Item Details

The Noun, Grammar and Context

Issue: Vol 11 No. 2-3 (2015) SPECIAL ISSUE:

Journal: Linguistics and the Human Sciences

Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics

DOI: 10.1558/lhs.34355

Abstract:

Perhaps the earliest linguistic resource we have as babies learning to mean is the noun in categorizing the objects around us. The conventional association between the noun and the entity it denotes becomes exploited in use and the speaker learns that through grammar he or she can use nominal expressions to refer. This is one of our most powerful resources. The referring nominal group has the greatest potential for complexity and can serve as a measure of a text's 'nominality' and its density, including its role as an index of register. In Halliday's 1966 paper Grammar, Society and the Noun, he sought to consider "certain questions of language from the outside" (p. 50). In this paper, I will also look at certain questions of language but instead from the inside. These two alternative views can be thought of as inter-organism orientation and intra-organism orientation (Halliday, Lamb & Regan, 1988). This paper seeks to answer questions such as what is 'nominality'? Where and how does it fit in the grammar? What relationship does it have, if any, to context? Taking an intra-organism approach, I will consider these questions by examining certain referring expressions in context. Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs (1986) demonstrated how the process of referring is collaborative; however as they point out, “social factors govern the collaborative mode” (p, 37). This paper will explore these social factors by looking at certain referring expressions in an uncollaborative context, that of a reprisal hearing. The results show that a speech partner uses different strategies following a rejected referring expression depending on the type of exchange.

Author: Lise Fontaine

View Original Web Page

References :

Anderson, J. M. (2007). The Grammar of Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297412.001.0001

Bedny, M., Dravida, S., and Saxe, R. (2014). Shindigs, brunches, and rodeos: The neural basis of event words. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 14, 891–901. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0217-z

Berry, M. (2013). Towards a study of the differences between formal written English and informal spoken English. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady (Eds) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, 365–383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.022

Brennan, S. E. (2000). Processes that shape conversation and their implications for computational linguistics. In Proceedings of 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Kong: available from <http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/sbrennan-/papers/brenacl.pdf> [21 March 2015]

Brennan, S. and Clark, H.H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22, 1482–1493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7

Davidse, K. (2014). Nominal reference and the dynamics of discourse: A cognitive-functional approach. In M. de los Ángeles, F. Mendoza and F. Gonzálvez García (Eds) Form and Function in Language: Functional, Cognitive and Applied Perspectives. Essays in Honour of Christopher S. Butler, 265–289. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.10dav

Ehrlich, S. (2002). Legal institutions, nonspeaking recipiency and participants’ orientations. Discourse and Society 13 (6), 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013006753

Fawcett, R. (1980). Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.

Fawcett, R. (2007). Modelling ‘Selection’ between referents in the English nominal group. In Butler, C. S. et al. (Eds) Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Angela Downing. Vol. 85, 165–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.85.10faw

Fontaine, L. (2007). The variability of referring expressions: An alternative perspective on the noun phrase in English. In D. Coleman, W. Sullivan and A. Lommel (Eds) LACUS Forum XXXIII – Variation, 159–170. Houston TX: LACUS.

Fontaine, L. (2012). Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026635

Fontaine, L. (2013). Semantic options and complex functions: A recursive view of choice. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady (Eds) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, 95–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.007

Fontaine, L. (2017a). The English Nominal Group: The centrality of the Thing element. In T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 267–283. London: Routledge.

Fontaine, L. (2017b). The early semantics of the neologism BREXIT: A lexico-grammatical approach. Functional Linguistics, 4:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0040-x

Frisson, S., Pickering, M. J., and McElree, B. (2011). The difficult mountain: Enriched composition in adjective-noun phrases. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18, 1172–1179. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0142-5

Haan, P. de. (1989). Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrase: A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Heyvaert, L. (2003). Nominalization as grammatical metaphor: On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach. In L. Ravelli, A-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, and M. Taverniers (Eds) Metaphor in Systemic-functional Perspectives, 65–99. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.05hey

Halliday, M. A. K. (1966/2003). Grammar, society, and the noun. Reprinted in Halliday, M. A. K. and Jonathan Webster. On Language and Linguistics. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. 3, 50–73. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985; 1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). Introduction: On the ‘architecture’ of human language. In Halliday, M. A. K. and J. Webster. On Language and Linguistics. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. 3, 1–29. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2013a). With Herman Parret (1972). In J. R. Martin (Ed.), Interviews with M. A. K. Halliday: Language Turned Back on Himself, 1–39. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2013b). Meaning as choice. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady (Eds) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, 15–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.003

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., Lamb, S. and Regan, J. (1988). In Retrospect: Using Language and Knowing How. Claremont: Claremont Graduate School.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.

Hasan, R. (1999). Speaking with reference to context. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.) Text and Context in Functional Linguistics, 219–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.169.11has

Hasan, R. (2013). Choice, system, realisation: Describing language as meaning. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady (Eds) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, 269–299. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.018

Langacker, R. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165693

Martin, J. (1992). English Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59

‘Nominal, adj. and n.’ OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 18 March 2015.

Rijkhoff, J. (2002). The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001

Searle, J. R. (1990). ‘Foreword’. In A. Kronfeld, Reference and Computation: An Essay in Applied Philosophy of Language, xiii-xviii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taverniers, M. (2006). Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation. Neophilologus 90 (2): 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-005-0531-y

Urbach, C. (2013). ‘Choice’ in relation to context: A diachronic perspective on cultural valeur. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady (Eds) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, 300–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.019

Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Watterson, B. (1993). Calvin and Hobbes. January 25, 1993. ‘Calvin and Hobbes’.