05-072-411

26 cop
INTRODUCTION1

Why a 'Brief Introduction to Functional Grammar'?

I have titled this book 'A Brief Introduction to Functional Grammar', and it is possible that
this requires an explanation: why 'brief'?, why 'functional'? and why
grammar?

It is a brief introduction because, despite any illusion of extension, it is nothing more

a tiny fragment of a description of English grammar. Any
An approach to a complete grammar would be a hundred times more extensive. In fact, it cannot
to have a "complete" description of the grammar of a language, because a language is
inexhaustible. While in a language there can only be a finite set of texts (written or
spoken), the language itself - the system that underlies the text - is of an extent
indefinite; therefore, regardless of how numerous the distinctions we present are in
our description, nor the degree of detail or 'delicacy', we could always recognize
some more.

It is an introduction to a functional grammar because the conceptual framework in the

what is based is functional and not formal. It is functional in three distinct senses, although
closely related: (1) in their interpretation of the texts, (2) of the system and (3) of
the elements that make up linguistic structures.

(1) It is functional because it is intended to describe how language is used.

text - that is to say, everything that is said or written - unfolds in some context of use.
Even more, it is the uses of language that for hundreds of thousands of generations have
gives shape to the system (linguistic). Language has evolved to meet the
human needs and their form of organization is functional to these needs - it is not
arbitrary. A functional grammar is a "natural" grammar in that everything in it
It can ultimately be explained in relation to how language is used.

(2) Based on the above, the fundamental designated components of

language is functional components. All languages are organized around two
main classes of meaning: the 'ideational' or reflective, and the 'interpersonal' or active.
These components—known as 'metafunctions' in the terminology of this theory—are
the manifestations, in the linguistic system, of two very general purposes that
underlie all uses of language: (i) understanding the environment (ideational) and (ii) acting
about others in that environment (interpersonal). In combination with these, the third component
Metafunctional, the 'textual' is the one that gives relevance to the other two.

Thirdly, each element within a language is explained in relation to

its function within the linguistic system as a whole. In this third sense, therefore,
a functional grammar is one that organizes all the units of a language–its

1
Source: HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed., pp. xiii-xxxv).
London: Edward Arnold. Original translation by Lic. Elsa Pizzi, revised by Dr. Beatriz Quiroz
for internal use at the Faculty of Letters (PUC-Chile) and reviewed by Lic. Laura Ramírez for
for internal use in the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters (University of Buenos Aires).

1/26
clauses, phrases, etc.–as configurations of organic functions. In other words,
each of its parts is interpreted by virtue of its function in relation to the whole.

It is an introduction to grammar because, within the framework of the tradition of the

functional linguistics, the terms used for the levels or 'strata' of the language - the
phases in the coding process that go from meaning to expression–
they correspond to semantics, grammar, and phonology. In formal linguistics, the term is used
the term 'syntax' instead of 'grammar'; this usage comes from the philosophy of language,
where syntax is opposed to semantics (this is the context in which the
"pragmatics" is possibly introduced as a third term). In the terminology
Linguistics, syntax is just a part of grammar, which is constituted by syntax.
and the vocabulary, plus morphology in languages with morphological paradigms. To make explicit
the fact that both syntax and vocabulary are part of the same level in the
code, it is useful to refer to this level with the term 'lexicogrammar'; however, using
This term constantly poses difficulties and its abbreviated version is sufficient.

There is another reason not to use the term 'syntax'. This word suggests that it
proceeds in a specific direction according to which a language is interpreted as a
system of forms to which meanings are subsequently associated. In the history of the
Western linguistics, since its beginnings in ancient Greece, that was the direction in which
it was proceeded: first, the forms of words were studied (morphology); then, to
explaining the forms of words, grammarians examined the forms of sentences
(syntax), and once the forms were established, the question was raised: "what do these mean?
forms?" In a functional grammar, however, the direction is reversed. A language is
interprets as a system of meanings, with forms through which the
meanings can be realized. The question is rather 'how are these expressed?'
meanings?”. This changes the perspective from which linguistic forms are approached:
these are a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. In fact, there is a term
a technique that can be used for this kind of grammar, known as "synthesis"2. From
so that, although this book deals largely with phenomena that could be considered
syntactic, the approach is more about sinesis than syntax.

Scope and purpose

The theory underlying this description is known as 'systemic' theory.

systemic theory is a theory of meaning as choice, according to which a language, or
any other semiotic system is interpreted as networks of interconnected options:
‘this, or that, or this other’, ‘more like this than like this other’, etc. Applied to the description
of a language, this means that one must start with the most general features and
advance step by step, until becoming increasingly specific: 'a message is related to
with what is done, what is thought or what is; if it is about what is done, it is
simply to act or act on something; if it is to act on something, it is to create something or deal with

2
A grammatical term derived from Greek that means unification, meaning, union, or realization. It is
a rhetorical device that instead of being subject to syntax, is conditioned by the
meaning. Synthesis is a grammatical construction that agrees with the meaning instead of
strict syntax. It is used to highlight the construction of words according to their meaning, not their
morphosyntactic form.Source:Unable to access the provided link.(N. of the R.)

2/26
something already created' and so on. Or: 'a syllable is open (if it ends in a vowel) or
closed (if it ends in a consonant); if it is closed it can be voiced or voiceless. Each choice
within a system becomes the way to access one set of options to another and
we continue everything that is necessary, or everything that is possible in the time we have
we have, or all that our knowledge allows us.

However, what is presented here is not the systemic part of the description of
English - in which grammar is represented as networks of options - but the
structural component where we show how options are realized (that is the
reason why the book is not titled "Brief Introduction to Systemic Grammar"
Functional). This does not change the basic orientation, which remains "from the general to the
specific", and in which comprehensive treatment is prioritized; that is, more is given
importance to breadth over depth and not all the steps that lead are made explicit
from one feature to another. The systemic part of grammar is currently found
stored on a computer.

At the time of deciding how much to cover, I have kept some principles in mind.
advisors. The goal has been to develop a grammar for analyzing texts, that is to say,
let me say sensible and useful things about any text, spoken or written, in English
modern. Within this general objective, what is included here is what I believe could
to be taught in a course. The book corresponds to approximately one semester of work.
intense in the undergraduate linguistics program for second-year students (that is, 30
class hours with associated tutorials) or an annual seminar in the graduate program
(Master) in Applied Linguistics (about 54 hours), with continuous analysis exercises
In our master's course, we have had many specialist students in
TESOL3some native English teachers or those with some other interest
professional related to language in the educational field, while others have
interested in different applications of linguistics - for example, in the area of disorders
of speech, artificial intelligence, or language planning.

There are many different purposes for wanting to analyze a text, among them, the
motivations related to ethnographic, literary, and educational interests,
pedagogical, etc. Among the specific tasks for which this grammar has been used
the analysis of texts written by children, the interaction between teacher and student
("speech in classroom") or the language of school texts, including translated textbooks
to other languages; the comparison of registers or functional varieties of English; the
stylistic analysis of poems or stories; the analysis of the perceptions that people have
English as a foreign language students about how to improve their English, and the
analysis of spontaneous conversations between adults, between adults and children, and between children.
In some cases, the underlying objective has been strictly practical; in others, the character
It has been much more theoretical or research-oriented.

In any discourse analysis, there are always two levels of achievement towards which it is
possible to point out. One is the contribution to the understanding of the text: the linguistic analysis
allows to show how and why the text means what it means. In the process

3
TESOL: Teaching English as Second Language
from the T.)

March 26
multiple meanings, alternatives, ambiguities, metaphors, are likely to be revealed
etc. This is the basic level, which should always be affordable if the analysis reaches
relate the text to general features of the language; in other words, if it is based on a
grammar.

The highest level of achievement is the contribution to the evaluation of the text: the analysis
linguistic allows to say why the text is or is not effective for its own purposes; in what
aspects are satisfactory and in what aspects it fails or is less satisfactory. This objective is
much more difficult to achieve. It requires not only an interpretation of the text but also of
its context (situational context and cultural context), and of the systematic relationships between
text and context.

The grammar and the text

Whatever the final objective considered, the analysis of a text in terms of
Grammatical analysis is only the first step. It will surely be followed by some others.
further comments or exegesis4This can still occur within a general theory.
of language such as, for example, if one is studying the difference between spoken discourse
and the writing; or it can be given in terms of some conceptual structure outside of language
Indeed, for example, if a learning model is being developed or tested through
from the study of language in the Science classroom, or researching the use of language in the
advertising, political propaganda or others.

An example of analysis and commentary is presented in Appendix 1. It is about a

simple interpretation that stays true to the text and, at the same time, relates it to its
situational and cultural context. However, the next steps will lead us with
frequency beyond language, even in more abstract semiotic domains, with different
modalities of discourse that reinterpret, complement, and contradict each other
mutually as the complexities come to light. A text can be a
highly complex phenomenon, that is, the product of an ideational environment and
interpersonal very complex.

It is obvious that an exegetical work of this kind, whether ideological, literary,

educational or of any other kind, it is a work of interpretation. There is no way to
transform it into an algorithm that specifies a series of operations to be performed to
arriving at an objective description of the text, let alone of the culture that generated it. What is
It is important to point out, however, that even the first step, the grammatical analysis of
text, it is already a work of interpretation. An automatic grammatical analysis program
(parser) can process a good part of grammar; but there are always indeterminacies,
alternative interpretations, moments when one must weigh one factor or another.
Furthermore, in most texts, one will have to decide how far to go with the analysis of
the grammatical metaphors, as described in Chapter 10.

However, whatever the final purpose or direction of the analysis may be, this
It must be based on a grammar. Twenty years ago, when the dominant trend in
Linguistics focused on what has been called 'the syntactic era', it was necessary to oppose

4
Term derived from Greek that means explanation. It is the explanation or interpretation of a
written text. Source: exegesis

April 26
the grammar and pointing out that it was not the beginning and the end of all study about language,
and that one could advance a lot in the understanding of nature and its functions
language without any kind of grammar. The authors of the original material of
Use5, prepared for the British School Council, showed that it was possible to produce a
excellent language program for secondary school students that consisted of more
of one hundred units, none of which contemplated the study of it at all.
grammar.

However, it is now necessary to give reasons to the contrary and insist on the
importance of grammar for linguistic analysis. If I now appear as the champion
of grammar, it's not because I changed my mind about it, but because the interest
changed. The current concern focuses on the analysis of discourse, or the "linguistics of
text.” Sometimes it is thought that this analysis can be carried out without grammar –or even
which, in a sense, is an alternative to grammar—but that is an illusion. A
discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is by no means an analysis, but rather
just a superficial comment about a text: either it is necessary to resort to a
set of non-linguistic conventions, or some linguistic features sufficiently
trivial enough to access them without a grammar - such as the number of words per
sentence (even the objectivity in these cases is often illusory) – or it remains as
a personal exercise where an explanation is as good or bad as any other.

A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one. However, the meanings are
they carry out6through linguistic forms (wordings) and, without a theory about these forms–
that is, a grammar - there is no way to make our interpretation explicit of the
the meaning of a text. Therefore, the current interest in discourse analysis provides,
in fact, a context in which grammar occupies a central place7.

The above also points the way to the type of grammar that is required.
For a grammar oriented towards discourse to provide revealing perspectives about
of the meaning and the effectiveness of a text, it must have a functional and semantic orientation,
with grammatical categories that are explained as the realization of semantic patterns.
Otherwise, it will become endocentric rather than exocentric, and will characterize the text in
formal and explicit terms, but without providing a basis that relates it to the
non-linguistic universe of their situational and cultural environment.

A 'natural' grammar

5
Textbook of English as a native language for secondary education, prepared by the
the same Michael Halliday and other collaborators (Note from the Translator)
6
Halliday uses the term 'realization' - and the corresponding verb, 'to realize'
realize) – to refer, within their theoretical model, to the type of specific relationship i) between
linguistic strata, ii) between units within grammar, and iii) between options (system) and the
structure. In more detailed articles, it has referred to interlayer realizations in terms of
metaredundancy (Halliday, 1992). (Translators' Note.)
7
As a translation of the word wordings, 'verbalizations' could be considered in Spanish.
a more faithful option, but also more ambiguous in this context. What underlies the use of
The term 'wordings', taken from common language, is the articulation of meanings in forms (and
linguistic structures. (Translators' note)

May 26
 A language, therefore, is a system for creating meanings: a system of
semantic nature, which incorporates systems that encode the meanings it produces. The
The term 'semantics' not only refers to the meaning of words but to the entirety of
system of meanings of a language, which are expressed both through grammar
such as vocabulary. In fact, meanings are encoded in linguistic forms:
grammatical sequences, or 'phrases', composed of items from both classes - items
lexicons, like most verbs and nouns; grammatical items8like the
articles and conjunctions, as well as those that are considered of an intermediate type, such as
the prepositions.

The relationship between meaning and linguistic forms is not, however,

arbitrary: the form of grammar relates naturally to the meanings that
they are being coded. A functional grammar is intended to highlight the latter: it is a
study of grammatical resources, but a study that interprets them in relation to
what do they mean.

Linguistic forms are purely abstract parts of the code; they cannot be
hear or see. They are recoded in the form of sound or writing. At this point, the relationship is in
greatly arbitrary, although not completely. Thus, what in English would be said,
in Italian it is called rain, in Russian it is дождь (dozhd’), in Chinese it is (yu); there is nothing natural in the relationship

of these sounds with any other part of the code nor with the meteorological phenomenon that
it is beyond the code.

What does it mean, then, to say that grammar is related "naturally" to the
meaning? Judging by the way language develops in children, during their
evolution in the human species language began without any kind of grammar; it was
a two-level system, in which meanings were encoded directly in form
of expressions (sounds and gestures). This is at least the way it is organized the
"protolanguage" of children, the symbolic system they develop before starting to
speak in the mother tongue9Then, during the second year of life, this protolanguage is
replaced by a three-level system in which the meanings are first encoded
in linguistic forms and these forms are then recoded into expressions. There are several
reasons why this step had to be taken for the system to develop: opened
both the potential for dialogue – that is, the dynamic exchange of meanings with
other people - like the potential to combine different kinds of meanings in a
statement, that is, to use language to think and act at the same time.

The interface between meaning and expression was already arbitrary, or was becoming so.
arbitrary in the final protolinguistic stage: there is no natural relationship between meaning
"I want that, give it to me" and the sound mamamaananana that a ten-year-old child usually makes.
months when expressing that meaning. It was necessary for the system to generate this boundary of
arbitrariness, otherwise communication would have been restricted to the relatively

8
The term grammatical items refers to what is traditionally known as 'words'
functional words, in contrast to the so-called 'content words' (or lexical items). (N. of the
T.)
9
For a comprehensive compilation of Halliday's studies in the area of language development,
see Webster, J. (2004) (ed) The language of early childhood. New York: Continuum. See
also the work of Painter (1984, 1999, 2009) (Note from the Translator).

6/26
reduced variety of meanings for which natural symbols can be conceived. But
it was not necessary for the new interface between meaning and grammar to become
arbitrary; in reality, everything was set up so that it would not be, given that an arbitrary system that
I would have had a sufficient number of significant elements to be useful.
It has also become impossible to learn. Consequently, lexicogrammar is a system
natural of symbolic nature.

This is a theme addressed throughout the entire book, although it is not reintroduced.
at every moment. What it means is that both the general types of patterns
grammatical elements that have evolved in the language, such as the specific manifestations of
each of these types has a natural relationship with the meanings they have come to
to express evolutionary. When a nineteen-month-old child observes a phenomenon
complex and reports it as man washes car - 'a man was washing the car' - the
the fact that its statement is divided into three segments reflects the interpretation of
experiences as composed of parts; the different grammatical functions assigned to
man, wash, car, express the different roles that these elements play with
Regarding the whole; the distinction in classes of words, such as verb and noun, reflects the
analysis of the experience in the form of events, expressed with verbs and in the form of
participants in those events, expressed with nouns, etc.

Adult language has developed semantic structures that allow us to

"reflect" on the experience – that is, to interpret it constructively – because they are
possible: they make sense and we can act on them. The systems of meanings have
generated in turn lexicogrammatical structures that are equally plausible: hence that
let's have verbs and nouns that fit the analysis of the experience in the form of
processes and participants (see Chapter 5). This is how children can develop a
grammar: because they can establish a link between grammatical categories and the
reality that surrounds them and that is within their heads. They can see the meaning that
underlies the code.

Later on, you will learn the principle of "grammatical metaphor" (see Chapter
Through this, meanings can be coded obliquely, and the
Phenomena can be represented with different categories than those they came to represent.
evolutionarily (for example, automatic car wash). This is a
posterior step and much more complex in evolution (ontogenesis, and presumably
also phylogenesis) of the system. The grammatical metaphor is a predominant feature of
adult language is learned quite late. While a two-year-old child can
manage general concepts and recognize that a red ball is a type of ball, or
that a goldfish is a type of fish; and that a five or six year old child can
start to handle abstract concepts – like in the following example, of a child from
5;10

You might not think 'swum' was a word, but it is. It's a made-up word. Well, every word
is made up, because how the earth started was a very different language, wasn't it?
(You wouldn't have thought that 'quenadado' was a word, but it is. It is a word)
invented. Well, all words are invented, because when the earth started there was
a very different language, isn't it?)

July 26
 It is not until about nine or ten years old that a child can normally use
a metaphorical grammatical (hence the problems that children have with evolution
when they read something about dinosaurs and see that 'some learned to swim and others
learned to fly.

At this point, we will incorporate the notion of congruence into the grammar. The language
has evolved in such a way that our interpretation of experience (to think with the
language) and our personal exchanges (acting with language) are encoded in
plausible semantic structures. Alongside them, a system has been developed
lexicogrammatical that extends the principle of plausibility a little further, so that
we are even one step away from being able to see (or perceive; the process is unconscious until the
linguistics begins to operate on it) the meaning behind the forms. An expression
congruent is one in which this direct line that goes from form to meaning and to the
experience remains intact, like in the language of small children with man
lava auto. A metaphorical expression is one in which the line is indirect. It is neither
neither better nor worse in itself; but it is more sophisticated and must be learned. There is no line
clear between the congruent and the metaphorical - there are rarely clear lines in language, since
It is a system that has evolved naturally and not one that has been designed–but the
distinction is important for the analysis and generation of texts. Of course, it is
extremely relevant, although in a very complex way, for any type of evaluation of
texts.

Grammar and semantics

Given that the relationship between the grammatical and semantic strata is, in this sense,
natural and not arbitrary, and since both correspond to coding systems
purely abstract, how do we know where one ends and the other begins?
the answer is that we don't know: there is no clear line between the semantic stratum and the
grammatical, and a functional grammar is one that is oriented towards the semantic layer.

To what extent this orientation occurs depends on various variables. The grammar
what we present here has been quite oriented, by the way it is organized,
specifically for two related characteristics: one, that it uses a structural model
grammatical which is more dispersed than dense (ranges10, no immediate constituents; see
Chapter 2); the other, which is a grammar of "options", not a grammar of "strings" (in
its conceptual organization is paradigmatic, not syntagmatic). Taken together,
both characteristics imply that there is a series of options and operations (a 'cycle')
of system-structure") in each range, that is, the clause options are made as
clause structures, these are made as options for phrase/group that
they are made as phrase/group structures, and so on. Given that it is a device
quite extensive – it is a prodigal theory, not austere – the grammatical options
corresponding to higher ranges can essentially be semantic options, without
therefore, grammar loses contact with the lower levels.

10
The concept of rank refers to the local scale or hierarchy that organizes the units within
each stratum. For the lexicogrammatical stratum of English, Halliday mainly covers in this book
the ranges go from the clause, through the group-phrase to the word; however, in
languages such as Spanish, this hierarchy or scale could be reasonably addressed up to the range
of morpheme. See an accessible exposition on this concept in Martin (2004). (N. of the T.)

August 26
 This last aspect is crucial. The grammar must be explicit if it wants to continue.
being useful: it must be able to generate linguistic forms from the grammatical categories most
abstract through a specific series of intermediate steps. Only a computer
you can put this to the test and it takes a long time. There is no way for a draft like this
can explain in detail all the steps that go from meaning to forms
linguistics. However, the need for this to be possible leads to a principle
It is important to note that all the categories used must be clearly "there" in the
grammar of the language. They have not been established simply to label differences of
meaning. In other words, we do not hold: "these two series of examples differ in their
meaning, therefore, must be systematically distinguished in grammar. It may be
so be it, but if this distinction is not reflected in the lexicogrammar, then there is no
differences between them.

If we only took into account the differences in meaning, then any

a set of clauses or sentences could be classified in very different ways; there would be no
the way to prefer one scheme over another. The fact that this is a grammar
"Functional" means that it is based on meaning; but the fact that it is a "grammar"
It means that it is an interpretation of linguistic forms. Any distinction that is
recognize in grammar - every set of options, or every "system", in terms
systemic - contributes in some way to the linguistic form. This contribution with
Frequency will be indirect, but it will occupy some place in the overall picture.

The relationship between the semantic and grammatical strata is a relationship of realization:
Linguistic forms "realize" or encode meaning. Linguistic forms, to their
sometimes, they are 'realized' by sound or writing. It makes no sense to ask at what level
Determine which; the relationship they establish is a symbolic relationship. It is not possible.
point to a symbol as something isolated and wonder what it means; the meaning is
codes in linguistic forms as an integrated whole. The choice of an element
specific can mean one thing, its place in the phrase another, its combination with another
what, another, and its internal organization another one. What grammar does is separate all
these possible variables and assign them to their specific semantic functions.

One might ask the question: why functional grammar and not functional semantics?
In the current state of knowledge, we can not yet describe the semantic system of
a language. We can give a semantic interpretation of a text, describe the system
semantic of a quite limited record and provide a general description of some features
semantics of a language; but in one way or another, semantic studies continue to be
partial and specific. We can, on the other hand, describe the grammar of a language.
considering the system as a whole.

This book is proposed as a resource for the interpretation of texts from a wide range
variety of registers in modern English; it would not be possible to formulate a description
likewise general of the semantics of English. Even if it could be, the semantic system
It is so vast that a brief introduction to it would be several times longer than this.
Finally, even if someone took on that task, they could not eliminate the need for the
grammar. The semantic description could well be made in a way that absorbed the

September 26
grammar and will incorporate it as a part of itself; but the analysis of a text would still follow
anchored in the explanation of linguistic patterns.

The sentence and the word

In terms of levels, there is no fixed upper limit for grammar, but

traditionally this ends in the sentence (the 'clause complex', in this description)
And there is a reason why this unit effectively constitutes the upper limit.

At the level below the sentence, the relationships are typically constructive, that is
saying, of the parts with the whole. In a functional grammar, this translates into a
organic configuration of elements, each of which has its own functions and
specific with respect to the whole (most of the elements of a grammatical structure
multifunctional). A manifestation of this structural relationship is the sequence in the
that the elements appear, but this is just one variable among others.

Within this type of constructive organization, two minor motifs are introduced:
structural patterns of another type, which are closer to dynamic processes of
text formation (Chapter 7), and (2) non-structural forms of organization that create
cohesion–reference, ellipsis, etc. (Chapter 9).

Above the level of the sentence, the position is inverted. Here are the forms of
non-constructive organizations dominate and become the norm, while
only in some cases–private classes of texts–there are recognizable units like the
lower-level structural units. The sequence in which things occur is no longer
a variable for the realization of functional relationships - like the subject before or after
not the finite verb (conjugated) (in English)–, but it becomes a dynamic order
determined by the semantic deployment of the discourse. Viewed from the standpoint of the
text, the sentence is the smallest unit that cannot change position in the
sequence. Changing the order of sentences in a text is an operation that has almost
as little sense as putting the end before the beginning.

The sentence, therefore, constitutes an important border point, and for this reason
writing systems are sensitive to it and delimit it. Therefore, in general, the
The following chapters appropriate the traditional realm of syntax, the domain that spans from
the sentence to the word. In grammatical terms, that is where the action is; within
Thus, the fundamental unit of organization is the clause. It is worth noting that in the
functional grammar (where the terminology is generally more systematic), a clause is
the same unit, whether it works alone (like a simple sentence) or if it is part of a
complex of clauses (a compound/complex sentence).

Word and sentence are the two grammatical units that are recognized in our
traditional linguistics and this constitutes a demonstration of good common sense. Although it is
It is true that when we explain grammar we have to recognize other units.
intermediate structural between both - groups and phrase - these are in principle only
mutations of one or the other. A phrase (in the sense that we use it here) is
a reduced variant of the clause, while a group is an extended variant of the

October 26
word. Functionally, both units come together in the middle; groups and phrases have in
common many of the same environments.

Therefore, word and sentence are not clearly distinguished from each other; they are not of
different nature: both are grammatical units. There is the idea that when we speak or
we write, when we are producing a text, we are creating new sentences with
old words; but this could lead to a great error. It is true, of course, that the
words are used over and over again more often than sentences; many times, the
speakers effectively create new sentences – sentences that are, at least, new to
He. The new clauses are rather fewer; the phrases and groups are even fewer, and
the words less than everything. However, speakers create new linguistic forms
at all levels; it simply involves that, the more extensive the phrase is,
the greater the chances that it is original. Recently, I have come across
palabras como busybodyish, obstinacities, unselfassuredness11I doubt that the speaker
I have kept these forms to use them at the right moment.

Just as words can be new, sentences can also be old.

A good part of the linguistic forms we use corresponds to a higher range and
They go from formulas like 'The person in charge will attend to you right away,' to 'You have to give him/her'
a solid commercial base, even trivial expressions like did you remember to take your
Vitamin C? And where is that cat? Proverbs constitute an extreme case of
learned phrases and located in a higher range, but they are not unique in any case
in its kind.

It is also worth noting that the speaker of a language has an idea

quite clear about the probabilities associated with certain items; "knows" (in other words, is
a property of the system) how likely it is for a word, a group or a
particular phrase, both in the language as a whole and in a particular register. The
the treatment of these probabilities is beyond the scope of this volume, but they are part of
important aspects of grammar and, ultimately, they must be taken into account when interpreting
and evaluate texts12.

The system and the text

The grammar, then, is at the same time a grammar of the system and a
grammar of the text. We follow De Saussure in his way of understanding the relationship between the
language system and its concrete instantiation in speech events, even though not
we agree with him on the implicit conclusion that once the text has been used
As evidence for the system, it can be dispensed with, as it has already served its purpose.
purpose. This error (whether it is due to De Saussure or his interpreters) haunted the
linguistics during much of the twentieth century in its obsession with the system at the expense of
text and consequently caused the pendulum to now swing in the opposite direction.

11
Busybodyish, obstinacies, unselfassuredness: something like 'busybodyish', 'obstinacies' and
"self-distrust", respectively (Note of the Translator).
12
A comprehensive compilation of Halliday's work on systemic probabilities can
meet in Webster (2005) Computational and quantitative studies (Vol. 6 in Collected works of
M.A.K. Halliday). London: Continuum. (Translators' note)

November 26
 The linguists of the main European functional 'schools' - the school of
Prague, the French functionalists, the London school, the Copenhagen school–,
everyone, in different but related ways, considered that the text is the object of
Linguistics together with the system. Their vision was that one really cannot understand one
without the other. It is useless to have an elegant theory of the system if it cannot account for
how that system generates texts; similarly, it is of little use to conduct an analysis
exhaustive of a text if it cannot be related to the system that underlies it, since
that whoever understands this text can only do so because they know the system.

The analysis of discourse must be based on a study of the linguistic system. To

The main reason for studying the system is to shed light on the discourse.
that people say and write, listen and read. Both the system and the text have
to be the center of attention. Otherwise, there is no way to compare one text with another, or
with what could have been and wasn't, and perhaps the most important of all: only from
From the system, we can consider the text in its aspect as a process.

The natural tendency is to consider a text as a thing - a product. Thus,

we see when we encounter something written and, even when we admit the category of
spoken text
"we captured" on a recorder and then "we transcribed" it to put it in writing. Without
embargo, Hjelmslev considered the text as a process; he referred to language as
system and process. The problem for text analysis is that it is much more difficult
represent a process that represents a product.

The distinction between process/product is relevant to linguistics because it corresponds to

the distinction between our speaking experience and our writing experience: the
writing exists, while speech occurs. A written text is presented to us as a
product; we approach it as a product and realize its aspect of 'process'
as writers, but not as readers or analysts, unless we consciously
let's focus on the activities carried out for its production. On the other hand, the language
speech is presented to us as a process; moreover, like many processes, it is characterized by
for a continuous flow, without clear segments or borders, as it appears as text
more as a mass noun than as text or texts (countable nouns).

Traditionally, grammar has always been a grammar of the written language, and
it has always been a grammar of the product. Perhaps not always: it seems that in its most
remote origins the classical Greek grammar was a grammar of speech–the first
Attempts to address syntax were linked to rhetoric, to an explanation of what
makes spoken discourse effective. However, Aristotle removed grammar from rhetoric and
it led her to logic and, since then, it has mainly been a grammar of discourse
written. This is how it continued to evolve in the classical era; this is how it constituted the
basis of medieval and Renaissance syntax, and this is how the 'traditional grammar' is
we have inherited and that we continue to use today. It is relatively inadequate for the language
talked, that needs a more dynamic and less compositional form of representation.

One way to tackle this problem would be to start from scratch and develop a
grammar that was just a grammar for speech, very different from the grammars that
they exist for the written language. This would have the advantage of not being loaded with

12/26
concepts and categories oriented towards the idea of "product", but it would have three disadvantages
it would force an artificial polarization between speech and writing, instead of
recognize that there are all kinds of mixed categories - such as formal speech, dialogue
dramatic, the subtitles, the written instructions and similar - that some of the
typical traits of each one; (ii) I would suggest that spoken and written language derive from
different systems, there would be a different 'language' behind each one, while if
Well, there are systematic differences between speech and writing; these are varieties of one.
same language; (iii) would make it extremely difficult to compare spoken and written texts,
show the influence of one way over the other, or highlight the special properties of one
and another in contrastive terms.

The spoken language

Perhaps the most extraordinary event in the history of linguistics was the invention
from the recorder, which captured natural conversation for the first time and made it accessible to
systematic study.

Why is speech important? It is not because of any intrinsic value of the texts.
spoken. Communities without writing obviously maintain their literary texts and
sacred in spoken form; when writing emerges, the value tends to shift to
written language and speech are largely ignored; but neither of these two modes
by themselves give greater value to the text. It is not because speech appeared first in the
history of the human species and of the individual, nor because it is in some sense logically
previous - something that, in any case, is difficult to justify. The reason lies in something much
deeper: in that the potential of the system is much more developed, and it reveals itself
more fully, in speech.

There are perhaps two main reasons for the above, both of which are based on the same underlying principle.

general principle: the unconscious nature of spoken language. One of them is that the
spoken language continuously responds to the small but subtle changes in the environment,
both verbal and non-verbal; in doing so, it displays a complex pattern of semantic variation–
and therefore also grammatical–which is not explored in writing. The context of the
spoken language is in a constant state of flux and language has to be equally
mobile and remain in the same state of alertness. Semantically, this exerts a great
pressure not only in those systems that change the form of the message–like the
the thematic system and the informational one, but also in the systems that are particularly
sensitive, such as time and modality. The fact that the grammars of English tend to
to be rather deficient in the treatment of these systems is due to the fact that they
they explode much less in written language.

The second reason is that much of what is achieved in written language is done through the lexicon,
in spoken language is achieved with grammar. I have often pointed out that speech is
as complex as writing, but both reach their complexity in different ways
ways. The complexity of writing lies in its density; in the condensation of
lexical content, but in rather simple grammatical structures. Consider the
the outlook is for continued high levels of liquidity
high levels of liquidity'). As a clause, it could hardly be simpler; the complexity
lies in the great condensation of continued high levels of liquidity

13/26
of liquidity'). We could progressively 'translate' this into speech in the form of liquidity will
the liquidity will remain high, the amount of cash flowing will
the cash flow will continue to be high, cash is going to go on being
freely available ('cash will continue to circulate freely'), etc.; but this way of
It usually means to be expressed in written language and soon becomes like a fish out of water.
of water. The complexity of spoken language resembles that of dance: it is not
static and dense, but mobile and intricate, as in:

but you can't get the whole set done all at once because if you do you won't have any
left to use at home, unless you just took the lids in and kept the boxes, in which case you
wouldn't have to have had everything unpacked first; but then you couldn't be sure the
designs would match, so...
(but you can't put it all together at once because if you do, you won't have anything left)
to use in your home, unless you only put the lids inside and keep the boxes, and
In that case, you wouldn't have had to take everything out of its packaging to start; but then
you couldn't make sure that the designs would match, so...)

Here many more meanings are expressed through grammar than through means.
of vocabulary. Therefore, the sentence structure is very complex and reaches degrees of
complexity that is rarely achieved in writing.

It is in spontaneous and operational speech that the grammatical system of a language is

explodes in the fullest way, to the point that its semantic boundaries expand and increase
its potential for meaning. This is why we must look at spoken discourse
to obtain at least part of the data on which our theory is based about the
language. However, some linguists – or rather, perhaps, some philosophers of
language - they have leaned towards adopting the traditional conception, typical of a culture with
writing, according to which spoken language is disorganized and has no features
special, while only writing shows a complex structure and a great
regularity. This is then "demonstrated" with transcriptions in which speech is
it reduces writing and makes it seem like a mess. Now, speech is not intended
to writing, therefore, it often seems foolish—just as something written usually
sounds silly when read aloud - but the disorder and fragmentation are
characteristics of the way it is transcribed. Not even a favorable transcription
as the previous one can represent it adequately, because it does not show anything of the
intonation, the rhythm or the variation in tempo and intensity; but it does show its
grammatical organization, and this is what allows us to analyze it as a text.

However, the problem is that the class of grammatical agility captured in a

passages like the previous one are not well represented with analysis and presentation techniques
standard. What is needed is a much more dynamic grammar model, in which
this kind of gradual interdependencies are considered typical, not as
exceptional (see the brief discussion in Chapter 7). It should be added that here it is not
it offers that model, although the notion of a complex of clauses is proposed to go a bit in that direction
address.

The unconscious in language

14/26
 In addition to the two aspects already mentioned, there is the unconscious nature of the
spontaneous speech; it is precisely in this aspect that we should insist on giving
priority to spoken language. In a sense, the very nature of language is
determined by the way it is learned first, and that is the spoken way.

In spoken language, we act without thinking. Speaking is like walking (and in the
development process both go hand in hand; the protolanguage goes with crawling, and language
with the first steps): if one thinks too much, one stumbles (this is a metaphor that
we usually employ). This means that the categories of our language represent
segments of meanings that are more unconscious than conscious, and this is one of
the biggest problems for a grammatical theory.

Let's suppose we consciously think about the difference that exists between
living and non-living things; and, among the living, about the difference between the feminine and
the masculine ones. We will be able to draw a line quite clearly, but we will acknowledge
some undefined cases. Now let's suppose we want to explain to someone who is
learning English what is the meaning of he, she, it ('he, she, it'). We can talk about
animated and inanimate, and within the animated, the masculine and the feminine. Without
embargo, when we hear people speak in English, we find that the meaning
unconscious of, he, she, it ('he, she, it') does not correspond to our conscious structure of
world of creatures and things. We heard fragments of conversations like the
following:

Look out! He's off the rails.

Oh, him. He always comes off.

regarding the car of an electric toy train; or

Don't give me the baby! I wouldn't know how to hold it.13

(–Don't hand me the baby! I wouldn't know how to hold it).

Now then, it is always possible to explain particular cases and even classes.
case completions; normally English manuals contain generalizations about
the special cases: for example, treating boats and cars as she14But
these are stereotypes, they tend to be trivial and often inaccurate: in fact, the
Most people do not refer to boats and cars as she, except in
determined contexts rather forced. The real meaning of the gender system in
English is infinitely more complex and - this is the point - does not correspond to any of
our conscious categorizations of experience. It cannot be defined, concisely or

13
In the first example, it is expected to find the neuter pronoun it, which is usually associated with
inanimate entities, while in the second example it would be expected to use him or her
to refer to animated entities. See the discussion on reference resources in English at
Halliday and Hasan (1976) (Translators' note)
14
The usual thing, in more 'literary' English, is to consider that these words are feminine, hence the
use of the pronoun she. See discussion on the grammatical category of 'gender' in English in Whorf
(1945), who explores it regarding what he conceptualizes as grammatical patterns.
'covert'. Halliday takes up this fundamental concept from Whorf in his grammatical description of
English in relation to the 'cryptotypes' (Note from the translator).

15/26
at least discursively, because the category only exists in the semantic system
unaware of the English language.

This particular category is not very important; it doesn't matter much if a

a foreigner learning English "makes mistakes"; it happens that it is a category in which there are
much flexibility: variation between groups, individuals, situations, and moods
different. But the principle applies throughout the system and some categories are more
fundamentals. A well-known problematic case for English students is the
category of 'definite' represented by the article the ('el/la/los/las'), the so-called 'article'
"defined". The term "defined" is an attempt at a brief definition; there have been hundreds of
meticulous formulations, which contain many clarifying observations, but it is almost
It's impossible to give a thorough explanation because the only way to refer to the category
It is by itself: the sign means 'the'. The meaning is embedded in our unconscious.
This does not mean that it cannot be learned, but rather that it can only be learned through use.

This is not a textbook for learning English; it is an interpretation of the code.

from English. The aim is not to 'teach' categories; rather, it seeks to interpret some of
them, especially those that are difficult and important like that of Subject (Chapter 4).

There have been so many failed attempts to define the Subject in English that, in its
desperation, grammarians have tended to give up and maintain that "it does not have
meaning." But it is absurd – not to say arrogant – to assert that because one cannot
defining a thing then makes no sense. There are many categories in the grammar of
English whose meaning I do not know – that is, categories for which I could not provide a
appropriate gloss that relates them to the categories of my conscious experience. Without
embargo, not even those categories about which we have some conscious idea
can be defined accurately, that is, verbalized with glosses that represent a
exact equivalence. They have evolved to say something that cannot be said in any way.
another way; therefore, they are in fact ineffable. The best thing to do is to show them
in operation and in paradigmatic contexts, to highlight the distinctions
semantics that consecrate15.

Some consider it very difficult, perhaps even intimidating, to bring the

semantic distinctions at the conscious level. This type of person faces a problem with
the grammar that is similar to that faced by someone who is 'deaf to tones' when
It deals with intonation. As far as I know, no one who is 'tone-deaf' speaks with voice.
monotonous nor with intonation that is in any way disorderly; to this type of
people simply struggle to make tone conscious and, therefore, to analyze it
in their own language or learn it in another. In the same way, those who are 'deaf to the
grammar makes the same subtle semantic distinctions as other speakers of the
language; however, they do not manage to recognize them when pointed out and will even deny that they are.
possible (I don't know any quick cure for this condition, but a good dose of
analysis of spontaneous speech can help.

Theoretical approach

15
See the discussion on the ineffability of this and other grammatical categories in Halliday (1984).
(N. de la T.)

16/26
 The theory on which this description is based, systemic theory, continues the tradition
European functionalism. It is largely based on Firth's system-structure theory, but
It obtains more abstract principles from Hjelmslev and owes many ideas to the Prague School.
The organizing concept is that of "system" which, following Firth, is essentially used
in the sense of a functional paradigm but developed under the formal construct of a
systemic network.

The systemic network is a theory about language as a resource for creation

meaning. Each system on the network represents an option: not a conscious decision
real-time capture, but a set of possible alternatives, such as 'assertion/question'
either 'singular/plural' or 'descending tone/flat tone/rising tone'. These alternatives
they can be semantic, lexicogrammatical, or phonological; the description of this book is
based on the lexicogrammatical nature. The system includes: (1) the 'input condition'
(where a selection is made), (2) the set of possible options, and (3) the
realizations (what is appropriate - that is, the structural consequences of each option).
For example, (1) if the noun group is of the 'countable' class, (2) select singular or
plural; (3) if it is plural, add a plurality marker to the noun (in English, typically
–s); if it is singular do nothing. Each option leads to another option, until the
The totality of grammar thus configures "a network."

This book is not a description of systemic theory; it does not present the networks.
systemic grammar of English (there is a brief incursion into network representation
towards the end of Chapter 10). The structures that constitute the 'exit' or
output of the networks – that is, collectively make up the sets of features that
can be selected. It is not a 'structural' grammar (much less a grammar
"structuralist" in the North American sense): grammars of that type are
syntagmatic, its organizing concept is structure and they use special devices
to relate one structure to another. A systemic grammar is not paradigmatic, but
paradigmatic; therefore, there is no difference between describing something and relating it to everything else.
Moreover, because the description of any trait is its relationship with all other traits.
Clearly, we must describe one component of the grammar at a time, but it is
It is important to consider that each section is part of the network as a whole.

The reason why structural representations are used instead of systemic ones for
the analysis of discourse is that the structures are less abstract; they are, so to speak,
closer" to the text. The most direct approach in analyzing a text is to give it a
structural interpretation, and that is what is done here. All structural analyses
they could be reinterpreted in terms of the selected traits. This is not done in the
chapters that follow, but in general the main systemic features are introduced such as
descriptive categories are displayed along with the set of alternatives for each one.

As far as the degree of specificity or delicacy of the analysis allows

So far, all the traits of a text can be related to the general system.
from English. As for what is covered here, the analysis addresses the clause in its textual aspect
(Chapter 3), interpersonal (Chapter 4) and ideational (Chapter 5); the primary classes of
group and phrase (Chapter 6) and the complex of clauses (Chapter 7); it is also addressed
briefly the cohesion (Chapter 9) and the grammatical metaphor (Chapter 10). In addition, as

17/26
It has already been said, the description incorporates some features of the spoken language, not only by the
importance of spoken texts, but also because a conceptual framework that does not
Adjustment to the special properties of speech presents a impoverished view of the system.
The specific features of spoken English that are addressed are: rhythm (Chapter 1), focus
informative (tonicity, Chapter 8) and the key (the tone, also in Chapter 8). Others of
the topics that are addressed with interest, due to the wide range of options that are usually
they explode in speech, they are: the thematic structure (Chapter 3), the clause complex
(Chapter 7) and the modality (Chapters 4 and 10).

Nevertheless, the above does not imply that the spoken language should be treated as a
separate system; the idea is simply to present a description that is appropriate
for both modes, written and spoken, and thus ensure that the latter is not left out
from the description. To fully explore the spoken language, it will be necessary to set aside
radically from the tradition of written grammars, but that goes beyond the scope of what
Here we propose ourselves.

In general, therefore, the approach leans more towards the applied than to the
theoretical rigor, more rhetorical than logical, more real than ideal, to
functional more than formal, text more than sentence. The emphasis is on analysis
of texts as a mode of action, in a theory of language as a means to act
things.

Linguistic theories

The basic opposition, in the grammars of the second half of the 20th century, is not between
"structuralist" and "generative," as was proposed in the discussions of the 1960s. There
many variables that influence the formulation of grammars, and any form of
categorizing them is intended to distort reality. However, the opposition
fundamental lies among the grammars that have a primarily orientation
syntagmatic (in general, formal grammars, with their roots in logic and philosophy)
and those that are primarily paradigmatic (in general, the functional ones, with their roots
in rhetoric and ethnography). The former interpret a language as a list of
structures; among which, in a well-defined second step, can be established
regular relations (hence the introduction of transformations). These approaches
they tend to emphasize the universal features of language, to consider that the
grammar (what is called 'syntax') is fundamental (hence grammar is arbitrary)
and, therefore, that it is organized around the sentence. The grammars of the second type
they interpret language as a network of relationships, and the structures appear as the
realization of such relationships; they tend to emphasize the variables in different
languages, considering the semantic component as fundamental (hence the
Grammar is natural) and, therefore, is organized around the text or discourse. There is
many countercurrents that take borrowed ideas from one and another; but they are, in terms
ideological, quite different, and it is often difficult to maintain a dialogue between them.

Fifty years after De Saussure, Chomsky established a new opposition.

when he called his own syntagmatic and formal grammar 'generative' and raised this
aspect as its distinguishing characteristic. Apparently, he did not take into account, or maybe
simply did not interest him, the ethnographic tradition within linguistics; his attacks were

18/26
they were directed exclusively at those on whom they based their argument, to those who
I called them 'structuralists'. By generative, I meant explicit: formulated in such a way that
it would not depend on the unconscious assumptions of the reader, but could operate as
a formal system. Its tremendous achievement was to demonstrate that, in fact, that is possible with the
human language, as something distinct from artificial 'logical' language. But one must pay a
price: the language has to be so idealized that it bears little relation to what the
People really write, and even less with what they really say.

Following the rise of Chomsky's ideas, a new series of works appeared that
had a huge influence and has made a lasting contribution to linguistics. No
there was no 'Chomskyan revolution', as has been somewhat asserted
sensationalist; but new questions were explored, and this led to a change of
emphasis in the United States—and, therefore, everywhere—from a point of view
anthropological towards the philosophical. For a time, the former had the effect of dividing the
issue in two fields and to prevent any real exchange of ideas between them, but the
the return to interest in discourse in the 1970s contributed greatly to the reestablishment of
equilibrium. Throughout the history of Western linguistics, there has been a tendency towards polarization
between these two approaches, polarization adopted, of course, different forms in
different periods; sometimes these approaches were closer and other times they were
they distanced themselves more and engaged in important intellectual battles. The origin of these
the differences lie, in part, in Western thought and, in part, in nature
same of the language, which is also a field of study in the humanities, the
social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, and engineering; however, the
Language appears very differently depending on where it is viewed from.

It is easier to make a formal grammar explicit for obvious reasons: because it

based on linguistic forms. However, the functional grammars of orientation
paradigmatic can also be 'generative' in that they can also be expressed in
formal terms and used for generation or computational analysis (parsing);
examples of this are Sydney Lamb's relational network theory (“stratificationalist”)
and Martin Kay's functional grammar. Three important contributions to intelligence
artificial - the Shrdlu systems of Terry Winograd, Proteus by Anthony Davey and Penmande
William Mann has adopted systemic theory as his linguistic basis. To grammars
functional, as they are based on meaning, find it more difficult to take off in form
computable, but once in flight they have a considerable range.

Applications

It is unlikely that a linguistic description will be suitable for all

possible purposes. A theory is a means of action and there are many kinds of actions
different ones that one might want to undertake in relation to language. Similarly, one
I might not want a theory that is so specialized that it can do only one thing.
with her. A few years ago, one of the speakers at a conference began his
I take for granted that the objective of linguistics is
Characterize the difference between the human brain and that of an animal." One could accept without
problems that this is one among hundreds of goals; but that this - or any other -
It should be 'the' objective of linguistics is something that is hard to take seriously.

19/26
There are many tasks for which linguistics is necessary, and each of them requires
very different things from discipline.

The applications of linguistics encompass both the application of research on

theoretical nature as quite practical tasks in which there are problems to solve.
Some of the purposes for which linguistics is likely useful could be
list as follows:

● understand the nature and functions of language;

● understanding what all languages have in common (that is, what are
the properties of language as such) and what can differ from one language to another;
● understand the evolution of languages over time;
● understand the development of language in children and the possible evolution of
language in the human species;
● understand the quality of texts: why a text has the meaning that
has and why it is valued as such;
● understand the variation of language according to the user and the
functions for which it is being used;
● understand literary and poetic texts, and the nature of verbal art;
● understand the relationship between language and culture, and between language and situation;
● understand various aspects of the role that language plays in the
community and in the individual: multilingualism, socialization, ideology, propaganda, etc.;
● help people learn their mother tongue: reading and writing,
the language in different school subjects, etc.;
● help people learn foreign languages;
● help to train translators and interpreters;
● write reference works (dictionaries, grammars, etc.) for anyone
language
● understand the relationship between language and the brain;
● help in the diagnosis and treatment of language disorders produced
for brain damage (tumors, accidents) or congenital disorders such as autism and the
Down syndrome
● understand the language of the deaf (sign languages);
● design devices that help people with hearing problems;
● design computer programs that generate and read texts, and that
translate different languages;
● design systems that produce and understand speech, and convert texts
written in spoken and vice versa;
● provide assistance in judicial failures, comparing sound samples or
writing
● design cheaper and more efficient means for text transmission
spoken and written;

and so on.

The test for a theory of language, in relation to any purpose

specific, it is: does it work?, does it facilitate the task at hand? In general, one must weigh
depth and breadth: we need at the same time very specialized machines that

20/26
do one thing perfectly and others less specialized that perform a great
variety of tasks efficiently, without being more efficient or economical for anyone in
special.

The description we present here is more focused on breadth than on

depth. It has been used for a wide variety of purposes: text analysis
written and spoken; stylistics; computational linguistics; developmental linguistics16y
the study of socialization; the study of functional variation in language and the relationship
between language and situational and cultural context; as well as various applications in the field
educational. The latter perhaps constitutes the broadest scope of application: it includes
the experiences in early literacy, children's writing, language in the
secondary education, discourse analysis in the classroom, language teaching
foreigners, the analysis of textbooks, the analysis of errors, the teaching of literature and
the training of teachers.

The focus is on language more as a social phenomenon than an individual one, and the
the origin and development of the theory has aligned with more sociological modes of explanation
how philosophical. At the same time, the theory has been used within a general framework of
cognitive orientation, and some current work explores its possible relevance to the
neurolinguistics and learning theory.

The "code"

In other words, a grammar is an attempt to understand the code.

Every language has its own semantic code, although languages that share
a common culture tends to have codes that are more closely related.
Whorf referred to the 'Standard Average European' as the common code shared by the
main European languages, and showed that it is very different from the code of at least one
Amerindian language17.

The main problem of linguistics is to provide an objective description of the code.

In this aspect (as in many others), we are privileged in the English-speaking world: given
that more has been written about English than about any other language, the danger that it
It is rare to apply to the force the code of another language and that, therefore, it becomes distorted.
At some point, the influence of Latin was a distraction, but Latin was related.
with English and, at least, medieval Latin, it shared the common European code. Without
embargo, given the predominance of English, there is a tendency to force the application of its
code to other languages. Modern linguistics, with its universalist ideology, has been
disturbingly ethnocentric and has made all other languages seem like copies
imperfect of English.

16
Developmental linguistics is a term that Halliday already associates with the study from the 1970s.
language development in children, in clear opposition to the notion of 'acquisition' (cf. Halliday)
1975, 1978) (N. de la T.).
17
With the term Standard Average European, or SAE languages, Whorf (1941/1956) referred to the
European languages traditionally studied in the West and that reflect, in their structure
grammatical, a particular worldview, different from Amerindian languages like Hopi. (N. of the T.)

21/26
 What is the relationship between the code and the culture that generates it and transmits it to the
next generation? Linguists of the anthropological tradition have tried to establish
links with the meanings expressed lexically: the Eskimo words for
"snow," the Arabic words for "camel," etc. However, the vocabulary only "reflects" the
culture by virtue of its internal organization as a whole; and the assertion that, "as
the 'camels' are important for the Arabs, 'therefore' they have many words
'different for 'them'' is both a statement about English and about Arabic. It
It is assumed that there is nothing more important to the Chinese than rice; however, the
Chinese have only one word for rice, which also means many other things:
It happens that Chinese is a type of language that favors generic nouns.

However, what is merely comedic when applied to the lexicon, can

becomes something seriously misleading when applied to grammar. As noted
Whorf 50 years ago, it is naive and dangerous to take isolated grammatical phenomena and try
to relate them to the traits of a culture. When linguists realized that
this, their response was to completely avoid the issue of the relationship between language and culture,
with which they closed the doors to an important area of research. That there is a
the relationship between a code and the culture that generates it is something that is beyond discussion, but
that relationship is extremely complex and abstract.

Only the grammatical system as a whole represents the semantic code of

one language. For example, it would make no sense to take a grammatical feature from English,
such as the prevalence of phrasal verbs or the complexities of
verb tense system, and try to relate it to some non-linguistic aspect of the
European or English-speaking culture. However, it is far from absurd to take one of
these features, putting it alongside several other very general grammatical features–for example,
the clause as an 'informative' component (Chapter 3), the location of the information
"new" (Chapter 8), the meaning of the effective voice in material processes (Chapter
5), the tendency to nominalize (Chapter 10) and others—and derive from them a series of
reasonings that show, in the first place, the reasons that are within the
grammar that the verbs with particles are preferred in English (Chapter 6); and to
continuing to address the much broader landscape of which it is a small part, and
relate it to the patterns of linguistic use in our society, the historical changes
that have taken place in the last 500 years and the ideological systems that underlie
they.

Just as every text has its environment – the 'context of situation', in terms of
Malinowski - the general linguistic system also has its context, which Malinowski called
cultural context. The cultural context determines the nature of the code. Just as a
language manifests itself in texts, a culture manifests itself in situations; this is the
the way the child, when facing situated texts, acquires the code, and by using the code to
interpret texts, acquire culture. Therefore, for the individual, the code generates the
culture, which gives a powerful inertia to the transmission process.

To understand the code, we need an overview of the system.

grammatical; both to relate each of its parts, and to interpret
texts constructed in that code. Whether it is a literary text, a speech in the classroom, propaganda
political or commercial, the basic grammar of the clause complex is always at stake, the

22/26
clause, the prepositional phrase, the verbal and nominal group, and the informative unit. As already
As mentioned before, so far we do not have a complete description of the
semantic component, but we can aspire to a global vision of grammar, and this is
essential for any research oriented towards coding. A text cannot be interpreted.
in its cultural context without a general view of the grammar with which it has been coded18.

Some problems

Aside from the obvious problem of deciding what to include, when the brief outline is presented
From a grammar arise other problems. The most serious are the problems relating to the
paradigms, labels, examples, and the very act of writing about language.

(1) The problem of paradigms. Our Latin textbooks used to contain

word paradigms such as comensa, mensa, mensam, mensae, mensā. The objective was
Present the potential of the Latin noun. We accepted it because it was obvious that it was so.
how Latin was spoken: people walked around reciting 'table, oh table!, a table, of a
table, to a table, by means of or from a table." There is no doubt that the Romans were
they would have sounded as silly as the equivalent in Spanish sounds to us.

In a functional grammar of English, there is little room for paradigms of

words or morphological forms. However, we may want to display paradigms of
larger units, such as the clause, which takes up more space (like the paradigms of
duke, the aunt, and the teapot in Chapter 4). They are a quick and efficient means to demonstrate
how a system works. But there is an inherent contradiction in the use of these
paradigms: these are, by definition, elements that do not go together; when written down
on a paper, we transform them into phrases: precisely what they are not.

It is very doubtful that paradigms play a role in learning.

language, but they do play a role in the learning of linguistics and the development of the
linguistic research. They are a sample of proportionality, the generalizing principle
that underlies the system of a language. Thus, messages you want to arrange are
what can you ask, in some sense. In the same way, this teapot the duke gave to my
The duke gave this teapot to my uncle, which is what I told you before.
In some sense. What is shown with a label is the sense in which this relationship occurs.

The problem of labels. To talk about proportionalities, we label them.

The fact that burning, reigning, and boys are similar in a way that places them in
systematic relationship with mensa, rexypueri, is a linguistic generalization, or category;
we give it a label, for example, "accusative", and we also label the set of these
categories, with the word "case".

The problem is that it takes a lot of time to present a grammar step by step.
this way, so we tend to start with the labels and forget how we got to

18
Halliday links the concept of 'code' with the sociological theory developed by Bernstein. See
Bernstein (1973/2003) for a discussion on his concepts and consequent problems of
interpretation arising within linguistics and sociolinguistics that was being developed
at that time. (Note from the translator.)

23/26
them and what they are for. In this way, when we study proportionality in the
examples we presented above in Spanish, we discovered that the variation in the
sequence means something: 'to be at the beginning' corresponds to a function in the clause and
we assign the label of 'theme', distinguishing (in the previous pairs) between 'theme
marked and unmarked theme.

These labels quickly become reified, as if there were a thing called

"theme" which then needs to be defined and is defined as "that which is at the beginning." No
however, a label is nothing more than the name of a proportional relationship, or of
one of the terms in that relationship, or else in some way by means of which it is expressed
this proportional relationship.

(3) The problem of examples. Ideally, all examples should cover a

complete text. But this (besides increasing the length) makes it difficult to select the trait
that is being examined. Therefore, to exemplify (a) we select some fragment
brief that is understandable outside of its context, (b) we select a passage from a text
known (as Alice in Wonderland, which can be consulted if the fragment does not
it is recognized), or c) as a last resort, we build one.

Since the example has been chosen to illustrate a category, that is precisely what
what it does, clearly and unambiguously. However, in real life, the categories do not
they manifest in this way and can be very difficult to identify. There is a principle
In general in language: the easier it is to recognize something, the more likely it is to
that it is something trivial; the external manifestation of a semantically
relevant in general is neither simple nor clear, and many factors must be considered to
identify it.

We would need another book to cover everything that is required, from the examples.
illustrative up to the authentic cases in different types of speeches. Instead of that,
we present various examples of short texts and include some longer texts in
those who analyze a specific trait.

(4) The problem of writing about language. In fact, there are two problems here.
One that I referred to earlier in terms of the ineffability of linguistic categories.
There is no definition that exhausts the meaning of a grammatical category. Concepts
as Theme, Subject and the New, or the different types of processes in the system of
transitivity, cannot be explained in a complete way with a common and ordinary expression (this
It is not to suggest that it could not be done better than I have done it.

The other problem is that the grammatical system is coherent in its entirety and it is difficult.
to penetrate into it at any point without presupposing much of what will come after.
With this, plus the space constraints, the formulation tends to become very dense (if
it becomes very difficult, try reading aloud. It's surprising how much it helps). Always
there are problems when language turns in on itself.

Possible grammars

24/26
 This book is a brief introduction to the functional grammar of English. It also
can be read as a brief introduction to functional grammar in general that uses the
English as an illustrative language.

I previously mentioned the trend towards ethnocentrism in modern linguistics; there exists the
danger of assuming that the categories used here are valid for the description of
any language. The material presented in these chapters has been used as a basis for
the study of various languages; it often happens that the researcher starts discovering the
same set of categories as in English because, if one searches for a specific category
in a language, it is generally found: the first European grammarians found
the pluperfect subjunctive in languages around the world. But then there is
wonder: how the grammar of this language would have been interpreted, if English never
Would it have existed? At that moment, the temptation is to go to the opposite extreme and refuse to
absolutely recognizing something in common. In the end, it is possible to reach a perspective
balanced, that brings to light the similarities and the differences.

This does not mean to deny that there may be 'universal' linguistic features, but this
universality must be incorporated into the theory at a very abstract level: the categories in
The issue is not so much 'universals' (which suggests descriptive traits that occur in all
languages) as 'general': they are inherent properties of language as a system
semiotic. An example of this is the 'metafunctional' hypothesis: it is postulated that in all the
languages the content systems are organized into the ideational components,
interpersonal and textual; it is presented as a general feature of language. But the categories
descriptive are treated as particulars. Thus, although it is assumed that all languages
they have a 'textual' component through which discourse achieves the texture that it
relates to its environment, it is not supposed that in a given language one of the ways to
achieve the texture either through a thematic system (Chapter 3). Even if such a system
if it existed, the characteristics that constitute it (the options) might not be the same; even if
a trait outside the manifestation of the same option, it may not take place of the
same way. It is possible that there is a thematic system, but that it is not based on the principle.
of an unmarked option for each mode of the clause, or that option may exist, but
it is not done in the order in which the elements appear. In any case, it is very
it is not very clear how similar a pair of features in different languages must be for them to
justify calling them the same way.

Throughout this book, I have tried to adhere to known categories and terms.
of general use. There are many aspects of English that should be reexamined in a
much more substantial than what I have managed to do here; an obvious example is
the circumstantial elements of the clause, which I have addressed in a very traditional way.
The linguistics of the twentieth century has produced a great number of new theories, but
it has also tended to obscure old descriptions within it: what is needed now
These are new descriptions. The tasks have changed, the ideas have changed, and the language
has changed (I already mentioned the need for grammars for spoken language). The
previous interpretations were good, but not good enough to last forever, although
they dress in new theoretical garments.

Grammar is the central processing unit of a language - the CPU - in the

that meanings coming from different metafunctional inputs are accepted and are

25/26
assemble to form integrated outputs, or linguistic forms. Without a grammar in the
system, it would be impossible to signify more than one thing at a time. To understand how
Language works, therefore, we must take care of grammar. It is always difficult.
keep grammar in the center of attention, because it is a coding level
purely abstract, with no direct input and output connection to the outside world.
We must reach it either through meaning or through expression. However, our
understanding of the system of meanings is itself very deficient, hence the
the interface of grammar with the semantic component is very unclear. Our
understanding of the potential meaning of the code is limited, and only now
we are beginning to be in a position to characterize the potential of their subcodes, that is,
of the different registers of a language.

Beyond the sphere of existing human languages is that of languages

possible, that is, those that do not exist but could exist. There could be many
other ways to conceive a symbolic system to encode our observations and
actions. What kinds of grammars can we imagine that are different from the ones
Do we have? It seems that this question has not been very explored, not even in science.
fiction; but the imaginative exploration of other possible forms of meaning could
shed more light on the assumptions formulated in our own semantics
unconscious. In the same way, we can learn a lot if we reconstruct the system
semantic that underlies some of the texts produced by young children, and perhaps
also of some of the texts produced by computers, when they are
programming to generate texts.

Meanwhile, there are immediate theoretical and practical issues to address, for which
that we must be able to understand the resources to create meaning in language
that is used around us. A functional grammar is part of the tools
what can we use when we try to solve these problems.

26/26