Illustrating Speech Function

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 5):

By way of illustration, consider the following examples – taking note in particular of the segments highlighted in bold and the effect they have on meaning:

(1) Because I would be talking to the people in the comments…

(2) Can we talk about it?

(3) What else can we talk about?

(4) Talk about it.

In the first example the sequence I would indicates that the clause is giving information. In the second and third the sequence Can we indicates that the clauses are asking for information. In the third What else specifies the kind of information being asked for. And in the fourth example the absence of these indicators and the tenseless verb talk (which comes first in its clause) indicate that we are asking someone to do something.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here — as in Martin (2013) — Martin's methodology is to give priority to the view 'from below', how meaning is expressed in structure. In SFL methodology, priority is given to the view 'from' above', the meaning that is expressed, which in this case is speech function, rather than how it is realised.

[2] To be clear, the wording I would is insufficient to indicate that the clause is giving information. For example, the same wording appears in a clause that is demanding goods-&-services: I would like your silence, please.

[3] To be clear, the wording Can we is insufficient to indicate that the clause is realising a demand for information. For example, the same wording appears in a clause that realises the giving of goods-&-services: Can we get the next round of drinks?.