Tone Group In Relation To Grammar

Halliday (1994: 295):

The Reality–Phase System

Halliday (1994: 279):

Wording As Two Removes From Experience

Halliday (1994: 252-3):

The Realisation Of Speech Function As Mood

  Halliday (1994: 95):

What Distinguishes Systemic Functional Grammar

Halliday (1994: 15-6):

The Stratification Of Language

Halliday (1994: 15):

The Significance Of Constituent Structure [3]

Halliday (1994: 12, 15):

The Realisation Relation Between Semantics And Lexicogrammar

Halliday (1994: xx):

The Line Between Semantics And Lexicogrammar

Halliday (1994: xix):

The Distinction Between Congruent And Metaphorical Expressions Of Meaning

Halliday (1994: xviii-xix):

The Natural (Non-Arbitrary) Relation Between Word Classes And The Meanings They Realise

Halliday (1994: xviii):

The Natural (Non-Arbitrary) Relation Between Semantics And Lexicogrammar

Halliday (1994: xvii-xviii):

The Largely Non-Natural (Arbitrary) Relation Between Lexicorammar And Expression

Halliday (1994: xvii):

A Functional Grammar Interprets Wording By Reference To What It Means

Halliday (1994: xvii):

Systemic Theory: Meaning As Choice

Halliday (1994: xiv-xv):

Why 'Grammar' Rather Than 'Syntax'

Halliday (1994: xiv):

Socio-Semiotic Systems That Are Realised Through Language (1)

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 605):

This category corresponds to Hjelmslev's (1943) concept of a "connotative semiotic": a higher-level system that has language as its plane of expression. These include theories: every theoretical construction, scientific, philosophical, aesthetic, and so on, is a higher-level semiotic realised in language. They also include the codified aspects of social institutions such as the law, the financial system, constitutions and codes of practice. 

Martin interprets both genre and ideology in this light, as social activity structures and ideological formations that are realised in language (e.g. 1985, 1992; for a critique of Martin's view, see Hasan, 1995).

From a semantic point of view, such systems constitute contexts for language;

 

Blogger Comments:

Importantly, Hjelmslev's (1943) concept of a "connotative semiotic" includes both a content plane and an expression plane, not just a content plane. That is, in SFL terms, the connotative semiotic is both context and language, not just context.

Deaf Sign Expression

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 533):

From one point of view, as we introduced it in the earlier discussion, Sign will appear as a realisational variant: that is to say, the meanings of language — its semantic system — may be construed either in sound or in gesture. There are, in fact, sign systems that are constructed along these lines: in principle this is what is meant by "signed English". But if we consider the nature of the two forms of expression, vocal on the one hand and gestural on the other, it is clear that they have very different properties. Gesture operates in a 3-dimensional "signing space" defined by reference to the signer's body and its parts, and movement within that space is entirely accessible to the receiver, thus in addition to succession in time (which is common to both), the gestural medium can exploit a number of parameters of spatial variation: the "articulatory organs" (fingers, hands, arms, other body parts), their location, orientation, thrust (direction and speed of movement) and so on.

Relational Processes: The Two Basic Relationships That Characterise Semiotic Systems

 Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 514):

And these [verbal processes] in turn shade into something else, which the grammar again construes as phenomenally distinct relations of identity (including symbolic identity, like red means stop) and attribution. Expressions of this kind, which in English often have the verb be, hardly seem to fit the label "process" at all; but the grammar firmly represents them as such, so we call them "relational processes". They are modelled, in fact, on the two basic relationships that characterise semiotic systems: realisation (identifying processes such as this is ('realises') my sister), and instantiation (attributive processes such as she is ('instantiates') a student of law).

The Problem With Thinking Of Language As Physical, Biological, Social And Semiotic

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 510):

But there is one problem with this intellectual strategy: that the code for systems of this fourth type has not yet been cracked. There are two aspects to this problem. One is that we do not yet fully understand the nature of a linguistic fact: this is the problem of instantiation. The other is that we do not yet fully understand the nature of the relationship that is the semiotic analogue of the "cause : effect" of classical physics: this is the problem of realisation. 

It is true that Saussure, and even more Hjelmslev, took important strides towards an understanding; but we are still arguing about what Saussure really meant (to us it seems that he had not clearly separated the two concepts of instantiation and realisation), and Hjelmslev has largely been ignored — Sydney Lamb (e.g., 1966a,b) is almost the only person who has tried to follow through his achievements. Probably it will be well into the next century before the picture comes to be clear.