Relational Processes in Tagalog: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective

  • J. R. MartinEmail author
  • Priscilla Angela T. Cruz
Part of the The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series book series (TMAKHLFLS)


This chapter is concerned with the way Tagalog clauses relate entities to one another, to qualities, and to a range of circumscribing relations (e.g. location in time and place). The analysis is informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL), as introduced in Matthiessen and Halliday (2009), Martin and Doran (2015a) and Martin, Wang, and Zhu (2013). In terms of this model of language, the chapter focuses on experiential meaning, as construed at clause rank in lexicogrammar, through systems generally referred to in SFL as transitivity (Martin & Doran, 2015b; Caffarel, Martin, & Matthiessen, 2004). More specifically, it presents a description of relational clauses in Tagalog, building on previous work on Tagalog transitivity (Martin, 1996a, 1996b, 2004).


Relational process Attributive Identifying Existential transitivity Tagalog 


  1. Bloomfield, L. (1917a). Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis: Part 1: Texts and translation. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. Bloomfield, L. (1917b). Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis: Part 2. Grammatical analysis. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  3. Caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (Eds.). (2004). Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar (1st ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  5. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  7. Hao, J. (2015). Construing biology: An ideational perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Linguistics, The University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Hao, J. (2018). Reconsidering ‘cause inside the clause’ in scientific discourse—From a discourse semantic perspective in systemic functional linguistics. Text and Talk, 38(5): 525–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hao, J. (in press). Nominalisations in scientific English: A tristratal perspective. Functions of Language.Google Scholar
  10. Hasan, R. (2010, November). With habits of meaning in mind. Unpublished paper presented at the Connecting Paths Conference, City University Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  11. Lapolla, R. (in press). Arguments for seeing theme-rheme and topic-comment as separate functional structures. In Y. J. Doran, J. R. Martin & G. Figueredo (Eds.), Systemic functional language description: Making meaning matter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lopez, C. (1941). A manual of the Philippine national language. Manila: Institute of National Language.Google Scholar
  14. Lumbera, C. (2009). Growing up in Davao (V. S. Almario & C. Tuvilla, Trans.). In E. S. Almario, V. S. Almario, & A. S. Almario (Eds.), Regional profiles: People and places (p. 145). Quezon City: Adarna House.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, J. R. (1981). conjunction and continuity in Tagalog. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Readings in systemic linguistics (pp. 310–336). London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, J. R. (1983). Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kâte. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin, J. R. (1990). Interpersonal grammatization: Mood and modality in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 2–51.Google Scholar
  18. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, J. R. (1995). Logical meaning, interdependency and the linking particle -ng/na in Tagalog. Functions of Language, 2(2), 189–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, J. R. (1996a). Metalinguistic diversity: The case from case. In R. Hasan, C. Cloran, & D. Butt (Eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (pp. 323–372). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, J. R. (1996b). Transitivity in Tagalog: A functional interpretation of case. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett, & G. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations (pp. 229–296). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, J. R. (2004). Metafunctional profile: Tagalog. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 255–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, J. R., & Cruz, P. (2018). Interpersonal grammar of Tagalog: A systemic functional perspective. Functions of Language, 25(1), 54–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, J. R., & Doran, Y. J. (Eds.). (2015a). Grammatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Martin, J. R., & Doran, Y. J. (Eds.). (2015b). Grammatical descriptions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, J. R., Wang, P., & Zhu, Y. S. (2013). Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory—Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
  28. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes. Functions of Language, 12(2), 139–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
  30. McFarland, C. (1978). Tagalog existentials. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 9(1–2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  31. Naylor, P. B. (1975). Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics, 14, 12–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naylor, P. B. (1980). Linking, relation marking and Tagalog syntax. In P. B. Naylor (Ed.), Austronesian STUDIES: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages (pp. 33–50).Google Scholar
  33. Ramos, T., & Ceña, R. (1980). Existential, locative and possessive in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 15–26.Google Scholar
  34. Schachter, P. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 491–518). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schachter, P. (1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. M. Saddock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations (pp. 279–306). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schachter, P. (1995). The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15, 51–52.Google Scholar
  37. Schacter, P., & Otanes, F. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Ateneo de Manila UniversityQuezon CityPhilippines

Personalised recommendations