In this Chapter a general framework for analysing conversational structure has been proposed. Its focus was on the discourse semantics of MOOD, and so the discussion was restricted in several places to interpersonal meaning, setting aside as far as possible the logical, textual and experiential metafunctions. This is in accordance with the modular strategy to building up a picture of discourse semantics adopted in English Text. …
As is apparent, modularity poses problems of explicitness even within the interpersonal perspective adopted throughout Chapter 2. Investigating the complex interrelationships between the systems of TONE, MOOD, SPEECH FUNCTION and NEGOTIATION is a major task which has barely been broached here. …
Blogger Comments:
[1] This again repeats Martin's misunderstanding of SFL Theory as 'modular' in its view of language, with the metafunctions and strata misconstrued as modules.
[2] This is potentially misleading, since it invites the reader to believe that a metafunctional approach to semantics is Martin's innovation, rather than the innovation of Halliday in formulating SFL Theory.
[3] This is misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true. On the one hand, the theoretical dimensions of metafunction and stratification provide the means of being very explicit within the theoretical architecture that they precisely specify.
On the other hand, the "complex interrelationships" between the systems of TONE, MOOD, and SPEECH FUNCTION — and so NEGOTIATION — have already been "investigated" by Halliday. For example, the relation between MOOD, and SPEECH FUNCTION has been described in terms of congruent and metaphorical grammatical realisations of the semantic system features, and the relation between TONE and MOOD has been described in terms of the system of KEY. See, for example, Halliday (1985: 68-71, 342-5, 284-5).
No comments:
Post a Comment