Abstract
AbstractThis 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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference28 articles.
1. Andersen, Thomas Hestbæk and Alexandra Holsting. 2015. Teksten i grammatikken. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
2. Butler, Christopher S. 2003. Structure and function – A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
3. Caffarel, Alice, James R. Martin, and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction: Systemic functional typology. In Language typology: a functional perspective, ed. Alice Caffarel, James R. Martin, and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, 1–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
4. Christensen, Marie H., et al. in press, 2017. Does main clause word order affect attention to change in subordinate clauses? Linguistics.
5. Fawcett, Robin P. 2000. A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献