Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Material'

Martin (1992: 378):

As noted in Chapter 1, to say that A realises B is to say: (i) A manifests B (i.e. makes B material); (ii) A constitutes B (i.e. makes B come to be); (iii) A reconstitutes B (i.e. continually renovates B, however gradually); and (iv) A symbolises B (i.e. is a metaphor for B).  Unfortunately the grammar of English can focus on only one aspect of this realisation spectrum at a time, and the part which has usually been grammaticalised in this chapter is realisation i. A (lexicogrammar) manifests B (field). 

It should go without saying however with respect to the system/process model developed here that points (ii), (iii) and (iv) are always relevant. … Realisation then is a technical concept embracing all these meanings.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This was not noted in Chapter 1.

[2] To say A realises B is to say that A and B are in a relation of symbolic identity, such that A is less abstract than B.  Moreover, the identity encodes B by reference to A, and decodes A by reference to B.

encoding

A	realises	B
Identifier	Process: relational: identifying: intensive: symbol	Identified
Token		Value

decoding

A	realises	B
Identified	Process: relational: identifying: intensive: symbol	Identifier
Token		Value

For example, in wording realises meaning, the identity encodes meaning by reference to wording, and decodes wording by reference to meaning.

[3] Obviously, what the grammar can or cannot 'focus on' has no bearing on the theoretical definition of realisation.

[4] This is a misuse of the word 'grammaticalised'.  The theoretical notion of realisation has not been 'made grammatical' or 'integrated into a system of grammar' in this chapter.

[5] In SFL theory, lexicogrammar does not "manifest field" or "make field material".  (Lexicogrammar, like field, is semiotic, not material.)  Lexicogrammar realises semantics, and semantics realises context, the ideational dimension of which is field.  Or to take metaredundancy into account: lexicogrammar realises the realisation of context in semantics; or: the realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar realises context.  See Halliday (1992) How Do You Mean?.

[6] Preferably, this should not be said at all, for the simple reason that it isn't true, as this and subsequent posts demonstrate.