Cognitive Linguistics And Systemic Functional Linguistics

F. Javier Hernanz Jerez

What are the differences between Cognitive Linguistics & Systemic Functional Linguistics?

1. Systemic Functional Linguistics:
One of the most prominent linguists whose work has been essential for Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is Michael Halliday. He started working in SFL in the 1960s and he has published many books until the period of 2002-2003, whenhe eventually issued a ten-volume set of Collected Works. A key point in SFL was 1994, when M. Halliday published an exhaustive functional grammar of the English language. Throughout this work he explained how clauses contain 3 groups of meanings – ideational, interpersonal and textual meta-functions. This book was important not only for the numerous works which has been based on it, but also forthe foreshadowing of the multifarious fields SFL could be applied to.
This linguistic approach focuses on semiotics, in general, and socio-semantics in particular. As S. Eggins (2004) states it is ‘a functional-semantic approach to language’. Halliday (1985, 1989 & 1994) affirms that language can be seen as functional since it serves to simultaneously make 3 meanings – ideational,interpersonal and textual. This is a semantically complex definition which integrates 3 different sorts of meanings in the same grammar and lexis. There is also an emphasis on the semiotic charge of language and its implication of linguistic election to create meaning. The concept of everyday language in use is emphasized as well.
According to S. Eggins (2004), there is a duality in the SFL approach.Firstly, it is asked ‘how do people use language?’ On the other hand, it is enquired ‘how is language structured for use?’ The first questions, leads to the functional understanding of language – it supposes an emphasis in semantics. Moreover, the initial part of the question is also the origin of the second section – as we, as agents, play an important role in structuring languages.
SFL considerslanguage as a means to achieve a particular end, but never as an end itself. In fact, that end could be divided into different elements. To guess the intended goal of a text, we should have a global view. It would be more accurate to see the sum of the total number of clauses of the text, than focusing only on a particular sentence. Some nuances and variables take a considerable amount of clausesto be discernible.
The relation between context and text is crucial in SFL. As S. Eggins (2004) argues, ‘in some way context is in the text’. This affirmation can be simply proven, since when we read a text we normally provide a potential context for it. This phenomenon usually takes place even when we don’t know anything about the circumstances of the story. This process helps us to understandthe purpose of the text. Furthermore, it reinforces the linguistic election we make to assemble a group of utterances or written clauses. The relation of language and context is bidirectional – we are also able to infer language from the circumstances around it – and essential, as language and context are strongly interrelated – both language and context considerably reduce the possible choices ofone another. Indeed, it would be impossible to fully understand a text if we don’t link it to an assumed context. In general terms, the more isolated a clause is, the more important is the contextual information. There are certain aspects of language use that are altered by context and vice versa. Consequently, it is important to determine what aspects are affected this bidirectional phenomenon.According to the SFL classification, context is divided into three categories: register, genre and ideology. As S. Eggins (2004) affirms ‘register theory describes the impact of dimensions of the immediate context of situation of a language event’. In addition, she adds that register is divided into 3 sub-categories – mode (‘amount of feedback and role of language’), tenor (role relations of...