Types of Structure: Deconstructing Notions of Constituency in Clause and Text

  • James R. Martin
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NATO ASI F, volume 151)


In this paper I will present arguments in favour of a view of text structure in which constituency is not privileged, but deconstructed as just one way of looking at text organisation. This view of text structure has been developed in Australia in dialogue with Halliday’s (e.g., 1994) and Matthiessen’s (e.g., in press) work on English clause grammar. Consequently I will begin with an overview of their clause analysis before moving on to argue the main point of my paper—namely that constituency is a semantically biassed and reductive form of representation for text structure (i.e. that a text is not a tree).


News Story Text Structure Lead Development Orbital Structure Embed Clause 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bateman, J.A. 1989. Dynamic systemic-functional grammar: a new frontier. Word 40(1–2) (Systems, Structures and Discourse: selected papers from the Fifteenth International Systemic Congress), 263–286.Google Scholar
  2. Beaman, K. 1984. Coordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 45–80.Google Scholar
  3. Belsey, C. 1980. Critical Practice. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christie, F., B. Gray, P. Gray, M. Macken, J.R. Martin, and J. Rothery. 1992. Exploring Explanations about Natural Disasters (level 1). Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (HBJ Language: a resource for meaning).Google Scholar
  6. Cranny-Francis, A. 1990. Feminist Fiction: Feminist Uses of Generic Fiction. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Cranny-Francis, A. 1992. Engendered Fictions: Analysing Gender in the Production and Reception of Texts. Sydney: New South Wales University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Derrida, J. 1974. Of Grammatology. (translated by G.C. Spivak). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fishman, R. 1990. Why Fenech handles himself like a champion in and out of the ring. Sydney Morning Herald. Monday May 7, 54.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Fries, P.H. 1981. On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6(1) 1–38. Republished in J.S. Petofi & E. Sozer (eds.),Google Scholar
  11. Fries, P.H. On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse. Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts, 1983. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag (Papers in Textlinguistics 45), 116–152.Google Scholar
  12. Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  13. Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press. Materials accompanied by an audio tape.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M.A.K. 1974. Interview with M.A.K. Halliday. In H. Parret (ed.), Discussing Language. The Hague: Mouton (Janua Linguarum Series Maior 93), 81–120.Google Scholar
  15. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, M.A.K. 1979a. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In D.J. Allerton, E. Carney, and D. Holdcroft (eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: essays offered to William Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–79.Google Scholar
  17. Halliday, M.A.K. 1979b. Differences between spoken and written language: some implications for literacy teaching. In G. Page, J. Elkin, and B. O’Connor (eds.), Communication through Reading: proceedings of the Fourth Australian Reading Conference. Vol. 2. Adelaide, S.A.: Australian Reading Association. 37–52.Google Scholar
  18. Halliday, M.A.K. 1981a. Text semantics and clause grammar: some patterns of realisation. J.E. Copeland, and P.W. Davis (eds.), The Seventh LACUS Forum. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press. 31–59.Google Scholar
  19. Halliday, M.A.K. 1981b. Types of Structure. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford. 29–41.Google Scholar
  20. Halliday, M.A.K. 1981c. Structure. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford. 122–131.Google Scholar
  21. Halliday, M.A.K. 1982. How is a text like a clause? InText Processing: text analysis and generation, text typology and attribution (Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 51). S. Allen (ed.), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. 209–247.Google Scholar
  22. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985b. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press (republished by Oxford University Press 1989).Google Scholar
  24. Halliday, M.A.K. and J.R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education) and Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press (Pittsburg Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).Google Scholar
  25. Iedema, R., S. Feez, and P. White. 1994. Media Literacy (Literacy in Industry Research Project-Stage 2). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.Google Scholar
  26. Longacre, R.E. 1976. An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
  27. Longacre, R.E. 1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax & Semantics vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, J.R. 1985. Process and text: two aspects of semiosis. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse vol. 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 248–274.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, J.R. 1990. Interpersonal grammatization: mood and modality in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 21(1) (Special Issue on the Silver Anniversary of the Language Study Centre of Philippine Normal College 1964–1989-Part 2). 2–51.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, J.R. 1991. Intrinsic functionality: implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics 1(1), 99–162. Available from Social Semiotics, Department of English, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, J.R. 1992a. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, J.R. 1992b. Macroproposals: meaning by degree. In W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 359–395.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, J.R. 1992c. Theme, method of development and existentiality: the price of reply. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6, 147–184.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, J.R. 1993. Life as a noun: arresting the universe in science and technology. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds.), Writing Science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education). 221–267.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, J.R.1995. Logical meaning, interdependency and the linking particle {-ng/na} in Tagalog. Functions of Language 2.2, 189–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, J.R. 1996a. Evaluating disruption: symbolising theme in junior secondary narrative. In R. Hasan and G. Williams (eds.), Literacy in Society. London: Longman. 124–171.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, J.R. 1996b. Metalinguistic diversity: the case from case. In R. Hasan, D. Butt, and C. Cloran (eds.), Functional Descriptions: language form and linguistic theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). 323–372.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, W.R. 1989. Innovative fisheries management: international whaling. In A.T. Bielak (ed.), Innovative Fisheries Management Initiatives. Ottawa: Canadian Wildlife Federation. 1–4.Google Scholar
  39. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1988. Representational issues in systemic functional grammar. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Functional Approaches to Discourse. Norwood, N J. Ablex. 136–175.Google Scholar
  40. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction. In M. Davies and L. Ravelli (eds.) Advances in Systemic Linguistics. London: Pinter. 37–81.Google Scholar
  41. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. in press. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and J.A. Bateman. 1991. Text Generation and Systemic Linguistics: experiences from English and Japanese. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  43. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and J.R. Martin. 1991. A response to Huddleston’s review of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5, 5–74.Google Scholar
  44. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and S.A. Thompson. 1989. The structure of discourse and subordination. In J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 275–331.Google Scholar
  45. McGregor, W 1990 The metafunctional hypothesis and syntagmatic relations. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics vol. 4, 5–50.Google Scholar
  46. Palmer, F.R. 1970. Editor, Prosodic Analysis. London: Oxford (Language and Language Learning).Google Scholar
  47. Pike, K.L. 1982. Linguistic Concepts: an Introduction to Tagmemics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pike, K.L. and E.G. Pike. 1983. Text and Tagmeme. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  49. Waterson, N. 1956. Some aspects of the phonology of the nominal forms of the Turkish word. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 18, 578–591 (reprinted in Palmer 1970: 174–187.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations