Systematic Functional Grammar That Involves the of a Language - Case Study Example

 The Systematic Functional Grammar Grammar is one of the issues which have over time been difficult to understand due to its dynamic nature. As individuals study grammar, there are a lot of things which needs to be taken into consideration in order to have the full meaning of the intended words. This has been the challenge that grammarians have been having since many people have not been able to distinguish their words. This paper will focus on the Systematic Functional Grammar (SFG) in understanding the word “function” through assigning it various meanings at different contexts. The SFG involve the study of a language as a form of networks of systems or set of related events, which gives different options in providing the meaning. This implies that one word can be used in grammar and gives out different meanings without bringing confusion. Different word classes in grammar gives different meanings when used in any literature hence provide the basis of SFG (Heine and Narrog, 2010 p. 214). Different people give different meanings to one word not because they are using the best or alternative words but as a result of language acquisition. This leads to giving different meaning to certain words without necessarily taking them into consideration. Language acquisitions involve expressing deep meaning and acquiring the functions that an individual can perform with human language. However, language acquisition has come with a number of problems such as defining the communicative competence and also in investigating the content (Chapelle, 1998: Klerk, 2009 p.40). It is therefore, very difficult for one to assign one particular meaning to one word since words are linked in a different context making them have varied meanings. The term “function” has been used in the literature to give different meanings depending on the text. According to SFG, the term refers to the classes of words and structures of higher units. This implies that the word work in the larger context of giving the whole meaning of the phenomenon as presented in wherever context it has been used (Locke, 2010 p.210). In this aspect, it has been used to relate to the system which is directly linked to discreet, identifiable constituents in the language. This has distinguished it from the traditional grammatical analysis where one word could be assumed to mean having a similar meaning in the general context. The word “function” has been used to make the grammar flow by using it to analyze and to give meaning to the phrase being communicated. This will give it more meaning for a proper understanding by the audience since it has been used to refer to the elements of linguistics structures. Butler (2003, p. 157) explains that SFG application to the classes of words are leaned towards the approach of applied rather than the pure. This means that even the word “function”, which is being discussed, has to be understood from the concept of its application in order to get more insight in relation to its meaning. This will make the phrase be properly understood through checking on how it has been used in giving it a meaning which it deserves. It will therefore, become of different meaning from the previous due to the way it has been used as per the SFG which assigns different meanings. The second meaning of the word “function “ has been found by relating it to how it has been used in the text as it depicts the role being performed. The key role of SFG is to give different meanings to one word as it has been used above. Function in this context has been used to refer to leadership roles that are performed by various people in their workplaces or on the duties they are assigned. The word has been used to match the SFG assumptions that there are three meta-functions that have to distinguished, and they include ideational, interpersonal and textual which can all be extracted from the phrase on how the word has been used (Beard et al, 2001 p. 382). Function has been used to provide more active description of interaction which has ended up defining the phenomenon being discussed hence giving it the full meaning. SFG has been a distinguished theory from other linguistics in the unit since it takes linguistic description, which is not associated with other forms. SFG takes the form of a text unlike being used as an object. Context in this aspect refers to the passage of any spoken, written or in whatever form which brings a whole unified object (Hewings, 2005 p.150). The unity of the sentence should not be to obstruct from realizing the whole meaning of the sentence but to focus on the effect of this orientation to the grammar. Words can be used in a different context which should not be literally taken to mean what they are portraying but to keenly examine its context. This will give more details for a proper understanding of the words either as different parts or when they have been used as whole hence giving proper meaning of the words (Olbertz et al, 1998 p. 250). For instance, the phrase “function” can be literally used to provide various meanings such as roles played by people as job description, ceremonious evens or a factor related to one another among other meanings. According to the SFG theory, language is a resource which people use in accomplishing their purposes and by expressing different meanings in the context (Brems,2011p. 178). The nature of the words used by an individual will therefore, depend on the intention that the person had since it will be relatively relevant to the meaning that the person wanted to pass across. Similarly, the term “function” has been used by SFG to represent a situation through a process called transitivity. This term means that not only the verb taken on the object but to the whole grammar and processes in the clause. It therefore, gives it an identical meaning from the context it has been used which to a larger extent differentiate it from others. It implies that it not only takes into consideration of the verb which has been used but also by focusing on the general text and providing the real meaning which matches the text (Butler, 2003 p.368). In this context, the phrase “function” can be assumed to be taking the meaning of the verb and assuming other meanings, which are also related to it in giving it more options through providing various meanings as per the author’s intentions. However, this will depend on the intended purpose since it can interfere with the exact meaning which it was intended to pass to the audience. SFG theory is therefore, focused in defining the meaning of the words as it has been used which will translate to its real meaning to which it was intended. Additionally, SFG has been used in defining various phrases from the spoken words and in interactional context from the physical environment. This has led to argumentation that spoken words can not be detached from the situation in which it was spoken or uttered since the physical context can not permit certain kinds of interaction to take place (Nelson, Wallis, and Karts, 2002 p. 342). It is therefore, important to give different meanings to words as per the linguistic context which will not only ensure the context is delivered but also in preserving its meaning (Fetzer, 2007 p.171). From the above discussion, it is very clear that SFG gives different meanings to a word besides just the literally known meanings. This provides many options depending on how the phrase has been used since it has a wider disparity in meaning from what is known to be obvious. The main principle, which defines SFG is how the word has been used which will helps in defining and getting the whole meaning of the word. Reference List Beard, Roger et al.2009. The sage handbook of writing development. London: Sage Brems, L. 2011. Layering of size and type noun construction in English. Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Butler, C .2 003. Structure and function: approaches to the simplex clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Chapelle, C. Some notes on Systemic-Functional Linguistic. Retrieved from: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carolc/LING511/sfl.html Eggins, S. 2004. An introduction to Systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum International. Fetzer, Anita. 2007. Context and Appropriateness: Micro Meets macro. Amsterdam: John Benjamns. Heine, B and Narrog, H. 2010. The oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. New York: Oxford University Hewings, A. 2005. Grammar and contex: an advanced resource book. New York: Routledge Klerk, V. 2009. Corpus Linguistics and world Englishness: an analysis of Xhosa English. New York: Continuum. Locke, T. 2010. Beyond grammar wars: a resource for teachers and students developing language knowledge. New York: routledge.210 Nelson,G, Wallis,S and Karts, B.2002. Exploring natural language: working with the British competent. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olbertz, H, et al.1998. The structure of the lexicon in functional grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Read More