English Text: System And Structure
A Meticulous Examination Of Martin (1992)
Thursday 7 November 2024
Friday 7 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 1 — Discourse Semantics: A Proposal For Triple Articulation
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 1 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- The Aim Of Martin (1992)
- Confusing Strata
- Misunderstanding The Natural Relation Of Grammar And Semantics
- Confusing Realisation And Instantiation
- Misconstruing Realisation And Instantiation
- Blurring The Distinction Between Function (Structure) And Form (Rank Scale)
- Preparing To Argue 'From Below' And Misunderstanding 'Cumulative'
- Misrepresenting Information Distribution
- Misrepresenting Agency As A Recursive System
- Misunderstanding Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
- Confusing Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
- Falsely Claiming That The Content Plane Was Not Stratified Before Martin (1992)
- The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification
- Grammatical Metaphor As Martin's Second Motivation For Stratifying Content
- Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
- Self-Contradiction On Modelling Grammatical Metaphor
- Misrepresenting Cohesion
- Misrepresenting The Domain Of Cohesion
- Misconstruing 'Cohesion Within The Sentence'
- Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion
- Martin's Claim That Cohesion Is Only "Measured" Between Clause Complexes
- Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid
- Martin's Stratification Of The Content Plane
- Misconstruing Stratification
- Metafunctional Structure Types In Discourse Semantics
- Confusing Formal Constituency With Function Structure
- Misrepresenting Multivariate Structure
- Misconstruing The Level Of Symbolic Abstraction Of Cohesion
- Conflating Realisation With Instantiation
- Inconsistency In Reconstruing Reference As Identification
- Problems In Construing Cohesive Ties As Identification Structure
- Problems In Construing Cohesive Ties As Ideation Structure
- Blurring The Distinction Between Paradigmatic And Syntagmatic Lexical Relations
- Inconsistencies In The Notion Of 'Discourse Semantic Structure'
- Discourse Semantic Systems: Metafunctional Inconsistencies
- Misrepresenting Texture
- Confusing Stratification With Instantiation: Register And Genre
- "The Purpose Of These Descriptions Is To Enhance, Not Supplant, Those Offered In Cohesion In English"
- Martin's Interpersonal Discourse Semantic System Of NEGOTIATION
- Martin's Textual Discourse Semantic System Of IDENTIFICATION
- Martin's Logical Discourse Semantic System Of CONJUNCTION
- Martin's Experiential Discourse Semantic System Of IDEATION
- Martin On Cohesion, Coherence, Cohesive Harmony And Texture
- Misconstruing Register As Context
Thursday 6 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 2 — Negotiation: Shaping Meaning Through Dialogue
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 2 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- Negotiation As The Semantics Of Mood
- Misrepresenting Halliday On Mood And Misunderstanding Ineffability And Stratification
- Misrepresenting Stratification
- Misrepresenting Stratal Relations
- Confusing Context With Co-Text And Material Setting
- Using A Textual Grammatical System To Argue For An Interpersonal Semantic System
- Strategically Misrepresenting The Relation Between Speech Function And Mood
- Serious Problems With Martin's Mood System
- Misrepresenting The Realisation Of Speech Function In Mood
- Trying To Classify Speech Function 'From Below'
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Speech Function
- Using Modality To "Determine" Speech Function
- Misunderstanding Modality In Responses To WH- Interrogatives
- Blurring Context And Material Setting
- Confusing Semogenesis And Stratification
- Misrepresenting Speech Function And Mood
- Martin's MOOD Network For Clauses Realising SPEECH FUNCTION
- Misrepresenting The Interpersonal Function Of Independent, Dependent And Embedded Clauses
- Dependent Clauses, Speech Function And Negotiability
- Misrepresenting Nonfinite Clauses
- Greetings and Calls
- The Line Between Exclamations and Statements
- Misrepresenting The Potential Of Ellipsis To Negotiate Attitude
- Misrepresenting Stratification
- Misrepresenting Speech Function
- Misunderstanding Stratification And Incongruence
- Underestimating The Mood Grammar
- The Inconsistency In Treating Genre As A Connotative Semiotic
- Confusing Paradigmatic Features With Syntagmatic Structure
- Misconstruing Metafunctions As Modules
- Misconstruing Stratification
- Misrepresenting Structure, Metafunction And Stratum
- Confusing Unmarkedness And Congruence
- Martin's Reason Why Discourse Semantic Units Cannot Be Defined As Categorically As Grammatical Units
- Conflating Content And Expression
- Martin On Modularity, Realisation And Reddy's Conduit Metaphor
- Misunderstanding Stratification
- Martin's Problems With Explicitness
Wednesday 5 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 3 — Identification: Reference As Semantic Choice
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 3 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- Misunderstanding Grammatical Intricacy
- On Context "Independency"
- Misunderstanding The Use Of Reference In A Child's Text
- Confusing Semogenesis With Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
- Confusing Tracking With Identifying And Misrepresenting English Grammar
- Confusing Nominal Group Deixis With Cohesive Reference
- Confusing Nominal Group Deixis With Reference And A Self-Contradiction
- Confusing Identifiability With Newsworthiness, Deixis And Reader Knowledge
- Confusing Nominal Groups With Reference Items
- Confusing Frege's Reference (Bedeutung) With Halliday's Reference
- Rebranding Co-Reference As Reminding Phoricity
- Rebranding Comparative Reference As 'Relevance Phoricity'
- Misconstruing Ellipsis–&–Substitution As Reference And Rebranding It As "Redundancy Phoricity"
- Rebranding Co-Reference, Comparative Reference And Substitution As Reminding, Relevance And Redundancy Phoricity
- Misconstruing A Textual Relation (Reference) As A Logical Relation (Dependency)
- Confusing Semantic Relations (Reference) With Grammatical Relations (Ellipsis–&–Substitution)
- Misidentifying Both The Reference Item And The Referent
- Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Cause As Comparative Reference
- Misconstruing Phonology As Grammatical Ellipsis–&–Substitution Misunderstood As Semantic Reference
- Misconstruing The Absence Of Reference As "Presenting" Reference
- Confusing The Referent With The Reference System And Reference With Lexical Cohesion (Hyponymy)
- Misidentifying Instances Of Reference In A Text
- Self-Contradiction And Circular Reasoning
- On Knowledge Of Language As Context
- Using Pronouns Generically Without Presuming Generic Participants
- On Adjectives In "Generic Groups" And "Relevance Phoricity"
- Confusing Nominal Group Deixis With Reference
- Confusing Reference With Ellipsis And Deixis
- A Manifestly False Claim
- Confusing Reference With Misunderstood Deixis
- Misrepresenting A Misunderstanding Of Deixis As Reference
- Confusing Experiential Content With Textual Reference
- Using A Report Of Unseen Data To Support An Unlikely Claim
- An Invalid Conclusion From An Unlikely Claim
- Confusing Non-Specific Deixis With Demonstrative Reference
- Non-Phoric Reference
- Deploying A Logical Fallacy To Deceive The Reader
- Confusing Deixis, Reference, New And Theme
- Misconstruing Non-Specific Deixis As Reference
- Confusing Deixis With Reference
- Confusing Identifiability With Identity
- Mistaking Experiential Identity For Textual Reference
- Confusing Textual Reference With 'Transcendent' Reference
- Mistaking Proper Nouns For Common Nouns
- Misunderstanding The Function Of Personal Reference Items
- Mistaking The Experiential Construal Of Participants For Textual Reference
- Misconstruing Experiential Naming And Interpersonal Deixis As Textual Reference
- Confusing Construing Participants With Reference
- Misunderstanding And Rebranding Demonstrative And Comparative Reference
- Mistaking Deixis For Reference
- Mistaking Numeratives And Epithets For Reference Items
- Mistaking Experiential Construal For Textual Reference
- The Oxymoron Of "Undirected" Reference
- Mistaking The Deictic Function Of Determiners For Their Referential Function
- Mistaking An Ordinal Numeral For A Superlative Adjective
- A Misunderstanding Of A Nominal Group And A Misleading Inference
- Confusing Nominal Group Structure With Non-Structural Reference
- Deliberately Omitting Falsifying Evidence
- Rebranding A Misunderstanding Of A Grammatical Opposition As Discourse Semantic
- Mistaking Experiential For Textual, Grammar For Semantics, And Nominal Groups For Reference Items
- Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [1]
- Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [2]
- Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [3]
- Misconstruing Nominal Group Modality As Comparative Reference
- Misconstruing Comparative Reference
- Some Of The Problems With Martin's Comparison Systems
- Misconstruing Homophoric Reference As Not Phoric
- Strategically Confusing Delicacy And Realisation
- Fig. 3.9 The System Of Identification
- Strategically Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan (1976: 145)
- Confusing Ideational Denotation With Textual Reference
- Confusing Material Setting And Context Of Situation
- Misunderstanding Homophoric Reference And Context Of Culture
- Misconstruing Context As Language And Material Setting Instead Of Culture
- Reasoning 'From Below' Instead Of 'From Above' And A Self-Contradiction
- Misunderstanding Homophoric Reference As Its Opposite
- The Inconsistencies Created By Rebranding Structural Cataphora As Esphora
- Misunderstanding The Interpersonal Function Of Embedding
- Confusing Immanent Textual Reference With Transcendent Ideational Denotation
- Confusing Grammatical Reference And Lexical Cohesion
- Mistaking Ideational Denotation For Textual Reference
- Reference Without Referents
- Confusing Ideational Denotation With Textual Reference
- Confusing Instantiation With The Syntagmatic Axis
- Text [3.1] — A Reference Analysis
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [1]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [2]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [3]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [4]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [5]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [6]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [7]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [8]
- Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [9]
- Using Writing Pedagogy To Imply Theory Validation
- Foreshadowing A Misconstrual Of Stratal Relations
- Participant–Nominal Group "Incongruence"
- On 'Structural It' Not Realising A Participant
- On Nominal Groups In Idioms Not Realising A Participant
- On Indefinite Nominal Groups Under The Scope Of Negation Not Realising A Participant
- On Nominal Groups Realising Attributes But Not Realising Participants
- On Nominal Groups Realising Range (Process) But Not Realising Participants
- On Nominal Groups Realising Range (Entity) But Not Realising Participants
- On Nominal Groups In Location Circumstances Not Realising Participants
- On Nominal Groups In Extent Circumstances Not Realising Participants
- On Nominal Groups In Role Circumstances Not Realising Participants
- On "The Problem Of Realising More Than One Participant In A Nominal Group"
- On Possessive "Pronouns" In Deictic Position
- On "Whether Possessive Deictics Are The Deixis Of The Participant They Possess"
- Misconstruing Embedded Things (And An Epithet) As Participants
- Misconstruing Nominal Group Heads As Participants
- Confusing Textual Reference With Interpersonal Deixis
- Strategically Misapplying The Term 'Incongruence'
- Misunderstanding Grammaticalisation
- Misinterpreting Substitution-&-Ellipsis As Reference
- Relating Phoricity Types To Nominal Group Structure
- Giving Priority To Structure And Form Instead Of System And Function
- Martin's Argument For Stratifying Identification And Nominal Group Options
- Confusing Identity With Identifiability
- Confusing Participant Identity With The Systemic Means Of Referring To Referents
- Confusing Semogenesis With Stratification
- A Reference Chain Of Non-Participant And Participant
- Another Reference Chain Of Non-Participant And Participant
- Oversimplifying Nominalisation
- Two Bare Assertions Based On A Logical Confusion
- "Villified"
- Misunderstanding Nominalisation And Reference
- Confusing Ideational Construal With Textual Reference
- Confusing Metafunctions And Confusing Types Of Cohesion
- The Notion Of "Grammatical Metaphor Functioning As A Kind Of Discourse Process"
- Metafunctional Inconsistency
- Two Theoretical Problems With Reference Chains
- Mistaking Nominal Groups For Reference Items
- A Fatal Theoretical Flaw And Misrepresenting Du Bois (1980)
- Identifying 'The Cat' With 'Her Dinner'
- Participant Chains Of Non-Participants
- Reminding Phoricity, Relevance Phoricity And Bridging Clarified
- Redundancy Phoricity: A System With No Structural Realisation
- A Misleading Analysis Of "Instantial Reference"
- Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan On Reference
- The Re-Initiation Of Generic Reference Chains
- The Analysis Of Text [3:88]: An Attempt To Hide A Theoretical Inconsistency
- Eight Problems With Martin's Six Notes To His Analysis Of Text [3:88]
- Eight Problems With Martin's Nine Notes To His Analysis Of Text [3:89]
- Confusing Circumstances Of Location With Reference Items
- Mistaking Manner For Extent And Confusing Circumstances With Comparative Reference Items
- Metafunctional Inconsistencies
- Some Of The Theoretical Problems With Participant As The Entry Condition To The System Of Identification
- Misconstruing 'Multivariate' & Metafunctional Inconsistencies
- Martin's Insight That Interruptions Depend On There Being Something To Interrupt
- The Commonality Of Reference Structures And Negotiation Structures
- The Major Limitation On The Account Of Participant Identification
Tuesday 4 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 4 — Conjunction & Continuity: The Logic Of English Text
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 4 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- Why The Argument For A Discourse Semantics Of Logical Relations Is Invalid
- Underplaying The Scope Of Logical Relations
- Conflating Systems Of The Logical And Textual Metafunctions
- Misconstruing Different Systems As Divergent Classifications
- Misrepresenting Different Manifestations Of Expansion As Indeterminacy
- Misconstruing Extension As Enhancement
- Misconstruing the Theoretical Status Of Expansion
- Presenting Subtypes Of Expansion As The Principal Types
- Misidentifying A Metafunction
- Misinterpreting Internal And External Conjunctive Relations
- Confusing Conjunctive Relations With Conjuncted Messages
- Confusing Textual Relations With Construals Of Experience
- Confusing The Logical And Textual Metafunctions And Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement
- Misconstruing Internal And External Relations
- Confusing The Logical And Experiential Metafunctions
- Rebranding Grammar As Discourse Semantics
- Seeing Metafunctions As Alternatives Rather Than Complementary
- Confusing Ideational Cause And Interpersonal Modulation
- Using 'Condition' To Unite 'Cause' And 'Manner' As 'Consequential'
- Misconstruing Manner As Cause
- Misconstruing Condition And Purpose As Cause–Effect
- Misconstruing The Distinction Between Condition And Purpose
- Misrepresenting Reason As Purpose
- Misconstruing Negative Vs Positive Condition
- Misconstruing Negative Vs Positive Purpose
- Misconstruing Condition And Purpose
- Confusing Condition With Probability
- Misconstruing Reason And Result As Purpose
- Misconstruing Manner As A Cause-Effect Relation
- Misconstruing A Dependent Clause As A Postmodifier In An Adverbial Group
- Misconstruing Concession As Manner
- Misconstruing Adversative Extension As 'Concessive Purpose'
- Misconstruing Positive Condition As Concessive
- Confusing Enhancement (Manner: Comparison) With Extension (Adversative Addition)
- Confusing Dissimilar (Enhancement) With Adversative (Extension)
- The Argument For Comparison As A Major Logical Category
- Misconstruing Adversative Addition (Extension) As Manner: Comparison (Enhancement)
- Misconstruing Subtractive And Replacive Variation (Extension) As Subtypes Of Comparison (Enhancement)
- Using Clause Simplexes To Theorise Conjunctive Relations
- Confusing Negative Addition With Negative Polarity
- Confusing Internal With Cohesive, Similar With Elaboration, Different With Adversative
- Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Apposition' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'
- Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Clarification' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'
- Misconstruing Cohesive As Internal
- Misconstruing Types Of Elaboration As Types Of Enhancement
- Confusing (Elaborating) Conjunctive Relations With (Elaborating) Relational Processes
- Misconstruing Apposition (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)
- Misconstruing A Modal Adjunct As A Conjunctive Adjunct
- Misconstruing Summative Clarification (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)
- Confusing Textual Clarification With The Enactment Of Meaning
- Misconstruing Textual Clarification As Text Emendation
- Misconstruing Internal Conjunction
- Misconstruing Resumptive Clarification As Interrupted Comparison
- Misconstruing Different Metafunctional Manifestations Of Extension As Subtypes Of Enhancement
- Misconstruing Elaboration Vs Extension As Internal Enhancement
- Misconstruing Mixed Types Of Elaboration & Extension As Degrees Of Enhancement
- Rebranding Grammatical Relations As Discourse Semantic Relations
- Misconstruing Continuity As Addition
- Misconstruing Continuity And Clarifying Elaboration As Additive Extension
- Rebranding Extending Vs Elaborating As Developing Vs Staging
- Misconstruing Extension As A 'Continuity' Of Additive And Comparative Relations
- Reconstruing A False Dichotomy As Hyponymy
- Misconstruing An Interpersonal Concession As A Non-Concessive Logical Relation
- Mistaking Comment Adjuncts For Conjunctions
- Confusing Metafunctions — And Expansion Types
- Misconstruing Types Of Comment Adjuncts As Marking Modality Values Of A Logical Relation
- Misconstruing Clarification (Elaborating) As Concession (Enhancing)
- Not Recognising A Genuine Concessive Relation
- Mistaking A Thematised Mood Adjunct Of Temporality For Internal Temporal Conjunction
- Misrepresenting Internal Vs External Relations
- Misconstruing Structural Vs Cohesive As External Vs Internal
- Misconstruing The Meaning Of Internal Conjunctive Relations
- Misrepresenting Continuity
- Conjunction, "Continuity" And Thematicity
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [1]
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [2]
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [3]
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [1]
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [2]
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [3]
- Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [4]
- Misconstruing The Difference Between Conjunction And Continuity
- Misconstruing Types Of Adjunct As Types Of Continuity Item
- Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Continuity Items Of Counterexpectation
- Misconstruing Interpersonal Counterexpectancy As Logical Continuity
- Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Aspectual Continuity Markers
- Misconstruing the Function Of A Mood Adjunct (Misconstrued As A Continuity Item)
- Misconstruing Substitution As Continuity
- Misconstruing Residue Substitution As Continuity
- Misconstruing A Circumstantial Adjunct As A Continuity Item
- The Omission Of Projection And Hypotactic Elaboration From The Logic Of Discourse Semantics
- Misconstruing Parataxis As Addition (Extension)
- Misconstruing An Implicit Conjunctive Relation As Internal
- Misapplying Logical Nesting To Textual Relations
- Misapplying Textual Reference To Logical Dependency
- Misconstruing Circumstantial Comparison As Conjunctive Comparison
- Criticising Others For Not Making The Same Mistakes
- Confusing Textual Relations With Logogenesis
- Maintaining That Clause Simplexes "Cause Problems For The Clause Complex Analysis"
- Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis
- Confusing Textual Conjunction With Logical Relations
- Misrepresenting The Discourse Systems Of Conjunction & Identification
- Confusing Cohesive Relations With Logogenesis
Monday 3 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 5 — Ideation: The Company Words Keep
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 5 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- Misrepresenting The Chapter 4 Model Of Conjunction
- Misconstruing Context As Register
- Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Dictionary Definitions
- Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Thesaurus
- Misrepresenting The Model Of Transitivity
- Misconstruing Unassigned vs Assigned As Single vs Double Agency
- Misrepresenting 'Semiotic'
- Misrepresenting The Directions Of Coding And Mistaking A Verbal Projection Nexus For An Identifying Clause
- Falsely Claiming To Have Uniquely Classified Two Lexical Items
- Misconstruing The Agency Of Identifying Clauses
- Lexical Cohesion Update
- Confusing Textual Cohesion With Experiential Delicacy
- Relocating Lexis Outside Language
- Misconstruing Semantics As Context
- Inconsistencies Of Structure And Metafunction
- Misconstruing The Difference Between Lexical Item And Grammatical Word
- Confusing Register (Language) With Context (Culture)
- Confusing Context With Semantics
- Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]
- Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [2]
- Misconstruing Experiential As Constituent Of Logical
- Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics
- Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent
- Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar
- Misrepresenting Superordination (Hyponymy)
- Misconstruing Field As Language
- Misconstruing Meronymy As Hyponymy
- Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Hyp(er)onymy
- Misconstruing Synonymy
- Confusing Lexis With Grammar
- Misconstruing Antonymy
- Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [1]
- Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [2]
- Misconstruing Location (Enhancement) As Possession (Extension)
- Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [3]
- Misconstruing Synonymy + Collocation As Relational Meronymy
- Confusing Lexical Cohesion And Reference
- Misrepresenting Hyponymy As Bridging Hyponymy
- Misrepresenting Meronymy As Bridging Meronymy
- An Unwarranted Claim About the System Of Identification
- Misconstruing Ranges As Mediums
- Confusing Collocation With Transitivity
- Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [1]
- Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [2]
- Misconstruing Expansion Relations Realised In The Nominal Group
- Misrepresenting Ranges As Mediums
- Misconstruing Enhancing Circumstances As Elaborating Ranges
- Misconstruing Enhancement (Cause) As Elaboration
- Misconstruing Extension (Composition) As Elaboration
- Misconstruing Extension (Possession) As Elaboration
- Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement
- Misrepresenting Elaboration
- Misconstruing Enhancement & Projection As Extension
- Misconstruing Elaboration As Extension
- Reducing All Verbal Group Complex Relations To Extension
- Relocating A Subset Of Manner Circumstances To The Verbal Group
- Reclassifying Function According To Form
- Misconstruing Projection As Enhancement
- Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Elaboration As Extension
- Classifying Expansion Type On The Basis Of Form
- Presenting Theoretical Misunderstandings As An 'Alternative Perspective'
- Misconstruing Experiential Nuclearity As Logical Expansion Type
- Misunderstanding 'Instantiate'
- Misconstruing Elaboration As Extension And Extension As Elaboration
- Misconstruing Logical Relations As Interpersonal Enactments
- Confusing Metafunctions And Confusing Context With Semantics
- Misconstruing Extension As Enhancement
- Confusing Implication, Cause And Modulation
- Misconstruing Ideational Semantics As Field
- Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions
- Self-Contradiction And Misunderstanding Stratification
- No Identifiable Discourse Semantic Unit Realised By Clause Complexes
- The Avoidance Of Experiential Meaning In Discourse Semantics
- Using Ideational Labels For Textual Units And Vice Versa
- Misconstruing Incongruent Realisations And Expansion Types
- Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration And General As Instantial
- Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
- Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions
- Claiming The Verb 'Stand' Is A Repetition Of The Verb 'Tabled'
- Claiming That Analysing A Text Can Alter The Mode Of The Text
- Structural & Metafunctional Inconsistencies
- Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration
- Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
- Misconstruing Mode As Genre
- Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause
- Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension
- Misconstruing Mode As Genre
- Misconstruing Context As Register
- Misidentifying The Main Differences Between Martin And Hasan
- Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor & Neglecting Interstratal Accountability
- Misidentifying Transitivity Rôles And Expansion Types
- A Summary Of Discourse Systems Inconsistencies
- Misconstruing Instantial Probabilities As Structural Relations
- Construing A Scale From Hyponym To Ellipsis (Via Word Classes)
- A Convoluted Non-Sequitur
- Misconstruing Instantiation Probability As The Opposite Of Anaphoric Reference
- Three Minor Clarifications
- Confusing Three Distinct Notions Of "Predicting" Discourse
- Claiming That Conjunctive Relations Are Realised By Nouns
- Multiplying A Misunderstanding Of The External Vs Internal Distinction
- Misrepresenting Field And Misconstruing Interstratal Realisation
- Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Material'
- Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Come To Be'
- Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Reconstitutes B'
- Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Is A Metaphor For B'
- Self-Contradiction
- Misrepresenting Interstratal Relations
Sunday 2 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 6 — Texture: Interleaving Discourse Semantics, Lexicogrammar And Phonology
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 6 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
- Misrepresenting Inconsistency As Consistency
- Misconstruing Collocation And Interstratal Relations
- Misconstruing Substitution–&–Ellipsis
- Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan
- Misconstruing Stratification And Grammatical Metaphor
- Resorting To A Misconstrual of Stratification
- Misconstruing Cataphoric Reference
- Misconstruing Stratification
- Misconstruing Textual Grammar As "Redounding With" Interpersonal And Experiential Semantics
- Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan And Confusing Metafunctions
- Misrepresenting Interstratal Realisation, Grammatical Metaphor & Register
- Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules
- Misrepresenting Realisation And Preselection
- Misunderstanding Stratification
- Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation And Instantiation
- Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal
- Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
- Misrepresenting Halliday On The Stratification Of Content
- Misunderstanding The Principles Of Metafunction And Stratification
- Misunderstanding The Textual Metafunction And Misrepresenting Context As Register
- Misrepresenting Tenor As A 'Register Variable'
- Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Ideation
- Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Identification
- Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Conjunction
- Ideational Metaphor And Mode
- Misconstruing Non-Structural Cohesion As Discourse Structure
- Misconstruing Types Of Language As More Abstract Than Language
- Misconstruing Contextual Systems And 'Text Forming Resources'
- Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
- Taking A Monostratal Approach To Grammatical Metaphor
- Mistaking Ideational Metaphor For Metaphor
- Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor
- Claiming That Location Circumstances Realise Relations Between Clauses
- Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor As An Interaction Of Logical & Experiential Metaphors
- Reducing Expansion To Conjunctive Relations
- Misconstruing Ideational Metaphor
- Misrepresenting Internal Conjunctive Relations
- Misconstruing Experiential Manifestations Of Expansion As Logical Metaphor
- Under-Representing The Scope Of Ideational Metaphor
- Misconstruing Technical Terms As Grammatical Metaphors
- Reducing Ideational Metaphor To The Transcategorisation Of Elements
- Confusing Logogenesis With Text Analysis & Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
- Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
- Misconstruing Modal Adjuncts As Interpersonal Metaphor
- Misconstruing Congruent Obligation As Metaphorical Inclination
- Misconstruing Metaphors Of Mood
- Misrepresenting Metaphors Of Mood
- On The Ineffability Of Interpersonal Texturing
- Misrepresenting (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
- Confusing Metalanguage And Language
- Misunderstanding (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
- Problems With The Argument For "Textual" Metaphor
- The Confused Notion Of "Logically Oriented Textual Metaphor"
- The Confused Notion Of "Interpersonally Oriented Textual Metaphor"
- Misunderstanding The Trinocular Perspective And Misconstruing Context As Register
- Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion
- “One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique”
- Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Misidentifying Metaphor
- The Problem Of Overlapping Lexical Strings And Reference Chains
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Cohesive Harmony
- Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
- Misrepresenting Information Structure
- The Origin Of 'Method Of Development': Peter Fries
- Misconstruing Marked Topical Theme
- Adjusting The Data To Fit The Theory
- Misunderstanding Internal Conjunction
- Problems With The Argument For Hyper-Theme
- Misconstruing A Graphological Unit As Semantic
- Intuiting Others' Assessments of Coherence
- Falsifying Data: Misrepresenting An Interview Transcript As A Writing Exercise
- Questions “Predicting” Answers
- Locating Graphological Units 'Above' A Grammatical Unit
- Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
- Misrepresenting Halliday On 'Theme'
- Assigning A Text To The Wrong “Genre” (Register)
- A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises
- Misconstruing Theme Selection As An Interpersonal Resource
- Misconstruing Stratification, Metafunction And Metaphor
- Confusing The Textual And Interpersonal Metafunctions
- Misrepresenting Phonology
- Misrepresenting Textual Analysis
- Misinterpreting Theme And New
- Failing To Model (Or Notice) The Interplay Of New And (Marked) Theme
- Not Accounting For A Distinctive Mode Of Development
- Misrepresenting New Information
- Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New
- Misidentifying New Information
- When New Information Isn't — But Repeated Information Is
- Confusing Textual Phase With Textual Status
- Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
- Presenting Prescription As Theoretical Description
- When An Abstract Is A Summary And A Summary Is An Introduction
- Misconstruing A Grammatical Reference Item As An Accumulation Of New Information
- Not Understanding Interstratal Realisation
- Misconstruing Modal Responsibility (Semiotic Order) As Social Responsibility (Material Order)
- Misconstruing Subject And Theme
- Confusing Metafunctions And Axes
- Misconstruing Modal Responsibility In Terms Of Exchange Resolution
- Confusing Subject With Validity
- Misunderstanding The Metafunctions
- Blurring Metafunctions
- Misconstruing Semiotic Validity As Social Success
- Confusing Metafunctions, Misunderstanding Modal Responsibility And Misinterpreting Data
- The Argument That "Verbal Processes Are Fundamentally Metaphorical In Nature"
- Using Embedding To Argue About Hypotaxis
- Misconstruing Modal Responsibility As Speaker At Risk
- Using A Middle Clause To Illustrate Agency
- Misconstruing Strata As Modules
- A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6
- Misrepresenting Cohesive Harmony
- Rhapsodising On Method Of Development
- Rhapsodising On Point
- Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point
- Rhapsodising On Modal Responsibility
- Using Allegory To Misrepresent The Rôle Of Mood And Residue In Modal Responsibility
- Rhapsodising On Grammatical Metaphor
- Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
- Using Metaphor To Misrepresent Grammatical Metaphor
- Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source
Saturday 1 October 2016
Post Titles For Chapter 7 — Context: Register, Genre And Ideology
The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 7 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
- Misunderstanding Metafunctions
- Confusing Orders Of Experience
- The Invalidity Of The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata
- Theoretical Inconsistencies In Modelling Genre And Register As Context Strata
- The Invalidity Of The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology
- Inconsistent Claims About Discourse Semantics, Register, Genre And Ideology
- Misrepresenting Firth On Context
- Misrepresenting Halliday On Formal And Contextual Meaning
- Misunderstanding Stratification And Context
- Purpose, Genre And Register
- Confusing Context With Semantics
- Confusing Context With Text Type
- Self-Contradiction
- Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context
- Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context
- Assigning Purpose To Theoretical Dimensions
- Misrepresenting Purpose And Intention
- Confusing Text Type (Genre) With Text Structure (Semantics)
- Misrepresenting Previous Work On Text Structure And Context
- Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure
- Inverting The Stratification Hierarchy
- Misunderstanding Stratification And Realisation
- Confusing Context (And Semantics) With Text Type
- Problems With 'Genre As A Pattern Of Register Patterns'
- Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum
- Two Problems With The Second Justification For A Genre Stratum
- Eight Problems With The Third Justification For A Genre Stratum
- Two Problems With The Fourth Justification For A Genre Stratum
- Two Problems With The Fifth Justification For A Genre Stratum
- Misidentifying Metafunctions
- Misrepresenting Mode
- Misconstruing A Dialogic Response As Monologue
- Misunderstanding Mode
- Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source
- Blurring Distinctions
- Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'
- Misunderstanding Orders Of Experience
- Confusing Material Order Phenomena With Textual Semiosis
- Confusing Context Potential (Mode) With Language Sub-Potentials (Registers)
- Multiple Violations Of Theoretical Dimensions
- Redefining Genre As Field
- Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source
- Confusing Contextual Potential With Semantic Sub-potentials
- Miscategorising Texts By Mode
- Miscategorising Text Types
- Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Hortatory And Analytical Exposition
- Misconstruing Degrees Of Abstraction
- Confusing Mode (Context) With The Ideational Semantics Of Registers
- Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
- Misrepresenting Abstraction
- Confusing Mode Potential (Context) With Text Types (Register)
- Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
- Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
- Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction
- Confusing Different Strata, Metafunctions & Orders Of Experience
- Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive
- Misconstruing Lower And Higher Orders Of Experience As Higher & Lower Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
- Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
- Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
- Misconstruing Field As Mode
- Misconstruing The Notion Of Projection
- Misconstruing Mode
- Misconstruing Dialogue As Unprojected
- The Non-Argument For 'Experiential Distance'
- Misunderstanding Tenor
- Misconstruing Context Potential (Tenor) As Language Sub-Potential (Register)
- Blurring The Distinction Between Tenor (Context) And Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
- Misattributing A Source
- Three Minor Clarifications
- Confusing Context Potential With The Semantics Of Registers
- Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"
- Misconstruing Status As Control
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Phonology
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammar
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Lexis
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Discourse Semantics
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammatical Metaphor
- Misconstruing The Realisation Of Tenor
- Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field
- Metafunctional Confusion And A Non-Sequitur
- Confusing Instantiation With Axial And Stratal Realisation
- Misrepresenting Field As Discourse Semantics
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tone
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonality
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonicity
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & “Phonology”
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammar
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Lexis
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics
- Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor
- Unsupported Claims About Affect
- Misconstruing Relations Between Speakers As Individual Predisposition
- Confusing Affect With Affection
- Mental vs Relational vs Material Affection
- Misconstruing Affect With Unsupported Claims
- Misconstruing A Tenor Relation As The Behaviours And Predispositions Of Individuals
- Blurring The Distinction Between Context And Semantics
- Inconsistent Unsupported Claims About The Realisation Of Misconstrued Affect
- Invoking Clinical And Social Psychology
- Confusing Field With The Language That Realises It
- Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation, Logogenesis And Instantiation
- Misrepresenting Data & Confusing Strata
- Confusing Context With Extra-Linguistic Knowledge, Register And Semantics
- Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Fabula And Syuzhet
- Misconstruing Barthes' 'Sequence' As Field
- Not Acknowledging Barthes As Intellectual Source
- Misrepresenting Barthes
- Misrepresenting Barthes And Confusing Material & Semiotic Orders Of Experience
- Confusing Composition And Superordination
- Why Chomskyan Linguistics Has Power
- Misconstruing Mode As Field
- Misconstruing Behaviour As A Register Of Language
- A False Dichotomy
- Confusing Field And Language
- Confusing Orders Of Experience
- Misconstruing Field Taxonomies As Classifications Of Personnel & Semiotic Objects
- Confusing Experience With Construals Of Experience
- Metafunctional Inconsistency
- Internal Inconsistency
- Some Of The Problems With Register and Genre As Semiotic Planes
- Misconstruing Activity Sequence (Semantics) As Field And Schematic Structure (Semantics) As Genre
- Confusing First And Second Orders Of Experience
- Inferring Invalidly From Misconstruals Of Semantic Structure As Field And Genre
- The Reason For Separating Field And Genre
- Misinterpreting Pike
- Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies
- The Question Of Whether Systematising Generic Structure Potentials Leads Directly To A Two Plane Model Of Register And Genre
- Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential
- Prioritising Structure Over System
- Misrepresenting The Prosodic Mode Of Realisation
- Distinguishing Interpersonal Meaning From Evaluation
- Misconstruing Prosody
- Confusing Text Type With Text Structure
- Misrepresenting Halliday
- A Transparently False Claim
- Misunderstanding Stratal Relations And Confusing Text Type (Genre) With System (Potential)
- Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)
- Misrepresenting Longacre
- Martin's Reason Why Field, Tenor & Mode Are Insufficient To Classify Genres
- Misconstruing Semantics As Context And Misidentifying Metafunctions
- Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions
- Misconstruing Semantics (Activity Sequence) As Context (Field)
- Not Classifying Text Types From Above
- Classifying Text Types From Semantics Instead Of Context
- Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials As Constituting Context Potential
- Weaving An Illogical Argument Around A Misinterpretation Of Halliday
- Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems
- Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's
- Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre
- Misconstruing A Higher Order Of Experience As A Lower Level Of Symbolic Abstraction
- Misconstruing One Mode System As Register And Another As Genre
- Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field
- Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
- Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Hasan's
- Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True
- Misunderstanding Realisation
- Misrepresenting Martin (1992)
- Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process
- Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre
- Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level
- Ignoring Halliday's Caution Against Premature Articulation
- Preparing To Misconstrue Bernstein's Codes As Ideology
- Misrepresenting Hasan
- Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin
- Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Ideology Systems
- Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology
- Discursive Power And The Evolutionarily Necessary Resolution Of Semiotic Tension Through Dynamic Openness
- Confusing Linguistic Variabilty With Contextual Tension
- Misunderstanding System Architecture And Dynamics
- Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems
- Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
- Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy
- Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory
Friday 30 September 2016
Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory
Martin (1992: 587):
So — texts are coherent, cultures are not. Where does this leave linguistics which is articulated as a form of social action?
Clearly one important job, which has already begun […] lies in deconstructing the naturalisation process. Systemic functional linguistics has always adressed [sic] this concern, and English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory was undertaken with this goal explicitly in mind. What seems crucial here is a model which displays the way in which language inflects and is inflected by contextual systems; one model of this kind has been provided.
Blogger Comments:
[1] As demonstrated by the reasoned arguments in the 550+ analyses on this website, English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory proceeds from multiple misunderstandings of SFL theory — misunderstandings so fundamental and pervasive that they undermine the validity of the work as theory. In an intelligent, informed academic community that values reason and intellectual integrity, this would be a serious problem.
[2] The relation between language and context is precisely defined in SFL theory as realisation. This is the relation of intensive identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction.
[3] The contextual model that has been provided confuses context (the culture that is realised by language) with sub-potentials of language itself (registers/genres). The confusion is along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.
[2] The relation between language and context is precisely defined in SFL theory as realisation. This is the relation of intensive identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction.
[3] The contextual model that has been provided confuses context (the culture that is realised by language) with sub-potentials of language itself (registers/genres). The confusion is along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.
Labels:
chapter 7: context,
clarification,
confusing,
context,
critique,
instantiation,
misrepresenting,
misunderstanding,
realisation,
stratification
Thursday 29 September 2016
Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy
Martin (1992: 586):
Beyond this studies are needed on the inter-relationships between affect and morality (between ATTITUDE and MODULATION to put this grammatically): I like/dislike clearly conditions you should/shouldn't in ways that have been barely broached (see Martin 1992a).
Blogger Comments:
[1] The claim here is that
- the relation between affect (a neutral or charged tenor relation between interlocutors) and morality (principles of right and wrong)
- can be described as
- the grammatical relation between attitude (positive or negative evaluation) and modulation (obligation and inclination).
[2] The claim here is that the giving of information conditions the demanding of goods-&-services:
In philosophy, the claim that an "ought" (prescription) can be derived from an "is" (description) is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy (G.E. Moore); see also Hume's Law/Guillotine.
In SFL theory, the mental processes that relate to modulation are not those of emotion (I like), but those of desideration (I would like). This is because desiderative processes project proposals and can serve as interpersonal metaphors of modulation, as in I would like you to finish this by tomorrow.
- propositions that are realised by declaratives of the form I like/dislike
- condition
- proposals that are realised by declaratives of the form you should/shouldn't.
In philosophy, the claim that an "ought" (prescription) can be derived from an "is" (description) is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy (G.E. Moore); see also Hume's Law/Guillotine.
In SFL theory, the mental processes that relate to modulation are not those of emotion (I like), but those of desideration (I would like). This is because desiderative processes project proposals and can serve as interpersonal metaphors of modulation, as in I would like you to finish this by tomorrow.
Labels:
attitude,
chapter 7: context,
clarification,
critique
Wednesday 28 September 2016
Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
Martin (1992: 586):
… it demonstrates that […] the coding orientations associated with class, gender, ethnicity and generation focus attitudes in systematic ways. Affect is in other words ideologically addressed (see Martin 1986 on the orientation of attitude in ecological debates) and exploring this projection of interpersonal meaning is an important dimension of semiotic space.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This continues the misconstrual of Bernstein's coding orientation as ideology.
[2] This continues the confusion of affect, as a dimension of tenor (context stratum), with affect as interpersonal meaning (semantics stratum). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33) refer to the contextual system as 'sociometric rôles'.
[3] This stratal confusion is aided by the blurring of two distinct meanings of 'projection':
[3] This stratal confusion is aided by the blurring of two distinct meanings of 'projection':
- tenor as the theoretical "projection" of the interpersonal metafunction onto the context stratum;
- interpersonal meaning as the verbal projection of speakers.
[4] Trivially, 'exploring' is not a dimension.
exploring this projection of interpersonal meaning
|
is
|
an important dimension of semiotic space
|
Identified / Token
|
Process
|
Identifier / Value
|
Labels:
attitude,
blurring,
chapter 7: context,
clarification,
confusing,
critique,
ideology,
misconstruing,
stratification
Tuesday 27 September 2016
Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems
Martin (1992: 585):
Martin 1986 introduces the term contratextuality for texts which directly oppose each other from different positions and this idea has been extended in delicacy by Lemke (1988: 48). Contratextuality is critically related to semogenesis in ways that are only beginning to be investigated (for a revealing study of the semiotic subversion of genre fiction by feminist writers see Cranny-Francis 1990) and it is probable that work in this area will be among the first to shed light on the vexing question of how text renovates system as dynamic open systems evolve, thereby affirming their metastability.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the semogenesis to which contratextuality is related involves three related processes:
- logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text;
- ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual; and
- phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.
[2] To be clear, on the SFL model, the relation between text and system is instantiation. In this view, language is a probabilistic system and it is differences in probabilities that define register variation (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 552-6). Probabilities in the system are manifested as frequencies in the text, and the frequencies in each text minutely nudge the probabilities in the system up or down.
Labels:
chapter 7: context,
clarification,
ideology,
instantiation,
semogenesis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)