A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: From Grammar to Discourse

A Systemic Functional Grammar of French

Also available from Continuum: A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese Kazuhiro Teruya A Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese A Text-based Analysis Eden Sum-hung Li

A Systemic Functional Grammar of French

From Grammar to Discourse Alice Caffarel

With a foreword by M. A. K. Halliday

continuum

Continuum The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX

80 Maiden Lane Suite 704 New York, NY 10038

First published 2006 © Alice Caffarel 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 0-8264-6632-X (hardback) Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

Pour mes enfants, Yannick, Louis et Remi

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgements

viii

Foreword

ix

Introduction

1

1 Systemic functional theory as a metalanguage for description

4

2 The grammar of ideation (1): logical metafunction

20

3 The grammar of ideation (2): experiential metafunction

57

4 The grammar of negotiation: interpersonal metafunction

120

5 The 'enabling' grammar: textual metafunction

165

English—French glossary of terms in systemic functional linguistics

198

References

203

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to John Benjamins Publishing company, for permission to use material which first appeared: (i) in Ruqaiya Hasan and Peter H. Fries (eds), On Subject and Theme, A Discourse Functional Perspective (Amsterdam, 1995), pp. 1-49; (ii) in Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse and Dirk Noel (eds), Reconnecting Language, Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives (Amsterdam, 1997), pp. 249-96.

Thanks also to Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen, for permission to use material which first appeared in Eija Ventola (ed.), Discourse and Community, Doing Functional Linguistics (Tubingen, 2000), pp. 247-72. Many thanks go to Michael Halliday, whose ideas permeate this book, for his Foreword. I am greatly indebted to my teachers: Christian Matthiessen, who inspired me and continues to inspire me to interpret French grammar in systemic functional terms; Jim Martin for his ongoing support over the years; Claire Painter and Chris Nesbitt for their unique ability to explain complex phenomena. I am also indebted to Robin Fawcett for encouraging me to publish this work. Many thanks to my students and particularly to those who first applied this description of French grammar to analysing the multiple layers of meanings in texts and showed me that it worked. Many thanks also to my first-year French students in 2005 for keeping me going with their wonderful enthusiasm and a year's supply of coffee. My greatest thanks to Kathryn Tuckwell for her editing feat, to Marie Le Rouzic for spotting French oddities and to Charles Humblet for taming the figures. I would also like to thank the Department of French studies, my colleagues and the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Sydney, as well as my friends and family in France and in Australia, for their support. Many thanks to my three wonderful children, Yannick, Louis and Remi, for their patience and all the cuddles!

Foreword

It is a daunting task for a linguist to present a grammatical sketch of a language that has been as intensively studied, and as comprehensively described, as modern French. There are certain contexts where we might expect to meet up with a descriptive overview of this kind, for example as a non-technical account of a major language written for 'the general reader', or as an introduction to a course for adults studying French as a foreign language; in such contexts we would expect to be offered a description in terms of the familiar categories of the European grammatical tradition. Alternatively the writer might be presenting a theoretical approach, still preserving the same descriptive framework but representing it in a new formalism with its own apparatus of terminology. What Dr Caffarel has produced is something that is different from any of the above. She is, to be sure, adopting a distinctive theoretical orientation, that of systemic functional linguistics; but this is not a new way of organizing and formalizing an already existing description. For Dr Caffarel the theory becomes a resource for conceptualizing the language as a whole, and hence for opening up a new perspective on the descriptive processes and the descriptive categories themselves. The main impetus for her opting to work within this theory is that it enables her to present a grammatical model that is particularly adapted to the analysis and interpretation of discourse, because any text that is under scrutiny is being located within the context of the underlying system of the language. The meaning- or, more often, the meanings - of any portion of the text will be derived from the overall meaning potential that inheres in the linguistic system. In the most general terms, the 'functional' aspect of the theory means that the concept of explanation is defined in functional terms: a category is explained by reference to its value along the various dimensions that characterize a language as a whole. So a grammatical category is validated across the strata, both 'from above' and 'from below': what does it mean? how is it expressed? and, critically, how is the tension between these two perspectives resolved? But this, in turn, involves the 'systemic' aspect of the theory, in which such content—expression pairings are located in their paradigmatic environment: what are the other possibilities? what is the network of opportunities that is being construed at this particular juncture? The

x

FOREWORD

grammarian's job is to define the parameters of the lexicogrammatical space within which any given feature becomes operational in the discourse. Dr Caffarel's strategy for organizing the grammar is as a 'journey through the metafunctional potential of French'. This is the deepest sense in which the grammar is said to be 'functional': the description is mapped onto the fundamental modes of meaning with which human language evolved. These are the 'metafunctions' of systemic functional theory: every language functions to construe human experience, of process and of the relations between processes; to enact human personal and social relationships; and to engender a flow of discourse which fuses and animates the two. In using this as her basic organizing concept, Dr Caffarel has produced a description which is refreshingly new without being forbiddingly revolutionary. Those familiar with systemic functional linguistics, and with descriptions of English or other languages in a systemic functional framework, will find it easy to move along in the traffic flow of her argument, with its clear delineation of the metafunctions and explicit reference to the stratal and instantial dimensions. At the same time, for those knowing French but unfamiliar with systemic functional research, it will serve as a thought-provoking invitation to the theory; in this connection, the glossary of French-English terminology at the end of the book is a particularly valuable addition. Finally, the book can be read in a typological context, as an expansion of Dr Caffarel's 'metafunctional profile' of French in the collection of papers on language typology which she herself edited along with J. R. Martin and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004). It is a pleasure to welcome this volume as a Continuum publication, and especially so if it turns out to be a precursor to comparable volumes in the description of other languages. It takes a great deal of time and energy to produce a systemic functional description; such descriptions demand a penetrating knowledge of the language combined with the trained insight and the native wit of a grammarian. Dr Caffarel has all these qualifications, as a native francophone who is also a theoretical linguist - one moreover with practical experience in teaching her language to semantically recalcitrant foreign learners (i.e. to anglophones). This consistent interplay between theoretical and applied pursuits has always been a defining feature of systemic functional theory, where no clear line is drawn between application and theory and each is a source of positive input to the other. This kind of mutual enrichment is clearly demonstrated in Alice Caffarel's work. The result is a description which penetrates to the heart of the language, revealing it at one and the same time as a specimen of the human semiotic and unique resource for the continuous creation of meaning. M. A. K. Halliday Manly, New South Wales November 2005

Introduction

. . . there can be no such thing as a 'complete' account of the grammar of a language, because a language is inexhaustible. Although there can only be a finite body of text, written or spoken, in any language, the language itself - the system that lies behind the text - is of indefinite extent, so that however many distinctions we introduced into our account, up to whatever degree of fineness or 'delicacy', we would always be able to recognize some more. (Halliday 1994: xiii)

This systemic functional (henceforth SF) interpretation of French grammar is primarily intended as a resource for students of French and French linguistics to explore how meanings are made through grammar in different text types. The aim of this book is to provide a general map of the systemic and structural organization of grammatical regions located at clause rank for use as a tool for discourse analysis (including the analysis of literary texts) and for understanding how French grammar makes meaning in different textual and contextual environments. When we interpret grammar in functional terms as a meaning-making resource, the clause is the natural way 'into the system'. It is the highest grammatical unit on the rank scale (clause/group or phrase/word/ morpheme), which means (i) that it is the 'gateway' to the semantic system and (ii) that it constitutes the immediate environment in which other grammatical units function. It follows that this exploration of the grammar of the French clause takes us beyond the clause, to the text (the highest semantic unit), and below the clause, to the group (the realizing unit of the functional components of the clause). The discourse orientation of this grammar is guided by the two theoretical dimensions of systemic theory: (i) stratification and (ii) instantiation (see Chapter 1 for definitions). The stratification of language in context in the SF model allows us to shunt up from grammar to context via semantics to explore how text as meaning and wording realizes particular contextual configurations of Field, Tenor and Mode. But we can also move in the other direction from context to grammar, and explore the construal of context by language. The relation between the different strata is one of realization, and as Halliday (1998: 15) points out:

2

A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF FRENCH

We are able to project this relationship from language on to culture, and show that, in an analogous way, the text 'realizes' the situation. And this is a relationship that can be traversed, or activated, in either direction.

The instantiation dimension (from system to text) also provides us with a bidirectional perspective on language. It gives us the means to account for register variation by moving along the cline of instantiation, that is, from the potential (the system) to the instance (text as wording or meaning). In between the system and the instance we find register (instance type). Approaching register from the instance end (i.e. text) allows us to identify a body of similar instances, a text type. Text types can then be used as data to illustrate how they instantiate a particular set of choices from the potential as well as particular structures. Approaching register from the system end allows us to identify subpotentials of the overall potential. It is precisely the bidirectionality of the stratification and instantiation dimensions that makes SF theory distinct from other theories and this grammar innovative. The multiperspectival approach enables us to foreground both the resources specific to particular registers and the resources general to the language. In addition it provides multiple pathways for exploring how meaning is both construed and constructed by lexicogrammatical patterns in texts. Furthermore, each instance of text can be seen as both realization of the culture in which it is produced and as an instantiation of that culture. In this book, the grammatical system, rather than the semantic system, is taken as the point of departure for the exploration of meaning in different text types. This is because, as pointed out by Halliday and Matthlessen (1999: 17), 'Meanings do not "exist" before the wordings that realize them. They are formed out of the impact between our consciousness and its environment'. In addition, in the ontogenetic development of language (from protolanguage to language), the development of grammar and precisely the stratification of content into semantics and grammar is a semiotic milestone (see Halliday 1975; Painter 2001). Not only does the acquisition of grammar increase our meaning potential, it also opens up for metafunctional diversification, for producing multiple meanings simultaneously as a single structural frame. The stratification of content gives the means to depart from the congruent to arrive at the incongruent through the process of grammatical metaphor (see Section 1.2.1.1). All these aspects of grammar in language increase the power of grammar as a theory, as a tool for discourse analysis and the interpretation of meaning (first and second order) in different text types, as illustrated in Chapters 2 to 5. The rhetorical development of the book is motivated by theoretical, descriptive and educational factors. The relationship that exists between theory and description is also considered to be one of instantiation (see Matthiessen and Nesbitt 1996); it follows that this description of French instantiates SF theory which is itself instantiated in description. Chapter 1 will explore the relationship between theory and description and introduce

INTRODUCTION

3

the metalinguistic properties and categories which are instantiated in the description of French grammar provided in Chapters 2 to 5. The organization of the descriptive chapters reflects both the discourse orientation of this grammar and the 'metafunctional' organizational principle of grammar and semantics identified by SF theory. SF linguists view grammar as a metafunctionally diversified meaning-making potential. The clause is seen as encoding different types of meaning (metafunction) - ideational (logical and experiential), interpersonal and textual - which are realized by different types of structure that map onto one another in the clause. We begin with the grammar of ideation, focusing first on the logical component in Chapter 2 and then on the experiential component in Chapter 3. An account of interpersonal grammar follows in Chapter 4, and an account of textual grammar in Chapter 5. The choice of logical resources as point of departure for this description of French grammar is motivated by its discourse orientation. In a sense, the rhetorical development of this book maps onto the analytical process: the first step in analysing the lexicogrammatical resources of a text consists in dividing that text into clauses before we can proceed to the metafunctional analysis of each clause. Thus, in a discourse-based account of grammar it seems natural to first explore the resources that serve to combine clauses into clause complexes in texts. Furthermore, the principles behind clause complexing give us a means of identifying the clause, that is, the highest ranking grammatical unit. In addition, logical resources are 'fractal' types in the lexicogrammatical system in that they may manifest at other ranks: we may combine words and groups into complexes in the same ways that we combine clauses. This will become important as we move to the metafunctional analysis of the clause and its functional components in Chapters 3 to 5. This journey through the metafunctional potential of French will give the reader a comprehensive understanding of how meanings are created in wordings in French texts through extensive illustrations of text analysis. Also, a bilingual (English—French) glossary of systemic functional terms provided at the end of the book will enable students of French to undertake analysis of French texts in French. The work of many systemic functional linguists has influenced this description of French, and I would like to acknowledge that contribution to this book, and in particular the inspiration provided by the work of Michael Halliday and Christian Matthiessen.

1 Systemic functional theory as a metalanguage for description

. . . theory is a semiotic resource for making meaning in description: description is given value through theory. Since theory is a system of meanings, it gives a higher-level organization to the meanings made in description. The richer the theory we have at our disposal, the richer we can make our description. (Matthiessen and Nesbitt 1996: 67-8, emphasis in original)

1.1 A grammar that makes meaning The choice of systemic functional (SF) theory as a framework for this particular description of French grammar is motivated by the strong orientation towards meaning in the systemic model. SF theory provides a powerful framework for studying the grammar of a particular language as meaning potential, that is, the lexicogrammatical choices available to the speakers of that language to mean in different contexts of use. The descriptive process is an endless process of 'paradigmatic composition', of adding new systems of meaning to arrive at a 'comprehensive' interpretation of the meaning potential (and subpotentials) of that language. One important aspect of SF theory is the interpretation of the relationship between grammar and semantics as a natural one, where grammar is interpreted as construing (in wordings) meaning: Grammatical categories are grammaticalizations of semantic ones; even categories such as Subject which have been claimed to be purely grammatical. (Such claims are a reflection of one's approach to language, not of language itself.) In other words, both semantic and grammatical categories are categories of meaning . . . (Matthiessen 1995: 7-8)

This grammar of French is unlike any other for it realizes a particular approach to language, where language as a whole is interpreted as meaning potential. SF theory is different from other theories in other fundamental respects. On the one hand it has a systemic orientation (developed out of Firth's system-structure theory) - grammar is modelled systemically as a resource for construing meaning in wording; on the other hand it prioritizes functional categories across a spectrum of different modes of meaning over

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL THEORY AS A METALANGUAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

5

grammatical classes. It follows that functional structure is primary to class or syntagmatic structure. Since functional structure accommodates a spectrum of different modes of meaning, it is multilayered in organization. That is, the different modes of meaning or metafunctions are realized by different layers of structures that map onto each other in the clause. The multilayered account of clause structure is, however, not in itself specific to SF theory but can be found in French functional approaches such as Hagege (1982) and Pettier (1992), which evolved from the Prague School of linguistics, in particular following Danes (1964). What is specific to systemic functional grammar is that all three layers of function structures are internal to the grammar, but are at the same time semantically significant: each layer in the grammar corresponds to one in the semantics. Thus, language constructs and is constructed by different types of meaning which the theory models as metafunctions: ideational (construing our experience of the world around us and inside us as meaning), interpersonal (enacting the world of social roles and relations as meaning) and textual (constructing ideational and interpersonal meaning as a semiotic world of information organized as text in context). In addition, SF theory models language as a tri-stratal semiotic system. Central to this model of language is the notion of realization, which conceptualizes the link between the three strata. Thus, semantics is realized by lexicogrammar and lexicogrammar by phonology. As Halliday (2002 [1996]: 411) points out, the notion of realization explains the huge increase in meaning potential in a tristratal semiotic system (such as adult language) compared to a bistratal system (such as a human infant's protolanguage): . . . in the elements of a primary semiotic (signs), the signifier 'realizes' the signified; but this relationship is unproblematic: although the sign may undergo complex transformations of one kind or another, there is no intermediate structure between the two (no grammar). With a higher order semiotic, where a grammar intervenes, this opens up the possibility of many different types of realization.

The natural relationship between grammar and semantics is reflected in the multilayered organization of the clause, which itself reflects the metafunctional organization of semantics. Stratification and metafunctional diversification of language are modelled in Figure 1.1, using one of the conventional forms of representation of these dimensions in SF theory which will be used throughout this book. That is, the strata (semantics, lexicogrammar, phonology - labelled in bold in Figure 1.1) are represented as nested, co-tangential circles; the metafunctions (textual, interpersonal, ideational) are overlaid across these circles (in Figure 1.1 the notional 'boundaries' between the metafunctions are represented by dashed lines). Although the relationship between grammar and phonology is essentially conventional, we will see that interpersonal meaning is related to TONE systems at the level of phonology (Chapter 4) and that textual meaning can also be realized by phonological systems in a natural way (Chapter 5). Thus,

6

A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF FRENCH

Figure 1.1 The systemic functional model: metafunctional diversification and stratification it is essentially experiential meaning that is in an arbitrary relationship with the expression stratum. 1.2 An overview of systemic functional theory As seen in Section 1.1, one aspect of the organization of language, and more precisely of the content levels of language, is metafunctional diversification. This is reflected in both the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic organization of the clause. From a paradigmatic or systemic viewpoint, any clause selects options simultaneously from the systems of TRANSITIVITY (experiential), MOOD (interpersonal) and THEME (textual). Features from these systems are realized in three simultaneous layers of functional structuring corresponding to the three metafunctions. While in formal theories structure is generated by rules, in SF theory structure results from the process of choosing systemic features within the systems of system networks and executing the realization statements associated with those options. A description of an example thus includes both a systemic aspect (the features selected, or 'selection expression') and a structural aspect (the structural specifications realizing the systemic features). In addition, for each element of structure, its realization is shown as a set of one or more features characterizing the unit or item that realizes that element. A metafunctional analysis of Examples (1) and (2) is shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. (1)

Yannick a ouvert la porte Yannick opened the door

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL THEORY AS A METALANGUAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

7

Table 1.1 Metafunctional analysis of Example (1) Yannick

a

ouvert

systemic features of clause:

{indicative: declarative: . . .; material & effective: . . .; unmarked theme & active . . .}

interpersonal: negotiatory structure

Subject

Finite

experiential: transitivity structure

Actor/Agent

Process

textual: thematic structure

Theme

Rheme

features of realizing unit:

{nominal group}

{verbal group}

Predicator

la porte

Complement

Goal/Medium

{nominal group}

Table 1.2 Metafunctional analysis of Example (2) La porte

a ete

ouverte

systemic features of clause:

{indicative: declarative: . . .; material & effective: . . .; unmarked theme & passive: agentive . . .}

interpersonal: negotiatory structure

Subject

experiential: transitivity structure

Goal/Medium Process

textual: thematic structure

Theme

Rheme

features of realizing unit:

{nominal group}

{verbal group: passive}

(2)

Finite

Predicator

par Yannick

Complement

Actor/Agent

{prepositional phrase}

La porte a ete ouverte par Yannick The door was opened by Yannick

The SF descriptions of clauses (1) and (2) differ from other linguistic descriptions with respect to the amount of semantic information that the grammatical analysis provides. In addition, from an SF viewpoint, neither

8

A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF FRENCH

clause (1) nor clause (2) is seen as primary. They realize different systemic choices from the general lexicogrammatical system network. Each layer of structuring realizes one type of meaning: the negotiatory (modal) structure realizes interpersonal meanings, the transitivity structure experiential meanings and the thematic structure textual meanings. As pointed out by Matthiessen (1995:21): . . . all structural relations are stated in terms of grammatical functions. Units of particular classes realize functional constituents of other units; for instance, the constituent Theme/Subject/Goal is realized by a group of the class nominal. However, units do not serve directly as constituents of other units; there is always a functional interface. In other words, grammatical structure is not stated in terms of grammatical classes such as nominal group and prepositional phrase, but in terms of the functions they serve.

The boxed representation of the multilayered clause structures clearly highlights the variation in the layering of the simultaneous structures. For example, while in clause (1) the constituent that functions as Subject conflates with the Actor/Agent, in clause (2) it conflates with the Goal/Medium. In addition, while in clause (1) it is the Agent that functions as Theme, i.e. as point of departure of the message, in clause (2) it is the Medium that functions this way. Finally, in a systemic functional description, the example should ideally be taken from natural discourse, so that the properties of the clause can be linked to its contribution to the unfolding discourse, for example in terms of thematic progression (see Chapter 5). SF theory was chosen for this particular description of French because of its metafunctional approach to meaning, its theory of systemic organization and its integration of context to the linguistic system. From a practical point of view, the theory will make it possible to use this grammar in various contexts, including discourse analysis, stylistics and educational linguistics. We will now explore the dimensions of SF theory in more detail, beginning with the dimensions of stratification and instantiation. 1.2.1 Stratification and instantiation Stratification refers to the organization of the linguistic system into strata: it is 'an ordering in symbolic abstraction of the subsystems of language: semantics is realized (expressed, coded, symbolized) by lexicogrammar and lexicogrammar is realized by phonology' (Matthiessen 1995: 5). In contrast 'instantiation is the relationship between the system and the instance; the instance is said to instantiate the system' (Halliday 2002 [1996]: 411). Figure 1.2 shows that stratification organizes not only language but also the whole complex of language in context (see Martin 1992, in particular, for a discussion of this point). The linguistic system is related upwards to context via realization, and related to the instance via instantiation.

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL THEORY AS A METALANGUAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

9

Figure 1.2 Stratification and instantiation These dimensions give the theoretical basis to the discourse-based approach of this book. (For a stratified model of context, see Martin 1992.) The notion of instantiation is also relevant when we interpret grammar in a discourse perspective and provides the theoretical principle used in the choice of data in this book. As Halliday (2002 [1996]: 412) points out: Instantiation is a cline, with (like lexicogrammar) a complementarity of perspective. I have often drawn an analogy with the climate and the weather: when people ask, as they do, about global warming, is this a blip in the climate, or is it a longterm weather pattern?, what they are asking is: from which standpoint should I observe it: the system end, or the instance end? We see the same problem arising if we raise the question of functional variation in the grammar: is this a cluster of similar instances (a 'text type', like a pattern of semiotic weather), or is it a special alignment of the system (a 'register', like a localized semiotic climate)? The observer can focus at different points along the cline; and, whatever is under focus, the observation can be from either of the two points of vantage.

1.2.1.1 Stratification Systemic functional theory is a tri-stratal model of language in context. The systems to be explored in this book are all located at the lexicogrammatical stratum, as shown in Figure 1.3. We have seen that the semantic orientation of the theory, where language is viewed as a meaning potential, implies that all strata of the linguistic system contribute to the making of meaning. The semantic system semanticizes

10

A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF FRENCH

contextual meaning by giving us the resources to enact and construe it as linguistic meaning; the lexicogrammatical system grammaticalizes this meaning, by giving us the resources to create meaning in wording; and the phonological system realizes meaning by sounding the wordings that realize meaning. The three strata of language are grouped into two content strata and one expression stratum. Semantics and lexicogrammar are the levels of content (or the content 'plane') and phonology is the expression plane. Furthermore, as was mentioned in Section 1.1, being the two content strata, semantics and grammar enter in a natural relationship to one another. For example, speech functional semantics stands in a natural relation to MOOD grammar: i.e. the speech function 'question' at the level of semantics is 'congruently' realized by the 'interrogative mood' in the grammar, 'statement' is congruently realized by 'declarative', and so on. However, as will become apparent throughout this book, grammatical realizations of semantic categories are not always congruent. One crucial advantage of the stratification of content is that it gives us the means to account for grammatical metaphor, which in turn provides us with the means to expand our interpretation of the meaning potential, 'as variation in the expression of a given meaning' (Halliday 1994: 342). For instance, whilst the congruent means of realizing a command is the imperative mood as in Ferme la porte (Close the door), we may choose incongruent (or metaphorical) means of realization in different contextual environments, such as the interrogative mood, Pourrais-tu fermer la porte? (Could you close the door?) or the declarative mood,/