AHMED QADOURY ABED HJELMSELV , LAMB AND HALLIDAY

1. 1
HJELMSLEV , LAMB , AND HALLIDAY:THE POINTS OF SIMILARITY
AHMED QADOURY ABED
Another uneasy task. Today, there is no place for ‘but’, different’, ‘on the other hand’, ‘on the contrary ‘ ,
and the like. We are behind ‘like’, ‘similar’, and ‘the same’ .Reviewing the points of similarity between
three ‘subsequent’ schools within one century requires in turn reviewing the common trends or tenets of
part of the way linguists were thinking and regarding language and its representation. Iimitating
Glossematics, Stratificational-Cognitive Linguistics, and Systemic –Functional Linguistics with
Hjelmslev, Lamb, and Halliday, respectively, is not a matter of neglecting sincere efforts of linguists like
Uldall, Gleason, Hasan, Matthiessen, and many others. Halliday(1978:39;1994:xxvi) mentions both
Hjelmslev and Lamb as sources of inspiration to his SFL.
To start with basic similarities ,(1) no one can deny that these three schools ,appeared in the
1930s,1950s, and 1960s, based their general framework on those dichotomies raised by de Saussure ,and
definitions , illustrations ,and analyses considered by Bloomfield ; (2)these three schools aimed at
descriptive adequacy, and later Halliday moved to follow Chomsky in being a follower of explanatory
adequacy; (3) they are post-Bloomfieldians ,at least in terms of Mathews’(1993) and Newmeyer’s
(1996);(4)they are behind formal syntax, in an algebraic sense, started with European Glossematics ,to
open the door to Americans like Harris , Chomsky , and their MIT to ‘a great-shot-in-the-arm-‘ of
linguistic field;(5) they describe language as a conglomerate of non-linguistic (e.g., physical,
physiological, psychological, sociological) phenomena, rather than a self-sufficient totality, a structure sui
generis; (6)they follow relatively the empirical principle where a linguistic theory should be (a) self-
consistent, (b) exhaustive , and (c) as simple as possible ; (7)they adopted a progressive deductive top-
down division of the text into parts, and the parts into yet smaller parts ,and so on, in a sense that the
notion of text is open-ended in any possible text in any possible language; and (8) they all adopted non-
linear representation. Moreover, no one can deny that the train of the history of linguistic theory in the
20th
century should stop on these three stations for fuel, as Mathews did in his (1993) and (2000).
Also, Hjelmslev, Lamb , and Halliday have developed a unified notation as an adjunct to their
theories. Hjelmslev used ‘cenemes’ ,’prosodemes’, ‘pleremes’ ,’taxemes’, ’glossemes’, etc. Lamb used
terms like ‘stratification’, ‘AND-relations’, ‘OR- relations’, ‘portmanteau realization’, etc. Similarly,
Halliday used ‘systemic’, ’metafunctions’, ’interpersonal’, ‘axis’ ,’rank’ etc. A kind of coincidence is
existent between the terminologies of these theories, as in ‘content’ in Hjelmslev, ‘sememic’ in Lamb, and
‘semantics’ in Halliday. Another example is ‘content-purport’,’hypersememic’ , and ‘context’,
respectively.
Are these schools relational or functional? Being away from regarding these two adjectives as
slogans for two separate schools as mentioned in Sampson (1980), these three schools are relational since
they are behind paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations on the one hand , and behind examining the
systems within a system, on the other. For instance, Halliday used both choices and chains in his model,
and then he worked on the relations between ranks and metafunctions. They are functional since all these
theories look for linguistic and extra-linguistic functions. For example, Halliday’ functions and
metafunctions are so evident in both linguistic and contextual reference. Hjelmslev’s concept of function

2. 2
is logical used to distinguish a very small set of possible relations between components,namely,
(i)interdependence , (ii) determination, and (iii) constellation.
Among these influential similarities between these three schools is the representation of language
sign in a relational network organized in strata (or layering), and their non-linear realization. To
Hjelmslev’s Glossematics, there are four strata, namely ‘content-substance’, ‘content-form’ ,’ expression-
form’, and ‘expression-substance’, of which the middle two belong to language proper and the first and
last are external realities which it is the task of a language to link with one another. In a similar way,
Lamb’s model is also of four primary strata, and two additional peripheral ( usually extra-linguistic)
strata. The four primary strata are sememic , lexemic , morphemic , and phonemic. The other two
peripheral strata are hypersememic and hyperphonemic. To Halliday, there are three main linguistic-
proper strata and two extra-linguistic strata, and these are semantics, lexicogrammar , and phonology. The
other two extrinsic are context and phonetics. Four similar hints can be stated here : (1) there is a kind of
relative correspondence between the primary strata of each school , regardless of their number; (2) these
three schools influence the existence of extra-linguistic strata or relations , even earlier version of
Systemic Linguistics did not include them publically; (3) the three schools use ‘internal relationships’ for
those relationships between the elements in one stratum ,and ‘external relationships’ for those between
the different strata ; and (4) there are two further relationships: ‘intrinsic’ between the strata themselves
(i.e., linguistic proper) , and ‘extrinsic’ between the peripheral strata and extra-linguistic factors.
Additionally, adopting the same stratificational stance as Halliday, Lamb argued that all languages would
at the same time be organized around three major components, or systems, namely semology,
lexicogrammar, and phonology – conventionally, phonetics is included within the phonological system,
although the units in each system are essentially different.
The important point of similarity is the concept of system, and then the network system. Halliday
used this ‘network system’ more officially than the other two theories, and clearer evidence is also found
in the other two. In Glossematics ,the linguist should seek a ‘system’ through which the process (text)
can be analyzed as composed of a limited number of elements that constantly recur in various
combinations, and for doing that a deductive procedure was adopted. Lamb based his language on the
fact that each primary strata system has a tactic pattern specifying the arrangement of its units and a
realizational portion relating these units to adjacent systems. Like the primary systems, ,the peripheral
systems are seen as ‘relational networks’, but their organization of tactic and realizational portions are
mainly extra-linguistic. Halliday has described the semiotic nature of language as a system with four
dimensions: metafunctions, rank, axis, and stratification. Halliday used ‘systemic network’ because each
of these dimensions is a system in itself that can be further classified into other systems and subsystems.
The system of stratification is a very illustrative one. Here, many hints can be maintained: (1) Views of
language made a distinction between ‘Item-and- Process’ (IP) and ‘Item-and- Arrangement’ (IA) models ,
and these three schools adopted the latter since items are not essential and processes are rejected in
synchronic descriptions; (2) The above-mentioned hint leads to the workable dichotomy of paradigmatic
and syntagmatic relations between the elements of one strata, which was described as ‘choice’ in
Halliday’s terminology ; and (3)If we want to put these three schools in a scale with two poles ,namely,
formal and functional, we can put Stratificational linguistics in the middle , with Glossematics to the
formal pole , and Systemic linguistics to the functional one. If another classification is adopted, in its
overall outlook, stratificationalism has a great deal in common with the other two schools.