3

An overview of functional
grallllllar

3.1 Three kinds of meaning

1 pointed out in Chapter 1 that in functional approaches to grammar we essen­
t ially equate meaning with function . It is worth exploring in a l íttle more
detail what this involves. Suppose, for example, that we want to explain to a
foreign learner of English what this sentence means :

And he was indifferent, are you saying?

We might get by in this case sirnp ly by focusing on what we can call the die­
tionary meaning of "indiffererrt' and assuming that the learner understands the
resto But, what about the following sentence? Before reading on, can you think
of how you would explain it?

Its not as if I'd been rude to him .

Here, we will almost certainly need to rcsort to more circumlocution - perhaps

something along the lines of 'The speaker is saying that the rn ans behaviour
would be understandable if she had been rude to him, but she wasnt: in other
words, we say " it 's not as if" when we are talking about a situation that we are
unhappy about for sorne reason, and we want to suggest a possible excuse for
the people involved but to say that the excuse ísnt valid .' Note that what this
admittedly clumsy explanation focuses on is the way in which expressions like
the one in the example are used, that is, their function. The meaning is the use.
You could argue that this different approach to the explanation is only
needed because ' It.'s not as if' is an idiorn where the meaning is more than the
sum of the individual words. But, if we look back at the first example, we c a n
see that there is in fact a good deal we c o u ld say about that sentence along the
same kind of lines. For instance, we c o u ld point out that the speaker there
wants to c h eck whether he has understood what the other person means by
offering a wording that the other p erson has not used Cindifferent') to see if he
accepts it . T'he other persorr's response shows that this is how he interprets the
spe a k c rs rri e ssa ge:

'And h e wus indiffcrerrt, are you s av in g ? ' '1 wo u ldrrt say indifferent.'
 AN OV ERVIEW 01' FUNCTIONAL G RA M M A R 29

The reason why t h e explanation in terms of function might seem less necessary
is that the grarnrnar appears more ' t r ansparen t ': for example, questions are
typica11y u s ed to fin d out or to check on information, so it could be thought
that we do not need to comment on this feature of the sentence. However, if,
as linguists, we want to make our explanation more explicit - to explain as exactly
as possible how the sentence comes to have the form that it does - we need to
talk about a11 the functions of the senten ce, ineluding the most obvious ones.
We then e x p la in how those functions are performed by particular choices of
wording. By 'wording ', 1 mean not just the individual words chosen, but all
aspects ofthe way the meanings are expressed: for example, the placing of'are
you saying' at the end of the sentence expresses a slightly different meaning
from placing it at the beginning. Thus the meaning is always more than the sum
of the individual words - it is just that this is more obvious in the case of icliorns.
T'his raises the question of how we can frame a grammatical description that
ineludes an explanation of the meanings of whole messages rather than just
individual words. In ord cr to find an answer, we can rephrase the question in
the kind of terms that were introduced in Chapter 1: how do we go about
relating in a systematic way the functions performed by speakers to the word­
ings that they choose? 1 suggested that we group types of meanings or func­
tions into a relatively manageable number of categories. For example, we can
identify a group of meanings relating to what the speaker expects the hearer
to do (e.g. the functional difference between a statement and a question); and
we can match these with sets of grammatical resources for expressing the mean­
ings, including differen t choices in the ordering of elements in the verbal group
('you are' vs. 'are you?'). Another group is meanings relating to the speakers
assessment of the validity of his or her proposition; these meanings are typic­
ally expressed by the use of the rnc dality resources of the language ('may', 'pos­
síbly', etc.) . A further gro u ping is related to signa11ing how the message fits in
with (makes sense in relation to) what else is said around it; these meanings are
expressed, among other things, by the ordering of the constituents of the clause.
So far, then, we have considered meaning differences like those exemplified
in the following rewordings :

Reid packed his bags. vs. What dí d Reid pack?

Reid packed h is bags. vs. Reid may have packed his bags.
Reid packed his bags. vs. It was his bags that Reíd packed.

1 have deliberately not yet paid much attention to meaning differerices like the
fo11owing:

Reid packed his bags. vs. Reíd packed his toothbrush.

Reid packed his bags. vs. Reid saw his ba gs.

These are probably th e kinds of differences in meaning that spring most eas íly
to mind : dí f fere n t w o rdings use d t o refer to ditferent objects, ideas, sta tes and
--- --,------------ - -­

3O [NTRO D U CING FU N CfrO N AL C RAMi\!¡\ R

events in the world (in other words, thc propositional m canin g - see Section
1.1.1). These differences are obviously very important an d n eed to b e accounted
for in the grammar. The r eason why I have appeared to downplay them is that
they are sometimes taken to represent the only, or at least th e dominant, kind
of meaning that needs to be considered; but within functional grarnrnar; they
r epresent only one of three broad typ e s of meanings that are recognized. It is
important to understand that each of the three typ es coritr ibu tes egually to
the meaning of the message as a who le. It is also important to understand that
each of the three types of meaning is typically expressed by a different aspect
of the wording of the clause: if w e orily take account of the differe nt objects 01'
events referred to ('bags' vs. 'toothbrush' or 'packed' vs. 's aw '}, we end up with
an impoverished one-dimensional view of meaning.
We can summarize the three kinds of meanings that we have so far iderrti­
fied in an informal way as follows.
• We use language to talk about our cxperience of the world, inc1uding the
worlds in our own minds, to describ e events and states and the entities
involved in them.
• We also use language to interact with other people, to establish and
maintain relations with t.h ern, to influence their behaviour, to express our
own viewpoint on things in the world, and to elicit or change theirs.
• In using language, we organize our messages in ways that indicate how
they fit in with the other messages around them and with the wider
context in which we are talking or writing.
It might well be possible to e st ab lis h other sets of categories; for e x a m p le, sorne
theoreticians have suggested functions such as "e x p ressive ' (expressing one 's
own f eelings and view of the world) as a s p a ra te category ra ther than iriclud­
ing it in a broader category as I have done . In Hallidayan functional grammar,
however, the three categories aboye are used as the basis for exploring how
meanings are created and understood, because they allow the matching of par­
ticular types of functions or rneanings with particular types of wordings to an
extent that other categorizations generally do not o

3.1.1 The three metafunctions

AH the more specific functions can be assigned to one other of the three broad
01'
functions outlined aboye; and hence we refer to these broad functions as
metafunetions . The labels for each of the rnetafunctions are reasonably
transparent: the first is the experiential; the second is the interpersonal; and the
third is the textual.
Th e grammar - that is, the description of the spec ífic matches of function
and wording - reflects this three-strand approach, in that it consists of three
components, e a c h c orresponding to one of t h e m etafunc.tioris. For exarnple,
 A N O VERVI EW 01' FU N CTI ON AL G R AMM AR 31

the interpcrsonal component o f the grammar is th e part where w e describe a11

the options th at we have in expressing interp ersonal meanings. Thus each
component has its own systcms of choices: to stay with the interpersonal as
the example, the system that includcs the choice between interrogati ve mean­
ings (questions) and declarative meanings (statements) belongs to the inter­
p ersonal component of the grammar. The result of a series of choices from any
system is a structure. As we sha11 see in Chapter 4, if the speaker chooses the
interrogative option, this wi11 typioally result in the structure Finite ? Subject
( ' 1\' means 'followed by'), for example 'have you? ', whereas the declarative option

r esults in the structure Subject" Finite, for example 'you have '. Wben we put
together th e structures resulting from choices in all t he relevant systems in each
of the thre e c o m p o nen t s, we end up with a wordin g, a m essage.
T'his is a d eliberately brief outline that it is probably diffkult to take in ful ly
as yet, but a simplified example may help to make things a little clearer. Let us
suppose that a ch ild in class complains that someone has taken h er calculator
while she was not looking. In that c o n t e x t , th e tea ch er is expected to identify
the c h íld responsible and make hirn or her return the calculator. There are obvi­
o usly many options open to th e t eacher as to how h e or she goes about this,
but let us assurrie that the tea cher guesses that one of the usual suspects is
guilty, and questions the other ch ildreri about this. In experiential terrns, the
t ea cher wants to r efer to the action that has happ ened (taking) and the thing
that the action w as done to (the calculator); and h e or she also wants to refer
to the possibl e doer of the a ction. The teacher will thus opt for an e x p e rie n tia l
structure that e x p resses the e ven t together with the doer and the done-to; w e
c an symbolize this as 'JimJtakelher c alc u lat o r ' . Simultaneously, in interpersonal
t errns, the tea ch er wants the addressees, the children, to confirrn or deny the
missing inforrna ti cn in the description - whether .Iim was the do er or not; and
he or she will th erefore opt for an interrogative structure. Since this is a yes/no
qu estion, the ordering is Finite Subjcct: 'Oid Jim (take her calculator) ? ' In
ó

t extual terms, the t eachers starting point is th e part of the sen te nce which
shows that this is a question, s ince the questioning is presumably uppermost
in his or her mind; so there is no reason to mov e the Piníte Subj ect combin­
ó

ation from its most natural position at the beginning of the utterance. As a result
of these choices (and others, s uch as the choice of tense, not included here),
the teacher produ c es the wording: 'Oid Jim take her c a lcu l a t o r ?'
It is important to e m p h a size that this is not intended as a d escription of suc­
cessiv e steps in a process that the speaker goes through: 1 have to set it out step
by st e p sirnply b e ca use of the lin ear nature of written language . We unpack the
c h o ic e s for analytical purposes, but the choices are usually a11 made - c o n scio u sly
or, in the main, unconsciously - at the same time . There are times when the
pro c ess may become more staged a n d more c o n s ci o u s ; for exarnple, in r edraft­
ing written text 1 sorrietirne s find myself d e ciding that a n ew starting point will
m ake t h se n t e n c e fit in m ore c le arly, which m uy m ean that 1 a lso have t o alter
32 INTRODUCl N G FU N ' I O N A L GRAMlvlAR

the wording in the rest of the senten ce. But typically a functional description
brings to light and separares closely interwoven decisions that we are not aware
of making about how to word what we want to sayo It also throws light, at a higher
level, on how we decide to say what we do - I will come back to th is briefly in
Section 3.2 below.

3.1.2 Three kinds of function in the clause

In the discussion so far, I have gone from what the speaker wants to say to how
he says it. However, we can also move in the other directíon, starting from the
utterance 'Oid Jim take her ca1culator?' and explaining retrospectively the
choices that are embodied - or 'realized' - in the utterance. This is probably
easier to grasp in practico, b ecause we are starting at th e concrete end, with an
actual wording. Thus we can ask, for example, why he ordered the constituents
in the way he did; what factors led hin! to rn ake the choice of an interrogative,
and so on.
In doing the analysis from this end, we work with three different sets of labels,
corresponding to the three different kinds of functional roles that the elements
in the clause are serving. To give you a preliminary idea of what is involved, we
can look at analyses of the ca1culator example from each of the three perspec­
tives, and compare them with the analyses of possible rewordings. Try not to
be put off by a11 the unfamiliar labels that wi11 be appearing: I wi11 not explain
them in any detail here, since that will b e the function of the three following
chapters. The aim is sirrrply to indi cate what a three-strand functional descrip­
tion looks like. Figure 3.1 shows the analysis of the clause in experiential terms.

Did Jim take her calculator?

Actor Process Goal

Fig 3.1 Analysis frorn the e x p e r ie n t ia l p erspective

To label 'Jirri' as Actor, for example, indicates that this element of the clause
has the function of expressing the (possible) 'doer' of the action expressed in
the process: in other words, we are looking at the clause frorn the experiential
perspective of how entities and events in the world are referred to (in crude
terms, who did what to whom and in what circumstances). From t.his per­
spective, 'J'irn' remains Actor even if we reword the example as in Figure 3.2.

Was her calculator taken by Jim ?

Goal Pro c s s Actor

Fig 3.2 Ex p e rie nt ial analysis of a passive clau se

 A N OVERVl l:W O F FU~-; CTI< )NAL GRAMM AR 33

Figure 3.3 shows an analysis in interpersonal t enns : this is only a partial analy­
s is, but it is sufficient for our present purposes.

Did Jim take h er c a lc u lator?

Finite Subject Predicator Complement

Fig 3.3 Analysis from the interpersonal p erspective

(The reason why 'h e r calculator' is labelled Complement rather than Object
will be explained in Section 4.3.6.) When we say that 'Jirri' is Subject, we are
looking at the clause from the interpersonal perspective of how the speaker
negotiates meanings with the listener (this function of Subject is a tricky con­
cept, but 1 will be discussing it rriore fully in Section 4.3.3). Note that the pas­
sive rewording this time results in a change of Subject - see Figure 3.4 ('by Jirn '
is a prepositional phrase, so it is an Adjunct in interpersonal terms) .

'vVas her c alc u lat o r taken by Jim?

Finite Subjeet Predicator Adjunct

Fig 3.4 Interpersonal analysis of a passive clause

Lastly, Figure 3.5 shows the analysis in textual terms.

Did Jim take her c a lc u lat o r ?

Theme Rheme
Fig 3.5 Analysis from the textual perspective

To say that 'Did Jirri' is Theme means that we are looking at the clause from
the textual perspective of how the speaker orders the various groups and phrases
in the clause - in particular, wh ích constituent is chosen as the starting point
for the message. With the passive version, the words in the Theme change, but
they are still the part of the clause which signals that this is a question, the
Firiitc o Subject - see Figure 3.6.

Was her calculator taken by Jim?

Theme Rhcmc
Fig 3.6 Textual analysís of a passive clause

It is important to see that the differerit labels, even for the same constituent,
identify d iff e r e n t fun tions that the constituent is performing in the clause.
34 IN T RO D U CI N G f' U N T IO N A L GRA M M A R

'This 'rnulti-function ality' i in fact the norrn for c1ause c o nst it ue n ts : t y pically,
they ar e a11 doing m ore th an on e thing at o nce - th e y are a ll c ontributing in díf­
ferent w ay s to th e dí ffe rent kinds of m e aning b ein g e x p r e sse d in the c1ause. Th e
e x am p les also sh o w that, though there are t endencies for c ertain functi ons to
be p erformed b y th e s ame c o ns t it uen t - for e x arnple, A ctor tends to b e Subj ect
a n d S u b ject t ends t o be Theme - they c an all b e p e rformed by different con ­
st it ue n ts. This r einforces the n e ed for the thre e -dimens ional an alysis.

3.1.3 Three kind s of structure in the clause

I fo cused aboy e on individual functional r oles (Actor, S u b jec t , Theme); but
note that each perspectiv e h as in fa ct iderrtified a d ifferent kirid of st r u c t u re
for th e c1ause . Th e lab el 'Actor' , fo r exa rn p le, r epresents o ne fun ction in th e
e x pe r ie n tial stru ctu r e A ctor + Proc ess + Goal. T ypically, there is a fair amount
of o verlap in th e w ay in which the three p erspectiv e s divide up th e c1ause into
parts, although there ar e sig n ific an t diffe renc es. W e c an see this íf we put together
the thre e an a lyses of the o r igina l exarnple, as in Figure 3.7.

T ype of s t r u ct u r e : O íd Jí m t ake h er c alc u la to r?

experiential -. Ac t o r Pro c e ss G oal

interpers onal -. Finite S u b j ect Predicator C o m p lem e n t

rexrual -. T'hcrne Rheme

Fig 3.7 T hree kind s of s t r u c t u re in th e clause

Th e v e rtica l liri es sho w that many o f th e divisions are the s ame in two or all
thr e e of the st r u c t u r e s, but n ot in a11 c a ses. Note, for e x ample, that th e experi­
e n t ia l p erspective is 'blind' to the sep arate e x isten c e of th e Finite: in v ery
s im p le t erms, from th ís perspectiv e we ar e only interested in what a c t io n is
referred to, n ot in the time of the action in relation to the time of talking about
it (the t ense) . Onc e we move on t o more comple x clauses, w e w ill find th at
su c h differences in t erms of w h ich parts of the c1ause are highlighted from
e ach perspective become greater.
A s you can prob ably b egin to appreciate, even with relatively simple exam p les
it is hard to juggle a 11 three perspectiv e s at o n c e . In the m ain sec t io n of the
book, formed b y ch apters 4, 5 ,6 and 7, we will in f act b e examining each per­
spective in turn, w ith only o c c asi on al cross-reference s to the othe r p erspectives,
usually in the an alyses of texts in t he latter p art of e a c h chapter. C h a p te r 9, o n
g r a m m a tic al m etaphor, will sta rt t o draw thc p ersp e ctive s t o gethe r a n d exten d
them; and in the fin al c ha p t e r 1 wil l d is c u ss some as p e c ts of how t h e th ree sets
of c h oiccs interac t in a p a rt ic u lar t e xto
 A N O V ERV I EW OF FUN C n ON A L GRAMM AR 35

3.1.4 Showing the options: systems networks

1 have talked in a numbcr of p la ces aboye about the options open to a speaker,
and the choices that a speaker rriakes. One of the fundamental assumptions of
Hallidayan functional grammar is that the most useful and accurate way of
picturing language is as a system of choices. As 1 mentioned aboye, this does
not mean that we make e a c h choice c o n s c io u s ly or separate1y when we use
language. But each choice contributes something to the meaning of what is
said: and by unpacking the choices we can explore in detail how the resources
of the language have been used to construct the meaning.
But how precísely do we represent 'language as a system of choices? To
explain th ís, it might be useful to start with something completely dífferent
that you will already be familiar with : an official formo Start by filling in the
(invented) form in Figure 3.8 for yourse1f

OccupationaI status [please tick orie) : 2 Em p lo y rne n t type [pleasc tick one) :
full-time empIoyment o c:> go to qu estion 2 profcss íon al O
student O c:> go to question 3 bIue-collar O
unernployed D rnarrual O
other O oth er D
3 Study modc (pIease tick o n e) :
full-time D
pan-time O
Fig 3.8 Systems of c h o ices

What the form does is establish a sct of tour categories, of which you choose
the appropriate one. For sorne of those categories, you then go on to choose
from a set of sub-categories; for example, if you are a student, you may be
studying full-time or part-time. An economical way of showing the different
categories that you might belong to is by a system network - see Figure 3.9.
It may already have struck you that the categories are not really adequate
(which box does a full-time mother or someone working part-t.irne tick?) and
not as separate as they appear (a part-time student might also have a part-tirne
job). Obviously, the success of a systern network like this, or of any kind, depends
on accurate identification of the appropriate categories and on avoiding ambi­
guities and overlaps; but the basic pririciple should be clear. You start with a
range of choices, and c h o o s in g on e option rnay then open up another set of
choices. What you end up with in the case of this form is one kind of descrip­
tion of yourself; for e x a rn pl e, 'st.u de rit e n g age d in full-tirne study'. This is a very
partial description that hardly doe s full justice to the cornplexity of any human
being ; but from one p .r s p e c t iv e it rnay be suffic íent. To achieve a more fully
36 INTRODU 'I N G FU N CTI O N A L G RMv Il'vIAR

professional
bluc-collar
r-r­ Full-time employment
---{
m anual
other

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [fl.l11-time st u d y
Occupational status ---j- Student
part-time st udy

f- Unernployed

Other

Fig 3.9 A simple system nerwork

rounded description, we would need to add not only more delicate categories
in the 'occupational status' system (what subject you study, and at what level;
or what kind of profession you work in, and what exactly your job is, and so
on) but also other perspectives, other systems of choices (age, physical charac­
teristics such as height, family status, likes and dislikes, special talents, etc.).
Essentially, the same kind of system networks can be used to describe lan­
guage in terms of the choices that are available. The concept of language systems
is perhaps easiest to grasp when we are dealing with the interpersonal metafunc­
tion. If we go back to the case of the missing calculator, 1 said that the teacher
chose an interrogative structure. In making th ís choice, he had only two other
possibilrtícs: that is, there are just three basic interpersonal structures for any
clause. These are: interrogative (which can be recognized by the Finrte Subject ó

ordering: 'Did Jim take her ca1culator?'); declarative [Subject.? Finite: 'Jim took -·
her calculator"): and imperative (no Subject or Finite: 'T a k e her calculator!'}.
These are the three primary options in what is called the mood system of English.
This might seem over simple, but íf you try different arrangements of this mes­
sage, keeping a11 the elements, you will always end up with one of these three. For
example, 'Her ca1culator was taken by Jirri' is still a declarative - the Subject 'Her
ca1culator' precedes the Finite "was'. Sirnílarly, 'Was her ca1culator taken by Jim?'
is still an interrogative - the Finite precedes the Subject. The choice of one of
these basic structures has a generalized but recognizably different meaning: with
an interrogative, the speaker is using language to elicit information from the
addressee, whereas with a declarative he is passing on information, and with an
imperative he is prompting the addressee to take sorne kind of action (there will
be a fuller description of these possibilities in Chapter 4).
It may already have occurred to you that 'interrogative' by itself is not enough
to characterize the teacher 's choice of structure: he chose a yes/no interroga­
tive, but he could have chosen a WH-interrogative; for example, 'Where has
her calculator gone?' These are both kinds of interrogative, so the choice between
 AN OV ERVICW OF FUNCTI ONAI. G RA M M A R 37

W H -S Ubj e c t

in terrogativ c
WH-
+WH­
Eli
VVH 1\ Finite
I\NH- = Subj ect

WH-non-Subject
Finite Subject
o
I

WH- = Complement
or Adjun ct

yes/no

declarative
IFinite l\Subject I
ISubj ect l\ Finite I

Fig 3.10 A system n etwork of mood choices

them is at a more delicate level: it is only when the 'interrogative' option is

chosen in the mood system that the choice of a yes/no or a WH-question is
opened up. Within WH-interrogatives, there is in fact a further structural
choice at the next level of delica cy. The WH-element comes first in the clause,
but there are differences in what fo11ows it. In rn any questions, the WH­
element serves as Complement ('\J\That have yo u lost?') or as Adjllnct ('Where
has her cal c u l a t o r gone?'). In these cases, it is fo11owed by the same ordering
Ftn ite Subject as in yes/no interrogatives. However, the WH-element is sorne­
o

times Subj e c t , in which case the order is WH-Subjectf\ Finite; for example,
'Who has taken her calculator? " Note that the WH-Sllbject interrogative st.ill
expresses the 'interrogativeness ' th at is common to a11 the types (and differeri­
tiates them from declaratives and imperatives); and to that it adds 'WH-ness'
(to differentiate it from the yes/no type) and ' W ll- Eu b j e c t n e ss' (to differeritiate
it from the other WH-types).
We can draw up a system network to show the choices that have been out­
lined aboye. The entry condition for the mood system (the overa11 category
that we are dcscribírig in more detail) is 'independent clause ': I will explain in
Section 4.2 below why it is not sirrrply 'clause'. I stated earlier that we need to
be careful in choosing the categories that we use. In thís case, to make the system
work effíciently, w.e actua11y need to bring in a category of 'indicative'. This
covers the options which require the presence of an explicit Subject and Finite,
narnely, declarative and interrogative. This feature distinguishes them from the
imperative, which does not require their presence. Figure 3.10 shows the sys­
temo I have included in the square boxes the ways in which we can recognize
the various options. In technical terms, the boxes show the ways in which the
options in the system are realized; that is, the specifíc language forms which
express the meaning choices. For example, the box under 'indícatíve' shows that
a clause is ind icative if it h as both Subj ect and Finite (without sp ecifying the
38 I N T RODU Cl N G FUN ! O N A L G RA MM1\R

o r d e r) , wh ereas the box under 'declarative' shows that a declarative clause has
these two elements in the order Subj ect ? Finite.
Of course, as with the system in Figure 3.9, this system is far from complete.
More d elicate options could be added under declarative and imperative, as we
have done for interrogative. In addition, it only covers one set of interpersonal
choices, and w e nced other simultaneous sets of choices to account for other
aspects. For example, a11 clause types can be positive or negative : that option is not
dependent on which type of clause is selected, and we show it through another
n etwork. Some sets of choices do not c o m b in e with a11 other sets : w e can e asily
add t ags to d eclaratives ('It's hot, isn "t it? ') and imperatives ('Sit down, wi11 you?"),
but it is rare to find them with yes/no interrogatives ('is i't hot, is it?') and they do
not norrnally o c cur with WH-interrogatives. There are ways in which w e can dia­
gram the system network to show such restrictions on cornbinations of choices
(though, to keep things simple, 1 will not introduce them h ere). And, since w e are
w orking with a thre e-dímensíonal grammar, we n eed to establish other e q u ally
cornplex se ts of syste ms for the experiential and textual m etafunctions.
This is only a very brief introduction to the idea of system networks. They
can look daunting, but onc e you learn to read them they are a very e conom ­
ical way of giv ing a good d e al of information about the language. My focus in
this book is on looking at how grammatical choices fun ction in text, but text
analysis of this kírid r elies on identifying what the particular rrieanirig of any
grammatical choice is in c o m p a riso n with other options that might have been
chosen but were notoTherefore the main part o f each chapter wilI be a descrip­
ti on of the c h o ices w it h in each m etafunction; and 1 wilI use systems networks
to surnrnarize the sets of choices. Other special conventions (like the use ofboxes
to show realiz ations) will be introduced as necessary.

3.1.5 A fourth metafunction

Alth ough 1 have not so far said it explicitly, 1 have implied at a number of points
that th e book wilI mostly concentrate on choi ces in the clause. T'his is not to
say that we cannot identífy sim ilar kinds of choices at lower levels. Neverthe1ess,
it is in the clause that the main functional choices operate : just as Subject
is a functional sl ot in the clause (s ee Section 2 .1 .2), so are Actor and Theme.
The clause is the rnain resource through which we e x p ress meanings.
Howe ver, there is one furth er matter that we n eed to consider: what hap­
p ens when clauses are c o m b in e d into clause complexes. For this, w e need to
explore the types of relationships that c an b e e stab lish e d between clauses; and
this involves bringing in a fourth m etafunction : the logical metafunction . It is
the logical c o m po ne n t o f the grarnrnar that manages th e similarities and
d ifferences in the way that the folIo wing pair o f clauses can b e combined:
Estimates of the soot produced by the fires vary, but it is probably

about 500, 000 to nnes a m onth.

 A N O VERVI EW 0 1' FUNCT I O N A L GRAMM AR 39

Al t h o ug h est im a t e s o f th e S O ( t p ro d u c e d by the fires vary; it is

p ro b ab ly abo ut S OO, OOO to nne s a m onth.

Whereas the other thre metafun ctions relate mainly to the meanings that we
express in our messages, the logical m et afu n c t io n relates to the kinds of connec­
tions that we make between th e m e ssagcs.
Th is formulation sugg st s that th e logical metafunction may operate at
levds oth er than just between c1aus s ; and indeed th ere are c1early sirnilarities
between the cornbinations of c1auses aboye and th e folIowing rewording with
two separate sentences or c1ause complexes:

Estimates of the soot produced by the fires vary.However, it is

probably about SOO,OOO tonnes a month.

We c a n even go th e other way and recognize functional similarities with the

folIowing rewording, where the rneaning of one of the clauses is expressed in
a prepositional phrase:

D e s p it e variations in the estimates of the soot produced by the fircs, it

is probably about SOO ,OOO tonnes a month.

Sorne aspe cts o f the lo gical metafunction will b e e x p lo r e d more ful1y in

Chapter 8 .

3.2 Register and genre

In Chapter 1, I m ention ed that s o cio-cultural factors inf1uence or detennine the
ki nds of things that we try to d o through language, and thus the kinds of things
that w e sayo S o far in this c h a p t e r, 011. the other hand, I have talked only about the
choices in how w e say things; and in the rest of the book this wilI remain the
focus of attention . 'How w - c a n say th ings is a very simplistic description of
what the grarnmar of a language c o vers, but it does indicate the role of the
grammar in offering c o n ven t io n all y accepted wordings to express our meanings.
A more formal way of putting this is to describe grammar as the set of linguistic
resources available to us for making m eanings.
But 1 have already suggested that the kinds of wordings that are available
are themselves d etermined by the uses to wh ích we want to put thern; in other
words, the linguistic resources are deterrnined by the rneanings that we want
to make. In Section 1.1.2, I talked about 'wordings choosing the speaker' : a cru­
cial part of our language abí lity is our knowing how things are typically - or
even obligatorily - said in certain contexts. We can extend this to talk of 'mean­
ings choosing the sp eaker': w e also know what things are typicalIy - or
obligatorily - said in certain contexts. Although 1 will not be exarnining in a
systematic way the issu e of what the broader c o n t e x t u a l factors are and how
they determin e meanings, it will b e u s eful to menti on sorne of these factors,
particularly when w e a n a lys e t e x ts .
40 INTROD U CI N G FU N cn ONA L GRAMMAR

3.2 . 1 Register (and the corpus)

The way in which these factors are a c o u n t e d for in functional gr a m m a r is pr i­
marily by invoking the concepts of r egister and genre. Register, as defined by
Halliday (Halliday and Hasan, 1985/89), is 'variation according to use'; that is,
we typically use certain recognizable configurations of linguistic resources in
certain contexts. There are three main dimensions of variation which characterize
any register: what is being talked about (this is c a lle d the 'fi e ld '); the people
involved in the communication and the relationship between them (the 'tenor');
and how the language is functioning in the interaction: for exarnple, whether
it is written or spoken (the 'mode'). The fact that there are three areas is not
accidental, since each of them corresponds to one of the metafunctions: the
field m ainly determines, and is reflected in, the e x p e ri e n tia l meanings that are
expressed; the tenor mainly determines, and is r efl ected in, the interpersonal
meanings; and the mode rnainly determines, and is reflected in, the textual mean­
ings. In Exercise 1.1, you were in fact being asked to identify informally the
register of the extracts - the context from which they come and the linguistic
features which are typical of text produced in that c o n t e x t o
If we want to identify exactly what the typicallinguistic features of a register
are, we can partly rely 011. intuition, since we are exp ert producers and receivers
of a range of registers (though we are generally not conscious of this). For
example, we probably know how to make our writing appropriate for a busi­
ness letter as opposed to a personal letter, and we would recognize if a news­
paper report or a m edicalleaflet sounded stylist ical ly 'wrong'. But for a more
re liab le and accurate picture w e need to analyse t exts belonging to a particu­
lar register; and the more texts we exarnírie, the bctter. T'h is is why the corpus
is becoming an increasingly important part of functional grammar research .
We airn to move away from unsupported intuitions and to base our descriptions
011. actual occurrences of use. In many cases, this wi ll reinforce a nd probably
refine our intuitions; but in many others, it will result in our seeing important
facts about language that are not easily accessible to intuition. So far, the most
e xcit in g work with corpora has been done at lexicallevel: we now know much
more about collocation (the ways in which words typically appear together)
and colligation (the grammatical and t extual patterns in which words typically
appear). But increasíngly the corpus is being used to explore grammatical pat­
terns, particularly in describing the characteristic features of specific registers.
As an example of how this can be done, take this book as a sample of
the 'academic textbook' register. Look back at the mood system network in
Figure 3.10, and estimate approximately how often 1 have so far chosen each
ofthe three major clause types in my t ext (ignoring the examples) : declarative,
interrogative, imperative.
It is fair ly obvious that the overwhelming majority o f cl auses are d eclara­
tives; but there have h een a few imperatives (for exa m p l , 'take, 'look' and 'esti­
mate' in t he preceding two s n t e n es}, and v ery rou ghly the sarric number of
 t\ N OV E RV l EW O F FU N CTI O N A L GRAMMi\R 41
q u e s t io n s, B y m y r k o n in g , o u t of e v e ry 100 cl au se s, o n a v era g e 1 h av e u sed
three interro gativ e s a n d thre e irripe rative s: and the other 9 4 clauses are d eclara­
tives . We can u s e th e kind of syst e rn network that 1 introduced aboye to
show this information economically by assigning a probability to each choice.
Converitíonally thís is shown as a decimal fraction of one. So, for this textbook,
the probabilrties w ould b e as in Figure 3 .11.

interroga tiveO.03

indic ative O.97 I

independent c1ause-{ L d eclarative0 97

imperative ü .03

Fig 3.11 Simple m ood system with probabilities

If we looked at oth er a c a d e m ic textbooks, we would e x p ect to find a simi­

lar kind of distribution. There would be sorne variation from textbook to
textbook; and occ asio n a lly we might com e ac r o ss one that was markedly
different for various r easons (though in that case our intuitive sense of r e gís­
ter would b e likely to tell us that it was an untypical textbook) . But, if w e
included a large enou gh sarnple of textbooks in our corpus, we would find a
fairl y cle ar, c o n s is te n t pat tc r n of choices emerging in the rhre e major clause
types. T'his is o ne feature of the register of acad emic textbooks. By assigning
prob a b iliries a s in Fi gure 3 .1 1, w e a re in effect claiming that a ny academic
textbook in English produced in th e same c u lt u re is most likely to conform to
th at pattern .
If we then examined other registers, we would fí nd other patterns of prob­
abilities in the mood choices. In conversation, for example , we could predict
that w e might find many more interrogatives; and in recipes the proportion of
imperatives would be significarrtly higher. In e a ch c a se , w e could relate the
differerices in distribution to contextual factors. The choice of clause type is
c o n c e r n e d with interpersonal meanings, and so the relevant contextua1 factors
relate rnainly to tenor, the relationship between the interactants. For e x a m p 1e,
a s th e 'expert' in the c o n t e x t of this textbook, 1 am allowed to spend much of
m y text t elling you (the 'novice"] information; and 1 am a1so allowed to tell
y o u sometimes to do c e rta in kinds of things (mainly mental processes like
' N o te ' and 'Loo k' rather than phy sical ones); and 1 can a1so som etimes ask y o u
questions (though typ ically on e s to which 1 already know the answer, which
1 then go on to tell y o u ). You might like to think about the f actors which influ­
e nce the choic e s in c oriv ersation and r e cip e s ; for e x a m p le, w hy d o es the r ecipe
writer h ave th e right t o iss u e lots of c o m m a n ls w ith ou t w orrying th at yo u, the
r eader, might p r otest at suc h 'b o ssine ss?
 - -- - --

42 INTROIX _11 r-U N CT I O N A L G Rt\tvl M A R

T'h cs e are very s irri p l x a m p le s o f r e vi ster liffercn c e s . . b vi ou sly, it wou1d

be possible to 100k at a v ery wide rang e o f o t h e r c h o ices in a re gi ster in the same
way. Sorne of t.Írese c h o i e s will be rnore d elicate than oth ers: w e might, for
exarnple, look not just at intcrrogatives hut also at yes/rio vs, WH-interrogatives;
and we can also cxamirie choices in e x p e rie n t ial and t extual syst e m s. We
can then go on to check the typical c o m b in a t io n s of choices; for exarnple,
1 h av e mention ed that when 1 use imperatives addressed to 'y o u ' in th ís text
book it generally involves mental proc esscs. This differs frorn, say, imperatives
in recipes, which typically in vol ve physical actions like 'rn ix.' or ' c h o p : (the
choice of process is s o m e t h i n g w e will explore under experiential meanings in
Chapter 5). In this way, we could build up a detailed picture of the configur­
ations of choic es th at ma k e my text sound like a typical t extbook. However,
this ís inevitably time-consuming: in my experience, producing an analysis of
a page of text from the perspective of each of the three metafunctions, keep­
ing only to the main systems, takes a couple of hours (if 1 arn Iucky and dont
run into too many problem cas es"). When we extend the corpus to inelude
many other textbooks th e amount of tim e needed obvious1y increases enor­
mously. It is not surprising that c o r p u s linguisti cs has so far focused on words
rather than grammatical features: words c a n b e recognized automatically by
computers with r elatively little difficulry (in writing, we conveniently put spaces
before and after each word) , ancl co rn p uters can pro cess huge arnourrts of text
very rapidly. Most fun ctional grammar a n a lysis, on the other hand, still has to
be don l a rg e ly by h and. Gradu ally, h owever, an incr asingly extensive body of
analysed texts is b eing built u p , and o m p u t e r tools to help make analysis
quicker are b eing developed; one important task for the future is to extend and
develop such corpus -based work.
The next st e p will then be to move fr om the description of individual regis­
ters to a description of the probabiliti e s for the language as a wh ol e . One way
of doing this will be by c ombining a11 the information about different registers.
T'his will in effect mimic the way in which a native speaker 's knowledge of his
or her language is built up, from c h ild h o o d on, b y exposure to an increasingly
wide variety of instances of language in use. These global probabílít.íes will form
a baseline against which we as linguists can measure the characteristic devi­
ations of each register - just as they forrn the baseline which users of the language
rely on, largely unconsciously, to recognize what so u n d s natural and appropri­
ate in any particular register.

§ Refer to Exercise 3 . 1

3.2.2 Genrt.~

If we now turn , rnore bri fly, t o genrc, this c a n b e se e n in v ery sim p le t erms as

register plus purpose . T'h at is, it inelude s the more ge n e r a l idea of what the ínter­

actants a re d o in g throu gh langu a g e, and ho w th ey organiz e th e language e v e n t,

 AN OVERVI EW OF FU reT I ::lN A L GR1\MMAR 43

typi cally in r eco sm iz ab le sta ge s, in arder to a chi e v e t h a t p ur p o s e. An irna ge

that may h elp you to grasp the differen c e b etwe cn register a nd genre is to
see register as doth and genre as garrnent: thc gannent is made of an ap p ro­
priate type of doth or c1oths, cut and shaped in conventional ways to suit par­
ticular purposes. Sirnil arly, a genre deploys the resource s of a register (or more
than one register) in particular patterns to achieve certain communicative
goals. As an example of genre, we can take the following extract from a news­
paper report (from the Daily Star for 25 November 1992):

Bacon 'rr eggs stop prison riot

Prison officers broke up a jail riot yesterday - with bacon and eggs.
The aroma of hot breakfasts tempted 140 inmates out of a barricaded
wing after an II-hour, f2 m.illion wrecking spree.
They were led off to a dining hall.
An insider said: 'The smell of bacon and eggs was too much to bear.'
Rescued
Prisoners went on the rampage at Highpoint prison, Suffolk, after
warders foiled an escape bid by two of them.

This extract shows easily recognizable features that m ark it as belonging to the
register of journalism: at word level, the use of items like 'fo ile d ", and set
phrases like 'went on the rarnp age': at group level, the dense packing of Pre­
rriodifiers in "an ll-hour, f2 million wrecking spree ' : at clause level, the inclu­
sion of a direct quote from somcone involved, and the foregrounding or
backgrounding effect in the second sentence of the report, where the riot is
referred to in a prepositional phruse, relegating it to providirig the background
for the main event of tempting the inmates wi th the smell of food. Beyond
th ís, hcwever, we can also point to generic features of how the text goes about
its business. These indude the headline and sub-heading 'Rescu ed' - the for­
mer intended to be eye-catching, the latter typically uninformative and app ar­
eritly intended sirnply to break up the text visu al ly. They also indude the way
the text unfolds in various conventional stages, starting with an expansion of
the headline in the first sentence; followed by a further expansion in the next
three sentences, stíll focusing on the most "n e wswo rt hy ' aspect of the story;
followed by the details, mostly about the riot, starting after the sub-heading
and continuing for a further five sentences (not induded here). At a less con­
crete level, we can also see the overall purpose of the story as being deter­
mined by the cultural expectations of the writer and readers: the bacon and
eggs incident is represented as m.ore newsworthy than the riot itself. The story
is designed to ere-ate a 'cosy' fe eling, using a narrative pattern of abad situation
resolved by an unexpected happy turn of events (as in fairy stories - see
Section 1.2) . If one part of the fun ction of popular journalism is to shock and
horrify, another (and perhaps more basic one) is to support the readers in a
comfortabl f e eling o f li v ing in a manag .a b lc worl d c h a r a c t c r i ze d by e ve n t s
44 IN TROD U CIN G FU N CTI O N A L G RA M MA R

which a r e amu sin gl y o d d b ut whic h d o n ot und r m in e th eir as sumptions of

what is 'normal'.
This is only a very brief indication o f thc broader socio-cultural orientation
of the functional approach that 1 will be setting out. 1 have included it here just
b efore w e begin the d etailed examination of c la u s e -Ie v e l grammatical choices
in order to r e-ernp hasize that these are only part of the story, and that they can
only be fully understood in the wider contexto

Exercise 3. 1
Select any written text of at least uve pages, or spoken text (video or sound
recording) of at least uve minutes. Decide broadly what type of text you think it
is; for exarnple, news report, narrative, interview, recipe, advertisement, e t c.
Predict what p ercentages of d eclarative, interrogative and imperative will b e u sed
in it. Then count them. What co n t ex t u al factors may help to explain the results?
N e x t , find a n o t he r t ext that you would cate goriz e as the same t ype, a n d do the
same. Are th e p erc enta g es s im ila r to tho se in the first text? If not, can y o u
identify particular c o n t e x t u a l factors that might e x p l a in the differences?