Article published In: Interpersonal Meaning: Systemic Functional Linguistics perspectives
Edited by J.R. Martin
[Functions of Language 25:1] 2018
► pp. 54–96
Interpersonal grammar of Tagalog
A Systemic Functional Linguistics perspective
Published online: 10 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17016.mar
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17016.mar
Abstract
In this paper the interpersonal grammar of Tagalog is explored from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Following a brief metafunctional profile of Tagalog grammar, a framework for interpreting the discourse function of Tagalog clauses is introduced – exchange structure. Subsequently the systems of mood, polarity, modality, tagging, vocation, comment and engagement are considered, alongside their realisation in tone, clause structure and lexical selection. The role played by these interpersonal systems and structure is then illustrated through a brief sample of Tagalog discourse. The paper demonstrates the manner in which a paradigmatic perspective can be used to integrate the description of grammatical resources typically fragmented and marginalised in syntagmatically organised descriptions.
Article outline
- 1.Multinocular vision
- 2.Metafunctional profile
- 3.Negotiating meaning
- 3.1 mood
- 3.2 polarity
- 3.3 modality
- 3.4 tagging
- 3.5 vocation
- 3.6 comment
- 3.7 assessment
- 4. mood systems
- 5. mood structure
- 6.Tracking and challenging
- 7.Negotiating genre
- 8.Interpersonal vision
- Notes
References
References (57)
Bautista, Maria Lourdes S. 1979. Patterns of speaking in Filipino radio dramas: Sociolinguistic analysis. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis (University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 2 & 3). Urbana: University of Illinois.
Buenaventura-Naylor, Paz. 1975. Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics 141. 12–79.
. 1995. Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax. In David C. Bennett, Theodora Bynon & George B. Hewitt (eds.), Subject, voice and ergativity, 161–201. London: SOAS.
Butler, Christopher S. 2003a. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories – Part 1 Approaches to the simplex clause (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2003b. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories – Part 2 From clause to discourse and beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Caffarel, Alice. 1995. Approaching the French clause as a move in dialogue: Interpersonal organisation. In Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118), 1–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dingemanse, Mark & Nicholas J. Enfield. 2015. Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1(1). 96–118.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In David J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: Essays offered to William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: CUP.
1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin P. Fawcett, M. A. K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture: Vol 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.
Hasan, Ruqaiya, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.). 2007. Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective.
Volume
2
1. London: Equinox.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. On statives and potentives in western Austronesian (mostly Tagalog). In Paul Law (ed.), Proceedings of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 11 (ZAS Papers in Linguistics Nr 34). 103–119.
2006a. Tagalog. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 350–376. London: Routledge.
2006b. How to miss a paradigm or two: Multifunctional ma- in Tagalog. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan C. Dench & Nicholas J. Evans (eds.), Catching language, 487–526. Berlin: Mouton.
Johnston, Trevor. 1992. The realisation of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language. Language Sciences 14(4). 317–353.
Martin, J. R. 1981.
conjunction and continuity in Tagalog. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics, 310–336. London: Batsford.
1983. Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 45–74.
1988. Grammatical conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, face and fate – with reference to Benjamin Lee Whorf. In James D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings & William S. Greaves (eds.), Linguistics in a systemic perspective, 243–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1990. Interpersonal grammatization: Mood and modality in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 21(1). 2–51.
1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1993. Clitics. In Andrew Gonzalez (ed.), Philippine Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 237–240. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
1995a. Logical meaning, interdependency and the linking particle {-ng/na} in Tagalog. Functions of Language 2(2). 189–228.
1996a. Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Eduard H. Hovy & Donia R. Scott (ed.), Computational and Conversational Discourse, 39–66. Heidelberg: Springer.
1996b. Transitivity in Tagalog: A functional interpretation of case. In Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin P. Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 229–296. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
1996c. Metalinguistic diversity: The case from case. In Ruquaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), 323–372. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2004b. Prosodic ‘structure’: Grammar for negotiation. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 461. 41–82.
2008. What kind of structure? Interpersonal meaning and prosodic realisation across strata. Word 59(2). 113–143.
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause, 2nd revised edn. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
Martin, J. R., Pin Wang & Yongsheng Zhu. 2013. Systemic Functional Grammar: A next step into the theory – Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1988. Representational issues in systemic functional grammar. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Functional approaches to discourse, 136–175. Norwood, N J: Ablex.
1992. Interpreting the textual metafunction. In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics, 37–81. London: Pinter.
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & M. A. K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic Functional Grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Canzhong Wu. 2008. Multilingual studies in a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 146–220. London: Continuum.
McGregor, William B. 1990. The metafunctional hypothesis and syntagmatic relations. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 41. 5–50.
Pike, Kenneth Lee. 1982. Linguistic concepts: An introduction to Tagmemics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Poynton, Cate. 1990. The privileging of representation and the marginalising of the interpersonal: A metaphor (and more) for contemporary gender relations. In Terry Threadgold & Anne Cranny-Francis (eds.), Feminine/masculine and representation, 231–255. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. In Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Celio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday (Philippine Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph Issues No. 4), 214–231. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
. 1976. The Subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 491–518. New York, NY: Academic Press.
. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Saddock (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 279–306. New York, NY: Academic Press.
. 1995. The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 151. 51–52.
. 2008. Tagalog (Revised by Lawrence A. Reid). In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages (2nd edn), 833–855. London: Routledge.
Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organisation: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP.
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2006. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese.
Vols.
1 & 2
1. London: Continuum.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
Cheng, Shi
Li, Dongqi
Martin, J. R. & Y. J. Doran
Figueredo, Giacomo
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Cruz
Martin, J. R., Beatriz Quiroz & Giacomo Figueredo
Rudge, Luke A.
Zhang, Dongbing
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Angela T. Cruz
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Angela T. Cruz
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
