevelopmentsinSystemicLinguisticsVol. 1:TheoryandDescription[C]. London: Pinter: 184-211.

Hasan, R. 1990. Semantic variation and sociolinguistics [J].AustralianJournalofLinguistics(9)2: 221-276.

Hasan, R. 1995. The conception of context in text [A]. In P. Fries & M. Gregory (eds.).DiscourseinSociety:SystemicFunctionalPerspectives[C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex (Meaning and Choice in Language: studies for Michael Halliday; Advances in Discourse Processes Volume L): 183-283.

Iedema, R. in press for 1996.AdministrationLiteracy(WriteitRightLiteracyinIndustryResearchProject-Stage3) [M]. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Iedema, R., S. Feez & P. White. 1994. Media Literacy (Write it Right Literacy in Industry Research Project—Stage 2) [M]. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Kress, G. & T. van Leeuwen. 1990.ReadingImages[M]. Geelong: Vic.: Deakin University Press (Sociocultural Aspects of Language and Education).

Lemke, J. L. 1995.TextualPolitics:DiscourseandSocialDynamics[M]. London: Taylor & Francis (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education).

Lemke, J. to appear. Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text [A]. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (eds.).ReadingScience:CriticalandFunctionalPerspectivesonDiscoursesofScience[C].

Martin, J. R. 1985a. Process and Text: two aspects of human semiosis [A]. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (eds.).SystemicPerspectivesonDiscourse,Vol. 1:SelectedTheoreticalPapersfromthe9thInternationalSystemicCongress[C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex: 248-274.

Martin, J. R. 1985b.FactualWriting:ExploringandChallengingSocialReality[M]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press [republished by Oxford University Press 1989]

Martin, J. R. 1991. Intrinsic functionality: implications for contextual theory [J].SocialSemiotics①(1)1: 99-162.

Martin, J. R. 1992a.EnglishText:SystemandStructure[M]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. 1992b. Macroproposals: meaning by degree [A]. In W. A. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.).DiscourseDescription:DiverseAnalysesofaFundRaisingText[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 359-395.

Martin, J. R. 1993a. Genre and literacy-modelling context in educational linguistics [J].AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics(13): 141-172.

Martin, J. R. 1993b. Technology, bureaucracy and schooling: discursive resources and control [J].CulturalDynamics(6)1: 84-130.

Martin, J. R. 1994. Macro-genres: the ecology of the page [J].Network(21): 29-52.

Martin, J. R. 1995a. Text and clause: fractal resonance [J].Text(15)1: 5-42.

Martin, J. R. 1995b. Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: packing semiotic punch [J].AustralianJournalofLinguistics(15)1: 33-67.

Martin, J. R. 1995c. Reading positions/positioning readers: JUDGEMENT in English [J].Prospect:ajournalofAustralianTESOL(10)2: 27-37.

Martin, J. R. 1996a. Metalinguistic diversity: the case from case [A]. In R. Hasan, C. Cloran & D. Butt (eds.).FunctionalDescriptions:TheoryinPractice[C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory): 323-372.

Martin, J. R. 1996b. Types of structure: deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text [A]. In E. Hovy & D. Scott (eds.).BurningIssuesinDiscourse:AMultidisciplinaryPerspective[C]. Heidelberg: Springer.

Martin, J. R. 1996c. Evaluating disruption: symbolising theme in junior secondary narrative [A]. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (eds.).LiteracyinSociety[C]. London: Longman.

Martin, J. R. in press. A context for genre: modelling social processes in functional linguistics [A]. In R. Stainton & J. Devilliers (eds.).CommunicationinLinguistics[C]. Toronto: GREF (Collection Theoria).

Martin, J. R. to appear. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL resources in English [A]. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.).EvaluationinText[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R., F. Christie & J. Rothery. 1987. Social processes in education: a reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others) [A]. In I. Reid (ed.).ThePlaceofGenreinLearning:CurrentDebates[C]. Geelong, Vic.: Centre for Studies in Literary Education (Typereader Publications 1): 46-57. [more fully published in The Teaching of English:JournaloftheEnglishTeachers’AssociationofNewSouthWales53. 1987: 3-22]

Martin, J. R. & R. Veel (eds.). to appear.Readingscience:criticalandfunctionalperspectivesondiscoursesofscience[C]. under review.

Martin, J. R. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1991. Systemic typology and topology [A]. In F. Christie (ed.).LiteracyinSocialProcesses:papersfromtheinauguralAustralianSystemicLinguisticsConference,heldatDeakinUniversity,January1990 [C]. Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language in Education, Northern Territory University. 1991: 345-383.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1988. Representational issues in systemic functional grammar [A]. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (eds.).SystemicFunctionalApproachestoDiscourse[C]. Norwood, N J: Ablex: 136-175.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1991. Language on language: the grammar of semiosis [J].SocialSemiotics(1)2.: 69-111.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1995.Lexicogrammaticalcartography:Englishsystems[M]. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. mimeo. Instantial systems and logogenesis [R]. (Paper presented at the Third Chinese Systemic-functional linguistics symposium, Hangzhou, June 17-20: 1993).

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & M. A. K. Halliday. in press. Systemic Functional Grammar: a first step into theory [A]. In J. Ney (eds.).CurrentApproachestoSyntax[C]. Tokyo: International Language Studies.

Nesbitt, C. & G. Plum. 1988. Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: the clause complex in English [A]. In R. P. Fawcett & D. Young (eds.).NewDevelopmentsinSystemicLinguistics:TheoryandApplication[C]. London: Pinter: 6-38.

O’Donnell, M. 1990. A dynamic model of exchange [J].Word(41)3.

O’Toole, M. 1994.TheLanguageofDisplayedArt[M]. London: Leicester University Press (a division of Pinter).

Painter, C. 1984.IntotheMotherTongue:ACaseStudyofearlyLanguageDevelopment[M]. London: Pinter.

Painter, C. 1993.LearningthroughLanguage:ACaseStudyintheDevelopmentofLanguageasaResourceforLearningfrom2 1/2to5years[D]. PhD Thesis: Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.

Poynton, C. 1985.LanguageandGender:MakingtheDifference[M]. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press. [republished by Oxford University Press 1989]

Rose, D., D. McInnes & H. Korner. 1992.ScientificLiteracy(WriteitRightLiteracyinIndustryResearchProject-Stage1) [M]. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Rothery, J. & M. Stenglin. 1994a.Spine-ChillingStories:AUnitofWorkforJuniorSecondaryEnglish(WriteitRightResourcesforLiteracyandLearning) [M]. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Rothery, J. & M. Stenglin. 1994b.ExploringNarrativeinVideo:AUnitofWorkforJuniorSecondaryEnglish(WriteitRightResourcesforLiteracyandLearning) [M]. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Rothery, J. & M. Stenglin. 1994 c.WritingaBookReviewAUnitofWorkforJuniorSecondaryEnglish(WriteitRightResourcesforLiteracyandLearning) [M]. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Rothery, J. & M. Stenglin. 1997. Entertaining and instructing: exploring experience through story [A]. In F. Chrstine & J. R. Martin (eds.).GenreandInstititutions:SocialProcessintheWorkplaceandSchool[C]. London & New York: 231-263.

Russel, W. 1985.EducatingRita[M]. London: Longman (Longman Study Texts).

Threadgold, T. 1991. Postmoderism, systemic-functional linguistics as metalanguage and the practice of cultural critique [A]. In F. Christie (ed.).LiteracyinSocialProcesses:PapersfromtheInauguralAustralianSystemicLinguisticsConference,heldatDeakinUniversity,January1990 [C]. Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language in Education, Northern Territory University. 1991: 60-82.

Threadgold, T. 1993. Performing genre: violence, the making of protected subjects, and the discourses of critical literacy and radical pedagogy [J].DomainsofLiteracy,ChangingEnglish(1)1: 2-31.

Threadgold, T. 1994. Grammar, genre and the ownership of literacy [J].IdiomXXIX.2: 20-28. [reprinted inTheTeachingofEnglish3: 62-70.]

Veel, R. to appear. Being green and going grey: the language of environmentalism in the classroom [A]. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (eds.).ReadingScience:CriticalandFunctionalPerspectivesondiscoursesofScience[C].

Ventola, E. 1987.TheStructureofSocialInteraction:ASystemicApproachtotheSemioticsofServiceEncounters[M]. London: Pinter (Open Linguistics Series).

Ventola, E. 1989. Text analysis in operation: a multilevel approach [A]. R. P. Fawcett & D. Young (eds.).NewDevelopmentsinSystemicLinguisticsvol. 2:theoryandapplication[C]. London: Pinter: 52-77.

Ventola, E. 1995. Generic and register qualities of texts and their realization [A]. In P. Fries & M. Gregory (eds.).DiscourseinSociety:SystemicFunctionalPerspectives[C]. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex (Meaning and Choice in Language: studies for Michael Halliday; Advances in Discourse Processes Volume L) 3-28.

White, P. 1997. Death, disruption and the moral order: the narrative impulse in mass-media ‘hard news’ reporting [A]. In F. Chrstine & J. R. Martin (eds.).GenreandInstititutions:SocialProcessintheWorkplaceandSchool[C]. London & New York: 101-133.

① This journal in functional linguistics, semiotics and critical theory can be ordered from: Prof David Birch, Communication & Media Studies, Central Queensland University, Rokchampton, Queensland 4702, Australia.