A SFL Approach to Analyzing Texts

Abstract:Systematic functional linguists formalized the relationship of language and social context， and adopted three register variables which they referred to as field， tenor and mode for the study of interrelation between language and context of situation. This paper intends to chart an exploration of language metafunctions through a comparative analysis of two texts of distinctive modes (i.e. spoken vs. written); by deploying a broad range of grammatical tools such as word class and nominal group， transitivity and theme， mood and modality， it also investigates how language choices vary to realize meanings of a series of strata when positioned in distinct contexts of situation.

Key words:personal pronouns nominalizations processes mood shift of tones

ⅠTheoretical Orientation

The notion TEXT initiated by SFL-oriented linguists，is consistently associated with social context to convey meanings that are appropriate to the given situations. As Butt， et， al. (2000) defines， that a text is \"a harmonious collection of meaning appropriate to its context.\"(p.3) Therefore texts differ situationally when contexts vary， writers/speakers are expected to construct situation-oriented texts that are interpretable to readers/hearers in specific contexts. Such texts in contexts can be exemplified in two aspects， one is the context of culture， the other being the context of situation. More specifically， as for the context of situation， which \"concerns the specific situations within the context of culture\"(Butt， et，al.，2002， p.3) ， can be exemplified by three parameters， namely \"Field， Tenor and Mode.\" (Halliday， 1985， p.12) Theoretically they are defined by Halliday(1985) in turn， as \" the nature of the social interaction taking place， the social roles and relationships of the participants， and the channel of communication.\"(p.12) This paper aims to explore the situational differences of texts in Mode， tying to reveal the distinction of spoken and written texts by comparing phases abstracted from Speaking with conviction (See Taylor Mali，2003) and Whyr' terrist is missing in action. (See Cooney， 2009) Grammatical tools as diverse as word class and nominal group， mood and modality， transitivity and theme are applied in the two texts to illustrate both similarities and differences in spoken-like and written-like texts， alternatively， phonological tools including phoneme， syllable， rhythm and intonation are also adopted in analyzing the spoken text. Overall， the comparison between the two texts at different grammatical levels will be displayed in summary tables ， which forms the methodological basis of the interpretation in the research paper.

Ⅱ Background

As for the two analyzed texts， Text 1: Speaking with conviction(Taylor Mali， 2003) is perceived as a spoken-like text(mode)，whereas Text 2: Why ‘r’ terrist is missing in action. (Cooney， 2009) seems to be written-like.(mode) On the one hand， Compared with Text 2， languages adopted in Text 1 is less complex but more fragmented， with less lexical density， fewer nominalizations ， fewer attributive adjectives and fewer subordinate clauses applied. Instead， there are more active verbs and verb-based phrases in Text 1 to construe doing， moreover， the first person reference ( I ) is more frequently used in Text 1 ， which potentially represents the relationship between the speaker and the hearers(tenor). Most importantly， as a spoken-like text， Text 1 is produced to adjust to the speaker's intonation and rhythm ， which indicate that languages in Text 1 can be characterized by pitch range， pausing and phasing and so forth. On the other hand， Text 2 employs more grammatical words ， prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses to make the meaning appropriate to the written discourse. Unlike text 1， nominalization is more frequently adopted to repackage clauses as participants to realize the lexical density. Overall Both Text 1 and Text 2 employ considerable nominal groups，and adopt declarative sentences when giving information， while employ interrogative sentences when demanding information. Additionally， more specific similarities and differences between the two texts will be further indicated and discussed by employing the grammatical tools in the following interpretation.

Ⅲ Interpretation

-Word Class

Word class typically deals with the classification of words， in functional grammar it assists in adapting words into clause and phrases， which are the constituents of texts in contexts. At this rate word class can be regarded as an indirect channel through which the analysis of texts in contexts can be realized. And accordingly word class can be applied in Text 1 and Text 2 to display the similarities and differences in mode.

In the first place， the personal pronouns in the two texts are realized in different ways. As found in Text 1， the personal pronouns which describe the interactants are mostly first person (I) and second person (you)， however this is not the case in Text 2， instead， third person (it) is more frequently adopted in Text 2 to serve as personal pronouns. For instance， in Text 1 ， clauses \"I implore you， I entreat you and I challenge you \";\"you know， \"; \"as if I'm saying\" indicates the personal pronouns are realized by first person and second person， however ， in Text 2， \"it is a small thing\"; \"it seems the biggest casuality \"; \"it has not been alone\" emphasizes that the personal pronouns are normally achieved by third person. Secondly， there seem more conjunctions adopted in Text 2 than Text 1. Take the first paragraph in Text 2 for example， there are considerable conjunctions used in the clause \"It is a small thing when compared with\"; \"the damage by my spellchecker， but \"; \"that's not entirely true， but \" ， yet conjunctions seldom appear in Text 1. Thirdly， verbs in Text 1 is active， with simple present and present perfect tenses applied. Such as \"it has somehow become \"; \" have been attaching \". However in Text 2 such active verbs are rarely used.

Such differences between the two text further exemplify how spoken-like and written like texts differ， firstly ， as for the personal pronouns， in Text 1 the speaker relies heavily on the immediate context for understanding， therefore he sets closer relationship with hearers to make the meaning immediately communicated. Consequently first person and second person pronoun are applied in the text to engage the hearer and reduce the distance between participants .Contrarily， written text focuses on explicitness of the meaning， that is， its given context should be explicit， explanatory and academic， therefore the third person assists in making the writing appropriate to the context. Secondly， as the texts in written discourse are neatly categorized as \"planned， organized and transactional\"(Lingley， 2005)， the conjunctions are exclusively used in Text 2 to make the writing well-organized. Thirdly， compared with written texts， the complexity of spoken texts， as Halliday (1985)asserts， is dynamic and intricate， which are realized by active verbs to convey actions or processes dynamically in the spoken texts.

Nominal Group

The participant in a clause is normally achieved by a nominal group. As the participant grammatically constitutes clauses which affect the function of language， the realization of nominal group in texts becomes important in analyzing texts in different contexts.

By and large the nominal groups in Text 1 is simpler， with less complex premodification and postmodification applied. However ， nominal groups in Text 2 comprise of complex constituents. For example， nominal groups found in Text 1 including \"declarative sentences\"; \"nothing personally invested in my opinions\" are of simple modifications， yet those in Text 2 such as \"the corrective cry of the pedant\"; the biggest casualty in the war on terrorism\" indicate their complexity. Moreover， nominalizations are exclusively applied in Text 2 ， they can be evident in the nominal group \"the missing\"; \"the pronunciation of infrastructure\" in Text 2.

The differences further suggest the distinction of spoken and written texts. Compared with spoken texts， written texts is produced at monologic， synoptic， lexically dense， and grammatically packed levels. To achieve this goal， the constituents in the clauses， including participant， are realized through syntactic constructions and lexicogrammar which are characterized with written features. For instance， the nominalizations in Text 2 transform verbs into nouns to reach incongruent meanings in written language， reconstructing either actions or processes as things. Moreover， the modifications applied in nominal groups in Text 2， enable the participants to be more intricate， which further illuminates written-like texts are more lexical dense. As opposed to written text， participants in spoken texts are produced with less complex modifications nor nominalizations， which indicates that \"lexical density in spoken texts is said to be lower\" (Eggins， 1994， p. 61).

Transitivity

Transitivity \"belongs to the experiential metafunction and is the overall grammatical resources for construing going on.\" (Martin et.al， 1997， p.100). transitivity in functional grammar comprises of three components ， namely process， participants and circumstances， which also serve as useful tools to analyze texts in different parameters of contexts.

More specifically， as found in Text 1， considerable clauses comprise of mental and verbal processes， which respectively construe perception and saying. Such as clauses \"I implore you， I entreat you， and I challenge you\" whose processes are verbal， and \"you hadn't realized\"; ..believe strongly.\" l; \"don't think I'm a nerd\" whose processes are mental . Clauses in Text 2， however， consist mostly of relational process which relates the participant to its identity and meaning. For instance， \"it is a small thing\"; \" other words seem to be victims..\" \"it seems the biggest casuality..\" used in the written texts to state the events.

The differences in process types indicate different contexts， at this rate the processes can be applied in spoken and written texts to reveal how they are different. On the one hand， the spoken text is initiated to represent the speaker's inner world ， and project the inner world as speech and thought， therefore the mental and verbal processes are applied to construe saying and thinking to fit the context. On the other hand， the written text reports utterances to the reader， aiming at identifying identity， role or meaning， accordingly the relational processes ， that is， the being words are adopted in Text 2 .

Mood Modality

The term mood according to Martin， et， al.(1997)， \"belongs to the interpersonal metafunction of the language and is the grammatical resource for realizing an interactive movie in dialogue\" (p.57) In the mood system， The subject/finite relationship has been regarded as representatives of exchanging information in the interaction， including giving and demanding information， and such contexts motivate the ways in which meanings in texts are conveyed. Therefore through analysis of mood in the text， the corresponding context can be indicated.

Both Text 1 and Text 2 display common language choice for the convenience of exchanging information ， on the one hand， they are both produced to give information， and this can be normally realized by declarative mood. In this case， the Subject precedes the Finite. As found in text 1 and 2， sentences \" I challenge you to speak with conviction.; \"I'm just ， like， inviting you \"(Text 1) \"there is another item that should be\"; \"my hypothesis is that..\"(Text 2) are declarative mood， with the subject preceding the finite. On the other hand， when demanding information ， speakers/writers in Text 1 and Text 2 ask questions by interrogative mood， and therefore the Finite precedes the Subject. For example， \" have they been nothing to say?\";(Text 1) \"how long is it since \"(Text 2) are interrogative mood， with the finite preceding the subject. Additionally， there are more interrogative mood applied in Text 1 than Text 2.

Texts either spoken-like or written-like， are produced to exchange information between speaker/writer and hearers/readers， accordingly they both ask questions or make statement by adopting similar mood. However， compared with the written texts， the communication among interactants in the spoken context， as Halliday(1985) defines，is visual and aural， with immediate feedback from the hearers. Thereby there are more interrogative mood applied to convey natural and spontaneous speech. Contrarily， the written text is more monologic ，which suggests a less immediate context for conveying meanings ， thus most mood blocks in the written text are considered as declarative.

Meanwhile， modality in texts， which adjusts writer/speaker's stand to express \"probability， usuality， obligation， inclination， typicality and obviousness \"(Butt， et， al.，2000， p.113) can also assist in identifying the specific contexts . It can be realized by a Modal Finite， or a Mood Adjunct ，or an interpersonal grammatical metaphor. As found in texts， there seem more mood adjunct(in italics) used in Text 1 ， such as \"where we're just totally whatever\"; \"it has somehow become uncool\" and \"I'm just，like \" However the mood adjunct are seldom adopted in Text 2. This difference attributes to the different mode of the two texts. As Text 1 is spoken-like， the meanings conveyed by the speaker are not so precise， well-organized or grammatically-packed as those in written-like texts. Therefore the mood adjuncts are applied to help express interpersonal meanings in a incongruent way， such as probability and obviousness.

Theme

Theme is perceived as the first element in a clause to represent the textual meanings since \"it signposts the development of a text.\"(Butt， et，al.，2000， p.135) As Halliday (1994) defines， \"theme is what the message is concerned with :the point of departure for what the speaker is going to say.\"(p.38) Grammatically theme can be divided into textual， interpersonal and topical ones.

As shown in the texts， there are more interpersonal themes(in italics)， but less textual themes(in bold) identified in Text 1 than Text 2. For instance， in Text 1 interpersonal theme can be evident in \"what has happened to our conviction， where are the limbs \"; \"Have they been，..\"; \"Has society just \" ， while in Text 2 the theme found in \"however， there is anther item \"; \"But if every child \" are categorized as textual theme.

The differences displayed above further indicate the different mode of two texts. On the one hand， the textual themes make the meaning grammatically-packaged and lexically dense， as well as \"connect the experiential meanings to the meanings of neighboring clauses\". (Butt， et，al.，2000， p. 137) ， which are the features of written texts. On the other hand， in the spoken text， as the distance among interactants is closer， the communication becomes more instant and feedback from hears is more immediate， therefore the interpersonal themes are applied to empathize \"kind of interaction between speakers or the positions which they are taking.\" (Butt， et，al.，2000， p. 138)

Ⅳ Conclusion

Texts differ when they are produced in different contexts. Context of situation， including field， tenor and mode， affects the texts experientially， interpersonally and textually. More specifically， as for the mode， which focuses on the distinctions of spoken and written texts， can be indicated through different channels. As shown in the preceding ， they are reinterpreted as follows.

At the word class level， the personal pronouns in spoken texts are normally achieved by first and second person; whereas third person pronouns are more frequently applied in the written texts. This makes the meaning in spoken texts instantly communicated ， meanwhile enables the texts to convey meanings experientially in the written discourse.

At the nominal group level， the participants in spoken texts are realized by simpler nominal group while they are realized with complex modifications and nominalizations in the written texts. From the perspective of lexical density， such differences exemplify that spoken texts are of lower lexical dense.

At the transitivity level， there are more mental and verbal processes used in the spoken text whreas more relational processes are applied in the written text. This is because spoken texts most represents speaker's inner world ， emphasizing on saying and thinking， while written texts aim at identifying beings.

At the mood and modality level， both the two texts adopts declarative and interrogative mood to exchange information among interactants. However there seems more interrogative mood used in the spoken text.

At the theme level， interpersonal themes are mainly identified in the spoken text while textual themes are mostly identified in the written text.

At the intonation and rhythm level， there are plenty of pitch movements on the tonic in the spoken text， and each foot has roughly the same length with stress timing. This typically represents interpersonal meanings ， which cannot be evident in written punctuation in the written texts.

References:

[1]Butt， D.， Fahey， R.， Feez， S.， Spinks， S. Yallop， C. Using Functional Grammar. Sydney :NCELTR， Macquarie University，2000.

[2]Eggins， S. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter，1994.

[3]Halliday， M.A.K. Spoken and written language. Geelong:Deakin University Press，1985.

[4]Halliday， M.A.K. An introduction to functional grammar. :2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold，1994.

[5]Lingley ， D. Spoken Features of Dialogue Journal Writing. Asian EFL Journal，2005， 7(2).

[6]Martin， J.， Matthiessen， C. Painter， C. Working with Functional Grammar. Sydney:University of Sydney，1997.

[7]Cooney， P. Why ‘r’ in terrist is missing in action. 2009.

[8]Mali， T. Totally like whatever，you know.2003.