Article published In: On mood and speech function and the ‘why’ of text analysis: In honour of Margaret Berry
Edited by Lise Fontaine, Miriam Taverniers and Kristin Davidse
[Functions of Language 26:1] 2019
► pp. 49–55
Do we need more of the same?
Some reflections on text analytical research
Published online: 27 May 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.00016.sim
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.00016.sim
Article outline
- What functions should text analysis serve?
- What are the pitfalls text analysis must avoid?
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (18)
Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Alex Black, Nicole Chovil & Jennifer Mullett. 1990. Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
Berry, Margaret. 2014. Changes in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Past developments, ongoing developments (and future developments?). Paper presented at the 25th European Systemic Functional Congress, Paris, 9–12 July 2014.
Berry, Margaret, Geoff Thompson & Hilary Hillier. 2014. Theme and variations. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Francisco Gonzálvez García (eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68), 107–126. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Biber, Doug, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bull, Peter & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2014. Equivocation and doublespeak in far right-wing discourse: An analysis of Nick Griffin’s performance on BBC’s Question Time. Text & Talk 34(1). 1–22.
. in press. Conflict in political discourse. In Lesley Jeffreys & Jim O’Driscoll (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and conflict. Oxford: Routledge.
Butler, Christopher S. 2004a. Multi-word sequences and their relevance for recent models of Functional Grammar. Functions of Language 10(2). 179–208.
2004b. Corpus studies and functional linguistic theories. Functions of Language 11(2). 147–186.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1971. Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s The Inheritors. In Seymour Chatman (ed.), Literary style: A symposium. Oxford: OUP.
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Labov, William. 1981. What can be learned about change in progress from synchronic description? In David Sankoff & Henrietta Cedergren (eds.), Variation Omnibus. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc.
Martin, J. R. & Robert Veel (eds.). 1998. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2008. “Those are only slogans”: A linguistic analysis of argumentation in debates with extremist political speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(4). 345–358.
Sinclair, John McH. 1992. Trust the text: The implications are daunting. In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent theory and practice, 5–19. London: Pinter.
Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1). 23–55.
Thompson, Geoff. 2003. The elided participant: Presenting an uncommonsense view of the researcher’s role. In Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, 257–278. Amsterdam: Benjamins.