Martin (1992: 404, 403):
This projection of metafunction across the content plane in correlation with register is outlined in Table 6.14, which illustrates the way in which interpreting cohesion as discourse structure re-organises its metafunctional address.
Table 6.14. Register
and metafunction in relation to discourse semantic and lexicogrammatical
systems
|
||
register
|
discourse semantics
|
lexicogrammar
|
Tenor
|
interpersonal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
negotiation
|
clause: mood
(modalisation, modulation, polarity, vocation, tagging)
|
|
Mode
|
textual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
identification
|
nominal group: deixis,
substitution & ellipsis
|
|
interdependency
|
||
Field
|
logical --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
conjunction
|
clause complex:
|
|
experiential
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
logico-semantics
|
||
ideation
|
clause: transitivity
(including lexis as delicate grammar); group rank experiential
grammar; collocation
|
|
Blogger Comments:
[1] This continues the misrepresentation of context, a semiotic system that is more abstract than language, as register, a functional variety of language that realises a functional variety of context: a situation type.
[2] In SFL theory, cohesion is a non-structural system of the textual metafunction only. Construing cohesion as a stratum more abstract than lexicogrammar arises from several interrelated misunderstandings, including the confusion of logogenesis (discourse) with semantics (meaning).
[3] The system of identification, theorised as the semantics of reference, to be consistent, would be realised lexicogrammatically by the non-structural cohesive system of reference, not the structural system of deixis at group rank.
[4] The system of identification, theorised as the semantics of reference, to be consistent, would be realised lexicogrammatically by the cohesive system of reference, not the cohesive system of substitution–&–ellipsis.
[5] Logico-semantic relations are systems of the logical metafunction, not the experiential metafunction.
