Martin (1992: 282):
The discussion will now be limited to the semiotic options subclassifying the feature [realise]. These can be divided into a general set which do not specify which strata or ranks are being related and a set which is specific to either the semantics/grammar interface or the grammar/phonology (including grammar/graphology) one…
Both interfaces make a distinction between encoding and decoding, depending on whether the Token is treated as closer or further away from the expression substance than the Value.
GRAMMAR/PHONOLOGY:ENCODING[5:17] N-G spells ng.
GRAMMAR/PHONOLOGY:DECODING[5:18] But it actually reads the big dog must be able to see the dog at all times.
SEMANTICS/GRAMMAR…ENCODING[5:19] Spell means 'to represent graphically as'
SEMANTICS/GRAMMAR…DECODING[5:20] 'To represent graphically as' defines spell.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This seriously misrepresents decoding and encoding. The directions of coding are not semiotic options "subclassifying the feature [realise]", and have nothing whatsoever to do with "whether the Token is treated as closer or further away from the expression substance than the Value".
The direction of coding pertains to all identifying processes and simply depends on whether the Value is used to identify the Token (decoding) or the Token is used to identify the Value (encoding), as Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 230) make clear.
Of the three genuine identifying clauses provided, each can be construed as either decoding or encoding, as demonstrated below:
decoding: what word do the letters ‘N-G’ spell?
This last clause is extremely marked, not least because, in the vast majority of instances of identifying processes, it is the Token, not the Value that conflates with Subject in clauses of operative voice.
The direction of coding pertains to all identifying processes and simply depends on whether the Value is used to identify the Token (decoding) or the Token is used to identify the Value (encoding), as Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 230) make clear.
Of the three genuine identifying clauses provided, each can be construed as either decoding or encoding, as demonstrated below:
decoding: what word do the letters ‘N-G’ spell?
N-G
|
spells
|
ng
|
Token/Identified
|
Process: identifying
|
Value/Identifier
|
Given
|
New
|
encoding: what letters
spell the word ‘ng’?
N-G
|
spells
|
ng
|
Token/Identifier
|
Process: identifying
|
Value/Identified
|
New
|
Given
|
decoding: what
does the word ‘spell’ mean?
spell
|
means
|
to represent graphically as
|
Token/Identified
|
Process: identifying
|
Value/Identifier
|
Given
|
New
|
encoding: what word
means ‘to represent graphically as’?
spell
|
means
|
to represent graphically as
|
Token/Identifier
|
Process: identifying
|
Value/Identified
|
New
|
Given
|
decoding: what meaning
defines the word ‘spell’?
to represent graphically as
|
defines
|
spell
|
Value/Identifier
|
Process: identifying
|
Token/Identified
|
New
|
Given
|
encoding: what word
is defined by the meaning ‘to represent graphically as’?
to represent graphically as
|
defines
|
spell
|
Value/Identified
|
Process: identifying
|
Token/Identifier
|
Given
|
New
|
This last clause is extremely marked, not least because, in the vast majority of instances of identifying processes, it is the Token, not the Value that conflates with Subject in clauses of operative voice.
[2] This is not an identifying relational clause; it is a nexus of verbal clause projecting a quoted locution clause (despite the omitted quotation marks).
but
|
it
|
actually
|
reads (‘says’)
|
the big dog
|
must be able to see
|
the dog
|
at all times
|
1
|
“ 2
|
||||||
Sayer
|
Process: verbal
|
Senser
|
Process: mental
|
Phenomenon
|
Location: time
|
||
This instance, therefore, does not construe the 'grammar/graphology interface'. The logical relation it construes is projection, not elaboration, and the domains that are related are the material order of experience (a sayer saying) and the semiotic order of experience (a wording; i.e. lexicogrammar).
