Two Decades’ Development of Systemic Functional Linguistics Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4473690/v1

Download PDF

Article

Two Decades’ Development of Systemic Functional Linguistics Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4473690/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This article aims to perform an in-depth analysis of Systemic Functional Linguistics research through a dataset spanning 20 years from the Web of Science database. A bibliometric tool was utilized for analyzing the articles published between 2003 and 2023 to present the position of the Systemic Functional Linguistics study in the past 20 years. Using the keyword “Systemic Functional Linguistics ” and filtering data by choosing files in Systemic Functional Linguistics, 1638 papers were obtained. Through content, citation analysis, and production, with the assistance of bibliometric software, this study finds that Systemic Functional Linguistics has maintained its prominence as a research area in the linguistic field for the past 20 years, and its burgeoning production involved many authors, sources, and countries. Key findings reveal a recent surge in research, indicating a growing trend in Systemic Functional Linguistics studies. The study identifies the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, China, and Spain as the five most influential research hubs. Notably, themes such as “language,” “discourse,” “transitivity,” “English,”and “knowledge” have been prevalent over the past two decades. Current research themes include “appraisal,” linguistics,” and “multimodality,” while emerging topics such as “construction,” “corpus,” and “stance” are anticipated to gain prominence in the future. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in fostering the growth of SFL research.

Social science/Language and linguistics

Humanities/Literature

Systemic Functional Linguistics

bibliometric analysis

development

trends

interdisciplinary

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a robust theoretical framework for comprehending the intricate relationship between language and social structures, offering profound insights into how language functions within diverse contexts. As SFL continues to influence our understanding of language, its global research landscape has expanded significantly, marked by a proliferation of scholarly contributions that have shaped the theoretical foundations and practical applications of this linguistic paradigm. In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive exploration of the global research evolution and discern the prevailing trends in SFL, employing a bibliometric analysis.

Bibliometrics provides a quantitative lens to examine scholarly output, citation patterns, and collaborative networks, enabling us to unravel the multifaceted dimensions of SFL research globally. Our objective is to identify key contributors, influential publications, emerging themes, and collaborative networks that have played pivotal roles in shaping the trajectory of SFL. By utilizing bibliometric methodologies, we aim to offer a nuanced understanding of the evolution of SFL, providing valuable insights for scholars and practitioners within the field.

The field of SFL has undergone a remarkable evolution, and a comprehensive review of current studies reflects the dynamic nature of research in this domain. Researchers globally have contributed significantly to the understanding and application of SFL principles in diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.

Halliday’s foundational concepts, including systemic functional grammar and the theory of register, continue to serve as cornerstones for numerous studies. Cross-cultural applications of SFL have expanded our insights into how language functions within specific sociocultural settings (Eggins and Slade, 1997). Studies applying SFL in educational contexts demonstrate its efficacy in informing language teaching practices and curriculum design (Martin and Rose, 2008).

The incorporation of multimodal discourse analysis within SFL frameworks has enriched our understanding of how language interacts with various semiotic resources (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2002). Additionally, the digital age has prompted researchers to study how SFL can be applied to explore digital technologies in educational contexts (Coffin, 2013). Interdisciplinary collaborations have become a hallmark of SFL research, with scholars engaging in fruitful partnerships with fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and computer science (Matthiessen, Teruya, and Lam, 2010). This interdisciplinary approach has broadened the scope of SFL studies, providing a more holistic perspective on language in various contexts.Over its developmental stages, SFL has evolved through four key phases, each elucidating different dimensions of linguistic analysis.

The initial stage, as described by Halliday, introduced the concept of hierarchical and categorical grammar, emphasizing three levels of language: form, substance, and context. It proposed four categories in language—unit, structure, class, and system—and three associated scales: rank, experience, and delicacy.

Subsequently, in the late 1960s to early 1970s, SFL progressed into systemic functional grammar, distinguishing syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations within language structures (Halliday, 1966).

The third stage, spanning from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, saw SFL embracing language as social semiotic (Halliday, 1978). This phase delved into the relationship between linguistic systems and social structures under the umbrella of social semiotics, aiming to analyze meaning creation in a social and cultural context.

The latest phase, applicable linguistics, emerged in the early 21st century, with Halliday (2008) introducing the concept as a comprehensive approach applicable to both theoretical and practical language-related issues faced by modern society.

Halliday’s representative works, such as Language As Social Semiotic (Halliday, 1978) and An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1985), laid the foundation for SFL by emphasizing language’s functional aspects and its role as a semiotic system for expressing meaning. The robust theoretical foundation and applicability of SFL have garnered widespread attention, fostering interdisciplinary developments in functional grammar research (Fontaine, 2012; Thompson, 2013),education research (Troyan et al., 2019), multimodal discourse analysis (O’Halloran and Fei, 2014), corpus linguistics (He, 2021,Zhao et al.,2019; Zhao et al.,2020), and translation research (Veroz, 2017). Scholarly publications over the past two decades have significantly contributed to the various facets of SFL research. However, the core tenets of SFL revolve around the three metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. The ideational metafunction focuses on the representation of experience, the interpersonal metafunction deals with interaction and relationships, and the textual metafunction addresses the organization of discourse (Halliday, 1985). Furthermore, SFL incorporates ideas such as register and genre (Figueiredo, 2010). It underscores the impact of social context on linguistic decisions (Inako 2019), and acknowledges the significance of various text types (Briones, 2016).

Systemic networks and lexicogrammar are integral components of SFL, highlighting the interconnectedness of linguistic elements within a system. This theoretical framework has found applications in diverse fields, including education and discourse analysis. In education, SFL has influenced pedagogical approaches, such as Genre Pedagogy, and has contributed to literacy education and curriculum development. In discourse analysis, SFL provides tools to examine the structure and function of texts, encompassing both spoken and written language. Moreover, SFL extends its applicability to multimodal communication, acknowledging the importance of visual and gestural modes alongside traditional linguistic modes. The theory has been instrumental in analyzing the complexities of communication beyond the written and spoken word.

As SFL continues to evolve, emerging trends include the exploration of environmental discourse, critical SFL perspectives, and applications to address contemporary social issues (Bartlett, 2014)

In conclusion, the current state of SFL research is a testament to its adaptability and relevance in addressing linguistic challenges globally. Researchers worldwide have enriched the field by applying SFL principles across various domains, contributing to a nuanced understanding of language in diverse contexts. The interdisciplinary nature of SFL studies, coupled with emerging trends and future directions, positions Systemic Functional Linguistics as a vibrant and evolving field in contemporary linguistic scholarship. SFL is not confined to exploring the inherent nature, processes, and common characteristics of language, it also delves into the practical applications of linguistics (Carapic, 2006). The future of SFL research may involve further integration with emerging linguistic theories and the continued exploration of diverse linguistic landscapes.

The existent examination of SFL research presents a thorough exploration of the field’s evolution, shedding light on various facets such as Appraisal theory, functional grammar, transitivity, multi-modal discourse analysis and education. While this overview offers valuable insights into existing scholarship, it is crucial to make critical comments to discern potential gaps between their studies and our investigation. Prior research predominantly concentrates on historical developments, providing a contextual understanding of SFL in various fields. In contrast, our study aims to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the last two decades, focusing on the evolution of research and recent trends in SFL.

Although earlier research includes studies from various countries like China, the United States, the UK, Australia, and France, it may lack a systematic and comprehensive analysis across a broader spectrum of nations. Our study addresses this gap by employing a bibliometric approach to capture a more diverse and globally representative overview of SFL.

Previous research recognizes the challenge of keeping pace with rapidly evolving research but does not utilize a bibliometric approach to systematically analyze the quantitative aspects of research evolution. Our study, centered on bibliometric analysis, bridges this gap by offering a detailed knowledge map, facilitating a more systematic and data-driven understanding of research trends in SFL.

Despite numerous studies exploring different aspects of SFL, a significant gap persists. To date, there has been no comprehensive overview of the entire research landscape spanning recent decades. This study aims to fill that gap by conducting a bibliometric-based analysis to explore the current status and trending topics within the field of SFL studies. Moreover, it seeks to elucidate the potential impacts of SFL research on society.

This study revealed a notable prevalence of SFL in the world. However, keeping pace with rapidly evolving research and pinpointing trends remains a challenge for scholars. Beyond aiding novice researchers, the study intends to identify research gaps, potential collaborators for seasoned scholars, and provide rating agencies with a reliable benchmark for assessing the effectiveness of authors, institutions, and nations in SFL research.By addressing these critical comments and leveraging bibliometric analysis, our study aims to complement the existing overview by providing a more focused, systematic, and data-driven examination of the research evolution and trends in SFL over the past two decades.

4.1 Research questions

In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding of SFL development from 2003 to 2023 and its anticipated future trajectory, this study employs a bibliometric tool to address the following research questions:

(1). What foundational information characterizes the development of Systemic Functional Linguistics in the last two decades?

(2). What is the contemporary landscape of Systemic Functional Linguistics as reflected in scholarly publications and research trends?

(3). What are the anticipated prospects for Systemic Functional Linguistics in the foreseeable future?

Through these inquiries, the study provides a holistic understanding of the historical progression, current state, and potential future directions of Systemic Functional Linguistics research. The bibliometric approach captures the essence of the past and present and offers insights to guide future SFL research endeavors.

4.2 Data sources

The selection of Web of Science is driven by various factors, setting it apart from alternative platforms. Web of Science is recognized as the world’s most comprehensive academic information resource, covering over 8,700 core academic journals across diverse disciplines. Its multidisciplinary nature is crucial for capturing the broad spectrum of SFL research. The database’s enduring reputation as the oldest and most authoritative research publication and citation database adds reliability to the data. Including citation indices, such as Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, enhances the analysis by providing insights into the citation impact of SFL research. This feature enriches the depth of understanding compared to databases without such indices.

Web of Science’s powerful retrieval function facilitates efficient and targeted searches, which is crucial for swiftly identifying and extracting pertinent scientific research information. This capability supports a systematic and comprehensive bibliometric analysis of SFL literature.

With coverage spanning approximately 34,000 journals, Web of Science’s global reach ensures a diverse and representative dataset, capturing varied contributions to SFL research from different regions worldwide.

In summary, the decision to utilize the Web of Science as the primary data source is grounded in its comprehensive coverage, multidisciplinary scope, established authority, inclusion of citation indices, powerful retrieval functionality, and global reach. These attributes collectively position the Web of Science as the optimal platform for conducting an insightful and thorough bibliometric analysis of Systemic Functional Linguistics research.

4.3 Data collection and extraction

This study carefully selected the Web of Science as the data source, focusing on 2003 to 2023. The gathered literature data encompassed comprehensive information, including author names, abstracts, keywords, source years, DOI numbers, and references within the articles.

The data collection process unfolded in three distinct stages—the initial stage involved data retrieval, commencing with a keyword search. The keyword search formula is TS=(“Systemic functional linguistic*” or “Functional linguistics*” or SFL) OR TS=(“Metafunction” or “Ideational metafunction” or “Interpersonal metafunction” or “Textual metafunction”) OR TS=(“Appraisal theory” or “appraisal framework”) OR TS=(“Systemic* functional grammar” or “Functional grammar” or “Grammar* metaphor”) OR TS=( Transitivity or “Transitivity analysis” or “Transitivity system” or “transitivity process”) OR TS=(“Multimodal discourse analysis”). Subsequently, we judiciously selected papers indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) as well as the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) to align with the research questions, scrutinizing critical articles within the research topic.

The second stage involved data cleaning, wherein papers were meticulously sifted to prevent duplication. In the third stage, the identified documents were downloaded and compiled. Initially, 1,000 files were downloaded, followed by an additional 685 files in the subsequent download. These two sets of files were then compressed using bibliometric tools to facilitate the subsequent data analysis.

4.4 Bibliometrics analysis tools

In the era of big data, the vast literature across diverse research areas poses a challenge regarding organization and transparency. Scholars employ qualitative and quantitative methods to structure this extensive literature to comprehensively understand previous findings (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017). Bibliometrics stands out among these approaches, offering a systematic, transparent, and repeatable review process based on statistical measurements of science, scientists, or scientific activities (Broadus, 1987). Notably, bibliometrics involves analyzing data extrinsic to the text, such as author affiliation, word frequency, usage statistics, and common citations (Wilson, 2012).

Bibliometrics, a branch of library science that applies mathematics and statistical analysis to bibliographies, presents several advantages in literature and statistics, index calculation, network analysis, and knowledge graph drawing (Salini, 2016). This tool can import and process literature information from databases like SCOPUS and Web of Science, perform statistical analyses of relevant scientific literature indices, construct data matrices, conduct coupling and cooperative analysis, and generate comprehensive visualizations of literature information.

Today, bibliometric tools find extensive applications in various fields, including medicine, enterprise economy, scientific research management, computer software, applications, linguistics and education. (Han et al., 2017; Erboz et al., 2023; Marginson, 2022; Ci et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2023; Lee., 2023; Yan and Wu 2024; Peng and Khatin-Zadeh 2023; Samsul et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). The increasing use of bibliometric analysis across disciplines suggests its efficacy in facilitating research based on abundant literature. This method allows for data visualization, identifying trends and themes in academic research, tracking shifts in disciplinary boundaries, pinpointing prolific scholars and institutions, and offering a comprehensive overview of prevailing research.

This study was carried out utilizing RStudio software and the bibliometrics R-package version 4.2.0. The aim was to investigate trends and key issues pertaining to SFL, while also suggesting future research directions. To utilize Biblioshiny within the R language environment, we are required to follow specific steps. Initially, we downloaded and installed R program version 4.2.0 (https://cran.r-project.org/) and the RStudio operating platform (https://rstudio.com/). After launching RStudio, the bibliometric program was initiated by entering the following command code in the windows: Install “packages('bibliometrix’, dependencies = TRUE); library(bibliometrix); biblioshiny()” Upon executing this code, the Biblioshiny web interface became accessible through the Google Chrome browser. The study encompassed the importation and analysis of raw Web of Science data using Biblioshiny.

5.1 Main information about the data

Table 1 provides essential information encapsulating significant findings in Systemic Functional Linguistics from 2003 to July 28, 2023. The dataset comprises 1,685 documents sourced from 285 outlets, including articles, proceedings, editorials, book reviews, and early access Noteworthy averages include a document average age of 6.92 and an average of 10.16 citations per document. The study cites a total of 53,581 references, underscoring extensive attention to Systemic Functional Linguistics over the past two decades.

The 1,466 papers represent the most substantial categories of published documents, while the 1,334 and 4,606 keywords plus and author’s keywords, respectively, highlight the diverse topics within Systemic Functional Linguistics. The study also identifies 1,944 contributors to Systemic Functional Linguistics studies during this period. Of these, 754 authors contributed to single-authored documents, emphasizing individual scholarly contributions. In terms of collaboration, 956 single-authored documents indicate a significant scholarly focus on Systemic Functional Linguistics, with a co-authors per document ratio of 1.63. Moreover, international co-authorships stand at 15.01%, indicating widespread collaboration among scholars in the field.

Table 1

Main information about the data.
Description	Results
Main information about data
Timespan	2003:2023
Sources (Journals, Books, etc)	285
Documents	1685
Annual Growth Rate %	9.95
Document Average Age	6.92
Average citations per doc	10.16
References	53581
Document Contents
Keywords Plus (ID)	1334
Author’s Keywords (DE)	4606
Authors
Authors	1944
Authors of single-authored docs	754
Authors Collaboration
Single-authored docs	956
Co-Authors per Doc	1.63
International co-authorships %	15.01
Document Types
article	1466
article; book chapter	5
article; early access	57
article; proceedings paper	26
book review	88
book review; early access	5
editorial material	16
editorial material; early access	1
review	20
review; early access	1

5.2 Annual scientific production

Figure 1 presents a dynamic trend of the annual scientific output in Systemic Functional Linguistics. Over the period from 2003 to 2023, there was a consistent increase in the number of articles. The peak year for productivity was 2021, witnessing 178 publications, including notable works such as A Social Semiotic Perspective on Emoji: How Emoji and Language Interact to Make Meaning in Digital Messages (2023) and Culturally sustaining approaches to academic languaging through systemic functional linguistics (Sembiante and Tian, 2021). Importantly, this upward trajectory has been sustained, with an annual growth rate of 9.95 percent.

The expansion of studies on Systemic Functional Linguistics and the total number of published articles has been particularly noteworthy from 2017 to 2021. The annual fluctuations in literature production may signify shifts in research subjects, interests, depth, and future development directions. Systemic Functional Linguistics has consistently held a prominent

position in the linguistic field over the last two decades, suggesting its enduring significance and potential as a continued focus in linguistic studies. In essence, Systemic Functional Linguisticshas captivated substantial academic interest throughout this period.

5.3 Analysis of cited documents

Figure 1 Annual scientific production. The diagram reveals a dynamic trend of the annual scientific output in Systemic Functional Linguistics over the past two decades.

5.3.1 Average citations per year

Figure 2 provides the average citations per year, revealing a fluctuating trend with the highest recorded at 3.786 in 2003. Notably, 2003 saw a peak in citation rate despite a relatively low number of articles published, suggesting a probable correlation between citation rate and article quality over quantity. This correlation may hinge on the relevance of the cited article to the scholar’s own work.

The top five articles with the highest average annual citations in 2003 include Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy (Aissen, 2003), Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration (Belz, 2003), Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom (Gibbons, 2003), How contemporary history is presented in Chilean middle school textbooks (Oteiza, 2003), and A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations (Mohan and Beckett, 2003).

The consistent average citation per year from 2003 to 2023, as depicted in Fig. 2, underscores the heightened attention Systemic Functional Linguistics research has garnered in recent years. This sustained interest is indicative of the field’s enduring impact and widespread recognition.

5.3.2 Most globally cited articles

The top 10 globally cited documents in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics are listed as follows. Notably, Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy (Aissen, 2003), stands out as the most cited, accumulating 576 citations. This article delves into the penetration of differential object marking in object classes, exploring the tension between iconicity and the economy principle of avoiding case-marking. The resolution of this tension varies across languages.

Following closely is Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction (Hyland, 2007), accruing 396 citations. Hyland (2007) introduces genre-based language teaching principles, outlines classroom models, and discusses practical implementation, especially in ESP and SFL methods. Another notable work is Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter (Zappavigna, 2011), with 292 citations. Zappavigna (2011) employs Systemic Functional Linguistics to analyze the structure and meaning of tweets following Barack Obama’s 2008 U.S. presidential election victory.

It underscores the significance of conducting a longitudinal study in Systemic Functional Linguistics, emphasizing that articles with higher citations wield more influence in the study of this field.

5.4 Analysis of authors, affiliations, and countries

5.4.1 Prolific authors

There are 10 leading influential authors in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Zhang emerges as the most prolific author, contributing 14 articles primarily focused on the intersection of Systemic Functional Linguistics and education. Notably, Connecting OER With Mandatory Textbooks in an EFL Classroom: A Language Theory-Based Material Adoption (Zhang, 2018), stands out as the most cited in his collection, amassing 30 references. In this work, Zhang illustrates, under the guidance of SFL, the impact of blending mandatory textbooks and open educational resources on EFL learners’ adjustment and learning practices.

Following Zhang, Zappavigna published 13 documents, concentrating on the relationship between language and society. In the article Searchable Talk: the Linguistic Functions of Hashtags (Zappavigna, 2015), linguistic metafunctions are employed to explore how hashtags enact three simultaneous communicative functions.

Ranking third is Martin, who has dedicated his work to Appraisal Theory. In The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal Theory (Martin and White, 2003), a foundational book, he comprehensively explains Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation subsystems, establishing a robust theoretical framework for Appraisal Theory within Systemic Functional Linguistics.

Among the top five relevant authors is O’Halloran, who has contributed significantly to multimodality. In her work, she applies the Systemic Functional approach to Multimodal Discourse Analysis (O’Halloran, 2008), delving into the meaning arising through language and visual imagery in printed texts.

Table 2

Most Relevant Authors
Authors	Articles	Articles Fractionalized
ZHANG X	14	10.50
ZAPPAVIGNA M	13	8.25
MARTIN JR	12	8.33
KELLOGG D	10	5.83
O'HALLORAN KL	10	3.57
TROYAN FJ	10	5.50
BUTLER CS	9	7.50
OTEIZA T	9	4.50
SCHLEPPEGRELL MJ	9	5.83
CHEN Y	8	5.33

5.4.2 Author productivity through Lotka’s law

Lotka’s Law, initially proposed by American scholar A.J. Lotka in the 1920s, serves as an empirical law to characterize scientific productivity, specifically elucidating the correlation between the number of scholars and the papers they produce. It is credited as the first to unveil a connection between author frequency and article count, forming the cornerstone of bibliometrics and standing as a fundamental principle in this field.

Figure 3 provides a comprehensive breakdown of author contributions, revealing that a substantial proportion of the total authors, precisely 1,551 individuals (accounting for 79.8%), have contributed only a single document to the body of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) research. Furthermore, the data show that 220 authors (11.3%) have authored two documents, and 86 (4.4%) have contributed three documents each.

What stands out is the prevalent trend wherein most authors publish just one paper. This observation underscores the current landscape of SFL scholarship, pointing to the need for a more robust and diversified community of scholars. Encouraging greater scholarly output and engagement is pivotal in establishing a more representative and impact presence within Systemic Functional Linguistics. This insight into authorship patterns highlights the existing dynamics and unveils opportunities for improvement and long-term growth in SFL research. By fostering an environment that encourages multi-faceted contributions and sustained involvement, the field can evolve towards increased richness and diversity of perspectives, ultimately enriching the discourse and understanding within Systemic Functional Linguistics.

5.4.3 Most relevant affiliations and countries

Based on the volume of articles published in Systemic Functional Linguistics, the University of Sydney, Macquarie University, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Nanyang Technology University, Ghent University, Sun Yat-sen University, The University of New South Wales, the University of Michigan, The Pennsylvania State University, and City University of Hong Kong emerge as the top ten influential affiliations, producing 87, 85, 60, 56, 54, 46, 46, 40, 37, and 33 articles, respectively, in the last two decades. These institutions serve as pivotal contributors to the study of Systemic Functional Linguistics, reflecting collaborative efforts and a shared focus on advancing this field.

Figure 4 delineates the countries of the top 20 corresponding authors, highlighting the number of papers co-authored by authors of the same nationality (SCP), the number of papers co-authored with authors from other countries (MCP), and the ratio of international cooperation (MCP-ratio). The figure reveals a prevalence of collaboration among authors of the same nationality compared to international cooperation. The United States emerges as the foremost contributor with 307 publications, followed by China (285), Australia (198), the United Kingdom (141), Spain (114), and Canada (46). From a macro perspective, the United States and China occupy central positions in the collaborative efforts among participating countries.

Moreover, these nations hold the top five positions in the WoS core collection, with China being the sole developing country among them, affirming their leading roles in Systemic Functional Linguistics research. The prominence of these countries over the past two decades indicates a substantial commitment to the study of Systemic Functional Linguistics, with the publications of these authors expected to shape its future development.

Table 3 further details the top 20 relevant countries, providing information on average article citations and total citations. The United States leads with 5,320 total citations and an average article citation rate of 17.30, surpassing Australia and the United Kingdom with 3,123 and 2,047 total citations, respectively. This suggests a profound interest in Systemic Functional Linguistics among scholars from these nations, and the study’s focus is directly tied to national contexts. Notably, developing countries like China and Singapore demonstrate a growing attention to SFL. While China ranks second in terms of corresponding authors in SFL research, its citation rate ranks fourth. Similarly, the U.K. ranks fourth in corresponding authors, but its citation rate ranks third. This indicates a nuanced relationship between the number of correspondents and citation rate, emphasizing the importance of article quality and themes in influencing citation rates.

Table 3

Most cited countries
Country	T.C.	Average Article Citations
USA Australia United Kingdom China Spain Singapore Sweden Canada Germany Belgium Finland Netherlands Italy Chile Japan South Africa France Nigeria Switzerland Argentina	5,320	17.30
	3,123	15.80
	2,047	14.50
	1,505	5.30
	828	7.30
	587	15.40
	396	11.30
	391	8.50
	348	8.70
	269	6.10
	215	9.80
	207	12.20
	185	8.40
	164	8.60
	158	6.30
	157	5.10
	142	5.70
	101	10.10
	72	12.00
	70	5.40

To address the query about the current status of Systemic Functional Linguistics, we employ content analysis, utilizing tools such as Word Cloud, word growth analysis, thematic mapping, conceptual structure mapping, and the co-occurrence of authors’ keywords. These methods collectively shed light on the prevailing research topics in Systemic Functional Linguistics from 2003 to 2023.

6.1 Word cloud Analysis

Figure 5 and Fig. 6 showcase Word Cloud representations generated from keywords plus and authors’ keywords, providing visual insights into SFL research trends over the past two decades. Using biblioshiny, words with higher frequency and keyword density are depicted in larger, more prominent fonts. The Word Cloud analysis focuses on revealing frequently used terms, offering a snapshot of key research themes in Systemic Functional Linguistics. It is evident that “language” emerges as the most frequently employed term in the study of Systemic Functional Linguistics, followed by “discourse,” “transitivity,” “English,” and “knowledge.” This observation underscores the enduring significance of language as a central research theme in SFL over the past 20 years.

Authors’ keywords highlights “Systemic Functional Linguistics” as the most frequently used keyword, with other notable terms including “transitivity,” “appraisal,” “appraisal theory,” “linguistics,” and “multimodality.” These keywords signify fundamental topics within the SFL domain. Additionally, Fig. 5 illustrates a notable increase in the use of the term “language” in Systemic Functional Linguistics, signifying its indispensable role and significant impact on the field.

Figure 6 Word cloud (author’s keywords). The diagram reveals some of the most frequent words in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics in author’s keywords.

6.2 Thematic map analysis

The thematic map vividly depicts the evolution of SFL over the past two decades. Figure 7 reveals that the thematic map is segmented into four quadrants based on the degree of development (density) and relevance (centrality). The upper right quadrant, characterized by high centrality and density, signifies robust motor themes within the research field. Notably, “language,” “English,” “knowledge,” “construction,” “corpus,” and “stance” emerge as focal points, representing the core of research with promising development prospects. Conversely, the upper left quadrant, marked by high density and low centrality, signifies niche themes within SFL research. Here, “representations” stands out as a niche theme with potential for development but limited influence on the overall research field. Another significant quadrant is characterized by high centrality and low density. Terms such as “transitivity,” “grammar,” “theme,” “discourse,” “communication,” and “classroom” occupy this space, representing fundamental themes that are intricately linked to the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics. These core topics serve as a robust foundation, providing reasoning and techniques for furthering SFL research. The lower-left quadrant, with poor centrality and density, indicates subject clusters with marginalized influence. Terms like “agreement,” “media,” “news,” “social media,” “syntax,” “marking,” and “constructions” are situated here, suggesting that they are either emerging or declining themes within the field. This quadrant hints at the dynamic nature of SFL research, with new themes emerging and others losing prominence over time.

6.3 Conceptual structure map

We employ Biblioshiny to utilize Bibliometrix’s Conceptual Structure Map, specifically for Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA), an extension of simple correspondence analysis, proves to be a potent technique for managing larger and more intricate datasets (Greenacre and Blasius, 2006). This method assists in outlining a conceptual structure within the field and identifying groupings of texts that convey similar concepts. As depicted in Fig. 8, MCA was utilized to categorize keywords into two clusters. The colors signify distinct clusters, with the distance between keywords indicating their relatedness. Each vertex represents a word, and the node’s size corresponds to its frequency. Figure 8 reveals a central theme in Systemic Functional Linguistics, with certain research topics, such as the extensive application of SFL in education, being relatively well-developed. In the red cluster, words like “education,” “student,” “teacher,” “pedagogy,” and “learners” are frequently occurring, reflecting the widespread application of SFL in educational contexts. This result is consistent with Troyan et al., (2019) finding that SFL holds great potential as a contextualized and unifying theoretical foundation for world language teacher education.

The blue cluster includes the keyword “corpus,” indicating substantial research in SFL related to corpus linguistics (Danis, 2022; He, 2021). Systemic Functional Linguistics encompasses diverse subjects, including systemic functional grammar, discourse analysis, appraisal theory, multimodal discourse analysis, grammatical metaphor, and transitivity. Its intersectional and interdisciplinary nature, spanning education, corpus linguistics, Appraisal Theory, and discourse analysis, has become increasingly popular in research discussions. However, Walker (2012) examined EFL unit plans across upper primary and lower secondary schooling, revealing evidence of limitations in academic language development planning.

Figure 8 Conceptual structure map. This graph divides the keywords into two categories. Colors indicate different clusters and the distance between keywords indicates their relevance.

6.4 Co-occurrence of author’s keywords

Analyzing the co-occurrence of author’s keywords provides valuable insights into the evolving research landscape of Systemic Functional Linguistics over the past two decades. Employing keyword co-occurrence analysis proves to be a powerful methodology for unveiling the overarching knowledge structure within the field. In Fig. 9, we present a visual representation of the keyword co-occurrence network derived from a comprehensive examination of publications.

Within this network, each node signifies a specific keyword, and the size of the node corresponds to the frequency of citations the keyword has received. Links between nodes represent the co-occurrence of two keywords, with thicker lines indicating a higher frequency of their simultaneous appearance. In Fig. 9, the presence of five distinct clusters, distinguished by different colors, sheds light on the thematic concentrations within SFL research.

The red cluster prominently features keywords such as “systemic functional linguistics,” “appraisal,” “appraisal theory,” and “grammatical metaphor.” Their frequent co-occurrence implies a close association, indicating that these topics have been central to SFL research. Similarly, the blue cluster highlights the interconnectedness of “transitivity,” “critical discourse analysis,” “ideology,” and “systemic functional grammar.”

The purple circle draws attention to the singular prominence of “multimodality,” although it appears isolated from other keywords. Notably, it exhibits a mild association with “discourse” and “discourse analysis.” Moreover, the examination of orange and green nodes reveals an intriguing interconnection between “multimodal discourse,” “functional linguistics,” “genre,” “ systemic,” and “Linguistics.” This suggests a cohesive relationship among these research areas, underlining the interconnected nature of studies on “discourse analysis,” “systemic functional” research and related topics.

In summary, the co-occurrence analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the thematic concentrations within SFL research, uncovering clusters of interconnected keywords that have shaped the discourse over the past two decades. This methodology proves instrumental in discerning the evolving trends and foci within the field, highlighting the dynamic nature of Systemic Functional Linguistics as it engages with diverse topics and perspectives.

Figure 9 Co-occurrence authors’ keywords. This diagram reflects the frequency of author’s keywords citations by the different colored nodes and the size of the nodes.

Addressing the question of Systemic Functional Linguistics’ future prospects, this article leverages bibliometric tools, employing Thematic Evolution and Thematic Trends to anticipate upcoming research directions.

7.1 Thematic evolution

Illustrated in Fig. 10, the evolution of Systemic Functional Linguistics unfolds with a pivotal juncture in 2017, delineating two distinctive periods: 2003–2017 and 2017–2023. Key contributions during the earlier phase focused on grammar and syntax, as evidenced by seminal works like From cognitive-functional Linguistics to Dialogic Syntax (Du Bois and Giora, 2014), Initial vs. Non-initial Placement of agent constructions in Spoken Clauses (Kuiper et al., 2017), Layering in structural-functional grammars (Butler and Taverniers, 2008), and The syntax–semantics interface in systemic functional grammar (Taverniers, 2011).

Themes prevalent in the 2003–2017 era encompassed “language,” “construction,” “literacy,” “transitivity,” “syntax,” and “verb.” Notwithstanding dynamic shifts, “language,” “transitivity,” and “construction” sustained their popularity. However, a discernible transformation emerged post-2017, with a notable shift towards themes such as “discourse,” “social media,” and “education.” A plethora of articles from 2018 to 2023 adopted discourse analysis methodologies to scrutinize language in social media and news, marking a significant trend.

The evolving thematic landscape points towards the burgeoning significance of “discourse,” “social media,” and “education” in the SFL research agenda. These themes not only underscore the adaptability of SFL to contemporary linguistic phenomena but also indicate areas ripe for further exploration and development. The increasing emphasis on discourse analysis in the context of social media and education suggests promising avenues for future research within Systemic Functional Linguistics. Researchers are encouraged to delve deeper into these emerging themes to unravel new dimensions in linguistic analysis and contribute to the evolving landscape of SFL.

7.2 Emerging trends

Analyzing trends in the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics through the lens of topic prominence and evolution reveals intriguing insights. The node size, acting as a proxy for topic publication volume and the duration of peak popularity, serves as a valuable indicator. Figure 11 illustrates the considerable size of the blue node, particularly in relation to “language,” “English,” “knowledge,” “education,” and “construction” during 2015. This points to a flourishing period in research, emphasizing the enduring significance and productivity of these themes within the realm of Systemic Functional Linguistics.

The robust presence of these core topics not only underscores their foundational role but also suggests that they warrant sustained attention in forthcoming studies. This aligns seamlessly with the broader findings derived from the Thematic Evolution analysis conducted over the period of 2018 to 2023. The convergence of evidence further solidifies the assertion that “language,” “English,” “knowledge,” “education,” and “construction” are poised to remain central and influential in the trajectory of Systemic Functional Linguistics research.

Moreover, the exploration of high-frequency terms unveils additional dimensions to the evolving landscape. Terms like “discourse” making a notable appearance in 2018, “transitivity” gaining prominence in 2015, and “grammar” asserting its significance in 2014 signify the dynamic nature of the field. This dynamicity implies that the thematic exploration of “language,” “English,” “knowledge,” “education,” “construction,” “discourse,” “transitivity,” and “grammar” holds substantial potential for continued growth and exploration in the future of Systemic Functional Linguistics research.

In essence, the emergence of these high-frequency terms and the enduring prominence of foundational topics collectively suggest a rich landscape for exploration and inquiry within the field. Researchers and scholars are encouraged to delve deeper into these themes, acknowledging their historical significance while remaining attuned to the evolving nuances that contribute to the vibrant tapestry of Systemic Functional Linguistics research.

Utilizing a bibliometric tool, this study intricately analyzes the 20-year development of SFL. Through visualization methods encompassing productivity, content, and citation analyses, the research aims to uncover the current status and prevalent topics within SFL over the past two decades. Furthermore, it endeavors to predict future research directions, providing valuable insights for scholars and researchers interested in SFL. The bibliometric analysis reveals that SFL remains a comprehensive and popular subject in academia. Key themes such as “language,” “transitivity,” “syntax,” “grammar,” “discourse,” and “education” have consistently shaped and influenced SFL research. The enduring prominence of these themes reflects the enduring nature of SFL as a research domain. Moreover, the collaborative efforts of numerous authors, institutions, and countries underscore the global reach and significance of SFL research. Pivotal figures such as Zhang, Zappavigna, Martin, Kellogg, and O’Halloran have played crucial roles in contributing to the extensive body of SFL literature. The analysis also highlights the top-cited articles, influential journals, and leading countries in SFL research. Articles such as Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy (Judith Aissen, 2003), Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction (Hyland, 2007), and Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter (Zappavigna, 2011) have significantly impacted the field. Journals like Text and Talk, Linguistics and Education, Functions of Language, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, and Lingua have played crucial roles. The United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom emerge as the leading contributors to the development of SFL, with strong collaborative networks among them. Furthermore, the analysis of Trend Topics indicates that “language,” “English,” “knowledge,” “education,” “construction,” “discourse,” “transitivity,” and “grammar” are poised for continued significance in future SFL research.

While bibliometric methods effectively unveil the knowledge structure and research themes within a research field, offering insights into potential future research directions, they should not be considered a substitute for comprehensive reading. A broad understanding is a prerequisite for delving into the depths of a research field. Looking ahead, there is a need for a more pronounced integration of quantitative methods in Systemic Functional Linguistics to challenge the functional aspects of methodological approaches in research. Additionally, a holistic approach that combines both qualitative and quantitative methods should be embraced in future SFL research.

As a comprehensive review study aiming to provide an overarching perspective on Systemic Functional Linguistics research over the past two decades through bibliometric analysis, the study inherently falls short of delving into specific facets within the expansive field of SFL. The broad strokes painted by this study, while valuable in providing a panoramic view, might not capture the intricacies and nuances embedded in the various subdomains of SFL research.

Furthermore, this quantitative approach, utilizing a bibliometric tool and relying on data extracted from databases, is inherently constrained by its emphasis on visual representations and statistical analyses. The absence of a qualitative method for data collection and analysis in this study represents a noteworthy limitation, as it precludes a nuanced exploration of the subjective aspects that quantitative metrics may overlook.

To pave the way for a more profound understanding of SFL, it is recommended that future research endeavors adopt a more diversified approach. This involves incorporating qualitative methods alongside quantitative analyses, allowing for a richer exploration of the contextual intricacies that shape SFL research. Moreover, there is a need for studies that focus on more specific issues within the realm of SFL, complementing the broader perspective provided by bibliometric analyses. This targeted approach will contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced comprehension of the intricacies within Systemic Functional Linguistics, fostering a more robust foundation for future research initiatives. Researchers are encouraged to embrace a multidimensional strategy that goes beyond quantitative metrics, ensuring a holistic and insightful exploration of the multifaceted landscape of SFL.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest to disclose. This ensures transparency and upholds the integrity of the research, indicating that the study was conducted without any financial or personal interests that could potentially influence the outcomes or interpretation of the findings. .

Ethical approval an informed consented

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Aissen J (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Nat Lang Linguist Th 21(3). 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573
Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr 11(4). 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Bartlett T (2014) Analysing power in language: A practical guide. Routledge.
Belz JA (2003) Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Lang Learn Technol 7(2).
Briones RRY (2016) Textual analysis through systemic functional linguistics. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics 1(2). 109–144. https:/doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v1i2.27
Broadus RN (1987) Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics 12. 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680
Butler CS, Taverniers M (2008) Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics 46(4). 689–756. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.024
Carapic B (2006) An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. J Socioling.
Ci Y, Jiao F, Tu W, Fang J (2021, April) Analysis on Development Tendency of Computer Vision and Graphics based on Bibliometrics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1883, No. 1, p. 012054). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1883/1/012054
Coffin C (2013) Using systemic functional linguistics to explore digital technologies in educational contexts. Text Talk 33(4–5), 497–522.
Danis N (2022) A corpus analysis of disciplinary identity in evaluative journal articles: A Systemic Functional Linguistics approach. Engl Specif Purp 68. 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.07.003
Du Bois JW, Giora R (2014) From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cogn Linguist 25(3). 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0023
Eggins S, Slade D (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
Erboz G, Abbas H, Nosratabadi S (2023) Investigating supply chain research trends amid Covid-19: a bibliometric analysis. Mang Res Rev 46(3). 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0408
Figueiredo D (2010) Context, register and genre: Implications for language education. Rev Signos 43. 119. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-09342010000300008
Fontaine L (2012) Analysing English grammar: A systemic functional introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons P (2003) Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quart 37(2). 247–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588504
Greenacre M, Blasius J (eds) (2006) Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. CRC press.
Halliday M A K (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.
Halliday MA (1966) Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar. J Linguist 2(1). 57–67.
Halliday MA (2008) Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies 7–23.
Halliday MAK (1978) Language As Social Semiotic. Edward Arnold.
Han SF, Zhu RF, Qin TT (2017) A study on clinical nursing research trends and hotspots based on bibliometric analysis. Chinese Nursing Research 4(4). 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnre.2017.04.001.
He Q (2021) A corpus-based study of interpersonal metaphors of modality in English. Stud Neophilol 93(1). 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2020.1792805
Hyland K (2007) Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. J Second Lang Writ 16(3). 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Inako A (2019) Different bonds around plutonium: Physicists’ and freelance journalists’ tweets at the time of the 3/11 nuclear crisis. Discourse Context Me 29. 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.11.003
Kress G, Van Leeuwen T (2002) Colour as a semiotic mode: notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Commun-us 1(3). 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/147035720200100306
Kuiper K, Bimesl N, Kempen G, Ogino M (2017) Initial vs. non-initial placement of agent constructions in spoken clauses: A corpus-based study of language production under time pressure. Lang Sci 64. 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.06.001
Lee D (2023) Bibliometric analysis of Asian ‘language and linguistics’ research: a case of 13 countries. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10(1):1–23
Logi L, Zappavigna M (2023) A social semiotic perspective on emoji: How emoji and language interact to make meaning in digital messages. New Media Soc 25(12). 3222–3246. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211032965
Marginson, S. (2022) Global science and national comparisons: beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics. Comp Educ 58(2). 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2021.1981725
Martin J. R., & Rose, D. (2008) Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Equinox Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2003). The language of evaluation (Vol. 2). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matthiessen C, Teruya K, Lam M (2010) Key terms in systemic functional linguistics. A&C Black.
Mohan B, Beckett GH (2003) A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern Language Journal 87(3). 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00199
O’Halloran KL (2008) Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Commun-us 7(4) 443–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208096210
O’Halloran KL, Fei VL (2014) 13 Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis. Interactions, images and texts: a reader in multimodality 11.137.
Oteiza T (2003) How contemporary history is presented in Chilean middle school textbooks. Discourse Soc 14(5). 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030145005
Peng Z, Khatin-Zadeh, O (2023) Research on metaphor processing during the past five decades: a bibliometric analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 10(1), 1–13.
Salini S (2016) An introduction to bibliometrics. Research methods for Postgraduates 130–143.
Samsul SA, Yahaya N, Abuhassna H (2023) Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 10(1), 1–11.
Sembiante SF, Tian Z (2021) Culturally sustaining approaches to academic languaging through systemic functional linguistics. Lang Educ-uk 35(2). 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1896538
Taverniers M (2011) The syntax–semantics interface in systemic functional grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. J Pragmatics 43(4). 1100–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.003
Thompson G (2013) Introducing functional grammar. Routledge.
Troyan FJ, Sembiante SF, King N (2019) A case for a functional linguistic knowledge base in world language teacher education. Foreign Lang Ann 52(3). 644–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12410
Veroz MA (2017) Translation in the European Parliament: The study of the ideational function in technical texts (EN/FR/ES). Meta 62(1). 19–44. https://doi.org/10.7202/1040465ar
Walker E (2012) An exploration of planning for English-as-foreign-language (EFL) academic language development. J Engl Acad Purp 11(4). 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.06.001
Wang C, Chen X, Yu T, Liu Y, Jing Y (2024) Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 11(1), 1–17.
Wilson V (2012) Research Methods: Bibliometrics. Evid Based Lib Inf P 7(3). 121–123. https://doi.org/10.18438/B82C9K
Yan M, Wu X (2024) Prosody in linguistic journals: a bibliometric analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 11(1), 1–15.
Zappavigna M (2011) Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media Soc 13(5). 788–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097
Zappavigna M (2015) Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Soc Semiot 25(3). 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.996948
Zhang X (2018) Connecting OER with mandatory textbooks in an EFL classroom: A language theory–based material adoption. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 19(2)
Zhao X, Han Y, Zhao X (2019) A corpus-based study of metaphor in Pavilion of Women. Chin Semiot Stud, 15(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2019-0006
Zhao X, Shen R, Zhao X (2020) A Cognitive-Semiotic Construal of Metaphor in Discourse: A corpus-based approach. Chin Semiot Stud, 16(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2020-0006
Zhao X, Zheng Y, Zhao X (2023) Global bibliometric analysis of conceptual metaphor research over the recent two decades. Front Psychol, 14, 1042121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1042121

(Not answered)

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Two Decades’ Development of Systemic Functional Linguistics Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Overview global studies of SFL

3. Critical evaluation of previous research into SFL

4. Methodology

4.1 Research questions

4.2 Data sources

4.3 Data collection and extraction

4.4 Bibliometrics analysis tools

5. Results and discussion

5.1 Main information about the data

5.2 Annual scientific production

5.3 Analysis of cited documents

5.3.1 Average citations per year

5.3.2 Most globally cited articles

5.4 Analysis of authors, affiliations, and countries

5.4.1 Prolific authors

5.4.2 Author productivity through Lotka’s law

5.4.3 Most relevant affiliations and countries

6. Research themes in Systemic Functional Linguistics

6.1 Word cloud Analysis

6.2 Thematic map analysis

6.3 Conceptual structure map

6.4 Co-occurrence of author’s keywords

7. Future research direction in Systemic Functional Linguistics

7.1 Thematic evolution

7.2 Emerging trends

8. Conclusion

9. Limitations and recommendations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1