systemic functional analysis of english and arabic: a...

AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

193

Systemic Functional Analysis of English and Arabic: A

Contrastive Study

Prof. Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi (Ph.D.)

Babylon University/College of Education for Human Sciences

[email protected]

Asst.Lect. Hani Kamel Al-Ebadi

Thi-Qar University/College of Education for Human Sciences

[email protected]

Abstract:

This study adopts the Hallidayn (1964) Systemic Functional Grammar to analyze

English and Arabic languages. Accordingly, it compares between the findings of the

analysis in relation to the two languages in question. This means that this work aims at

finding the differences and similarities between those languages in terms of their

functional systems. Besides, it tests the success of the theory in question in its

applicability to the analysis of English as well as Arabic. In accordance with these aims,

this work hypothesizes that English and Arabic are similar rather than different in their

main functional systems at the level of metafunctions. As such, this study limits itself to

the investigation of Halliday's metafunctions in the two languages. The findings of the

analysis validate the hypotheses of the study.

1. Introduction

The theory of Systemic Functional Grammar (henceforth SFG)

represents a functional perspective of analyzing language. It views

language as a resource that is mainly shaped by the uses that interactants

make of it; it therefore targets to explain the forms of language in terms of

the meanings that they express, and to develop a grammar which is

designed to ‘make it possible to say sensible and useful things about any

text, spoken or written’ (Halliday 1994: xv). Natural languages are the

scope of applying this approach. Halliday's approach proves its

applicability to analyze English at its beginning. Moreover, it promises a

new horizon in the analysis of languages in relation to the social functions

of languages. As far as Arabic language is concerned, no real attempts have

been done to apply the Hallidayn approach to analyze it. A matter which

underlies the current study to add little in this regard by carrying out this

attempt to analyze Arabic in terms of Halliday's approach.

2.Metafunctions of Language

SFG, as Thompson (2009: 226) states, emphasizes function rather

than structure. Its objective is to show how wordings are utilized in

performing meanings. A linguistic form appears less significant than the

function which it serves in the sentence. In this regard, Halliday recognizes

three functions of SFG including ideational, interpersonal and textual.

mailto:[email protected]


194

3. Systemic Functional Grammar of English

3.1Realization of Ideational Metafunction in English

In the Ideational metafunction, the clause is seen as representation. It

involves two components: experiential meaning and logical meaning

(Halliday &Matthiessen, 2014: 105).

3.1.1 Experiential Meaning

The experiential meaning is represented by transivity system

encompasses process type, participants and circumstances. Six process

types are recognized including material, mental, relational, behavioural,

verbal and existential which are realized by verbal groups(Reed, 1997, 69;

Halliday &Matthiessen, 2014: 105).

3.1.1.1 Material Processes

Material processes (henceforth MP) are onesof doingexpressingthat

some entity does something to some other entity. They can be concrete and

abstract events (Halliday, 1994: 111). The following example illustrates:

(1) The mayordissolved (MP) the committee.

Generally, the performance of MPs may entail four participants such

as actor, goal, range and beneficiary(henceforth Ac, Go, Ra & Be

respectively) (Eggins, 2004: 216). Acstands for the obligatory agent of the

process whereas the other ones are optional (Halliday, 1994: 144).

Theentity at whom the process is directed or extendedis Go. Ra expresses a

restatement or continuation of the action or event expressing the extent or

range of the process (ibid., 2004: 218):

(2) You (Ac) just give (MP) me (Go) a whistle (Ra).

The last entity is Be. It is the one to whom or for whom the process is

said to take place. It appears in material and verbal processes, and

occasionally in relational (Halliday, 1994: 144). It is of two kinds:when

something is given, it is calledrecipient (henceforth Re), and when

something is done, it is client (henceforth Cl) (ibid.). The following

example illustrates:

(3) They (Ac) give (MP) you (Cl) a cognate (Go).

3.1.1.2 Mental Processes

According to Halliday (ibid.: 117),mental processes (henceforth MeP)

encode meanings of thinking or feeling expressed by three types of verbs:

cognition, affection and perception. In addition, they havetwo participants:

Senser and Phenomenon (henceforth Se &Phe). The formershould be a

conscious participant who feels, thinks or perceives.The latter is one that is

thought, felt or perceived by Se and they always be in the clause as in 4

below: (4) She (Se) believed(MP) his excuse(Phe).

3.1.1.3 Behavioural Processes

Halliday (ibid.: 139) states that behavioural processes (henceforth BP)

are ones of physiological and psychological behaviour, like breathing,


195

coughing, dreaming. In terms of participants, these processes have one

obligatory participant, behaver, (henceforth Beh) and is typically a

conscious being, but they may contain a second participant, Phe,expressing

a restatement of the process:

(5) George (Beh) sniffed (BP) the soup (Phe).

3.1.1.4 Verbal Processes

Verbal processes (henceforth VP) are those of 'saying' in whichfour

possible participants including sayer, receiver, verbiage and

target(henceforth Sa, Re, Ve&Ta respectively) may be used. Sa is the

initiator of the process which is not necessarily an unconscious being. Re is

the entity to whom VP is conducted. Ve is a nominalized statement of

VPexpressing some kind of verbal behaviour. It may be the content of what

is said or the name of the saying. Finally, Ta is the entity that is targeted by

the process of saying (ibid.: 142). The following example clarifies:

(6) She (Sa) always praised (VP) him (Ve) to her friends (Ta).

3.1.1.5 Relational Processes

Relational processes (henceforth RP) are classified into attributive and

identifying processes. In addition, both subclassified into intensive,

circumstantial and possessive.

3.1.1.5.1 Intensive Relational Processes

An intensive attributiverelational process (henceforth IARP) indicates

a relationship between two entities and it is performed by the verb 'be' or a

synonym.The first entity is carrier (henceforth Ca) which is realized by a

noun or nominal group. Thesecond participant is attributive (henceforth

Att) whichrepresents a quality, classification or descriptive assigned to

Ca(Halliday, 1994: 203) as in (7):

(7) Diana (Ca) is (AIRP)a talkative dinner guest (Att).

On the other hand, the intensive identifying processes (henceforth IIP)

areones ofdefining. In this type of process, the participants token and value

(henceforth To &Va respectively) are involved. Torefers to what is being

defined while Va stands for that which defines, and both are realized by

definite nominal groups (ibid.: 242) as in (8):

(8) Married women (To) are (IIP) the real victims (Va).

3.1.1.5.2Circumstantial Relational Processes

The second subsystem of RP is the circumstantial relationalprocess.

They encode meanings about location, time, reason, etc. In the attributive

circumstantial relational process (henceforth ACRP), the processis often

expressed in Att. While the verb remains intensive, Att will be a

prepositional phrase or an adverb of location, manner, cause, etc.

(9) The bomb (Ca) was (RP) in her luggage (Att: ACRP of location).

Besides, the circumstantial meaning can beconveyedby the process

itself. In this case, the process is specified as CRP (Eggins, 2004: 246)

example (10) illustrates (ibid.):


196

(10) The operation lasted (ACRP) one hour.

With identifying circumstantial process (henceforth ICP), its meaning

may be encoded by both the participantor the process. When its meaning is

transmitted by the participant, both the To and the Vaare circumstantial

factors of time, place, etc., while the verb remains intensive (ibid.) as in:

(11) Yesterday(To:Cir of time) was (RP) the last time Di gave blood

(Va:ICP of time).

3.1.1.5.3 Possessives Relational Processes

Possessive relational processes(henceforth PRP) are of attributive and

identifying. They encode meanings of ownership and possession between

clausal participants. In attributive possessives, possession may be encoded

through the participantspossessor (henceforth Po) and the process

remaining intensive (ibid.: 247) as the following example shows:

(12) This (Ca) is (RP) yours (Att:Po).

Possession may also be encoded through the process, the commonest

Attributive possessive verbs being 'to have' and 'to belong to'. Typically

Cawill be possessed (ibid.).

3.1.1.6 Existential Processes

Existential processes (henceforth EP)indicate that something exists or

happens. Their structure embodies the utilization of the word 'there' with no

representational meaning, but mayutilize the equivalents of 'be' such as

'exist, arise or occur'. In this type, 'there' meetsno functional label because it

does nothave any representational meaning. As such, it is left unanalyzed

for transitivity. Another participant may occur in EPs is existent

(henceforth Ex). It is the object or the event which is being said to exist and

it can be any kind of phenomenon (Eggins, 2004: 238) as in:

(13) There was (EP) snow (Ex) on the ground (Cir of location).

3.1.1.7 Circumstances

In addition to the participants, processes may also be associated with

the system of circumstances(henceforth Cir), typically recognized by

adverbials, prepositional and participial phrases. The system of Cir

includes seven terms: extent, accompaniment, location, matter, manner,

role and cause. When the system is entered, one and only one of these

terms must be chosen (Graber, 2001: 16). The examples of this system

occurs in (11 & 13) above.

3.1.2 Logical Meaning

Together with the experiential meaning, logical meaning is the second

element of the ideational metafunction. It is the logical structure of the

clause complex (Eggins, 2004: 254). In other words, a series of clauses

isbind together by a diversity of logical relations. Such chains of relations

are called'logical meaning'. It involves two subsystems:taxis and logico-

semantic systems.


197

3.1.2.1 Taxis (tactic system)

The tactic system portrays the kind of interdependency connection

between clauses correlated into a clause complex. Two subsystems form

taxis: parataxis (coordination) and hypotaxis (subordination) (ibid.: 255).

3.1.2.1.1 Parataxis

Equal and independent clauses that can occur alone are joined together

to form the paratactic system. It is formed by means of certain paratactic

conjunctions expressing the logical relationship between two clauses.

Besides, they can sometimes joined without explicit markers. The

commonest paratactic conjunctions are 'and, or, so, yet, neither. . . nor,

either….or' (ibid.).

(14) He saw the back of me and I saw a glimpse of a shadow.

3.1.2.1.2 Hypotaxis

Hypotaxis reflects subordinating relations between clauses. One

clause is dependent on the main one. Within this system, structural markers

should be used explicitly with exception when these clauses are structurally

defective such as non-finite ones. The most common hypotactic

conjunctions include 'if, while, became, when' (ibid.).

(15) I was shot in the back while walking home one dry moonless night in

1968.

3.1.2.2 Logico-Semantic System

The second subsystem of the lexical meaning is one that deals with the

specific kind of meaning relationship between joined clauses. It in turn

offers two options: projection and expansion.

3.1.2.2.1 Projection System

Projection clauses indicate relations of quoting and reporting. The

former refers to locution or what is projected while the latter stands for the

idea or what is thought (Eggins, 2004: 271).

(16) I thought to myself that it was so exciting.

3.1.2.2.2 Expansion System

In addition to quoting and reporting, other types of relations among

clauses are expressed within logico-semantic system by means of the

expansion system.It shows relations of development and extension where

the main clause is developed or extendedby another. Expansions consists of

three main options: elaboration, extension and enhancement (Eggins, 2004:

279).

Elaboration stands for connections of restatement or equivalence,

further specification or description. The task can be done by three ways:

exposition, exemplification and clarification.Expositive clauses elaborate

the meaning of the main clauses by clarifying it in different words so as to

introduce it from another point of view or to fortify the message. exemplary

markersof elaboration are 'or (rather), in other words, that is to say'

(ibid.).With clauses of exemplification, a clause develops the meaning of


198

the primary clause through its specification. Explicit conjunctions are'for

example, for instance, in particular'. Finally, elaboration is to clarify the

main clause through backing it up with some form of explanation or

explanatory comment. Typical conjunctions include 'in fact, actually,

indeed, at least, what 1 mean is' (ibid.).

Like expansion, extension which indicates relations of new addition

aiming at extending the meaning of the main clause has two further

options: addition and variation. Additive processes are those of linking one

to another. The main markers are additive (and), negative addition (nor) or

adversative (but). One the other hand, variation expresses total or partial

replacement of the main clause in the subordinate. The common

conjunctions are 'or, instead of or except for' (ibid.:282).

Finally,enhancement refers to cases when one clause enhances the

meaning of another by qualifying it by reference to time, space, manner,

cause or condition. Such relations are expressed by markers including

'where, when, because, etc' (ibid.).

3.2 Realization of Interpersonal Metafunction in English

According to SFG, interpersonal metafunction concerns establishing a

relationship among interactants. The clause, at this level, is seen as

exchange. As a system, the interpersonal meaning consists of two

subsystems: giving and demanding information, or giving and demanding

goods or services. These interpersonal roles are realized grammaticallyby

Mood System(henceforth MS) (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014: 97).

3.2.1 Propositions (Exchanging Information)

The grammatical structure of exchanging information is known as

'proposition'. It involves either giving or demanding information.

Generally, both giving or demanding are either affirmed or denied in the

exchange, but it is not always the case. Sometimes there are other cases

among these two extremes 'modalization'.

3.2.1.1 Giving Propositions

Propositions are mainly associated with declarative clause. Statements

can be analyzed by MSwhich in turn has two main constituents of

Mood(henceforth M) and Residue (henceforth R). M of the clause has the

function of carrying the argument while R is less essential to the arguability

of the clause. M has two main constituents: Subject and Finite (henceforth

S & F respectively). S realizes the thing by reference to which the

proposition can be affirmed or denied. On the other hand, F serves to make

the proposition definite, or to anchor the proposition in a way that we can

argue about it. Grammatically, F is identified as the verbal part of the tag

(Eggins, 2004: 153).Consider the following example:

(17) George (S) was (F) reading Henry James, wasn't (F) he (S)?


199

Sometimes F and the lexical verb are fused into one word, e.g., writes.

This fusion occurs when the verb is in simple past (wrote), simple present

(writes), active voice, positive polarity and neutral contrast (ibid.: 72).

On the other hand, R contains a number of functional elements: a

Predicator, Complement, Adjuncts(henceforth P, C &Adju respectively)

(ibid.: 155). P is the lexical part of the verbal group. It includes all the

verbal elements of the clause after the single F. C is a non-essential

participantin the clause(ibid.: 157). Adju can be defined asclause elements

which contribute some additional (but non-essential) information to

theclause. They can be identified as elements which do not have the

potential to becomeS(ibid.: 158):

(18) [George (S) was (F)] M[read (P) 'The Bostonians' (C) by

Sivion(Adju:Cir] R.

3.2.1.2 Demanding Propositions

Propositions also has the role of demanding information or questions

and expressed by interrogative and exclamative clauses.English offers two

main structures for asking questions: polar and WH-interrogatives. The

Mstructure of the polar interrogative involves placing F before the S

(ibid.:167). WithWh interrogatives, the Wh-elementmay be conflated with

the subject, the complement or a circumstantial adjunct and is shown as a

constituent of M or R according to the status of the element with which it is

conflated (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014: 160) as in:

(19) [Is (F) Simon (S)] M[reading (P) Henry James (C)] R?

(20) [What (Wh/C)] R[does (F) 'quantum leap' (S)] M [mean (P)] R?

3.2.2 Proposals (Exchanging Goods and Services)

In addition to propositions, speakers also exchange goods and services

or what Halliday call 'proposals'. Interpersonally, they are employed in

interaction to affect other's behaviour.This interpersonal role is subdivided

into two roles: giving goods and services (offer), and demanding goods and

services (command) (ibid.:176). Next sections examine the M structure of

proposals in English.

3.2.2.1 Giving Proposals

Giving proposals represent offers when the clause is used to give

goods and services. In English, offers lack a distinctive structural

configuration. Rather, it depends on the structure of questions: the

interrogative mood, with Fis positioned before S(Eggins, 2004: 178). Some

common offer clauses in English include (1) modulation expressed by F

'will or shall'; (2)modulation expressed in the P 'the lexical verb is a verb of

liking or desiring'; and(3) modulation in a complex P: offers ate also

frequently expressed using a complex modulated P.


200

3.2.2.2Demanding Proposals

Demanding for goods and services (or commands) are typically

realized by imperatives. The unmarked positive has no M, it consists of R

(P): the verb form, e.g. look, is P only, with no F. The other forms have a

M element; this consists of S only (you), F only (do, don’t), or F followed

by S (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014: 165).

3.3 Realization of Textual Metafunction in English

In English, the textual metafunction is realized by the system of

Theme encompassing Theme and Rheme (henceforth Th& Rh

respectively).

3.3.1 Theme System The element of This defined as the point of departure for the message;

what the sentence is goingto be about(Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 64).

It is that part of a message unit that bases a framework for the interpretation

of the rest of the message (Fries, 1995, 58). Due to the metafunctional

structure of the clause, there are three types of Ths in English: topical,

interpersonal and textual Ths (Halliday, 1994: 301).

3.3.1.1Topical Theme

The topical Th is the initial element of the clause that has transitivity

role. It occurs normally in declarative sentences. The remainder of the

clause will be Rh (Eggins, 2004: 308). Sometimes declaratives are

elliptical. In this case, the determination of Th depends on determining

which constituents have beenellipsed.With Wh-questions, the Wh-elements

may conflate with different constituents: S, C or Adju. As all these

conflations involve a participant which plays a transitivity role, Wh

elements which initiate questions will function as topical Ths (ibid.: 310).

With imperatives, P should be treated as a topical Th. With exclamatives,

theWh element will always be a topical Thas is demonstrated by analyzing

it for transitivity.(ibid.: 312):

(21) In most infants (Cir of location/topical Th) there are frequent episodes

of crying with no apparent cause (rheme).

3.3.1.2 Interpersonal Theme

Like topical, interpersonal Th is that initial element which plays an

interpersonal role. The constituentsthatmayserve as interpersonal themes

are the unfused F in questionsand all four types of modal adjuncts: mood,

vocative, polarityand comment (Halliday, 1994: 45; Eggins, 2004: 302).

Again the rest of the clause is Rh. In existentials, although 'there' does not

receive a transitivity label, it is nonetheless described as interpersonal

theme:

(23) Do (Finite: Interpersonal Th) you give blood?

3.3.1.3Textual Theme

Sometimes clauses may not start with topical or interpersonal Ths, but

with a textual one.In English, textual Ths includecontinuity Adju and


201

conjunctive Adju (ibid.: 305). Continuity Ths relate what is going on with

what went before. These include 'oh, well, Yea, and no'. Besides, they are

also continuity items when these are not used as stand-ins for clause

ellipsis, but as the first item in a clause (ibid.).Conjunctive Adjus are of two

types. Those which link clauses together within a clause complex, e.g. 'and,

but'which these necessarily come in initiallocation in the clause.The second

type refers to cohesive conjunctions which connect sentences together, e.g.

however, therefore, but they may occur in other positions. Both kinds occur

before the first topical theme in a clause (ibid.: 306).

(24) Oh (Adju: Textual Th), they give you any a cup of tea.

3.3.2Duplicated Themes

English language has two options of thematization. They may use one

or more than one type of Th before the obligatory topical Th:

49. Well (textual Th)at least (textual Th) she (topical Th) didn't get blown

up, Simon(Rh).

3.3.3Marked and Unmarked Theme The term 'unmarked'stands for 'most typical' while 'marked'refers to

'atypical'(ibid.: 318). Language offers its users two options to highlight

certain elements in their messages.On the one hand, an unmarked Th takes

place when all things are equal. It conflates with the mood structure

element that typically comes in first position in clauses of that mood class

includingS (in a declarative clause), F (in an interrogative), P (in an

imperative) and WH element (in a WH-interrogative).On the other hand, a

marked Th occurs in case things appear unequal marked. It conflates with

any other constituent from the M system other than those mentioned in the

previous paragraph. The marked Th is something other thanS, in a

declarative clause (Bazzi, 2009: 89), Th conflates with Adj:Cir, moving a

circumstantial element to thematic position, repackaging a constituent (e.g.

an actor) as a circumstantial element (typically of matter), and finally

theme predication (ibid.: 318).

4. Systemic Functional Grammar of Arabic

Grammatically,the three metafunctions of SFG in Arabic can be

realized as ideational (fakria)فكرية, interpersonal (tabadlya) تبادلية and textual

(nassya) نصية.

4.1 Realization of Ideational Metafunction in Arabic

The ideational meaningof Arabic clauseis divided into experiential

(tajreebi) تجريبي and logical (mantuki) منطقي meanings.

4.1.1 Experiential Meaning

The experiential meaning of the Arabic clause can be expressed via

transitivity system. Six types of processes (amalyat) العملياتor المحموالت are


202

recognized with associated participants (mushtarlkeen) المشتركينor الحدودand

circumstances (zuruf)الظروفin Arabic1.

4.1.1.1 Material Process

According to SFG, MPs, in Arabic, are expressed by verbs of doing

such as 'غرس, رمى, ضرب'.They are separated into those which are produced

by animate participants, named actions, and those which are produced by

inanimate ones, named processes,. Al-Mwtoukel (1986: 45) states that the

former are produced by (un)human entities that control and express actions.

In addition, their initiator observes the action. On the other hand, the latter

are produced external resources which stand for inanimate entities that lack

ability to control the process.Four possible participants may be associated

with this type of processes including Ac, Go, Ra and Be. Al-Mwtoukel

(ibid.: 33) points out that participants in the Arabic clauses may be

obligatory participants (alhdudalmawdhuatالحدود الموضوعات) or optional

participants (alhdudalwaheqالحدود اللواحق). The following examples

illuatrate:

( الطلبة االذكياء MP(بجلت )25).Zaid ate an apple(. Go( التفاحة )Ac( زيد )MPاكل )

(Cl.)I appreciated the clever students.(26( قفز )MP( النمر )Ac( قفزا )Ra .)

(27)The tiger jumped a jump.

4.1.1.2 Mental Process

MePsrepresent inner feeling of human entities such as happiness,

sadness and fear(Al-Mwtoukel (1986: 45). In Arabic, MePscan be

expressed by what are called'verbs of heart' (Hassan, 2005: 59); they do not

indicate physical actions, but ones of affection, cognition and perception

(Al-Samara'ee, 2000: 6). Such verbs include cognition 'ظن, علم, رآى',

affection 'جبن, فرح, رغب' and perception ',رأى, سمع. Verbs of affection have

Se only while Pheis covert. Those of perception have Se and Phe. Finally,

those of cognition have Se, Phe and Cir (ibid.: 10-13).

InArabic, MePsmay be preceded by (أ) Hamza(Hassan, 2005: 59).

When this is the case, it turns to be MP or VP. Moreover, Phecan be

embedded withverbs of cognitionexpressing Act Phe(Al-Samerae, 2000:

12).

.The sad man becomes happy(28)(. Se( الحزين )MePفرح )

(علمت 29).The friend heard good news(.Phe( الخبر السار )Se( الصديق )MePسمع )

(MeP ت( )Se( الحق )Phe( منتصرا )Cir.)I knew that right is victory.(30)

4.1.1.3 Behavioural Processes

In Arabic, BPs are expressed by verbs of such as احمر, ضحك, حلم'. For

instance, Barakat (2007: 110) states that such processes can be used to

reflect degrees of affection such as power of colour or fault. Besides,

1The translation of the terms is taken from Nahla (2001)


203

Barakat (ibid.) adds that these verbs take only one participant since they are

intransitive verbs, the obligatory Be. Hassan (2005: 185) states that these

verbs may have another participant Phe which is the restatement of the

processes 'cognate object'. For instance (ibid.):

.The baby cried(31)(. Be( الطفل )BPبكى )

The baby cried hard.(32)(.Phe( بكاءا شديدا )Be( الطفل )BPبكى )

4.1.1.4 Verbal Processes

In Arabic, VPs can be expressed by explicit verbs such as 'قال, ابلغ' or

their synonyms such as 'اعلم'. All or some of the four participants can be

utilized in these processes (Ryding, 2005: 425; Aziz, 1989: 888):

.I said that Khalid has travelled(33)(.Ver( مسافرا )Re( خالدا )Sa( )ت VPقلت )

(.Ve( صادقا )Ta( علي )Re( الناس )Sa( زيد )VPابلغ )

(34)Zaid told people that Ali was honest.

4.1.1.5 Relational Processes

These processes are referred to as positions(Al-Mwtoukel, 1995: 87).

In Arabic, this type of processes expressboth attributive and identifying

ones. Each has subtypes of intensive, circumstantial and possessive.

4.1.1.5.1 Intensive Relational Processes

Arabic AIPs are expressed by the nominal sentences, but rarely by

verbal ones. The subject of the sentence is Ca while the predicate stands for

Att which is a description or quality of the Ca (Al-Samara'ee, 2000:

93).Besides, this type can be an identifying process. As such, it takes

Toand Va as participants. Va may be a noun, prepositional phrase or

adverb (ibid.) as in:

Mohammad is active.(35)(. Att( نشيط )Caمحمد )

.The basis of poetry is passion (36)(. Va( اساسه العاطفة )Toالشعر )

4.1.1.5.2 Circumstantial Relational Processes

This type reflects meanings of time, place, cause, etc. Arabic language

exploits nominal sentences to indicate circumstantial processes. With

ACRP, prepositional phrases and adverbials can be used in the attribute

(Faiadh, 1995: 93).As far as identifying circumstances is concerned, also

prepositional phrases and adverbs may be used as Att (ibid.). Moreover,

circumstantial processes can be encoded by the process (Al-Mwtoukel,

1995: 87) as in:

.They boy is at the door (37)(.Att:Cir of location( في الحجرة )Caالولد )

As far as ICP is concerned, also prepositional phrases and adverbs

may be used as Attribute (ibid.):

(.Va:Cir of time( اول ايام السنة الجديدة )To:Cir of timeغدا )

(38) Tomorrow is the first day of the new year.


204

4.1.1.5.3 Relational Possessive Processes

Possession is usually predicated by means of a preposition or semi-

preposition, and it often is the first element of the sentence. Because the

predication is in the form of a prepositional phrase, the item that is

possessed is in the nominative case, being the subject of an equational

sentence (Ryding, 2005: 61). Besides, it can be expressed by the process

itselfvia the verb 'ملك':

They have the capacity.(39)(. Att( القدرة )Po( )هم RPلديهم )

.He owns a house (40)(.Att( بيتا )Po( )هو RPيمتلك )

4.1.1.6 Existential Processes

According to Ryding (2005: 61), Arabic EPs can be expressed by

verbs such as 'يوجد' and adverbs such as 'هناك, ثمة'. Following SFG, هناك and

:do not have a transitivity role ثمة

There are many factors.(41)(. Ex( عوامل كثيرة )no participant roleهناك )

There is a man at the door.(42)(.Cir of location( في الباب )Ex( رجل )EPيوجد )

4.1.1.7 Circumstances

Hurford (1994: 10) states that “the most typical adverbs add specific

information about time, manner, or place to the meanings of verbs or whole

clauses.” They are, as Stubbs has noted, “an optional element in clause

structure” (Hurford, ibid.: 70). Arabic refers to this optional status as (فضلة)

‘extra’ or ‘surplus’ parts of a sentence rather than part of the kernel or core

predication (Ryding, 2005: 276).They include adverbs of degree, manner,

place, time, numerical, adverbial accusative of specification, cognate

accusative, adverbial accusative of cause or reason and comparison (ibid.).

In Arabic, circumstances may be objects and thus they receive as another

participant roles.

4.1.2 Logical Meaning

According to SFG, the system of logical meanings in Arabic is

divided into two subsystems taxis and logico- semantics. Next sections

show these relations.

4.1.2.1 Taxis

As indicated earlier (see 3.1.2.1), the tactic system deals with

interdependency relations of clause complex. It includes further two

subsystems: parataxis and hypotaxis.

4.1.2.1.1 Parataxis:

Parataxis,in Arabic, is expressed by coordinative particles such as ' ,لكن, ثم

Besides, paratactic structures can be linked without .'و and اما, أم, بل, لكن, ف

explicit connectives (Aziz, 1989: 210):

(SC( سلمى مهندسة )coordinator( و )SCليلى طبيبة )

Layla is a doctor and Salma is an engineer.(43)

(.SC( االرض خضراء )SCالمناخ معتدل: )


205

(44) The weather is moderate. The ground is green.

4.1.2.1.2 Hypotaxis

Hypotactic system expresses dependency relations between clauses

(subordination). Subordinating particles are used in Arabic to reflect this

system. Arabic subordinators are numerous such as 'متى, اذا, ان, اي, من etc.'

(Aziz, 1989: 222):

(PC( هاجرت الطيور الى الجنوب )SeC( جاء الشتاء )subordinatorاذا )

(45) When the winter comes, birds migrate to the south.

4.1.2.2 Logico-Semantic System

As far as Arabic is concerned, logico-semantic system can be applied

to show how Arabic clauses are related to each other semantically (see

3.1.2.2).

4.1.2.2.1 Projection System

Clauses of 'saying and thinking' (see 3.1.2.2.1) can be expressed by

using particular particles in Arabic such as (ان)when used after the verb ‘to

say' (Ryding, 2005: 425) as in:

The coach said that he was satisfied.(46)قال المدرب انه راض.

The man thought that the problem was easy.(47)ظن الرجل ان االمر سهل.

4.1.2.2.2Expansion System

This system involves three subsystems (see 3.1.2.2.2) including

elaboration, extension or enhancement of its meanings (Eggins, 2004: 279).

Elaboration, in Arabic, can be expressed by means of 'exposition,

exemplification and clarification'. Arabic expresses expositive meanings by

particular particles such as 'ان, هل'. These help to restate the meaning of the

main clause in the subordinate one (Aziz, 1989: 223).With exemplification,

Arabic offers a number of particles enabling the secondary clause to

specify the meaning of the main clause. Such particles include ' بمعنى, على

Finally, subordinate clauses can clarify the.(.ibid) 'سبيل المثال, بكلمة اخرى

meanings expressed in the main clause by means of particles such as ' ,الذي

.(Aziz, 1989:223-225; Al-Samara'ee, 2000: 119, 289) 'التي, اظن, و, ان

The second system of expansion system is extension. According to

SFG, Arabic main clauses can be extended by adding new information

through secondary clauses. Both addition and variation are recognized in

Arabic to perform this function.Additive particles include ' أم, لكن, ثم, و, etc.'

(Aziz, 1989: 210; Al-Samara'ee, 2000: 265).Particles of variation include

.(.ibid) 'غير, اال'

Concerning the third subsystem of expansion, that is of

enhancement, Arabic makes available a variety of means to enhance the

meaning of the main clause through the secondary clause.In Arabic, this

system is expressed by the use of subordinators such as ' حيث, بينما, بعدما, بعد

.(Ryding, 2005: 413-417)'ان, حين


206

4.2 Realization of Interpersonal Metafunctionin Arabic

Traditionally, Arab rhetoricians deal with interpersonal meaning in

terms of constatives and performatives. In this study, Halliday's approach

of SFG will be applied and thus, it is explained both propositions and

proposals in Arabic.

4.2.1 Proposition (Exchanging Information)

4.2.1.1 Giving Propositions

In Arabic, giving information is realized by declarative sentences

which, asBarakat (2007: 22) defines it, convey some information to the

listener. As far as MS is concerned, Arabichas the following system of

options. The following figure shows2:

Figure (1): MS of Giving Proposition in Arabic Here are some examples illustrate M structure of proposition:

)R .Mohammad is active.)48](no P:no F()P:Cنشيط )]M [(Sمحمد )[

2DV=defective verb

S

Nominal Sentence Before P

Verbal Sentence After P

MS

M

R

F

Nominal Sentence No F

Verbal Sentence Fused F

DV

Nominal Sentence

No P

Verbal Sentence

C

P (MV)

C

Adju

Adju


207

.)M[Mohammad came. )49. (Sمحمد)[]R(P()Fجاء)[

4.2.1.2Demanding Propositions

Aziz (1989: 253-257) states that interrogative clauses are used to seek

information. Generally, there are two main types of interrogatives: polar

and Wh-questions. The following figure illustrates the structure of the MS

of demanding propositions3:

Figure (2): MS of Demanding Propositions in Arabic

The following examples illustrate some of these structures:

Is Ali here? (50)؟ ]R(Adjuحاضرا)[]M(S(علي)parأ)[

Has the plane arrived? (51)؟ ]M(Sالطائرة)[]R(Pوصلت )[]M(Sهل)[

3 Po-Q=polar question; Wh-Q= wh-question; Par= particle.

NS

C

Adju

MS

Po-Q

Wh-Q

VS

No F: No P

Fused F

NS

C

Adju

Adju

Par هل,أ + S

Par هل,أ + P (fused with F)

NS

Wh-word (etc.,متى, اين)+S: No F: No P

Wh-word+P (fused with F)


208

Where is the post office? (52)؟ ]M (Sدائرة البريد)[]R(??Whاين)[

?Where have the girls gone (53)؟ ]M(Sالفتيات)[]R(P( ذهبت)Wh:Cاين)[

4.2.2 Proposals (Exchanging Goods and Services)

4.2.2.1 Giving Proposals

A variety of utterances in Arabic have the function of giving goods and

services including utterances of 'vocation, hope, warning, praise, dispraise

and wish' (Shihad, 2009: 126). These types take different types of clauses in

Arabic including declarative, imperative, exclamative. (Hasaan, 1994: 244;

Al-Maidani, 1996: 224). The following example shows 'vocative':

.R[(C).(54) Pray in time, Mohammad( على الصالةFحافظ)M[(Voc/S)]يا محمد[

4.2.2.2Demanding Proposals

Command stands for demanding goods and services. They also include

the functions of prohibition and warning. In Arabic, they are expressedby

imperative sentences (IbnYaeesh, no date: 58).In addition, the imperative

verb may be preceded by the particle (ل) (Al-Awsi, 1982: 146). Arabic

imperative clause consists of P followed byC and/or Adju. There is no overt

S associated with imperatives (Aziz, 1989: 82).The following instance

illustrates:

.R [C((55) Let's accomplish the work)العملM[F]نكمل(R[P]ل([(

4.3 Realization of Textual Metafunction in ASFG

4.3.1 Theme Types

Like English, Halliday's types of theme are there in analyzing Arabic.

4.3.1.1Topical Theme

In Arabic nominal sentences, the topical Th is the subject and usually

comes first preceding the predicate(Al-Ghalaeeni, 1994: 259; Barakat,

2007: 24; Omer et al., 1994: 235). In verbal ones, it is the subject of the

sentence which is preceded by a verb whether in active or passive voice

(Omer et al., 1994: 407). Imperative sentences do not have overt Th. They

begin with the lexical verb (Qaseem and Deeb, 2003: 283). With elliptical

declarative sentences, the topical Th is guested due to the preceding

linguistic context (Faiadh, 1995: 95) as in:

( القاضي Ma:Rhحكم ).The right is victorious (56).(Att:Rh( منصور )Ca:Thالحق )

(Ac:Th ) .(57) The judge took a decision.

4.3.1.2 Interpersonal Theme


209

The interpersonal Th in 'declarative nominal sentence starting with

DVs, Po-Q, declarative with vocative particles, declarative sentences with

warning particles, exclamative sentences and imperative sentences with (ل)

(Qasim and Deeb, 2003: 283- 311; Al-Qazwini, 2003: 108-138). The

following is an instance of DVs:

.The rain was flowing out (58).لمطر هاطال( اF:interpersonal Thكان )

4.3.1.3Textual Theme

According to SFG, initial elements of the sentence that do not have a

transitivity or interpersonal role stand for textual themes. In Arabic, there

are several particles that play such role including coordinator,

subordinators and conjunctive adjuncts (Ryding, 2005: 409, 423; Al-

Samara'ee, 2000: 2/207):

( غادر القاهرة أمس مساعد وزير الدفاع.conjunctive/textual Thو )

(59) And the assistant minister of defense left Cairo yesterday.

4.3.2Duplicated Themes Ryding (2005: 427) states that, in Arabic, obligatory topical Ths may

be preceded by interpersonal and textual themes.

( متفقون بالواقع على topical Th( )ناtextual Th( كأننا )كأن conjunctive/textual Thو )

كل شيء

(60) As though we actually agreed on everything

4.3.3 Marked and Unmarked Theme

The choice of marked and unmarked Ths has great significance in

Arabic because it performs pragmatic as well as stylistic functions. In

Arabic, unmarked Ths are those that occur initially in nominal sentences as

in (56), after the verb in verbal sentences as in (57), interrogative particles

in interrogative sentences, predicator in verbal imperative sentences,

vocative, warning particles, hope particles and so on (Al-Samara'ee, 2000:

232; Barakat, 2007: 24-27).On the other hand, marked ths may have one of

the following cases (Faiadh, 1995: 95,99,105; Omer et al,. 1994: 339; ):

1. C or Adju are marked Ths when they precedes the subject in the nominal

sentence. In this case, markedness is obligatory when the subject is

indefinite or the predicate is an Adju. Sometimes, when this type of

sentences preceded by the subordinator (ان), the predicate turns to the

marked Th. In addition, the predicate becomes the marked Th in certain

cases when the nominal sentence preceded by (كان واخواتها)(ibid.).

2. The object becomes the marked Th in the verbal sentences when it is

inseparable pronoun or the objective pronoun is attached to the

subject(Faiad, 1995: 123).

3. The circumstantial (الحال) becomes the marked Th (Faiadh, 1995: 140):

The boy is in the room.(61)(. Ca( الولد )Adju:Thفي الحجرة )


210

.God dignifies me(62).(Ac( هللا )separable pronoun:Go:Thأكرمني )

5. Contrastive Analysis

This section shows similarities and differences between English and

Arabic concerning their treatment of SFG.

5.1 Ideational Metafunction

5.1.1 Similarities

1. In both languages, the ideational meaning is realized by both experiential

and logical meanings.

2. Transitivity system categorizes six types of processes in both languages.

3. Both languages identify the same system of participants. Put it

differently, process types take certain options of participants as well as

certain options are obligatory.

4. The system of Cir is realized identically in both. The functions and

subsystems are observed the same.

5. MPs can be concrete and abstract in Arabic and English.

6. Obligation and optionality of the presence of participants appears

identical in both languages.

7. MePs cover the same classes of verbs in the two languages.

8. Arabic and English behavioural and verbal processes systems are

similar. They exploit the type of verbs and circumstances.

9. Possessive and circumstantial processes in both languages can be

encoded through participants as well as processes.

10. As far as lexical meaning is concerned, both languages utilize

approximately the same subsystems and options to express these

meanings.

11. In both languages, paratactic and hypotactic systems may be expressed

by explicit and implicit markers.

12. Logico-semantic meanings are expressed by almost identical systems of

relations: projection and expansion. In both languages, the former

consists of subsystems of 'saying and thinking'. The latter includes

elaboration, extension or enhancement.

5.1.2 Differences

1. Arabic differs from English in using nominal sentences as a means of

expressing transitivity subsystems.

2. Although both languages offer the same subsystem of MeP, Arabic is

somewhat different. While in English this subsystem may have one or

two participants with all types of mental verbs, Arabic is more restricted.


211

MePs with affective verbs have only senser, verbs of perception have Se

and Phe and finally cognitive verbs haveSe, Phe and Cir which is

cognate object.

3. Arabic MePs differ from their English equivalents in their possibility to

be MP or VP when they are preceded by Hamza (أ).

4. The two languages employ different transivity means to express RPs.

While English depends on verbal clauses, Arabic uses nominal ones with

no overt verbal phrases.

5. RPs, in Arabic, are expressed by the nominal sentences, but rarely by

verbal ones whereas in English only by verbal ones.

6. Moreover, Arabic uses more options than English to express EPs. In

English, 'there' is the only option of expressing this type while in Arabic

two options are at hand including adverbs and lexical verbs.

5.2 Interpersonal Metafunction

5.2.1 Similarities

1. Both languages employ identical systems to express interpersonal

metafunction.

2. Giving propositions are expressed by declarative sentences in English

and Arabic.

3. English and Arabic share the systems and options of demanding

proposals.

4. In both languages, giving proposals performs a variety of communicative

functions.

5. The two languages utilize imperative sentences in expressing demanding

proposals.

6. Both languages offer approximately the same constituents of R.

5.2.2 Differences

1. F in English is mainly indicated by auxiliaries, but sometimes is fused

with the main verb. On the contrary, in Arabic, it is mainly fused with

the main verb, but rarely is expressed by auxiliaries.

2. Arabic MS is narrower than that of English, namely in nominal, because

it lacks both F and P.

3. M's constituents order in Arabic differs from that of English. In English,

the M structure of giving propositions starts with S followed by F while

in Arabic verbal sentences start with P followed by fused F.

4. In Arabic, the MS of nominal sentences lacks the F constituent when

using interrogative sentences.


212

5. Arabic has more interpersonal options that do not have transitivity role

than English.

6. English differs from Arabic in expressing the system of giving proposals.

English mainly expresses giving proposals through modularized

interrogative sentences. Arabic uses a variety of particles and different

clause types to express giving proposals.Demanding propositions

involves the use of interrogatives and exclamatives English while in

Arabic are expressed by interrogatives only.

5.3 Textual Metafunction

5.3.1 Similarities

1. English and Arabic recognize main thematic systems similarly including

Th type, Th duplicated and Th markedness.

2. Both languages recognize topical, interpersonal and textual Ths.

3. Topical Th is the first element in declarative sentences in English and

Arabic nominal sentences and also it can be elliptic in certain cases in

both.

4. In both, topical Th with Wh-questions and exclamatives is conflated

with S, C or Cir.

5. In addition, topical Th in imperative sentences is P in both.

6. In both languages, textual Ths are either particles or adverbs of two

types. These types in the two languages have neither transitivity nor

interpersonal roles.

7. Th markedness receives great importance in both languages. Marked

themes involves moving certain constituents to an initial position in the

sentences.

8. The topical Th is the obligatory one in English and Arabic. Moreover,

both languages offer the possibility of using more than one textual or/and

interpersonal themes before the obligatory topical one.

9. Both languages offer the possibility of multiple Ths.

5.3.2 Differences

1. Topical Ths in Arabic verbal sentences come after P, but in English it

comes before it.

2. In English, exclamative word represents a topical Th while in Arabic

exclamatives lack Wh-word. Thus, exclamative phrases are interpersonal

Th because they do not play any transitivity role but an interpersonal

one.


213

3. Arabic utilizes more structural configurations for expressing

interpersonal Th than English.

4. Unlike English, there are certain cases in Arabic in which Th

markedness is obligatory according to structural reasons.

Conclusions

The study has come with a number of conclusions. First, it is proved

that SFG can be applied successfully to analyze Arabic. In other words,

Arabic clauses are analyzed ideationally, interpersonally and textually as

Halliday's theory suggests. This validates the first hypothesis of the study.

In addition, as it is hypothesized, English and Arabic come similar to one

another rather than different when they are analyzed at the three Hallidayn

metafunctions. The main systems are identical in both languages, but some

minor subsystems are different.

References: 1. Al-Awsi, Q. 1982. AsaleebuTtalabi 'indaNnahawiyyeenwalBalaghiyyeen. Baghdad:

Baghdad University. Beitul-Hikma.

2. Al-Ghalaieeni, M. 1993. Collection of Arabic Lessons.. Beirut: Modern Library

Press.

3. Al-Maidani, A. 1996. Arabic Rhetoric: Basics, Sciences and Arts. Damscas: Dar

Al-Elm.

4. Al-Mwtoukel, A. 1986. Studies in the Functional Grammar of Arabic Language.

Morocco: Dar althaqafa.

5. Al-Mwtoukel, A. 1995. Issues of Arabic in Functional Linguistics: the Underlying

Structure and Semantico-pragmatic Repreesentation. Morocco: Dar alaman.

6. Al-Qazweeni, J. 2002. Clarification of Rhetoric Sciences: Meanings, Clarity and

Eloquence. Beirut: House of International Books.

7. Al-Samara'ee, F. 2000. Meanings of Grammar. Vol. 2. Oman: Dar Al-Fakir for

Publishing.

8. Aziz, Y. 1989. A Contrastive Grammar of English and Arabic. Mosul: University

of Mosul.

9. Barakat, I. 2007. Arabic Grammar. Cairo: House of Publishing for Universities.

10. Bazzi, S. 2009. Arab News and Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Discourse Study.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

11. Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London:

Continuum International Group.

12. Faiadh, S. 1995. Modern Grammar. Cairo: Centre of Translation and Publication.

13. Fries, H. 1995. 'Patterns of information in initial position in English',p-47–67 of:

Fries, Peter H., & Gregory, Michael (eds), Discourse in society: Functional

perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

14. Graber, Ph. 2001.Context in Text: A Systemic Functional Analysis of the Parable of

the Sower. Unpublished Dissertation: Emory University.

15. Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Sydney: Edward

Arnold Ltd.

16. Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, M. 2014. Halliday's Introduction to Functional

Grammar. London: Routledge.


214

17. Hasaan, T. 1994. Arabic Language: its Meaning and Structure. Al-Dar Al-Baidha':

Dar Al-Thaqafa Press.

18. Hassan, A. 2005. The Comprehensive Grammar. Vol 1,2,3. Cairo: Modern Library.

19. Hurford, R. 1994. Grammar: A Student’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

20. IbnYa'eesh (no date). Sharhul-Mufassal, Vol.1. Beirut: Alamul-Kutub.

21. Nahla, M. 2001. Systemic Linguistics: an Introduction to Halliday's Linguistic

Theory. University of Alexandria.

22. Omer, A., Zahran, M. And Abdulatif, M.1994. The Basic Grammar. Kawait: Dar

Al-Salassl.

23. Qaseem, M. And Deeb, Mauheei, Aldeen. 2003. Sciences of Rhetoric: Eloquence,

Clarity and Meaning. Lebanon: Modern Foundation for Book.

24. Reed, J. 1997. 'A discourse analysis of Philippians: Method and rhetoric in the

debate over literary integrity'. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement

Series, vol. 136. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

25. Ryding, K. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge:

Cambridge university press.

26. Shihad, O. 2009. Modality in English and Arabic: A Contrastive Study. Bagdad

University: Unpublished Thesis.

27. Thompson, G. 'Systemic Functional Grammar' inChapman, S. and Routledge, Ch.

2009. Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language.Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

تحليل نظامي وظيفي للغتين االنكليزية والعربية: دراسة مقارنة أ.د. فريد حميد الهنداوي

جامعة بابل/كلية التربية للعلوم االنسانية/قسم اللغة االنكليزية م.م. هاني كامل نعيمة

االنسانية/قسم اللغة االنكليزية لية التربية للعلومجامعة ذي قار/ك ملخص:ال

( الوظيفية النظامية النحوية لتحليل االنظمة 1964تتبنى هذه الدراسة نظرية هاليداي )الوظيفية في اللغتين االنكليزية والعربية. وبموجبه ان هذه الدراسة تقارن ما ينتج عن التحليل بين

ا يعني فان هذه الدراسة تهدف ال يجاد اوجه الشبه واالختالف بين اللغتين موضوع البحث. وهذفي هذا المجال. اضف الى ذلك, فان انها تختبر مدى نجاح نظرية هاليداي اعاله عمليا اللغتين

في تحليل االنظمة الوظيفية للغتين المذكورتين. وانسجاما مع هذه االهداف فان الدراسة تفترض ان وقد جعل البحث ين على مستوى انظمتهما الوظيفية.اللغتين متشابهتين اكثر من كونهما مختلفت

ه مقتصرا على دراسة الوظائف الرئيسية للغة حسب ما تناوله هاليداي في نظريته وفيما يخص نفس النتائج فان الدراسة قد اثبتت مصداقية فرضياتها.

systemic functional analysis of english and arabic: a...

Documents