Systemic Grammar: a context-based Grammar

Systemic GrammarBy

Ukpabi, Benedict OrjiCollege of Graduate studies(M.A) Graduate SeminarUniversity of Port Harcourt 2014

1

AbstractThis paper discussed systemic grammar by first, tracing the developments of

grammar models that gave rise to systemic grammar model. It looked at the merits

and demerits of these grammar models and showed that systemic grammar is a

context-based grammar. It concluded by showing the difference between systemic

grammar and the transformational generative grammar.

2

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to the study

There were other grammar models that existed before the

systemic grammar.

David Eka (2004) and M. T. Lamidi (2008) show that English

grammar was formally written for the purpose of teaching the

classical languages (Latin and Greek) hence, the early English

grammar model known as the classical or Traditional Grammar

was patterned after the model of Latin and Greek grammar. The

traditional grammar model was prescriptive in nature with

3

inflexible rules. According to M. T. Lamidi (2008), “when

scholars prescribe, they inevitably proscribe” p. 2. Some of

the grammatical rules of the traditional grammar model include

the following:

i. The use of shall for the first person and will for others

in normal utterances, for Example: I shall go

We shall go

(I will go & we will go) are considered to

be emphatic according to classical grammar.

ii. A sentence must not end with an infinitive / a

preposition, for example:

(a) She was the lady I spoke to.

(b) He knows the man he works with. Etc.

iii. A sentence must not begin with a conjunction like,

because and but.

iv. An infinitive “to” must not be separated from its verb

as in the following examples:

(a) She wants to quietly shut the window

(b) He wants to wisely talk to the man.

According to traditional grammar, the adverbs, quietly and wisely

should not divide the infinitive to from its verbs shut and talk.

However, the sentences (a) and (b) are grammatical correct.

v. Traditional grammar made a watertight

compartmentalization of word classes by defining them

4

as parts of speech with inflexible definition of terms.

For example, a noun was defined as a name of person,

place or thing. A verb was defined as an action word

(Lamidi 2008, p. 5). The traditional grammar did not

consider abstract nouns like weight, Red, darkness,

beauty which cannot be placed as a person, object,

place or thing. A sentence like:

(i) William watered the flowers in the morning

(ii) Chinwe chickened out of the competition.

In these two sentences, water (a noun) has undergone a

morphological change which converted it to a verb in the

sentence. Also, chicken (a noun) experienced the same

morphological change which converted it to a verb in the

sentence. On the other hand, the criterion of action in the

definition of verb is not true for all verbs. For example:

(i) James weighs 60 kilograms

(ii) The bag belongs to Nneka.

(iii) Patrick killed the goat

(iv) The boy away

While action criterion is noticed in sentences (iii) and (iv),

no action-taking is noticed in sentences (i) and (ii).

5

Merits of Traditional Grammar

It provides the basis or foundation for other models of

grammar

The inflexible rules insist on producing utterances based

on rule of acceptability and intelligibility. David Eka

(2004, p. 17).

The subdivision of a sentence into subject and predicate

and formation of parts of speech are credited to

traditional grammar.

The shortcomings of Traditional Grammar

The approach was not scientific to study the form and

content of language.

It was incapable of analysing features of language

It was prescriptive and the rules were inflexible. These

shortcomings or inadequacies led to the second grammar

model known as the Structural Grammar model.

1.2 The Structural Grammar Model

The structural Grammar came to remedy the inadequacies of the

traditional grammar. There were two major groups in the

development of the structural grammar. The first began in

6

Europe with the posthumous publication of Ferdinand de

Saussure’s Cours de Linguistigue Generale (Course on General Linguistics).

Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the concept of langue and

parole, synchronic and diachronic approach to the study of

language. The concept of langue and parole posits that there

is an abstract relational underlying form to actual

utterances. The second group of structuralists developed in

America and notable in this group was Leonard Bloomfield.

Bloomfield saw language from the perspective of human

behaviour (behaviourist theory of language study). The

structural grammar model adopts a scientific method to the

study and analysis of language. They designed structural forms

for identifying lexical items and their classes. Major in the

structural grammar was their formulation of combinatorial

rules that make certain lexical items to come together in

their linear sequence to form a meaningful utterance. For

example,

The Rector bought a new car

*Bought new a car Rector the

*Car new a bought the Rector

7

According to David Eka (2004), “Its notion may best be

understood through an explanation of the term Constituent

Grammar. Utterances were put under lexical grouping as words,

phrases, clauses, and sentences.

However, structural grammar model did not pay attention to

meaning or the study of semantics but to a structural

representation of Parole or utterances.

According to Borsley (1991) in Lamidi (2008), “such grouping

is generally known as constituent structure”. For example:

The woman travelled to Owerri

S

The woman travelled to Owerri

The analysis above does not show the relationships that exist

between a lexical item and the others adjacent to it. In a bid

to create or show these relationships among lexical items, a

new approach known as the immediate Constituent grammar rules

were developed. Chomsky explained that phrase structure rules

are basically rewriting rules as follows:

S NP, VP. S

8

In this rule, a sentence can be rewritten as a noun phrase

and a verb phrase.

NP VP

Starting with this base, we can build rules that will allow us

to generate infinite number of sentences.

NP (Det.), (Adj.) N

VP V, (NP) (PP)

PP P, NP

Therefore the sentence below can be group into constituents as

follows:

Subject - Predicate

The teacher taught in the class

S

The teacher taught in the class

The aim of the I.C grammar is to segment or analyse the

constituents of constructions into categories until the point

where segmentation becomes impossible. Thus, using a tree

9

diagram, the above sentence could be analysed further into

categories as follows:

S

NP VP

Det. N V PP

P NP

Det. N

The teacher taught in the class

However, the I.C grammar does not have the ability to solvethe problem of ambiguity. Thus in a sentence like:

She called Barnabas a boy.The I.C grammar can analyse it as follows:

10

S

NP VP

VP NP

Pr V NP Det N

N She called Barnabas a boy

The analysed sentence could mean as follows:1. She belittled Barnabas by calling him a boy.2. She called a boy for Barnabas.

The Merits of Structural Grammar It makes the analysis of language easier than earlier

grammar model.

It shows the relationships that exist between lexical

items in an utterance by grouping constitutes into

categories where they grammatically belong.

Limitations:

11

Its inability to solve the problem of ambiguity and to

analyse mirror sentences.

Its inability to relate two structures, namely active and

passive sentences.

Its inability to handle more than one item at the same

time.

It does not account for differences in meaning. (Lamidi

2008). This is because it does not pay attention to

semantics.

Like the traditional grammar, it does not help us to

predict what a sentence could be. (Lamidi, 2008 p. 16).

The limitation of the structural grammar made for the

introduction of transformational Generative Grammar.

2. TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR (TGG)

The Transformational generative grammar is a model of

generative syntax which uses the Transformation rule (T-rule)

to change, restructure or reorder our sentences.

Transformation is to change or to represent our expressions in

another form. This model of grammar was introduced by Noam

Chomsky in 1957. It is a system of language analysis that

recognizes the relationship among the various elements of a

12

sentence and among the possible sentences of a language and

uses processes or rules to express these relationships. For

example, transformational grammar relates the active sentence

“John read the book” with its corresponding passive, “The book

was read by John.” The statement “George saw Mary” is related

to the corresponding questions, “Whom [or who] did George

see?” and “Who saw Mary?” Although sets such as these active

and passive sentences appear to be very different on the

surface (i.e., in such things as word order), a transformational

grammar tries to show that in the “underlying structure” (i.e.,

in their deeper relations to one another), the sentences are

very similar. Transformational grammar assigns a “Deep

Structure” and a “Surface Structure” to show the relationship

of such sentences. The WH sentence formation rule explains

this further. The rule is that in English language, WH word

occupies sentence initial position in the surface structure

but middle or final position in a sentence at the deep

structure.

Example: What is her name? (surface structure). In the deep

structure, the question will be “Her name is what?” The notion

of deep structure can be especially helpful in explaining

13

ambiguous utterances; e.g., “Flying airplanes can be dangerous”

may have a deep structure, or meaning, like “Airplanes can be

dangerous when they fly” or “To fly airplanes can be

dangerous.” The TGG is mentalistic as it investigates the

innate mental lexicon in the human mind and how we can general

infinite sentences from one single utterance.

3. SYSTEMIC GRAMMAR3.1. A General overview of Systemic GrammarSystemic grammar, as stated by David Eka (2004) was propounded

by Michael A. K. Halliday. According to him, Halliday’s

systemic grammar was built on the foundation of the works of

J. R. Firth, the founder of the London School of linguistics,

whose theory was generally summarised under the context of

situation; hence, systemic grammar is referred to as neo-

Firthian grammar. The model was structured at the surface

grammar and a system of semantic features at the deep grammar.

According to another source,

It is part of a social semiotic approach to

language called systemic functional

linguistics. In these two terms, systemic refers

to the view of language as "a network of

systems, or interrelated sets of options for

14

making meaning"; functional refers to Halliday's

view that language is as it is because of what

it has evolved to do. Thus, what he refers to

as the multidimensional architecture of language

"reflects the multidimensional nature of human

experience and interpersonal relations."

Wikipedia, 2014.

M. T. Lamidi (2008), traces systemic grammar to a

major reaction to structural grammar and

transformational generative grammar. He says that the

structural grammar claimed that meaning had no place

in grammar. This claim was attacked by Firthian

grammar which states that “grammatical expressions

have meaning since they are context-based” p. 16.

Within the systemic grammar framework, there is hardly

any ideal native speaker who uses language perfectly

rather language becomes useful or meaningful according

to the context of use. The issue of grammaticality is

not the concerns of systemic grammar but the

sociological use of language. Part of the tenets of

systemic grammar is that it is not necessary for a

15

structure of language to be grammatical but for

speakers to use language as a medium of exchange of

ideas.

The concern of systemic grammar is “acceptability”

based on social context rather than on grammaticality.

For example:

How’s things?

How far now?

These expressions are acceptable in the social context

of usage as far as systemic grammar is concerned.

M. A. K. Halliday is associated with further

development of systemic grammar from the foundation

laid by J. R. Firth. Systemic grammar pays attention

to semantics and pragmatics or social meaning of

language and it is concerned with how language is used

in every daily experience in the society.

Systemic grammar postulates four theoretical

categories of grammar – unit, structure, class, and

system.

(1) Unit: the unit carries grammatical patterns. The

term, Rank scale is used to name the hierarchical

16

relationships among the units. What constitutes a unit

include the morpheme, word, group (phrase), clause

and sentence. Each of these grammatical items has a

structure that patterns it according to its unit. For

example:

Morpheme: un+condition+al+ly = unconditionally.

Boy+s = boys;

Knock+ed = knocked.

Word: pen, book, table, desk, etc

Group or phrase: a house; the basket; a tall

man; a fat woman, etc

Clause: (i) when she came in. (ii) Before she

stopped.

(2) Sentence: (i) John has arrived. (ii) The

doctor treated the sick woman

Structure: this is used in the analysis of all the

units in the grammar, except the smallest morpheme

that has no structure. In a nominal word group, the

structure is MHQ (Modifier or words that occur before

the head of the phrase; Head: the keyword of the

phrase. For noun phrase NP, the head is a noun. For

17

Adjective phrase AdjP the head is an adjective. For a

verb phrase VP the head is a verb. Qualifier: word(s)

that come(s) after the head of the phrase). In English

language the sentence structure is SPCA (Subject,

Predicate, Complement and Adverb or Adjunct) but due

to the mobile nature of the Adjunct, it can occur at

any position in a sentence. For Example:

(a) If you observe carefully, you will understand

the techniques.

(b) She won a prize because she sang wonderfully

well.

(3) Class: a class refers to members of the same unit.

These include the noun, verbs, adjectives, adverbs,

prepositions. The verbal group forms the predicate of

a sentence while noun is the head of a nominal group.

System: by this term, we mean the of one item instead

of another from among a number of similar events. For

example, a choice has to be made for predicate within

the following systems:

Voice: active or passive voice

Tense: present or past tense.

18

Aspect: progressive or perfective

Plurality: a noun can be singular or plural. Because

these systems are interrelated, they are said to be in

a network of interrelationships.

There are three scales of abstraction which link the

categories to one another and to the language. They

are:

(i) Rank scale: this is the hierarchical ordering

of units recognized in the description of a

language. Starting from the lowest we have the

morpheme, word, group, clause and sentence.

(ii) Delicacy: In systemic grammar, delicacy refers

to the level of differentiation or depth of

detail in an analysis. When a description is so

generalized or an analysis that is not properly

detailed, it is said to be less delicate. For

example, a verb group may be analysed to have

the auxiliary and the head (xh) but a more

detailed or delicate analysis may show various

kinds of auxiliaries such as modal auxiliary,

perfective aspect, progressive aspect, passive

19

voice. Example: the sentence below is analysed

as shown.

She has eaten the food

S

NP AUX VP

Pr Tens Perf. V NP

Pres Have-en Det.

N

She has eaten

the food

(iii) Exponence. This refers to elements that are

used to realize a category. For example, the

exponence of Head (H) in a nominal word group

is a nominal or noun.

As much as systemic grammar is a context-based

grammar, this paper poises to present various

20

Student talking to a teacher

aspects of context as described by Mick O’donnell,

(2010, pp. 6-12).

3.2 LANGUAGE AND ITS CONTEXT

In Systemic Functional Linguistics, the appropriateness of

linguistic options is conditioned

by the current “context of situation”.

Context of situation: the situation in which the language

event unfolds, at least those parts of the situation which

condition that language use.

• E.g.,StatementQuestion Command

Halliday models “context of situation”, those aspects of the

context relevant to the unfolding language event, in terms of

three strands:

– Field: what is being talked about.

– Tenor: the people involved in the communication and the

relationships between them

21

– Mode: what part the language is playing in the interaction

(is it accompanying action or ALL of the action), what form

does it take (spoken or written).

Example: a recipe in a cook book

Field: cooking (ingredients and process of preparing food)

Tenor: expert writer to a learner, learner is beneficiary of

the advice

Mode: written, prepared. Text often read as part of process of

cooking.

Field: what the text is about:

• Typical fields: science, education, war, medicine, sports,

literary text.

• Can be more specific:

– Science: biology: microbiology: virology: plant viruses

– Education: Language education: English Language education:

Secondary level English Education

• Additionally, can be placed on a cline of:

– specialised vs. non-specialised: is the vocabulary specific

to the field, or does it use vocabulary common to other

fields?

22

– Specialised vocabulary may be used in other fields but have

different meaning in the current field:

• “constituent” (politics) : member of a political unit.

• “constituent” (linguistics): a syntactic unit.

Tenor: relationship between participants includes:

– Power relations:

• Unequal: father/daughter, doctor/patient, teacher/student

• Equal: friend/friend, student/student

– Formality: formal/informal

Informal: example: I handed my essay in kind a late coz my kids got sick.

Formal: same statement: The reason for the late submission of my essay was the

illness

of my children.

– Closeness: distant/neutral/close:

Mode: what part the language is playing in the interaction:

– Role: Ancillary (language accompanying nonverbal activity, as

when we talk as we cook together) or constitutive (the event is

defined by the language, as in a speech).

– Channel: written vs. spoken, or some mix.

23

• Projected channel: where the actual channel is not the

intended channel: ‘written to be spoken’ (e.g., a speech),

‘spoken as if written’ (e.g., recitation).

– directionality: uni-directional channel or bi-directional

(unidirectional allows only monologue, while a bi-directional

channel allows dialogue)

– Media: +/-visual contact (e.g., -visual for a telephone

conversation); use of multimedia (blackboard, PowerPoint,

etc.)

– Preparation: spontaneous vs. prepared; rushed vs. time for

reflection;

LANGUAGE AND ITS CONTEXT: REGISTERSituation type: a configuration of field, tenor and mode that

recurs frequently in our society, e.g.

– ‘talking among friends’:

• (field) not limited

• (tenor) Among friends of generally equal status

• (mode) spoken spontaneous dialogue with occasional

monologue, – ‘lecture’.

• (field) generally specialised in a particular field

24

• (tenor) generally reasonably formal, power relation of

teacher to students

• (mode) spoken, mostly monologue, may use audio-visuals.

Register: the set of linguistic options typically associated

with a situation type, example:

• ‘talking among friends’: use of declaratives and

interrogatives, hedging (“I think...”), interruptions, low

technicality in lexis, low use of nominalisation, etc. "A

register is ... a configuration of meanings that are typically

associated with a particular situational configuration of

field, mode, and tenor. But since it is a configuration of

meanings, a register must also, of course, include the

expressions, the lexico-grammatical and phonological features,

that typically accompany or REALISE these meanings."

CONTEXT-LANGUAGE: DIALOGIC RELATION

• Not only does context condition language, the language we

use in a situation help to define the context. The Field is

not always defined by the situation, but can be chosen by

speakers (e.g., in casual conversation).

25

Language

– Tenor is often up for negotiation, e.g., a salesman will

often try to move from a distant, informal relation with the

client, towards a friendlier, closer one (so the client cannot

say ‘no’ as easily). A teacher can choose which Modes he works

in: spoken, written, multimodal, monologic or dialogic, etc.

Context

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYSTEMIC GRAMMAR AND

TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR

1) Systemic grammar does not account for creativity

in language. as a result of this, the production

of new sentences are neither accounted for nor

explained. The emphasis of systemic grammar is on

raw data which may be full of self-correction,

mannerism, backtracking, repetitions slips of the

tongue, etc.

2) Systemic grammar emphasises context-based use of

language and acceptability while the

transformational grammar is about grammaticality.

Systemic grammar is all about performance order

26

than competence as there is no ideal native

speaker of a language.

3) Transformational grammar is mentalistic while the

systemic grammar is sociological.

4) Transformational grammar is scientific. It aims

at an objective realization of the meaning

intended by the native speaker-rearer without a

recourse to context. The TGG is structurally

defined. Systemic grammar is based on context of

text and context of culture.

Robin P. Fawcett (2004) posits that in a generative Systemic

Functional Grammar, the process of generation is controlled

by the system networks. According to him, these system

networks pattern the meaning potential of the language. This

is in agreement with the postulation of Halliday, (1970

p.142), these system network consist of the statement about

relationship between semantic features. The problems of (l)

getting the elements of the

Structure that the network generates in the correct sequence

and (2) ensuring that they are expounded by the correct items

27

is handled in the realization rules and the potentials

structures.

The figure below shows (i) the two main component of

the grammar (on the left) and (ii) their outputs (on the

right). As the labels above the diagram suggest, it is the

grammar that specifies the two ‘potentials’ of a language:

one at each of the two level of meaning and form the figure

below also shows the outputs – i.e. the ‘instances’ – that

are generated from the potentials at each of the two

levels.

28

potential instance

meaning system network selection expression

of semantic featuresof semantic features

form realization rules & one layer of a richly potential structures labelled tree structure

29

Conclusion

This paper has shown other models of grammar that led to

the development of systemic grammar and has shown the

30

difference between systemic grammar and the

transformational generative grammar. While

transformational generative grammar deals with meaning,

and sociological function of language; that is, language

is context-based.

References

Eka, D. (2004). Element of grammar and mechanics of the English language.

Uyo: SAMUF (NIGERIA) LIMITED.

Fawcett, R. P. (2004). Systemic functional grammar as a formal model

of

Language: a micro-grammar for some central elements of the English

clause. Cardiff University: retrieved from,

31

http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/institutos/incihusa/ul/

webhelpcatedra/Fawcett 2004.doc on 27th August 2014.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Language structure and language

function. In Lyons, J.

(ed) 1970. New horizon in linguistics. Harmondsworth:

Penguin.

Lamidi, M. T. (2008). Aspects of chomskyan grammar. Ibadan:

University Press PLC.

O’donnell, M. (2010). Language, Function, Cognition Part 2:

systemic functional

linguistics. Retrieved from

http://web.uam.es/departmentos/filoyletras/filolesa/

Courses/LFC-SFL/LFC-SFL-2010.pdf

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2014). Systemic function

grammar. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/systemic functional

grammar on 30th August 2014.

32

33