Towards The Crypto-metafunctions Of Independent Formal Markers In English

Independent formal markers (IFMs) refer to the linguistic elements that are categorized under the rank of "word" and are independently segmented in terms of experiential function in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). In English, prop it and existential there are representative IFMs. Being constrained by the gap filling view long rooted in traditional grammar, an overwhelming majority of scholars view IFMs as "second class linguistic citizen" in linguistic studies. Therefore, its significance has been underestimated and its nature has become far from clear to linguists. However, IFMs is undoubtedly an indispensable research topic in linguistic study for the account of their syntactic rationales which none of linguistic theories can do without. To some degree, IFMs serve as one of touchstones for testing the explanatory power of linguistic theories.Recently, the linguistic status of IFMs is mainly represented in such dimensions as syntactic, cognitive, and functional motivations. All of these motivations, however, need improving. Syntactic motivation either provides Extended Projection Principle for the explanation of IFMs'syntactic status or treats them as the normal elments together with the special analysis like the presupposition of quasi-argument or case separation, which lacks concerns about the fact that IFMs in reality evolve from language use. Cognitive motivation, by resorting to cognition to interpret IFMs as "situation setting" or "mental space", however, cannot explain how IFMs are realized in language system due to IFMs'lack of reference to the reality. Though functional motivation has given IFMs the interpersonal and textual explanation in an attempt to explicate why IFMs are chosen in language system, there still exist such problems concerning functional interpretation of IFMs as the contradiction among various theoretic explanations, the inconsistence in functional interpretation criteria, and the confusion among functional configuration relations.SFL, focusing on language in use, claims that language is as it is pertains to the social needs for expressing different semantic contents and culminating in distinct social functions when people get intertwined in social activities, and that language is deemed as the construing materials of the experiential reality. Therefore, SFL severs as a strong theretical foundation for exploring the syntactic rationales of IFMs by concerning about the semantic evolution of IFMs and waiving the cognitive reflection of reality on IFMs. In the meantime, Whorf's crypto-category theory, highly recommended by M. A. K. Halliday, is conducive to unveiling the features of metafunctions of IFMs by exploring the functional motivations of why IFMs are realized in language system in reference to category relations with their non-IFMs counterparts. In this study, three main questions on IFMs will be explored with reference to SFL's metafunctional theory and Whorf's crypto-category theory so as to give a sound explanation of IFMs'syntactic rationales: (?) How many metafunctions do IFMs have? (?) How are the crypto-metafunctions of IFMs represented? (?) What are the motives for the crypto-metafunctions of IFMs?To properly answer the questions above, the author, by uncovering the loopholes of the previous studies, preliminarily constructs a metafunction-based framework to deal with the types of metafunctions of IFMs and their functional roles. In the meantime, the function roles of IFMs are evidenced by typology data from German, Dutch, Icelandic, Danish and French, and by data from CHILDES-based ontological corpora. In addition, the author explores the motives of crypto-metafunctions of IFMs from both internal and external language system based on the data from such corpora as COHA and COCA. The findings are as follows:Firstly, IFMs have three metafunctions simultaneously both in lexicogrammar and discourse semantics levels. The semantic approach to metafunctons adopted in previous studies deduces the experiential role simply on the basis of the semantic contents, which equals semantic content to functional role due to the ignorance of potential and potential realization relationship between experiential meaning and semantic content, and claims the element that has experiential meaning or semantic content must be rendered the functional role. In light of the constraints from semantic vacancy views rooted in the traditional grammar, the semantic approach will undoubtedly ignore the experiential metafunction of IFMs. In sharp contrast with the semantic approach, the functional approach resorts to structure conflation criteria and ranked constituent criteria to determine the types of metafunctions for a certain element, and maintains that IFMs which can be independently segmented and in the meantime cannot be omitted must have three metafunctions simultaneously. And these three metafunctions have also been embodied in the discourse semantic level, for the lexicogrammar level is the realization of discourse semantic level. In the meanwhile, the experiential metafunction of IFMs is evidenced by typological data as well as CHILDES-based ontological corpora.Secondly, in comparison with non-formal markers, IFMs, endowed with the reactance of crypto-categories that in the meantime can be revealed in terms of metafunction, should be included in crypto-metafunction analysis framework and hence rendered the crypto-metafunctions. The reactances of IFMs for experiential, interpersonal and textual metafunctions in lexicogrammar level are "query of experiential content", "rhyme or theme identification" and "theme predication", and in discourse semantics level are "potential agent", "turn interruption" and "relation identification". The experiential, interpersonal and textual metafuncions of prop it in lexicogrammar level can be interpreted as "Crypto Actor or Carrier", "Crypto Subject" and "Crypto Theme", and in discourse semantics level as "Crypto Process Constraint" "Crypto Negotiating Function" and "Crypto Relation Identification Function". And the experiential, interpersonal and textual metafuncions of existential there in lexicogrammar level can be interpreted as "Crypto Carrier", "Crypto Subject" and "Crypto Theme", and in discourse semantics level as "Crypto Process Constraint" "Crypto Negotiating Function" and "Crypto Relation Identification Function"Thirdly, the motives of the crypto-metafunctions of IFMs can be attributed to experience construction prefabricate potential and hierarchical knowledge construction potential in internal and external language system respectively. As to the internal motives, the distribution frequencies of IFMs have been increasing diachronically almost year after year, indicating that IFMs are more likely to be chosen in experiential construction networks because of their experience construction prefabricate potential. And it is the experience construction prefabricate potential that leads to the conventionalization of the multi-linguistic expressions towards IFMs and makes IFMs that had enjoyed vague references further separate from their references. Henceforce, IFMs show the reactance of crypto-categories and are rendered crypto-metafunctions. As to the external motives, the distribution frequencies of IFMs are highest, among others, in academic genre, indicating that IFMs are more conducive to the hierarchical knowledge construction in academic genre by enhancing the verticality. IFMs, however, are not like those meteorological elements or existents which can participate in the hierarchical knowledge structure construction, the construction can happen among IFMs per se, though. In so doing the meaning in language use, the metafunctions of IFMs, have been weakened and IFMs, compared with their counterparts, show the reactance of crypto-categories and are rendered crypto-metafunctions.The present study makes a moderately strong complement to the previous studies in SFL and strengthens the theoretical power of SFL by giving a metafunctional interpretation of IFMs in their experiential construction, from which their interpersonal and textual metafunctions can also be properly accounted for. On the other hand, the present study can also provide a functional typological framework to IFMs in languages other than English, for IFMs also exist in Germanic language family of Indo-European languages like German, Dutch, Icelandic, Danish and in Latin language family like French.