THE APPLICATION OF SFLS

TO SACRED TEXT
Quranic Verses as an Example

Hassan S. ALDOSSARY

@Hassan S. ALDOSSARY
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Hallidays Contributions ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Systemic Functional Linguistics Terminology............................................................................................................. 4
I. The Ideational Metafunction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1. Material Verbs................................................................................................................................................ 4
2. Projecting Verbs ............................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Relational Verbs ............................................................................................................................................. 5
II. The Interpersonal Metafunction ................................................................................................................... 5
III. The Textual Metafunction ............................................................................................................................. 5
Choosing the Targeted Text .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Analysing the Text ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Outcome: What Is Concluded ..................................................................................................................................... 10
References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11

1
Introduction

In order to expand the circle of research in written discourse, an attempt to apply Systemic Functional

Linguistics to a sacred text has been an interest. It is worth examining that type of texts using the

aforementioned approach and validating its application, whether it would prove beneficial or not. I have

chosen some Quranic verses in particular to exemplify one type of holy texts and test the SFLs approach.

Systemic Functional Linguistics, abbreviated as SFLs, is an approach to linguistics that considers language

as a social semiotic system. Michael Halliday, who took the notion of system from his teacher, J. R. Firth,

developed it. SFLs consists of two features, they are 1) systemic, in that it considers language as a network

of interrelated systems or set of choices for expressing meaning, and 2) functional, which deals with what

language does and how language works, giving languages structure less attention (Halliday, 1977), which

is the focus of other theoretical schools, i.e. Generative School.

Hallidays Contributions

Halliday is a renowned linguist for his grammatical description and theory, presented in his book An

Introduction to Functional Grammar, originally authored in 1985. A later and revised edition was released

in 1994, and then followed by a third edition, in which he and Christian Matthiessen co-authored in 2004.

However, Hallidays notion of grammar or "lexicogrammar" (a term he coined to argue that lexis and

grammar are part of the same phenomenon) is built on a broader theory of language as a social semiotic

resource, or a meaning potential. Halliday adopts Hjelmslev and Firths view in differentiating between

the two categories of descriptive and theoretical linguistics (Halliday, 2005). He argues that theoretical

categories, and their inter-relations, interpret an intangible type of language and they are intertwining and

conjointly describing (Halliday, 2005). The theoretical structure originates from efforts on the depiction of

natural discourse, and intrinsically there is a fine line drawn between theoretical linguistics and applied

linguistics (Halliday, 2002). Therefore, the theory is persistently progressing as it is employed in order to

2
find solutions for problems of a research or practical nature (Halliday, 2005). In an attempt to contrast,

Halliday distinguishes between the two categories: theoretical and descriptive, described as "categories set

up in the description of particular languages" (Halliday, 2005). English and Chinese have been the focus of

his descriptive work.

Halliday discards openly the assertions about language related to the generative convention. He argues that

language cannot be associated with the combination of all grammatical sentences, whether that combination

is perceived of as finite or infinite (Halliday, 1985). He does not accept the usage of a) formal logic in the

theories of linguistics as irrelevant to language comprehension and b) the usage of such approaches as

detrimental for linguistics (Halliday, 1995). Regarding Chomsky, he marks that unreal difficulties were

produced by the total successions of oppositions that Chomsky presented, or assumed unproblematic: not

only syntax/semantics but also grammar/lexis, language/thought, competence/performance. Once these

dichotomies had been set up, the problem arose of locating and maintaining the boundaries between them

(Halliday, 1995).

Methodology

I have started by including a general introduction about SFLs, what it is about and some development it has
gone through. Then I specifically included a part about Halliday, and how he and his influencer developed
the systemic functional linguistics.

After that, I have provided some terminology explanations regarding SFLs basic terms and the main
categories each element involves. Following the explanation, I have chosen the holy text, which is from the
Holy Quran, two verses take from chapter 31 (Luqman), verses 14-15.

In the following sections, I started the analysis process, providing explanations on the process, source text
and then the target text.

For the rest of the essay, I provided a commentary on some of the limitations when applying the SFLs
approach to this this text.

3
Systemic Functional Linguistics Terminology

In this section, the process of analysis will start using the three metafunctions of SFLs and they are:

1) Ideational, 2) Interpersonal, and 3) Textual, in accordance with the Contextual Parameters and

Lexicogrammar. Before commencing the analysis, we need to comprehend what the metafunctions,

contextual parameters and lexicogrammar features are.

I. The Ideational Metafunction

It is concerned with objects, actions and participants in certain circumstances. The objects can be real or

imaginary, concrete or abstract, e.g. car, aliens, loveetc. In other words, it is the lexis (vocabulary)

representing these objects, traditionally the nominal group. It also covers actions, events, or states (verbs),

e.g. run, eat, swimetc., and are referred to as processes in SFLs, traditionally the verbal group, which

in return require a kind of participants or interactants performing actions, i.e. he, she, weather. All of these

elements must have a space or circumstances which contain them in order to establish functioning texts,

i.e. how, when, where. Consequently, these elements, objects, processes, participants, and circumstances,

are bound to interact with one another to be meaningful. Therefore, they necessitate a logical connection

between them all, referred to as the logical component. Moreover, the ideational metafunction overlaps

with the contextual parameter of field (which answers the questions: what is the purpose of the interaction?

About what?), involving the lexicogrammar features when using them, i.e. lexis (vocabulary) and transitivity

(types of processes/verbs). The core of the SFLs lies in the different types of processes, which are the focus

of the functional aspect of this theory (Tamer, 2014). These types can be grouped into the following:

1. Material Verbs

Material verbs can be categorised as doing and happening verbs. This includes actions, activities and events.

As well as the term Material these verbs can also be termed Behavioural Processes. Both can be used to

portray experiences in the external world but Behavioural Processes relate more to physiological and

psychological behaviour (Butt, 2000; Ruddick, 2014).

4
 2. Projecting Verbs
Projecting verbs can be categorized as Mental and Verbal. Mental verbs refer to cognition, emotion,

intention and perception (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997). These verbs encapsulate the inner mind and

consciousness. Verbal Processes are verbs of saying (Thompson, 2004, p.100) and encode the physical act

of speaking (Ruddick 2014).

3. Relational Verbs
Relational Processes can be sub-divided into Existential and Relational verbs. Existential Processes are

identified by the use of is, are, was, were and signal the existence of a relationship between two concepts

(Thompson, 2004, p.96). The function of Relational verbs is to identify one entity in favour of another

(Thompson, 2004, p.96). The use of was, were, have, felt and belong to are typical of these processes

(Ruddick 2014).

II. The Interpersonal Metafunction

This metafunction deals with the relationships between participants in written and spoken texts. It is related

to the situational context of tenor, which is concerned with the interactants or participants, answering the

questions who and whom. They feature the following: 1) mood of verbs/processes, 2) modality, dealing

with ability, permission, probabilityetc. and 3) person, showing connections between speakers/writers and

listeners/readers in a text (personal or impersonal) (Tamer, 2014).

III. The Textual Metafunction

This metafunction deals with how a text is constructed or organised, i.e. what holds it together. It goes in

accordance with the contextual parameter of the mode, dealing with lexicogrammar features such as

cohesion (linking between text units, e.g. personal pronouns such as they and theiretc.), theme (a topic of

text, e.g. pollution) and rheme or thematic development (elaboration of/contributions to text) (Tamer, 2014).

5
Choosing the Targeted Text
To apply different levels of analysis of SFLs, I have chosen verses from a chapter with different yet related

contexts. They are extracted from chapter 31 (Luqman), verses 14-15. The different levels of analysis used

in SFLs are: 1) metafunctions, and 2) lexicogrammar. All the levels will be applied in relation with

contextual parameters (field, tenor, and mode) in order to see how they deal with the selected verses.

Analysing the Text

After the elaboration of the aforementioned metafunctions, contextual parameters and lexicogrammar

aspects, we are now going to analyse the selected text. Here are the verses and their translation below:

Source text



And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore
Target text him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two
years, give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination.

Source text






But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of
which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world
Target text
kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience.
Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do.
Fig. 1. Verses taken from chapter 31:14-15

For the first verse, its field is about parents, how a person should treat them, and why it is important to be

good to them considering all hardships they have struggled to overcome in raising their children, with more

attention giving to the mother in particular. All of that is evident in the lexis used: parents, mother, bore,

hardship, weakness, weaning. The meaning is conveyed by and to participants tenor which is one

parameter of the contextual parameters that specifically deals with the relationship(s) between the

participants in a context, spoken or written. The participants are overt and covert (particularly in the source

text) and in the translation they include: We, man, his parents, his mother, him, Me, and your parents. By

examining the relationship between the participants, we find that the speaker is God (Allah), representing

Himself with the collective pronoun We (an independent clitic pronoun in English, while it is an enclitic
6
 pronoun in Arabic, dependant on nouns, prepositions and verbs, which is the case here) and accusative case

Me, commending people, man, to respect their parents and treat them well. Following these contextual

parameters, the intended meaning of the text is constructed in systemic pattern, and that is referred to as the

mode of the text. The use of the verbal process clause have enjoined can be clearly seen at the initial part

of the first verse. However, a shift in the mode from the initial part to the second part using the (mood)

exclusive imperative process clause give thanks, followed by another shift using the relational process

clause unto Me is the final destination. Transitioning from analysing the target text to the source text, we

will try to see how the ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions deal with it.

Source text


Material
Ideational Circumstance Actor Goal Goal Verbal process + actor
process + goal
in weakness
Back and hardship His to his And have enjoined on We
bore him man
translation upon weakness mother parents (to be dutiful and good)
and hardship
in weakness and
have man (to be
to his His hardship upon
Target text And We enjoined dutiful and bore him
parents, mother weakness and
on good)
hardship
Verbal Material
ideational Actor Goal Goal Actor Goal Circumstance
process process

Fig. 2. Comparison between the analyses of the two texts

By comparison, we see that there are differences between the source and target texts, mainly in the

functionality of the mood and the structure. In English, pronouns are not affixed to verbs nor are they

attached to prepositions, whereas in Arabic it is not the case and means of affixation of enclitic pronouns

can be seen, featuring a characteristic of the language and how it functions when conveying meaning in its

structure.

7
Regarding the other verse, the analysis is as follows:

Source


text
Behavioural Behavioural material
Relational Behaver +
process + process + process Subjunctive
Ideational circumstance process + behavioural
behaver + behaver + + actor (conditional)
identifier process
behaver behaver + goal
that of
to join
Back and which for strive they
in the life Then obey in
accompany you no with you to And if
translation kindly them not worship
them knowledge make you
by me
of
others that
they (both)
Target of which join in
in the world but behave obey them strive with
you have worship But if
text kindly with them not then you to make
no with Me
you
knowledge
Fig. 3 Analysis of chapter 31:15

As can be seen from the analysis above, this verse has multiple processes and structures for conveying

specific meaning or message(s). It includes a contrastive clause, conditional clause, prohibition, negation

and imperative modes/moods. All of these vary in terms of the function and the processes they are

concerned with. Consequently, this proves to be challenging when attempting to classify this verse into a

process, even more categorising them all into one single process clause type. I have suggested to include a

separate and independent process type category, namely Compound/Multi-Process Clause, to cover such

anomaly.

Limitations

When SFLs is applied to the holy text taken from the Holy Quran, there are a number of limitations that can

hinder the process. These are the resulting conclusions following this analysis exclusively. For instance,

SFLs does not take into account the Islamic monotheism, which establishes that God cannot be personified,

represented, compared to and with, exemplified, pictured, portrayed, or depicted in any way for God is

absolutely incomprehensible (Al-Othaimeen, 2006). The only way to comprehend Gods existence is

8
through Gods attributes, actions and names (Al-Othaimeen, 2006). So, it is not acceptable to apply the

same psychological, physiological, behavioural, material, and even the verbal aspects of humans and then

apply to God, resulting in inevitable controversies. However, it is only applicable to apply SFLs to some

very limited and restricted texts found in some Hadiths (Prophets Mohammads sayings and actions) which

include some of Allahs actions, attributes and names, giving that there is more flexibility when translating

the Hadiths. Nevertheless, it is still a very limited application of the theory for the aforementioned reasons,

and it could be the case with holy texts in general, the Holy Quran in particular. The ability of the structure

to formulate, influence and create thought and sense in a serious issue when dealing with Quranic verses,

particularly the verses deals with Gods existence.

Another limitation could be that SFLs is not compatible with different languages structures. In the previous

examples (see fig.2-3), the different categories did not necessarily match that of the English structure model,

as Arabic and English originated from different language families. These structural differences showed a

kind of inaccuracies when applied to the Arabic texts. It can be seen clearly in the word order, roots,

lexemes and the different participants, e.g. actors, behavers, goalsetc. Such inconsistency could result in

misrepresentation or inaccurate application of the SFL approach to the Arabic texts. As a result, this may

necessitates some modification to this approach in order to have wider range of implications on different

languages.

One major limitation is its incompetence to unify multi-process complex sentences. This is seen in verse

31:15 (fig. 3) when it has different structure, different meaning and messages. This verse contains a

conditional clause, relative clause, behavioural process, prohibitive, negative, directiveetc., with different

types of participants. One process may not suffice to fully and accurately analyse the text, an issue that

could lead to confusion when dealing with the analysis.

While it may seem a positive point when working on a simple text, it can be quite difficult to deal with more

complex clauses. In the first verse, it tends to be more direct when it addresses readers, with a less number
9
of process. However, the second verse has a more complex structure, multiple processes involved and

inadequate approach application to amend the anomalies and differences in the structures from English to

Arabic.

Outcome: What Is Concluded

To conclude, the SFLs approach may not be perfect for every type of text, however, it can be used to

examine how a text works and functions to convey intended messages and meanings. A further research in

this field in Arabic in particular would definitely stretch out the application of this approach to the Quranic

text in particular and increase the accuracy rate of the approach. Not only it can be used to analyse holy text,

but it can also be used on different types of texts, i.e. poetry, proseetc., to see the strengths and weakness

of it.

10
References

1. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Spinks, S. and Yallop, C., 2000. Using Functional Grammar: An Explorers Guide.
Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University
2. Firth, J.R. 1968. Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952-1959. London: Longman. p183.
3. Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. Introduction: How Big is a Language? On the Power of Language. In The
Language of Science: Volume 5 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Edited by J.J.Webster. London and
New York: Continuum. p. xv-xi.
4. Halliday, M.A.K. 2003. Introduction: On the "architecture" of human language. In On Language and
Linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by Jonathan Webster. London
and New York: Continuum.
5. Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. A Personal Perspective". In On Grammar, Vol. 1 in The Collected Works, p. 12.
6. Halliday, M.A.K. 1995. "A Recent View of 'Missteps' in Linguistic Theory". In Functions of Language
2.2. Vol. 3 of The Collected Works, p. 236.
7. Halliday, M.A.K. 1992. Systemic Grammar and the Concept of a Science of Language. In Waiguoyu
(Journal of Foreign Languages), No. 2 (General Series No. 78), pp1-9. Reprinted in Full in Volume 3 in
The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum. p. 209.
8. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Systemic Background. In "Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1: Selected
Theoretical Papers" from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop, James D. Benson and William S.
Greaves (eds). Ablex. Reprinted in Full in Volume 3 in The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday.
London: Continuum. p. 186.
9. Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. Reprinted in full in Linguistic
Studies of Text and Discourse. Volume 2 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Edited by J, J.
Webster. London and New York: Continuum. pp. 2381.
10. Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. Categories of the Theory of Grammar. Word. 17 (3). pp241-92. Reprinted in
Full in On Grammar: Volume 1 of the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London and New York:
Continuum. P. 40-52.
11. Ruddick, M., 2014. Comparative Analysis of Two Texts Using Hallidays Systemic Functional
Linguistics. | Michael Ruddick - Academia.edu. Retrieved January 02, 2015, from
https://www.academia.edu/3230814/A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Two_Texts_Using_Hallidays_Syste
mic_Functional_Linguistics
12. Tamer, Youssef, Ph. D., 2014. Lecture on Systemic Functional Linguistics.
13. 1427 10
.2006\12\1

11