See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310915332

Systemic Functional Analysis of English and Arabic : A Contrastive Study

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 3,141

2 authors:

Fareed Hameed Al-hindawi Hani Al-Ebadi

Islamic University/ Babel Affiliation University of Thi-Qar
112 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A book titled: Pragmatic Analysis of Political Data View project

A Critical Pragmatic Approach to American Racial Discourse. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fareed Hameed Al-hindawi on 22 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

Systemic Functional Analysis of English and Arabic: A

Contrastive Study
Prof. Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi (Ph.D.)
Babylon University/College of Education for Human Sciences
fareedhameed3@gmail.com
Asst.Lect. Hani Kamel Al-Ebadi
Thi-Qar University/College of Education for Human Sciences
hanialebadi700@gmail.com

Abstract:
This study adopts the Hallidayn (1964) Systemic Functional Grammar to analyze
English and Arabic languages. Accordingly, it compares between the findings of the
analysis in relation to the two languages in question. This means that this work aims at
finding the differences and similarities between those languages in terms of their
functional systems. Besides, it tests the success of the theory in question in its
applicability to the analysis of English as well as Arabic. In accordance with these aims,
this work hypothesizes that English and Arabic are similar rather than different in their
main functional systems at the level of metafunctions. As such, this study limits itself to
the investigation of Halliday's metafunctions in the two languages. The findings of the
analysis validate the hypotheses of the study.

1. Introduction
The theory of Systemic Functional Grammar (henceforth SFG)
represents a functional perspective of analyzing language. It views
language as a resource that is mainly shaped by the uses that interactants
make of it; it therefore targets to explain the forms of language in terms of
the meanings that they express, and to develop a grammar which is
designed to ‘make it possible to say sensible and useful things about any
text, spoken or written’ (Halliday 1994: xv). Natural languages are the
scope of applying this approach. Halliday's approach proves its
applicability to analyze English at its beginning. Moreover, it promises a
new horizon in the analysis of languages in relation to the social functions
of languages. As far as Arabic language is concerned, no real attempts have
been done to apply the Hallidayn approach to analyze it. A matter which
underlies the current study to add little in this regard by carrying out this
attempt to analyze Arabic in terms of Halliday's approach.
2.Metafunctions of Language
SFG, as Thompson (2009: 226) states, emphasizes function rather
than structure. Its objective is to show how wordings are utilized in
performing meanings. A linguistic form appears less significant than the
function which it serves in the sentence. In this regard, Halliday recognizes
three functions of SFG including ideational, interpersonal and textual.

193
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

3. Systemic Functional Grammar of English

3.1Realization of Ideational Metafunction in English
In the Ideational metafunction, the clause is seen as representation. It
involves two components: experiential meaning and logical meaning
(Halliday &Matthiessen, 2014: 105).
3.1.1 Experiential Meaning
The experiential meaning is represented by transivity system
encompasses process type, participants and circumstances. Six process
types are recognized including material, mental, relational, behavioural,
verbal and existential which are realized by verbal groups(Reed, 1997, 69;
Halliday &Matthiessen, 2014: 105).
3.1.1.1 Material Processes
Material processes (henceforth MP) are onesof doingexpressingthat
some entity does something to some other entity. They can be concrete and
abstract events (Halliday, 1994: 111). The following example illustrates:
(1) The mayordissolved (MP) the committee.
Generally, the performance of MPs may entail four participants such
as actor, goal, range and beneficiary(henceforth Ac, Go, Ra & Be
respectively) (Eggins, 2004: 216). Acstands for the obligatory agent of the
process whereas the other ones are optional (Halliday, 1994: 144).
Theentity at whom the process is directed or extendedis Go. Ra expresses a
restatement or continuation of the action or event expressing the extent or
range of the process (ibid., 2004: 218):
(2) You (Ac) just give (MP) me (Go) a whistle (Ra).
The last entity is Be. It is the one to whom or for whom the process is
said to take place. It appears in material and verbal processes, and
occasionally in relational (Halliday, 1994: 144). It is of two kinds:when
something is given, it is calledrecipient (henceforth Re), and when
something is done, it is client (henceforth Cl) (ibid.). The following
example illustrates:
(3) They (Ac) give (MP) you (Cl) a cognate (Go).
3.1.1.2 Mental Processes
According to Halliday (ibid.: 117),mental processes (henceforth MeP)
encode meanings of thinking or feeling expressed by three types of verbs:
cognition, affection and perception. In addition, they havetwo participants:
Senser and Phenomenon (henceforth Se &Phe). The formershould be a
conscious participant who feels, thinks or perceives.The latter is one that is
thought, felt or perceived by Se and they always be in the clause as in 4
below: (4) She (Se) believed(MP) his excuse(Phe).
3.1.1.3 Behavioural Processes
Halliday (ibid.: 139) states that behavioural processes (henceforth BP)
are ones of physiological and psychological behaviour, like breathing,

194
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

coughing, dreaming. In terms of participants, these processes have one

obligatory participant, behaver, (henceforth Beh) and is typically a
conscious being, but they may contain a second participant, Phe,expressing
a restatement of the process:
(5) George (Beh) sniffed (BP) the soup (Phe).
3.1.1.4 Verbal Processes
Verbal processes (henceforth VP) are those of 'saying' in whichfour
possible participants including sayer, receiver, verbiage and
target(henceforth Sa, Re, Ve&Ta respectively) may be used. Sa is the
initiator of the process which is not necessarily an unconscious being. Re is
the entity to whom VP is conducted. Ve is a nominalized statement of
VPexpressing some kind of verbal behaviour. It may be the content of what
is said or the name of the saying. Finally, Ta is the entity that is targeted by
the process of saying (ibid.: 142). The following example clarifies:
(6) She (Sa) always praised (VP) him (Ve) to her friends (Ta).
3.1.1.5 Relational Processes
Relational processes (henceforth RP) are classified into attributive and
identifying processes. In addition, both subclassified into intensive,
circumstantial and possessive.
3.1.1.5.1 Intensive Relational Processes
An intensive attributiverelational process (henceforth IARP) indicates
a relationship between two entities and it is performed by the verb 'be' or a
synonym.The first entity is carrier (henceforth Ca) which is realized by a
noun or nominal group. Thesecond participant is attributive (henceforth
Att) whichrepresents a quality, classification or descriptive assigned to
Ca(Halliday, 1994: 203) as in (7):
(7) Diana (Ca) is (AIRP)a talkative dinner guest (Att).
On the other hand, the intensive identifying processes (henceforth IIP)
areones ofdefining. In this type of process, the participants token and value
(henceforth To &Va respectively) are involved. Torefers to what is being
defined while Va stands for that which defines, and both are realized by
definite nominal groups (ibid.: 242) as in (8):
(8) Married women (To) are (IIP) the real victims (Va).
3.1.1.5.2Circumstantial Relational Processes
The second subsystem of RP is the circumstantial relationalprocess.
They encode meanings about location, time, reason, etc. In the attributive
circumstantial relational process (henceforth ACRP), the processis often
expressed in Att. While the verb remains intensive, Att will be a
prepositional phrase or an adverb of location, manner, cause, etc.
(9) The bomb (Ca) was (RP) in her luggage (Att: ACRP of location).
Besides, the circumstantial meaning can beconveyedby the process
itself. In this case, the process is specified as CRP (Eggins, 2004: 246)
example (10) illustrates (ibid.):

195
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

(10) The operation lasted (ACRP) one hour.

With identifying circumstantial process (henceforth ICP), its meaning
may be encoded by both the participantor the process. When its meaning is
transmitted by the participant, both the To and the Vaare circumstantial
factors of time, place, etc., while the verb remains intensive (ibid.) as in:
(11) Yesterday(To:Cir of time) was (RP) the last time Di gave blood
(Va:ICP of time).
3.1.1.5.3 Possessives Relational Processes
Possessive relational processes(henceforth PRP) are of attributive and
identifying. They encode meanings of ownership and possession between
clausal participants. In attributive possessives, possession may be encoded
through the participantspossessor (henceforth Po) and the process
remaining intensive (ibid.: 247) as the following example shows:
(12) This (Ca) is (RP) yours (Att:Po).
Possession may also be encoded through the process, the commonest
Attributive possessive verbs being 'to have' and 'to belong to'. Typically
Cawill be possessed (ibid.).
3.1.1.6 Existential Processes
Existential processes (henceforth EP)indicate that something exists or
happens. Their structure embodies the utilization of the word 'there' with no
representational meaning, but mayutilize the equivalents of 'be' such as
'exist, arise or occur'. In this type, 'there' meetsno functional label because it
does nothave any representational meaning. As such, it is left unanalyzed
for transitivity. Another participant may occur in EPs is existent
(henceforth Ex). It is the object or the event which is being said to exist and
it can be any kind of phenomenon (Eggins, 2004: 238) as in:
(13) There was (EP) snow (Ex) on the ground (Cir of location).
3.1.1.7 Circumstances
In addition to the participants, processes may also be associated with
the system of circumstances(henceforth Cir), typically recognized by
adverbials, prepositional and participial phrases. The system of Cir
includes seven terms: extent, accompaniment, location, matter, manner,
role and cause. When the system is entered, one and only one of these
terms must be chosen (Graber, 2001: 16). The examples of this system
occurs in (11 & 13) above.
3.1.2 Logical Meaning
Together with the experiential meaning, logical meaning is the second
element of the ideational metafunction. It is the logical structure of the
clause complex (Eggins, 2004: 254). In other words, a series of clauses
isbind together by a diversity of logical relations. Such chains of relations
are called'logical meaning'. It involves two subsystems:taxis and logico-
semantic systems.

196
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

3.1.2.1 Taxis (tactic system)

The tactic system portrays the kind of interdependency connection
between clauses correlated into a clause complex. Two subsystems form
taxis: parataxis (coordination) and hypotaxis (subordination) (ibid.: 255).
3.1.2.1.1 Parataxis
Equal and independent clauses that can occur alone are joined together
to form the paratactic system. It is formed by means of certain paratactic
conjunctions expressing the logical relationship between two clauses.
Besides, they can sometimes joined without explicit markers. The
commonest paratactic conjunctions are 'and, or, so, yet, neither. . . nor,
either….or' (ibid.).
(14) He saw the back of me and I saw a glimpse of a shadow.
3.1.2.1.2 Hypotaxis
Hypotaxis reflects subordinating relations between clauses. One
clause is dependent on the main one. Within this system, structural markers
should be used explicitly with exception when these clauses are structurally
defective such as non-finite ones. The most common hypotactic
conjunctions include 'if, while, became, when' (ibid.).
(15) I was shot in the back while walking home one dry moonless night in
1968.
3.1.2.2 Logico-Semantic System
The second subsystem of the lexical meaning is one that deals with the
specific kind of meaning relationship between joined clauses. It in turn
offers two options: projection and expansion.
3.1.2.2.1 Projection System
Projection clauses indicate relations of quoting and reporting. The
former refers to locution or what is projected while the latter stands for the
idea or what is thought (Eggins, 2004: 271).
(16) I thought to myself that it was so exciting.
3.1.2.2.2 Expansion System
In addition to quoting and reporting, other types of relations among
clauses are expressed within logico-semantic system by means of the
expansion system.It shows relations of development and extension where
the main clause is developed or extendedby another. Expansions consists of
three main options: elaboration, extension and enhancement (Eggins, 2004:
279).
Elaboration stands for connections of restatement or equivalence,
further specification or description. The task can be done by three ways:
exposition, exemplification and clarification.Expositive clauses elaborate
the meaning of the main clauses by clarifying it in different words so as to
introduce it from another point of view or to fortify the message. exemplary
markersof elaboration are 'or (rather), in other words, that is to say'
(ibid.).With clauses of exemplification, a clause develops the meaning of

197
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

the primary clause through its specification. Explicit conjunctions are'for

example, for instance, in particular'. Finally, elaboration is to clarify the
main clause through backing it up with some form of explanation or
explanatory comment. Typical conjunctions include 'in fact, actually,
indeed, at least, what 1 mean is' (ibid.).
Like expansion, extension which indicates relations of new addition
aiming at extending the meaning of the main clause has two further
options: addition and variation. Additive processes are those of linking one
to another. The main markers are additive (and), negative addition (nor) or
adversative (but). One the other hand, variation expresses total or partial
replacement of the main clause in the subordinate. The common
conjunctions are 'or, instead of or except for' (ibid.:282).
Finally,enhancement refers to cases when one clause enhances the
meaning of another by qualifying it by reference to time, space, manner,
cause or condition. Such relations are expressed by markers including
'where, when, because, etc' (ibid.).
3.2 Realization of Interpersonal Metafunction in English
According to SFG, interpersonal metafunction concerns establishing a
relationship among interactants. The clause, at this level, is seen as
exchange. As a system, the interpersonal meaning consists of two
subsystems: giving and demanding information, or giving and demanding
goods or services. These interpersonal roles are realized grammaticallyby
Mood System(henceforth MS) (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014: 97).
3.2.1 Propositions (Exchanging Information)
The grammatical structure of exchanging information is known as
'proposition'. It involves either giving or demanding information.
Generally, both giving or demanding are either affirmed or denied in the
exchange, but it is not always the case. Sometimes there are other cases
among these two extremes 'modalization'.
3.2.1.1 Giving Propositions
Propositions are mainly associated with declarative clause. Statements
can be analyzed by MSwhich in turn has two main constituents of
Mood(henceforth M) and Residue (henceforth R). M of the clause has the
function of carrying the argument while R is less essential to the arguability
of the clause. M has two main constituents: Subject and Finite (henceforth
S & F respectively). S realizes the thing by reference to which the
proposition can be affirmed or denied. On the other hand, F serves to make
the proposition definite, or to anchor the proposition in a way that we can
argue about it. Grammatically, F is identified as the verbal part of the tag
(Eggins, 2004: 153).Consider the following example:
(17) George (S) was (F) reading Henry James, wasn't (F) he (S)?

198
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

Sometimes F and the lexical verb are fused into one word, e.g., writes.
This fusion occurs when the verb is in simple past (wrote), simple present
(writes), active voice, positive polarity and neutral contrast (ibid.: 72).
On the other hand, R contains a number of functional elements: a
Predicator, Complement, Adjuncts(henceforth P, C &Adju respectively)
(ibid.: 155). P is the lexical part of the verbal group. It includes all the
verbal elements of the clause after the single F. C is a non-essential
participantin the clause(ibid.: 157). Adju can be defined asclause elements
which contribute some additional (but non-essential) information to
theclause. They can be identified as elements which do not have the
potential to becomeS(ibid.: 158):
(18) [George (S) was (F)] M[read (P) 'The Bostonians' (C) by
Sivion(Adju:Cir] R.
3.2.1.2 Demanding Propositions
Propositions also has the role of demanding information or questions
and expressed by interrogative and exclamative clauses.English offers two
main structures for asking questions: polar and WH-interrogatives. The
Mstructure of the polar interrogative involves placing F before the S
(ibid.:167). WithWh interrogatives, the Wh-elementmay be conflated with
the subject, the complement or a circumstantial adjunct and is shown as a
constituent of M or R according to the status of the element with which it is
conflated (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014: 160) as in:
(19) [Is (F) Simon (S)] M[reading (P) Henry James (C)] R?
(20) [What (Wh/C)] R[does (F) 'quantum leap' (S)] M [mean (P)] R?
3.2.2 Proposals (Exchanging Goods and Services)
In addition to propositions, speakers also exchange goods and services
or what Halliday call 'proposals'. Interpersonally, they are employed in
interaction to affect other's behaviour.This interpersonal role is subdivided
into two roles: giving goods and services (offer), and demanding goods and
services (command) (ibid.:176). Next sections examine the M structure of
proposals in English.

3.2.2.1 Giving Proposals

Giving proposals represent offers when the clause is used to give
goods and services. In English, offers lack a distinctive structural
configuration. Rather, it depends on the structure of questions: the
interrogative mood, with Fis positioned before S(Eggins, 2004: 178). Some
common offer clauses in English include (1) modulation expressed by F
'will or shall'; (2)modulation expressed in the P 'the lexical verb is a verb of
liking or desiring'; and(3) modulation in a complex P: offers ate also
frequently expressed using a complex modulated P.

199
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

3.2.2.2Demanding Proposals
Demanding for goods and services (or commands) are typically
realized by imperatives. The unmarked positive has no M, it consists of R
(P): the verb form, e.g. look, is P only, with no F. The other forms have a
M element; this consists of S only (you), F only (do, don’t), or F followed
by S (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014: 165).
3.3 Realization of Textual Metafunction in English
In English, the textual metafunction is realized by the system of
Theme encompassing Theme and Rheme (henceforth Th& Rh
respectively).
3.3.1 Theme System
The element of This defined as the point of departure for the message;
what the sentence is goingto be about(Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 64).
It is that part of a message unit that bases a framework for the interpretation
of the rest of the message (Fries, 1995, 58). Due to the metafunctional
structure of the clause, there are three types of Ths in English: topical,
interpersonal and textual Ths (Halliday, 1994: 301).
3.3.1.1Topical Theme
The topical Th is the initial element of the clause that has transitivity
role. It occurs normally in declarative sentences. The remainder of the
clause will be Rh (Eggins, 2004: 308). Sometimes declaratives are
elliptical. In this case, the determination of Th depends on determining
which constituents have beenellipsed.With Wh-questions, the Wh-elements
may conflate with different constituents: S, C or Adju. As all these
conflations involve a participant which plays a transitivity role, Wh
elements which initiate questions will function as topical Ths (ibid.: 310).
With imperatives, P should be treated as a topical Th. With exclamatives,
theWh element will always be a topical Thas is demonstrated by analyzing
it for transitivity.(ibid.: 312):
(21) In most infants (Cir of location/topical Th) there are frequent episodes
of crying with no apparent cause (rheme).
3.3.1.2 Interpersonal Theme
Like topical, interpersonal Th is that initial element which plays an
interpersonal role. The constituentsthatmayserve as interpersonal themes
are the unfused F in questionsand all four types of modal adjuncts: mood,
vocative, polarityand comment (Halliday, 1994: 45; Eggins, 2004: 302).
Again the rest of the clause is Rh. In existentials, although 'there' does not
receive a transitivity label, it is nonetheless described as interpersonal
theme:
(23) Do (Finite: Interpersonal Th) you give blood?
3.3.1.3Textual Theme
Sometimes clauses may not start with topical or interpersonal Ths, but
with a textual one.In English, textual Ths includecontinuity Adju and

200
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

conjunctive Adju (ibid.: 305). Continuity Ths relate what is going on with
what went before. These include 'oh, well, Yea, and no'. Besides, they are
also continuity items when these are not used as stand-ins for clause
ellipsis, but as the first item in a clause (ibid.).Conjunctive Adjus are of two
types. Those which link clauses together within a clause complex, e.g. 'and,
but'which these necessarily come in initiallocation in the clause.The second
type refers to cohesive conjunctions which connect sentences together, e.g.
however, therefore, but they may occur in other positions. Both kinds occur
before the first topical theme in a clause (ibid.: 306).
(24) Oh (Adju: Textual Th), they give you any a cup of tea.
3.3.2Duplicated Themes
English language has two options of thematization. They may use one
or more than one type of Th before the obligatory topical Th:
49. Well (textual Th)at least (textual Th) she (topical Th) didn't get blown
up, Simon(Rh).
3.3.3Marked and Unmarked Theme
The term 'unmarked'stands for 'most typical' while 'marked'refers to
'atypical'(ibid.: 318). Language offers its users two options to highlight
certain elements in their messages.On the one hand, an unmarked Th takes
place when all things are equal. It conflates with the mood structure
element that typically comes in first position in clauses of that mood class
includingS (in a declarative clause), F (in an interrogative), P (in an
imperative) and WH element (in a WH-interrogative).On the other hand, a
marked Th occurs in case things appear unequal marked. It conflates with
any other constituent from the M system other than those mentioned in the
previous paragraph. The marked Th is something other thanS, in a
declarative clause (Bazzi, 2009: 89), Th conflates with Adj:Cir, moving a
circumstantial element to thematic position, repackaging a constituent (e.g.
an actor) as a circumstantial element (typically of matter), and finally
theme predication (ibid.: 318).
4. Systemic Functional Grammar of Arabic
Grammatically,the three metafunctions of SFG in Arabic can be
realized as ideational (fakria)‫فكرية‬, interpersonal (tabadlya)‫ تبادلية‬and textual
(nassya) ‫نصية‬.
4.1 Realization of Ideational Metafunction in Arabic
The ideational meaningof Arabic clauseis divided into experiential
(tajreebi)‫ تجريبي‬and logical (mantuki)‫ منطقي‬meanings.

4.1.1 Experiential Meaning

The experiential meaning of the Arabic clause can be expressed via
transitivity system. Six types of processes (amalyat) ‫العمليات‬or‫ المحموالت‬are

201
 AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

recognized with associated participants (mushtarlkeen) ‫المشتركين‬or ‫الحدود‬and

circumstances (zuruf)‫الظروف‬in Arabic1.
4.1.1.1 Material Process
According to SFG, MPs, in Arabic, are expressed by verbs of doing
such as '‫ ضرب‬,‫ رمى‬,‫'غرس‬.They are separated into those which are produced
by animate participants, named actions, and those which are produced by
inanimate ones, named processes,. Al-Mwtoukel (1986: 45) states that the
former are produced by (un)human entities that control and express actions.
In addition, their initiator observes the action. On the other hand, the latter
are produced external resources which stand for inanimate entities that lack
ability to control the process.Four possible participants may be associated
with this type of processes including Ac, Go, Ra and Be. Al-Mwtoukel
(ibid.: 33) points out that participants in the Arabic clauses may be
obligatory participants (alhdudalmawdhuat‫ )الحدود الموضوعات‬or optional
participants (alhdudalwaheq‫)الحدود اللواحق‬. The following examples
illuatrate:
‫) الطلبة االذكياء‬MP( ‫)بجلت‬25(Zaid ate an apple. .)Go( ‫) التفاحة‬Ac( ‫) زيد‬MP( ‫اكل‬
.)Ra( ‫) قفزا‬Ac( ‫) النمر‬MP( ‫) قفز‬26(I appreciated the clever students..)Cl(
(27)The tiger jumped a jump.
4.1.1.2 Mental Process
MePsrepresent inner feeling of human entities such as happiness,
sadness and fear(Al-Mwtoukel (1986: 45). In Arabic, MePscan be
expressed by what are called'verbs of heart' (Hassan, 2005: 59); they do not
indicate physical actions, but ones of affection, cognition and perception
(Al-Samara'ee, 2000: 6). Such verbs include cognition '‫ رآى‬,‫ علم‬,‫'ظن‬,
affection '‫ رغب‬,‫ فرح‬,‫ 'جبن‬and perception ',‫ سمع‬,‫رأى‬. Verbs of affection have
Se only while Pheis covert. Those of perception have Se and Phe. Finally,
those of cognition have Se, Phe and Cir (ibid.: 10-13).
InArabic, MePsmay be preceded by (‫ )أ‬Hamza(Hassan, 2005: 59).
When this is the case, it turns to be MP or VP. Moreover, Phecan be
embedded withverbs of cognitionexpressing Act Phe(Al-Samerae, 2000:
12).
(28)The sad man becomes happy. .)Se( ‫) الحزين‬MeP( ‫فرح‬
‫)علمت‬29(The friend heard good news..)Phe( ‫) الخبر السار‬Se( ‫) الصديق‬MeP( ‫سمع‬
)30(I knew that right is victory..)Cir( ‫) منتصرا‬Phe( ‫) الحق‬Se ‫) (ت‬MeP(
4.1.1.3 Behavioural Processes
In Arabic, BPs are expressed by verbs of such as ‫ حلم‬,‫ ضحك‬,‫'احمر‬. For
instance, Barakat (2007: 110) states that such processes can be used to
reflect degrees of affection such as power of colour or fault. Besides,

1
The translation of the terms is taken from Nahla (2001)

202
 AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

Barakat (ibid.) adds that these verbs take only one participant since they are
intransitive verbs, the obligatory Be. Hassan (2005: 185) states that these
verbs may have another participant Phe which is the restatement of the
processes 'cognate object'. For instance (ibid.):
(31)The baby cried. .)Be( ‫) الطفل‬BP( ‫بكى‬
)32(The baby cried hard..)Phe( ‫) بكاءا شديدا‬Be( ‫) الطفل‬BP( ‫بكى‬
4.1.1.4 Verbal Processes
In Arabic, VPs can be expressed by explicit verbs such as '‫ ابلغ‬,‫ 'قال‬or
their synonyms such as '‫'اعلم‬. All or some of the four participants can be
utilized in these processes (Ryding, 2005: 425; Aziz, 1989: 888):
(33)I said that Khalid has travelled..)Ver( ‫) مسافرا‬Re( ‫) خالدا‬Sa ‫) (ت‬VP( ‫قلت‬
.)Ve( ‫) صادقا‬Ta( ‫) علي‬Re( ‫) الناس‬Sa( ‫) زيد‬VP( ‫ابلغ‬
(34)Zaid told people that Ali was honest.
4.1.1.5 Relational Processes
These processes are referred to as positions(Al-Mwtoukel, 1995: 87).
In Arabic, this type of processes expressboth attributive and identifying
ones. Each has subtypes of intensive, circumstantial and possessive.
4.1.1.5.1 Intensive Relational Processes
Arabic AIPs are expressed by the nominal sentences, but rarely by
verbal ones. The subject of the sentence is Ca while the predicate stands for
Att which is a description or quality of the Ca (Al-Samara'ee, 2000:
93).Besides, this type can be an identifying process. As such, it takes
Toand Va as participants. Va may be a noun, prepositional phrase or
adverb (ibid.) as in:
)35(Mohammad is active. .)Att( ‫) نشيط‬Ca( ‫محمد‬
(36) The basis of poetry is passion. .)Va( ‫) اساسه العاطفة‬To( ‫الشعر‬
4.1.1.5.2 Circumstantial Relational Processes
This type reflects meanings of time, place, cause, etc. Arabic language
exploits nominal sentences to indicate circumstantial processes. With
ACRP, prepositional phrases and adverbials can be used in the attribute
(Faiadh, 1995: 93).As far as identifying circumstances is concerned, also
prepositional phrases and adverbs may be used as Att (ibid.). Moreover,
circumstantial processes can be encoded by the process (Al-Mwtoukel,
1995: 87) as in:
(37) They boy is at the door..)Att:Cir of location( ‫) في الحجرة‬Ca( ‫الولد‬
As far as ICP is concerned, also prepositional phrases and adverbs
may be used as Attribute (ibid.):
.)Va:Cir of time( ‫) اول ايام السنة الجديدة‬To:Cir of time( ‫غدا‬
(38) Tomorrow is the first day of the new year.

203
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

4.1.1.5.3 Relational Possessive Processes

Possession is usually predicated by means of a preposition or semi-
preposition, and it often is the first element of the sentence. Because the
predication is in the form of a prepositional phrase, the item that is
possessed is in the nominative case, being the subject of an equational
sentence (Ryding, 2005: 61). Besides, it can be expressed by the process
itselfvia the verb '‫'ملك‬:
)39(They have the capacity. .)Att( ‫) القدرة‬Po ‫) (هم‬RP( ‫لديهم‬
(40) He owns a house. .)Att( ‫) بيتا‬Po ‫) (هو‬RP( ‫يمتلك‬
4.1.1.6 Existential Processes
According to Ryding (2005: 61), Arabic EPs can be expressed by
verbs such as '‫ 'يوجد‬and adverbs such as '‫ ثمة‬,‫'هناك‬. Following SFG, ‫ هناك‬and
‫ ثمة‬do not have a transitivity role:
)41(There are many factors. .)Ex( ‫) عوامل كثيرة‬no participant role( ‫هناك‬
)42(There is a man at the door..)Cir of location( ‫) في الباب‬Ex( ‫) رجل‬EP( ‫يوجد‬
4.1.1.7 Circumstances
Hurford (1994: 10) states that “the most typical adverbs add specific
information about time, manner, or place to the meanings of verbs or whole
clauses.” They are, as Stubbs has noted, “an optional element in clause
structure” (Hurford, ibid.: 70). Arabic refers to this optional status as (‫)فضلة‬
‘extra’ or ‘surplus’ parts of a sentence rather than part of the kernel or core
predication (Ryding, 2005: 276).They include adverbs of degree, manner,
place, time, numerical, adverbial accusative of specification, cognate
accusative, adverbial accusative of cause or reason and comparison (ibid.).
In Arabic, circumstances may be objects and thus they receive as another
participant roles.
4.1.2 Logical Meaning
According to SFG, the system of logical meanings in Arabic is
divided into two subsystems taxis and logico- semantics. Next sections
show these relations.
4.1.2.1 Taxis
As indicated earlier (see 3.1.2.1), the tactic system deals with
interdependency relations of clause complex. It includes further two
subsystems: parataxis and hypotaxis.
4.1.2.1.1 Parataxis:
Parataxis,in Arabic, is expressed by coordinative particles such as ' ,‫ ثم‬,‫لكن‬
‫ ف‬,‫ لكن‬,‫ بل‬,‫ أم‬,‫ اما‬and ‫'و‬. Besides, paratactic structures can be linked without
explicit connectives (Aziz, 1989: 210):
)SC( ‫) سلمى مهندسة‬coordinator( ‫) و‬SC( ‫ليلى طبيبة‬
)43(Layla is a doctor and Salma is an engineer.
.)SC( ‫) االرض خضراء‬SC( :‫المناخ معتدل‬

204
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

(44) The weather is moderate. The ground is green.

4.1.2.1.2 Hypotaxis
Hypotactic system expresses dependency relations between clauses
(subordination). Subordinating particles are used in Arabic to reflect this
system. Arabic subordinators are numerous such as '‫ من‬,‫ اي‬,‫ ان‬,‫ اذا‬,‫ متى‬etc.'
(Aziz, 1989: 222):
)PC( ‫) هاجرت الطيور الى الجنوب‬SeC( ‫) جاء الشتاء‬subordinator( ‫اذا‬
(45) When the winter comes, birds migrate to the south.
4.1.2.2 Logico-Semantic System
As far as Arabic is concerned, logico-semantic system can be applied
to show how Arabic clauses are related to each other semantically (see
3.1.2.2).
4.1.2.2.1 Projection System
Clauses of 'saying and thinking' (see 3.1.2.2.1) can be expressed by
using particular particles in Arabic such as (‫)ان‬when used after the verb ‘to
say' (Ryding, 2005: 425) as in:
)46(The coach said that he was satisfied. .‫قال المدرب انه راض‬
)47(The man thought that the problem was easy..‫ظن الرجل ان االمر سهل‬
4.1.2.2.2Expansion System
This system involves three subsystems (see 3.1.2.2.2) including
elaboration, extension or enhancement of its meanings (Eggins, 2004: 279).
Elaboration, in Arabic, can be expressed by means of 'exposition,
exemplification and clarification'. Arabic expresses expositive meanings by
particular particles such as '‫ هل‬,‫'ان‬. These help to restate the meaning of the
main clause in the subordinate one (Aziz, 1989: 223).With exemplification,
Arabic offers a number of particles enabling the secondary clause to
specify the meaning of the main clause. Such particles include ' ‫ على‬,‫بمعنى‬
‫ بكلمة اخرى‬,‫( 'سبيل المثال‬ibid.).Finally, subordinate clauses can clarify the
meanings expressed in the main clause by means of particles such as ' ,‫الذي‬
‫ ان‬,‫ و‬,‫ اظن‬,‫( 'التي‬Aziz, 1989:223-225; Al-Samara'ee, 2000: 119, 289).
The second system of expansion system is extension. According to
SFG, Arabic main clauses can be extended by adding new information
through secondary clauses. Both addition and variation are recognized in
Arabic to perform this function.Additive particles include ',‫ أم‬,‫ و‬,‫ ثم‬,‫ لكن‬etc.'
(Aziz, 1989: 210; Al-Samara'ee, 2000: 265).Particles of variation include
'‫ اال‬,‫( 'غير‬ibid.).
Concerning the third subsystem of expansion, that is of
enhancement, Arabic makes available a variety of means to enhance the
meaning of the main clause through the secondary clause.In Arabic, this
system is expressed by the use of subordinators such as ' ‫ بعد‬,‫ بعدما‬,‫ بينما‬,‫حيث‬
‫ حين‬,‫('ان‬Ryding, 2005: 413-417).

205
 AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

4.2 Realization of Interpersonal Metafunctionin Arabic

Traditionally, Arab rhetoricians deal with interpersonal meaning in
terms of constatives and performatives. In this study, Halliday's approach
of SFG will be applied and thus, it is explained both propositions and
proposals in Arabic.
4.2.1 Proposition (Exchanging Information)
4.2.1.1 Giving Propositions
In Arabic, giving information is realized by declarative sentences
which, asBarakat (2007: 22) defines it, convey some information to the
listener. As far as MS is concerned, Arabichas the following system of
options. The following figure shows2:
Nominal Sentence Before P
S
Verbal Sentence After P
M
Nominal Sentence No F
F
DV

Verbal Sentence Fused F

MS
No P

Nominal Sentence Adju

R C

P (MV)

Verbal Sentence Adju

Figure (1): MS of Giving Proposition in Arabic

Here are some examples illustrate M structure of proposition:
]( ‫محمد‬S)] M[( ‫نشيط‬no P:no F()P:C)[R .Mohammad is active.)48(
2
DV=defective verb

206
 AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

](‫جاء‬P()F)R[](‫محمد‬S) .M[Mohammad came. )49(.

4.2.1.2Demanding Propositions
Aziz (1989: 253-257) states that interrogative clauses are used to seek
information. Generally, there are two main types of interrogatives: polar
and Wh-questions. The following figure illustrates the structure of the MS
of demanding propositions3:

NS Par ‫أ‬,‫ هل‬+ S Adju

Po-Q No F: No P

Fused F

VS Par ‫أ‬,‫ هل‬+ P (fused with F)

MS
Adju

NS Wh-word (etc.,‫ اين‬,‫)متى‬+S: No F: No P

Wh-Q

NS Wh-word+P (fused with F)

Adju

Figure (2): MS of Demanding Propositions in Arabic

The following examples illustrate some of these structures:

](‫أ‬par(‫)علي‬S)M[](‫حاضرا‬Adju)R[ ‫؟‬Is Ali here? (50)
](‫هل‬S)M[]( ‫وصلت‬P)R[](‫الطائرة‬S)M[ ‫؟‬Has the plane arrived? (51)

3
Po-Q=polar question; Wh-Q= wh-question; Par= particle.

207
 AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

](‫اين‬Wh??)R[](‫دائرة البريد‬S) M[ ‫؟‬Where is the post office? (52)

](‫اين‬Wh:C(‫) ذهبت‬P)R[](‫الفتيات‬S)M[ ‫(؟‬53) Where have the girls gone?

4.2.2 Proposals (Exchanging Goods and Services)

4.2.2.1 Giving Proposals

A variety of utterances in Arabic have the function of giving goods and

services including utterances of 'vocation, hope, warning, praise, dispraise
and wish' (Shihad, 2009: 126). These types take different types of clauses in
Arabic including declarative, imperative, exclamative. (Hasaan, 1994: 244;
Al-Maidani, 1996: 224). The following example shows 'vocative':
(54) Pray in time, Mohammad..R[(C)‫) على الصالة‬F(‫حافظ‬M[(Voc/S)]‫]يا محمد‬
4.2.2.2Demanding Proposals
Command stands for demanding goods and services. They also include
the functions of prohibition and warning. In Arabic, they are expressedby
imperative sentences (IbnYaeesh, no date: 58).In addition, the imperative
verb may be preceded by the particle (‫( )ل‬Al-Awsi, 1982: 146). Arabic
imperative clause consists of P followed byC and/or Adju. There is no overt
S associated with imperatives (Aziz, 1989: 82).The following instance
illustrates:
R [C((55) Let's accomplish the work.‫(العمل‬M[F])‫نكمل‬R[P])‫])ل‬
4.3 Realization of Textual Metafunction in ASFG
4.3.1 Theme Types

Like English, Halliday's types of theme are there in analyzing Arabic.

4.3.1.1Topical Theme
In Arabic nominal sentences, the topical Th is the subject and usually
comes first preceding the predicate(Al-Ghalaeeni, 1994: 259; Barakat,
2007: 24; Omer et al., 1994: 235). In verbal ones, it is the subject of the
sentence which is preceded by a verb whether in active or passive voice
(Omer et al., 1994: 407). Imperative sentences do not have overt Th. They
begin with the lexical verb (Qaseem and Deeb, 2003: 283). With elliptical
declarative sentences, the topical Th is guested due to the preceding
linguistic context (Faiadh, 1995: 95) as in:
‫) القاضي‬Ma:Rh( ‫(حكم‬56) The right is victorious..)Att:Rh( ‫) منصور‬Ca:Th( ‫الحق‬
.(57) The judge took a decision. )Ac:Th(
4.3.1.2 Interpersonal Theme

208
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

The interpersonal Th in 'declarative nominal sentence starting with

DVs, Po-Q, declarative with vocative particles, declarative sentences with
warning particles, exclamative sentences and imperative sentences with (‫)ل‬
(Qasim and Deeb, 2003: 283- 311; Al-Qazwini, 2003: 108-138). The
following is an instance of DVs:

.(58) The rain was flowing out.‫) المطر هاطال‬F:interpersonal Th( ‫كان‬
4.3.1.3Textual Theme
According to SFG, initial elements of the sentence that do not have a
transitivity or interpersonal role stand for textual themes. In Arabic, there
are several particles that play such role including coordinator,
subordinators and conjunctive adjuncts (Ryding, 2005: 409, 423; Al-
Samara'ee, 2000: 2/207):
.‫) غادر القاهرة أمس مساعد وزير الدفاع‬conjunctive/textual Th( ‫و‬
(59) And the assistant minister of defense left Cairo yesterday.
4.3.2Duplicated Themes
Ryding (2005: 427) states that, in Arabic, obligatory topical Ths may
be preceded by interpersonal and textual themes.
‫) متفقون بالواقع على‬topical Th‫) (نا‬textual Th ‫) كأننا (كأن‬conjunctive/textual Th( ‫و‬
‫كل شيء‬
(60) As though we actually agreed on everything
4.3.3 Marked and Unmarked Theme
The choice of marked and unmarked Ths has great significance in
Arabic because it performs pragmatic as well as stylistic functions. In
Arabic, unmarked Ths are those that occur initially in nominal sentences as
in (56), after the verb in verbal sentences as in (57), interrogative particles
in interrogative sentences, predicator in verbal imperative sentences,
vocative, warning particles, hope particles and so on (Al-Samara'ee, 2000:
232; Barakat, 2007: 24-27).On the other hand, marked ths may have one of
the following cases (Faiadh, 1995: 95,99,105; Omer et al,. 1994: 339; ):
1. C or Adju are marked Ths when they precedes the subject in the nominal
sentence. In this case, markedness is obligatory when the subject is
indefinite or the predicate is an Adju. Sometimes, when this type of
sentences preceded by the subordinator (‫)ان‬, the predicate turns to the
marked Th. In addition, the predicate becomes the marked Th in certain
cases when the nominal sentence preceded by (‫()كان واخواتها‬ibid.).
2. The object becomes the marked Th in the verbal sentences when it is
inseparable pronoun or the objective pronoun is attached to the
subject(Faiad, 1995: 123).
3. The circumstantial (‫ )الحال‬becomes the marked Th (Faiadh, 1995: 140):
)61(The boy is in the room. .)Ca( ‫) الولد‬Adju:Th( ‫في الحجرة‬

209
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

.(62)God dignifies me. )Ac( ‫) هللا‬separable pronoun:Go:Th( ‫أكرمني‬

5. Contrastive Analysis
This section shows similarities and differences between English and
Arabic concerning their treatment of SFG.
5.1 Ideational Metafunction
5.1.1 Similarities
1. In both languages, the ideational meaning is realized by both experiential
and logical meanings.
2. Transitivity system categorizes six types of processes in both languages.
3. Both languages identify the same system of participants. Put it
differently, process types take certain options of participants as well as
certain options are obligatory.
4. The system of Cir is realized identically in both. The functions and
subsystems are observed the same.
5. MPs can be concrete and abstract in Arabic and English.
6. Obligation and optionality of the presence of participants appears
identical in both languages.
7. MePs cover the same classes of verbs in the two languages.
8. Arabic and English behavioural and verbal processes systems are
similar. They exploit the type of verbs and circumstances.
9. Possessive and circumstantial processes in both languages can be
encoded through participants as well as processes.
10. As far as lexical meaning is concerned, both languages utilize
approximately the same subsystems and options to express these
meanings.
11. In both languages, paratactic and hypotactic systems may be expressed
by explicit and implicit markers.
12. Logico-semantic meanings are expressed by almost identical systems of
relations: projection and expansion. In both languages, the former
consists of subsystems of 'saying and thinking'. The latter includes
elaboration, extension or enhancement.
5.1.2 Differences
1. Arabic differs from English in using nominal sentences as a means of
expressing transitivity subsystems.
2. Although both languages offer the same subsystem of MeP, Arabic is
somewhat different. While in English this subsystem may have one or
two participants with all types of mental verbs, Arabic is more restricted.

210
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

MePs with affective verbs have only senser, verbs of perception have Se
and Phe and finally cognitive verbs haveSe, Phe and Cir which is
cognate object.
3. Arabic MePs differ from their English equivalents in their possibility to
be MP or VP when they are preceded by Hamza (‫)أ‬.
4. The two languages employ different transivity means to express RPs.
While English depends on verbal clauses, Arabic uses nominal ones with
no overt verbal phrases.
5. RPs, in Arabic, are expressed by the nominal sentences, but rarely by
verbal ones whereas in English only by verbal ones.
6. Moreover, Arabic uses more options than English to express EPs. In
English, 'there' is the only option of expressing this type while in Arabic
two options are at hand including adverbs and lexical verbs.
5.2 Interpersonal Metafunction
5.2.1Similarities
1. Both languages employ identical systems to express interpersonal
metafunction.
2. Giving propositions are expressed by declarative sentences in English
and Arabic.
3. English and Arabic share the systems and options of demanding
proposals.
4. In both languages, giving proposals performs a variety of communicative
functions.
5. The two languages utilize imperative sentences in expressing demanding
proposals.
6. Both languages offer approximately the same constituents of R.
5.2.2Differences
1. F in English is mainly indicated by auxiliaries, but sometimes is fused
with the main verb. On the contrary, in Arabic, it is mainly fused with
the main verb, but rarely is expressed by auxiliaries.
2. Arabic MS is narrower than that of English, namely in nominal, because
it lacks both F and P.
3. M's constituents order in Arabic differs from that of English. In English,
the M structure of giving propositions starts with S followed by F while
in Arabic verbal sentences start with P followed by fused F.
4. In Arabic, the MS of nominal sentences lacks the F constituent when
using interrogative sentences.

211
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

5. Arabic has more interpersonal options that do not have transitivity role
than English.
6. English differs from Arabic in expressing the system of giving proposals.
English mainly expresses giving proposals through modularized
interrogative sentences. Arabic uses a variety of particles and different
clause types to express giving proposals.Demanding propositions
involves the use of interrogatives and exclamatives English while in
Arabic are expressed by interrogatives only.
5.3 Textual Metafunction
5.3.1Similarities
1. English and Arabic recognize main thematic systems similarly including
Th type, Th duplicated and Th markedness.
2. Both languages recognize topical, interpersonal and textual Ths.
3. Topical Th is the first element in declarative sentences in English and
Arabic nominal sentences and also it can be elliptic in certain cases in
both.
4. In both, topical Th with Wh-questions and exclamatives is conflated
with S, C or Cir.
5. In addition, topical Th in imperative sentences is P in both.
6. In both languages, textual Ths are either particles or adverbs of two
types. These types in the two languages have neither transitivity nor
interpersonal roles.
7. Th markedness receives great importance in both languages. Marked
themes involves moving certain constituents to an initial position in the
sentences.
8. The topical Th is the obligatory one in English and Arabic. Moreover,
both languages offer the possibility of using more than one textual or/and
interpersonal themes before the obligatory topical one.
9. Both languages offer the possibility of multiple Ths.
5.3.2Differences
1. Topical Ths in Arabic verbal sentences come after P, but in English it
comes before it.
2. In English, exclamative word represents a topical Th while in Arabic
exclamatives lack Wh-word. Thus, exclamative phrases are interpersonal
Th because they do not play any transitivity role but an interpersonal
one.

212
AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

3. Arabic utilizes more structural configurations for expressing

interpersonal Th than English.
4. Unlike English, there are certain cases in Arabic in which Th
markedness is obligatory according to structural reasons.

Conclusions
The study has come with a number of conclusions. First, it is proved
that SFG can be applied successfully to analyze Arabic. In other words,
Arabic clauses are analyzed ideationally, interpersonally and textually as
Halliday's theory suggests. This validates the first hypothesis of the study.
In addition, as it is hypothesized, English and Arabic come similar to one
another rather than different when they are analyzed at the three Hallidayn
metafunctions. The main systems are identical in both languages, but some
minor subsystems are different.

References:
1. Al-Awsi, Q. 1982. AsaleebuTtalabi 'indaNnahawiyyeenwalBalaghiyyeen. Baghdad:
Baghdad University. Beitul-Hikma.
2. Al-Ghalaieeni, M. 1993. Collection of Arabic Lessons.. Beirut: Modern Library
Press.
3. Al-Maidani, A. 1996. Arabic Rhetoric: Basics, Sciences and Arts. Damscas: Dar
Al-Elm.
4. Al-Mwtoukel, A. 1986. Studies in the Functional Grammar of Arabic Language.
Morocco: Dar althaqafa.
5. Al-Mwtoukel, A. 1995. Issues of Arabic in Functional Linguistics: the Underlying
Structure and Semantico-pragmatic Repreesentation. Morocco: Dar alaman.
6. Al-Qazweeni, J. 2002. Clarification of Rhetoric Sciences: Meanings, Clarity and
Eloquence. Beirut: House of International Books.
7. Al-Samara'ee, F. 2000. Meanings of Grammar. Vol. 2. Oman: Dar Al-Fakir for
Publishing.
8. Aziz, Y. 1989. A Contrastive Grammar of English and Arabic. Mosul: University
of Mosul.
9. Barakat, I. 2007. Arabic Grammar. Cairo: House of Publishing for Universities.
10. Bazzi, S. 2009. Arab News and Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Discourse Study.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
11. Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London:
Continuum International Group.
12. Faiadh, S. 1995. Modern Grammar. Cairo: Centre of Translation and Publication.
13. Fries, H. 1995. 'Patterns of information in initial position in English',p-47–67 of:
Fries, Peter H., & Gregory, Michael (eds), Discourse in society: Functional
perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14. Graber, Ph. 2001.Context in Text: A Systemic Functional Analysis of the Parable of
the Sower. Unpublished Dissertation: Emory University.
15. Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Sydney: Edward
Arnold Ltd.
16. Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, M. 2014. Halliday's Introduction to Functional
Grammar. London: Routledge.

213
 AL-USTATH Special issue of the international scientific conference ( 2016 M- 1437 e)

17. Hasaan, T. 1994. Arabic Language: its Meaning and Structure. Al-Dar Al-Baidha':
Dar Al-Thaqafa Press.
18. Hassan, A. 2005. The Comprehensive Grammar. Vol 1,2,3. Cairo: Modern Library.
19. Hurford, R. 1994. Grammar: A Student’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
20. IbnYa'eesh (no date). Sharhul-Mufassal, Vol.1. Beirut: Alamul-Kutub.
21. Nahla, M. 2001. Systemic Linguistics: an Introduction to Halliday's Linguistic
Theory. University of Alexandria.
22. Omer, A., Zahran, M. And Abdulatif, M.1994. The Basic Grammar. Kawait: Dar
Al-Salassl.
23. Qaseem, M. And Deeb, Mauheei, Aldeen. 2003. Sciences of Rhetoric: Eloquence,
Clarity and Meaning. Lebanon: Modern Foundation for Book.
24. Reed, J. 1997. 'A discourse analysis of Philippians: Method and rhetoric in the
debate over literary integrity'. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series, vol. 136. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
25. Ryding, K. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge:
Cambridge university press.
26. Shihad, O. 2009. Modality in English and Arabic: A Contrastive Study. Bagdad
University: Unpublished Thesis.
27. Thompson, G. 'Systemic Functional Grammar' inChapman, S. and Routledge, Ch.
2009. Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language.Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

‫ دراسة مقارنة‬:‫تحليل نظامي وظيفي للغتين االنكليزية والعربية‬

‫ فريد حميد الهنداوي‬.‫د‬.‫أ‬
‫قسم اللغة االنكليزية‬/‫كلية التربية للعلوم االنسانية‬/‫جامعة بابل‬
‫ هاني كامل نعيمة‬.‫م‬.‫م‬
‫قسم اللغة االنكليزية‬/‫كلية التربية للعلوم االنسانية‬/‫جامعة ذي قار‬

:‫الملخص‬
‫) الوظيفية النظامية النحوية لتحليل االنظمة‬1964( ‫تتبنى هذه الدراسة نظرية هاليداي‬
‫ وبموجبه ان هذه الدراسة تقارن ما ينتج عن التحليل بين‬.‫الوظيفية في اللغتين االنكليزية والعربية‬
‫ وهذا يعني فان هذه الدراسة تهدف ال يجاد اوجه الشبه واالختالف بين‬.‫اللغتين موضوع البحث‬
‫ فان انها تختبر مدى نجاح نظرية هاليداي اعاله عمليا‬,‫ اضف الى ذلك‬.‫اللغتين في هذا المجال‬
‫ وانسجاما مع هذه االهداف فان الدراسة تفترض ان‬.‫في تحليل االنظمة الوظيفية للغتين المذكورتين‬
‫ وقد جعل البحث‬.‫اللغتين متشابهتين اكثر من كونهما مختلفتين على مستوى انظمتهما الوظيفية‬
‫نفس ه مقتص ار على دراسة الوظائف الرئيسية للغة حسب ما تناوله هاليداي في نظريته وفيما يخص‬
.‫النتائج فان الدراسة قد اثبتت مصداقية فرضياتها‬

214

View publication stats