Putting transitivity to the test

A review of the Sydney and Cardiff models

Bibliographic Data

ID19562154
AuthorsLeanne Bartley (0000-0002-1632-3862, Swansea University, corresponding author), Leanne Victoria Bartley
Year2018
Volume5
Issue1
Publication date2018-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueFunctional Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2196-419X • E-ISSN: 2196-419X
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/s40554-018-0056-x
OpenAlexW2794901334
LanguageEN
Citations received11
References cited12

In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the system of Transitivity is a common means by which to analyse both isolated clauses as well as clauses in context. To date, two Transitivity models have emerged. The first and more established of the two is the Sydney model, which was proposed by Halliday (Journal of Linguistics 3(1):37–81, 1967; An introduction to functional grammar, 1985; An introduction to functional grammar, 1994) and more latterly developed by himself and Christian Matthiessen (Halliday and Matthiessen, An introduction to functional grammar, 2004; Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 2014). The second is the Cardiff Grammar (CG) model put forward by Fawcett (Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of a communicating mind, 1980; The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes in English, 1987) as an alternative to the former and, which has subsequently been elaborated by Neale (More delicate Transitivity: Extending the process type system networks for English to include full semantic classifications, 2002; Matching corpus data and system networks, 2006). Although both models have various strengths, neither model is void of limitations. Thus, the aim of this paper is to describe, compare and draw on the inadequacies associated with either one or both of the aforementioned systems, which have come to light following substantial research on Transitivity. All in all, several issues are raised here in order to highlight particular areas that need to be addressed if we are to ensure a systematic and delicate analysis of Transitivity patterns across texts

Construction Grammar · Grammar · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Systemic functional grammar · Systemic functional linguistics · Transitive relation · Verb · Computer Science · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · History · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Mathematics · Philosophy · Artificial Intelligence

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access