Clause complexing in systemic functional lingustics – towards an alternative description

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

128 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

This article examines Halliday & Matthiessen’s systemic functional description of expanding clause complexing. As a perspective, their description is compared to the Cardiff Grammar’s treatment of clause combining. In particular, the article discusses the Hallidayan approach to the subordinate clause in a hypotactic clause complex: functionally speaking – and contrary to Halliday and Matthiessen’s claims – it is far from convincing that a subordinate clause upholds its functional meanings, i.e. its functions as a ‘move’ (interpersonal meaning), a ‘figure’ (experiential meaning) and a ‘message’ (textual meaning); and systemically speaking, it is problematic to see why all hypotactic clause complexes are agnates with paratactic clause complexes, and why no subordinate clauses in hypotactic clause complexes could be said to be agnate with a prepositional phrase. In the final part of the article, we shall provide principles for a solution to the problematic issues at stake in the Hallidayan approach.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer10
TidsskriftFunctional Linguistics
Vol/bind5
Antal sider25
ISSN2196-419X
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 29. aug. 2018

Fingeraftryk

speaking
grammar

Citer dette

@article{f6e3f546695342919bf65bd6c906e191,
title = "Clause complexing in systemic functional lingustics – towards an alternative description",
abstract = "This article examines Halliday & Matthiessen’s systemic functional description of expanding clause complexing. As a perspective, their description is compared to the Cardiff Grammar’s treatment of clause combining. In particular, the article discusses the Hallidayan approach to the subordinate clause in a hypotactic clause complex: functionally speaking – and contrary to Halliday and Matthiessen’s claims – it is far from convincing that a subordinate clause upholds its functional meanings, i.e. its functions as a ‘move’ (interpersonal meaning), a ‘figure’ (experiential meaning) and a ‘message’ (textual meaning); and systemically speaking, it is problematic to see why all hypotactic clause complexes are agnates with paratactic clause complexes, and why no subordinate clauses in hypotactic clause complexes could be said to be agnate with a prepositional phrase. In the final part of the article, we shall provide principles for a solution to the problematic issues at stake in the Hallidayan approach.",
author = "Andersen, {Thomas Hestb{\ae}k} and Alexandra Holsting",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1186/s40554-018-0059-7",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "Functional Linguistics",
issn = "2196-419X",
publisher = "Heinemann",

}

Clause complexing in systemic functional lingustics – towards an alternative description. / Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk; Holsting, Alexandra.

I: Functional Linguistics, Bind 5, 10, 29.08.2018.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clause complexing in systemic functional lingustics – towards an alternative description

AU - Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk

AU - Holsting, Alexandra

PY - 2018/8/29

Y1 - 2018/8/29

N2 - This article examines Halliday & Matthiessen’s systemic functional description of expanding clause complexing. As a perspective, their description is compared to the Cardiff Grammar’s treatment of clause combining. In particular, the article discusses the Hallidayan approach to the subordinate clause in a hypotactic clause complex: functionally speaking – and contrary to Halliday and Matthiessen’s claims – it is far from convincing that a subordinate clause upholds its functional meanings, i.e. its functions as a ‘move’ (interpersonal meaning), a ‘figure’ (experiential meaning) and a ‘message’ (textual meaning); and systemically speaking, it is problematic to see why all hypotactic clause complexes are agnates with paratactic clause complexes, and why no subordinate clauses in hypotactic clause complexes could be said to be agnate with a prepositional phrase. In the final part of the article, we shall provide principles for a solution to the problematic issues at stake in the Hallidayan approach.

AB - This article examines Halliday & Matthiessen’s systemic functional description of expanding clause complexing. As a perspective, their description is compared to the Cardiff Grammar’s treatment of clause combining. In particular, the article discusses the Hallidayan approach to the subordinate clause in a hypotactic clause complex: functionally speaking – and contrary to Halliday and Matthiessen’s claims – it is far from convincing that a subordinate clause upholds its functional meanings, i.e. its functions as a ‘move’ (interpersonal meaning), a ‘figure’ (experiential meaning) and a ‘message’ (textual meaning); and systemically speaking, it is problematic to see why all hypotactic clause complexes are agnates with paratactic clause complexes, and why no subordinate clauses in hypotactic clause complexes could be said to be agnate with a prepositional phrase. In the final part of the article, we shall provide principles for a solution to the problematic issues at stake in the Hallidayan approach.

U2 - 10.1186/s40554-018-0059-7

DO - 10.1186/s40554-018-0059-7

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

JO - Functional Linguistics

JF - Functional Linguistics

SN - 2196-419X

M1 - 10

ER -