The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic ...

Nov. 2005, Volume 3, No.11 (Serial No.26) US -China Foreign Language, ISSN1539-8080, US A

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics
and Systemic-Functional Grammar
Yumei Song* Beijing Sport University
Abstract: Pragmatics and Systemic -functional Grammar (SFG) used to ignore each other and lack in
communication, however, in certain aspects they are indeed in a position to complement each other. This paper
mainly discusses on one hand the bases for the complementary relation between pragmatics and
systemic -functional grammar (CR-P&SFG), on the other hand the main aspects concerning the CR-P&SFG.
Pragmatics and SFG have common interests in function, context and meaning of language. On the other hand, the
notions of presupposition and conversational implicature in pragmatics certainly benefit SFG; the semiotic and
functional conceptions of language in SFG surely favor pragmatics.
Key words: pragmatics systemic -functional grammar complementary
1. Introduction
Linguistics in the twentieth century has undergone two stages: in the first half the approach of description
was adopted by the structuralists; in the second half the approach of explanation came into being when linguists
found that mere description of languages is insufficient for their purposes of accounting for language faculty in
human beings. Chomsky’
s Transformational-Generative (TG) grammar starting from the 1950s and Halliday’
s
Systemic -Functional Grammar (SFG) starting from the 1970s are both explanatory, with the only difference that
the former is psychologically oriented and the latter is sociologically oriented (Hu Zhuanglin, 2002). Thus the
formal linguistics and the functional linguistics have become two main streams in modern linguistics. There is a
belief that every theory is subject to verification. No researcher is justified to claim that his theory is more
successful than others’

theories. The theories may always complement each other. For example, Halliday’
s ideas
stemmed from Firth’
s theories, while many schools of linguistics started from Chomsky’
s TG grammar.
Pragmatics is a newly arising discipline. By the early 1980s, pragmatics had been generally accepted as one
of the basic branches of linguistics together with phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics (Jiang
Wangqi, 2000). It is true that many pragmaticists have been influenced by Chomsky’
s TG grammar more or less.
Pragmatics is, to a larger extent, still psychologically and philosophically oriented, while SFG insists on the
sociological orientation. It seems that pragmatics and SFG are isolated from each other. However, the two theories
are indeed in a position to complement each other. This paper will mainly discuss on one hand the bases for the
complementary relation between pragmatics and systemic -functional grammar (CR-P & SFG); on the other hand
the main aspects concerning the CR-P&SFG.
2. Bases for the CR-P&SFG

* Yumei Song, Master of Arts of Foreign Languages Department, Tsinghua University and lecturer of Beijing Sport University;
Research field: stylistics; Address: Foreign Languages Department, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, P.R. China; Postcode: 100084.
29

---

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic-Functional Grammar
If the two theories complement each other, they must share some bases. In the following aspects of function,
context and meaning, there are similarities between pragmatics and SFG.
2.1 Common interest in meaning
Both pragmatics and SFG have exerted great efforts on the study of meaning, especially the discourse
semantics. Namely, on one hand, both pragmatics and SFG are different from Chomsky’
s TG grammar which is
only interested in generating rules; on the other hand, the interpretation of language phenomenon by both
pragmatics and SFG must be in some or related context. The difference between pragmatics and SFG is that the
former puts its emphasis on the inherent logical relations of the discourse, the formally incoherent but
semantically coherent language phenomenon, the illocutionary force and conversational implicature, etc(Zhu
Yongsheng, 2001); while, the latter puts its emphasis on ways of cohesion. Halliday claims that a very wide range
of semantic relationships is encoded through nexuses within the clause complex. In order to construct discourse,
additional relations within the text need to be established. According to Halliday, there are four ways by which
cohesion is created in English: by reference, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical organization (1994).
2.2 Common interest in context
The context has been studied in different fields by researchers according to different motives. According to
Jacob (2003), the researchers have been divided into the first group of grammarians, the second group of
sociolinguists, the third group of semanticists and the fourth group of discourse analysts (Jacob here emphasizes
the efforts by the pragmaticists). So in both pragmatics and SFL, there is a kind of definition of context.
In the field of pragmatics, there are different opinions. For Grice and many of those who have drawn upon
his ideas, context is taken to be a set of propositions in relation to which new propositions can be evaluated for
truth and added to the context (or rejected as untrue) (Lyons, 2000). While Lyons claimed that there wasn’t a clear
notion of context yet. Contrary to the notion of vagueness of context, some researchers believed that context is not
a vague notion since contexts are themselves generated (as choices made from the infinite range of possibilities,
for specific instances of language use) and this generation process can be linguistically traced (Verschueren, 2000).
Various notions of context have been claimed by the pragmaticists, from which we may say that pragmatics has
the tradition of emphasizing the importance of context. Leech considers “context to be any background knowledge
assumed to be shared by speaker and hearer which contributes to hearer’
s interpretation of what speaker means by
a given utterance”(1983:13).
In Halliday’
s An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1984), he defined the context of situation as field,
tenor and mode. Field refers to “the field of discourse” or the nature of the social action: what it is the interactants
are about. Tenor refers to “the tenor of discourse” or the statuses and role relationships: who is taking part in the
interaction. Mode refers to “the mode of discourse” or the rhetorical channel and function of the discourse: what
part the text is playing. In addition, context was labeled as the register by Halliday.
2.3 Common interest in function
Both pragmatics and SFG study the functions of language, though their points for emphasis vary accordingly.
Pragmatics has been defined in many different ways. In general terms, pragmatics is defined as the study of
language in use, as against the study of language as an abstract system (Jiang Wangqi, 2000). The first major theory
of pragmatics, Speech Act Theory, was proposed by Austin in 1950s and later revised by Searle. In this general
theory, every utterance is a speech act, consisting of three sub-acts: locutionary, illocutionary and percutionary.
Among the three acts, the second one, illocutionary, is the most important. The theory of speech acts can in fact be
said to be the theory of illocutionary acts. For example, the utterance “Shoot her!” may have the illocutionary force
30

---

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic-Functional Grammar
of variously, ordering, urging, advising the addressee to shoot her (Levinson, 2001). The pragmaticists were
interested in the kinds of action that one can perform using language. Compared with SFL, pragmatics has its own
emphasis on the study of language’
s function. What SFL ignores is what pragmatics attaches the importance to.
SFG is made up of two components, i.e. systemic grammar and functional grammar. The systemic grammar
aims to explain the internal relations in language as a system network. The functional grammar aims at revealing
that language is a means of social interaction. They are two inseparable parts for an integral framework of
linguistic theory. Halliday believes that language is what it is because it has to serve certain functions and he
formulates a functional theory of language. According to Halliday (1970), English clause is a composite affair, a
combination of three different structures deriving from distinct functional components. These components (called
“metafunctions” in systemic theory) are the ideational (clause as representation), the interpersonal (clause as
exchange) and the textual (clause as message). In other words, a clause is the simultaneous realization of
ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings. The concept of the social function of language is central to the
interpretation of language as a system. The internal organization of language is not accidental: it embodies the
function that language has evolved to serve in the life of social man (Halliday, 1970).
In terms of mood structure, language is considered by Halliday as an “interact” between speakers and hearers
functioning as a symbolic change. This change contains two variables: direction (give versus demand) and
commodity (information and good & services). These variables are combined to form four basic speech functions:
statement, offer, question and command. With respect to mood structure of clause, there are two main components,
namely, mood block (subject, finite and adjunct) and residue (predicator, complement and adjunct). Functional
reinterpretation of a subject in the clause is the “modally responsible element” (Halliday, 1970).
Based on the SFG, the text below has been divided into clauses, separated with the double-slash //, and
numbered, and its mood functions is identified: Subject (S), Finite (F), Predicator (P), interpersonal Adjunct (A)
and V (ocative). And interpersonal Adjuncts are classified as mod(al), com(ment) or circ(umstantial).
Text 1
1. Do you think // it
’
s worth [| going to see The Godfather Two |] //
F S P

S
F
C

2. Yes, it ’
s worth [| going to see The Godfather Two |], yes. //
S F C
3. Darling, Murder on the Orient Express is now at the ABC Shaftesbury Avenue. //
V S



F A:circ C
4. It ’
s on with The Godfather. //
S F C A
5. It would be a pretty good double bill, that actually // 6. We’d be out of the house all night, wouldn’t we? //
S F P C



S
A: com S F P C A: circ
F
S
7. But you can’t see both of them, can you? //
S F:mod. P
C
F:mod S
8. Well, if it ’
s the same price… //
S F P
9. I mean // 10. there are two screens at the ABC Shaftesbury Avenue.
S F/P

S
F
C

A:circ.


31

---

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic-Functional Grammar
11. Oh [I’m] sorry // 12. yes, no no no no you’re right. //

S F
C



A:mod. S F C



13. Yes, yes they are… 14. What about [going to see] Les Enfants de Paradis?
A:mod. S F

A:circ.

P



C
15. Oh, that ’
s nice.
S F C
In clause 2, structures like it’
s worth (good, fun) doing this are really rearranged versions of [| Doing this |] is
worth(while), where the Subject is the embedded clause doing this; in this more common version, a “dummy”
Subject it stands in for the embedded clause, which is then attached to the adjective worth as part of the
Complement. The simple forms of the verb “to be” are analysed as consisting of Finite only, since they do not
need auxiliary do to form questions. Here, different mood types are distinguished by the order of the subject and
finite, for example, Do you think// is an interrogative mood because Finite is followed by Subject. The
Complement of clause 3, like many others below, is realized by a prepositional phrase, at the ABC Shaftesbury
Ave; in transitivity terms, it is a relational clause indicating location. I mean is the ninth clause in this dialogue,
alternatively mean could be analyzed as Finite or Predicator. In clause 12, the yes is probably best analyzed as a
textual continuative, and thus not part of the mood structure; the no however changes the polarity and is stressed,
so functions here as a modal Adjunct.
Whatever means of SFG we use to analyze the dialogue, it is difficult for us to find out the speakers’

communicative intention, in other words, the meaning which an utterance is intended to convey are not clear. So the
following will discuss the specific areas where pragmatics and SFG are able to complement each other in details.
3. Pragmatics Complementary to Systemic-functional Grammar
Halliday once mentioned that pragmatics wasn’
t necessarily an independent discipline (Steele & Threadgold,
1987). In his opinion, all the things that pragmatics studies can be found in his SFG. However, it is not so that Halliday’
s
SFG covers all the aspects of pragmatics. There are still some aspects in pragmatics that are valuable to SFG.
Conversational implicature, a theory originally suggested by Grice, is a type of extra meaning or inference,
deriving from the words used in interaction with the context. Levison (1983) explicitly states that conversational
implicatures have four major distinguishing properties, i.e. cancellability, non-detachability, calculability and
non-conventionality. Grice’
s cooperative principle and all Gricean maxims are familiar to us, because the violation
of the principle and maxims is common in our conversation and may assist people to do further study. In effect,
some achievements have been made.
SFG never talks about conversational implicature and tries to avoid talking about terms like illocutionary
force. Halliday (1994) stresses that the most fundamental types of speech role are just two: giving and demanding.
He also defines four primary speech functions: offer (to give goods & services), command (to demand goods &
services), statement (to give information) and question (to demand information). We should make it clear that
Halliday’
s speech functions can only be used to analyze the basic functions of sentences. With regard to the
language phenomenon like conversational implicature, SFG is not feasible. Though pragmatics still needs
improvement in this area, their present achievement to some extent will complement SFG’
s study.
Let’
s go back to the dialogue again, considering the following expressive act from speaker A:
1. Do you think // it
’
s worth [| going to see The Godfather Two |] //
32

---

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic-Functional Grammar
F S P

S
F
C

From SFG point of view, Subjects you and it are responsible for the proposition or the success of proposal
respectively. While Finites Do and ’s (is) are grounding the proposition or the proposal temporally. The functional
meaning of the utterance is clear the speaker is demanding the information from the hearer. However, SFG cannot
give sufficient information on the speakers’

communicative intention, or more specifically, the reason why the
hearer answers:
2: Yes, it ’
s worth [| going to see The Godfather Two |], yes. //
S F C
To some extend, Grice’
s cooperative principle (CP) and all Gricean maxims can present the philosophical and
logical analysis of the communicative act; however, the CP in itself cannot explain what is the relation between
sense and force when non-declarative type of sentences are being examined, such as the first sentence in the
dialogue. Within the pragmatic domain, the cognitive pragmatics theory which is advanced by Airenti et. al. (1993)
claims that the hearer has to recognize the speaker’
s behavior game besides the shared knowledge and beliefs to
fully understand force and sense of the communicative intention. According to the cognitive pragmaticists, the
behavior game is a stereotyped pattern of interaction between the participants in a dialogue. It is an action plan
partially shared by the agents, which can be worked out according to the context (Pollack, 1990). Regarding the
clause Two in this dialogue, or the reply to the speaker’
s interrogative sentence, because the hearer thinks that s/he
shares with the speaker the same understanding of the behavior game which the speaker is playing to realize the
wish that the speaker wants to invite the hearer to go to the cinema together; and at the same time, the hearer also
obtains the shared knowledge that the typical situation is at home with one’
s partner, then the hearer answered:
Yes, it’
s worth going to see The Godfather Two, yes.
The cognitive pragmatics claims that the beliefs which the hearer assumes to be shared with the speaker in
the behavior game which is played by the speaker and the contextual information together direct the hearer to
reconstruct the speaker’
s communicative intention.
4. Systemic-functional Grammar Complementary to Pragmatics
Since SFG and pragmatics have some common interests, SFG has some positive effects on pragmatics in at
least the following aspects.
Halliday views “language as social semiotic”, which means interpreting language within a sociocultural
context, in which the culture itself is interpreted in semiotic terms --- as an information system (1978). At the most
concrete level, this means that we take account of the elementary fact that people talk to each other. Language
doesn’t consist of sentences. It consists of text or discourse --- the exchange of meanings in interpersonal contexts
of one kind or another. The contexts in which meanings are exchanged are not devoid of social value; a context of
speech is itself a semiotic construct, having a form (deriving from the culture) that enables the participants to
predict features of the prevailing register --- and hence to understand one another as they go along. However,
people do more than understanding each other, in the sense of exchanging information and goods -and-services
through the dynamic interplay of speech roles. By their everyday acts of meaning, people act out the social
structure, affirming their own statuses and roles, and establishing and transmitting the shared systems of value and
knowledge. In brief, there are certain general concepts which seem to be essential ingredients in a sociosemiotic
theory of language. These are the text, the situation, the text variety or register, the code (in Berstein’
s sense), the

33

---

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic-Functional Grammar
linguistic system (including the semantic system), and the social structure (Halliday, 1978).
Pragmatics also emphasizes the meaning and function of language in use: the relation between language and
social realities. However, pragmatics is lacking in a unified theory or framework. The sociosemiotic theory of
language is acceptable to the pragmaticists and should also be helpful to them (Zhu Yongsheng, 2001).
Furthermore, Halliday (1994) claims that the most important fac t about language as system is its organization
into functional components. The components can be identified as follows: ideational, interpersonal and textual,
which are related to the semiotic structure of the context of situation. As mentioned above, he classifies three
“simple conceptual framework” (1989: 12-14) for describing the context of situation: the field, the tenor, and the
mode. Of the different phenomena being investigated in this particular dialogue, the actually in clause Five
appears to be most dependent on functional definition.
5. It would be a pretty good double bill, that actually
S F P C



S
A: com
In pragmatic field, some uses of English expressions such as I mean, you know, maybe, and actually are often
analyzed under certain conditions, without assigning any particular function to them. It is perhaps because the same
form can perform very different functions in a particular context. In some contexts, actually can function as a hedge
to represent a simpler variety prevalent in conversational and informal register that is often characterized by
vagueness (Channell, 1994). According to Kay (1997) lexical hedges consists of prepositional modifiers of nouns,
verbs, and even whole sentences that are vague and mark a shortage of factual information or knowledge. While in
other cases actually can be utilized to modify and add emphasis to specific elements. The flexibility of the pragmatic
function makes it impossible for the hearer to be ultimately certain of what a speaker means by an utterance.
An attempt has been made in SFG to arrive at an overall functional definition of those English expressions
mentioned above. In case of clause 5 within the dialogue, the Subject it is resumed (repeated) as that at the end of
the clause, to go together with the comment Adjunct actually which is related to the proposition “It would be a
pretty good double bill” as a whole. Because in Systemic -Functional Grammar, Adjunct is made up of two
components: modal and comment. Modal is related to the Finite to express two types of modality:
(a) Degrees of likelihood: perhaps, sometimes. (b) Degrees of necessity: absolutely, willingly.
Whereas, the Comment is related to the proposition or the proposal as a whole.
Though Halliday’
s SFG still needs some improvement, his contribution of identifying the relation between
functions of language and the semantic structure is valuable. As Leech once admitted, the interpersonal and
textual functions of language proposed by Halliday are closely related to pragmatics and can be regarded as study
field of pragmatics (Zhu Yongsheng, 2001). Though the conceptual functions of language are not the
pragmaticists’

interest, they have to know the “conventional meaning” of an utterance first before they come to
study the implicature of the utterance. So Halliday’
s SFG surely helps the pragmaticists a lot in this respect.
5. Conclusion
Though pragmatics and SFG used to ignore each other and lack in communication, in certain aspects they are
in a position to complement each other, as illustrated above. On one hand, there are bases for such a
complementary relation. They have common interests in function, context and meaning of language. On the other
hand, the notions of presupposition and conversational implicature in pragmatics certainly benefit SFG; the semiotic
and functional conceptions of language in SFG surely favor pragmatics. It is sincerely hoped that the pragmaticists
34

---

The Complementary Relation between Pragmatics and Systemic-Functional Grammar
and the SFG linguists may create some conversation in the future so as to learn from each other. It is a common
phenomenon that one school of linguists pays no attention to another school of linguists’

achievement. In fact,
mutual communication is important for all schools of linguists. The discipline of linguistics will prosper, only if all
the linguists unite.

References:
1. Airenti, Gabriella, Bara, Bruno, G., Colombetti, Marco. Conversation and Behavior Games in the Pragmatics of Dialogue.
Cognitive Science. 1993(17): 197-256.
2. Channell, J.. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994.
3. Halliday, M.A.K.. Language Structure and Language Function. In J. Lyons (ed.). 1970: 140-65.
4. Halliday, M.A.K.. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.1978.
5. Halliday, M.A.K.. Spoken and Written Language, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1989.
6. Halliday, M.A.K.. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.1994.
7. Zhuanglin Hu, Wangqi Jiang. Linguistics: An Advanced Course Book. Beijing: Beijing University Press. 2002.
8.Jacob, M..Context and (Dis)ambiguity: A Pragmatic View. Journal of Pragmatics. 2003 (35): 331-347. www.
elsevier.com/locate/pragma Accessed 06/06/2003.
9. Wangqi Jiang. Pragmatics: Theories and Application. Beijing: Beijing University Press. 2000.
10. Kay, P.. Words and the Grammar of Context. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 1997.
11. Levinson, S.C.. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983.
12. Lyons, J.. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
13. Pollack, M. E.. Plans as Complex Mental Attitudes. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., Pollack, M.E. (Eds) Intentions in
Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990: 77-103.
14. Steele, R. & Threadgold, T.. Language Topics (Vol.2). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. 1987.
15. Verschueren, J.. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
16. Yongsheng Zhu, Shiqing Yan. Reflections on Systemic-Functional Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press. 2001.
(Edited by Qun Fan, Nina Liu and Doris)


35

---