Plenary speakers

Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen

SFL Accessibility across disciplinary, professional and modes of communication borders  

One of the key features of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is that it views language as a resource, and the same applies to other semiotic systems: people are multi-semiotic meaning-makers using all the semiotic resources at their disposal. This image of language has had very far-reaching implications for the engagement with it; notably, it is theorized holistically in terms of paradigmatic organization, represented by means of system networks; it is interpreted as a meaning potential — a resource for making meaning; meaning is conceptualized functionally — the spectrum of the metafunctional modes of meaning; and descriptions of particular languages are developed with comprehensiveness as a key consideration. 

While these and other aspects of the approach to language in SFL pioneered by Halliday and colleagues starting over 60 years ago were out of phase with dominant strands in linguistics during the 1960s through the 1980s, and even beyond, the intellectual environment has changed quite dramatically since the 1960s: in this talk, I will highlight how SFL now resonates with systems thinking and network science, with ecological approaches, with usage-based theories of language, with the emphasis on positive impacts and “knowledge transfer” from universities to the communities they serve. In short, the general climate is much more conducive to SFL as appliable linguistics. 

At the same time, SFL itself is being developed as a resource for reflecting and doing — not as a rule system for modelling language as a rule system. In this talk, I will show how SFL can be represented a resource, and discuss the “registerial adaptations” of SFL to different contexts of use — the aspects of SFL “at risk” in varied applications in different institutional settings, but also potential dialogues with other strands in linguistics and neighbouring disciplines (“transdisciplinarity”). In relation to other resources for research and application, we can locate SFL by undertaking metalinguistic cartography so that we can identify areas of complementarity and overlap (e.g. by modelling the stratification of the SFL metalanguage). This involves considering the choice between eclecticism and metatranslation (into SFL) as strategies used in projects involving members from different areas of academic and professional expertise.

Jorge Arús Hita

SFL Visibility and accessibility to/across languages, linguistic disciplines and academic profiles 

It can be argued that if a theoretical model is not visible, it is as if it did not exist, and if it is visible but not accessible, it might as well not exist. In this light, my talk addresses some of the issues raised in the conference’s CFP, namely the visibility and accessibility of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) across languages, as well as across linguistic disciplines and academic profiles. For each of these three areas, key aspects will be identified, assessing how much has been, or is being, done, and suggesting possible courses of action to make SFL more visible and accessible in those remits. Concerning the visibility and accessibility of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) across languages, we will look, for instance, at the extent to which SFL has been made available in different languages either through typological descriptions and/or the translation/adaptation of key SFL texts. But this is not enough; the accessibility of the theory can be enhanced by means of communities of practice, which may range from research groups within institutions to SFL associations in a country or regional area, to mailing lists such as Sysfling, where researchers can quickly access specific information on SFL-related issues.

Regarding its presence in the different linguistic disciplines, SFL principles have been integrated into various areas of research and education, including Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, Foreign Language Teaching, Language Typology or Computer Science, to name but a few, whether in isolation or in combination with other models. Despite the interdisciplinary nature of SFL, more efforts are still needed to make the theory more visible to other theoretical models, notably by its presence in non-eminently systemic conferences and publishing outlets, to debunk the myth that SFL is impermeable to the work done by researchers in other frameworks.

As for the third remit, much of the previous applies here, too. Making the theory available to speakers of different languages as well as to researchers in different disciplines and linguistic theoretical models will enhance its visibility in the academic community. Additionally, an important question to be asked is: how can the SFL community help young researchers? An obvious way is through the creation of postgraduate programs with a systemic orientation. These may give senior SFL researchers an opportunity to share their knowledge with the new generations, thus ensuring the theory’s growth and long-term vitality. At a more modest scale, systemic conferences and SFL-friendly publication outlets could attract young talent by providing them with assistance in improving their abstracts, manuscripts, etc, rather than subjecting them to the blunt acceptance vs. rejection dichotomy often characterizing the academic evaluation system. While some steps exist in this direction, more joint efforts are needed to move forward in this regard. 

Cornelia Saurer  

Multilingualism in systemic functional linguistics. A pragmatic approach

In diverse social environments encompassing multiple languages, the selection of a particular language serves varying purposes. This choice is primarily influenced by the immediate context and is guided by both the organic rules of communication, as seen in scenarios like neighboring individuals in Transylvania coexisting for years, each speaking their own language yet comprehending each other effortlessly, and by structured administrative norms, as observed in the administration of the Swiss Confederation where individuals are allowed to communicate in their preferred language while ensuring mutual comprehension for seamless and clear message conveyance.

What factors influence the speaker's language preference and intentions? Can the use of linguistic mechanisms hinder or promote the acquisition of an additional language? How does the speaker determine their language choice (Trask and Stockwell, 2007) and what drives this decision-making process? Furthermore, how does communication operate within this framework? In what ways is the essence of the message preserved, and how does the relationship to the dominant culture and language affect this communication? Is the selection of a language in multilingual social contexts a deliberate semiotic process (Halliday, 1978) or an instinctive, mimetic choice? Additionally, how do individuals navigate daily social interactions (Eggins, 2005) in such multilingual settings, considering both historical and contemporary perspectives?

Traversing from Transylvania to Switzerland, with a meticulous examination of language policies and their pragmatic implementation within the European Community, alongside insights into the waning dominance of hegemonic languages in regions such as Algeria or China, prompts an inquiry into whether linguistic proficiency is primarily an act of manifesting inherent meaning or merely a trend-driven decision. Is the intent behind the language choice utilization closely intertwined with the objectives of language acquisition?