Hi Emma,
Be careful when saying:
you could take out the 'that means' and experientially the clause means the
same thing, hence my suggestion that 'that means' is redundant
Just because it does not serve an experiential function does not mean it it
redundant. It serves a logical function, and removing it loses the logical
connectivity of ideas.
Shooshi says that "that means" is not conjunction but rather reference, and
that is true if looked at in terms of grammar.
But discoursally, "that means" is one discoursal strategy to link one
clause to another as a consequence. For instance,
would you take the following two clauses as saying the same thing:
The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun,
*t**hat** means* that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away.
The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun.
*Consequently,* the Southern hemisphere is tilting away
For me, this is a case where a semantic relation between two processes can
be mapped onto lexicogrammar in distinct ways.
And getting back to your example, the fact that "consequently" can be
dropped without affecting the experiential meaning of the second clause
does not mean "consequently" is redundant, just that it serves a logical
not experiential function.
Mick
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 12:40, emma vale <emmaavale@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Kieran,
Thank you for this provocation of my thinking. I can't pretend this all
makes sense to me, but I think perhaps across the two emails at least what
I take away is that the kind of thinking and talk and teacher
demonstrations that have accompanied and preceded the written explanation
are important to it. A number of people have pointed out to me that 'this
means' represents something students would hear from the teacher during a
verbal explanation of a model in class.
Of particular interest to me is your point that a) provides strong
evidence that the student is understanding the important implicatory
relations between states of affairs. b) does not.
I have discussed possible differences in meaning with my supervisors and
others and we felt that you could take out the 'that means' and
experientially the clause means the same thing, hence my suggestion that
'that means' is redundant. You are arguing, if I am understanding you, that
it represents a more overt statement of the implication of one activity for
the next and hence more evidence of understanding?
The writing strikes me as quite spoken and I have been musing that '*that
means'* represents a kind of Think Aloud or 'writing as thinking' - as
though the student is working through their thinking as they write. (We
did consider projection.)
Well I am not sure if I have understood much, but I have appreciated the
prompting and guidance.
I do not hear the voices (linguists are frustratingly eclectic and
talented - do you have to be able to do everything?).
Perhaps we can listen to Oodgeroo Noonuccal's voice
*Look up my people,*
*The dawn is breaking,*
*The world is waking*
*To a bright new day,*
*When none defame us,*
*No restriction tame us,*
*Nor colour shame us,*
*Nor sneer dismay.*
*...*
*See plain the promise,*
*Dark freedom-lover!*
*Night's nearly over,*
*And though long the climb,*
*New rights will greet us,*
*New mateship meet us,*
*And joy complete us*
*In our new Dream Time*
Emma
------------------------------
*From:* asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Kieran McGillicuddy <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, 16 October 2023 6:18 PM
*To:* asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [asflanet] Re: A question related to conjunction
Hi Emma,
Within Sydney school systemics, and discourse semantics thinking,
this/that in your examples would be understood as text reference.
Unfortunately that general line of thought doesn't really make sense.
Within the understanding of science, and the teaching of science, the
problem is the more obviously problematic. Text qua text means nothing, and
in principle reference to 'text' qua text, is always reference to the same
thing. The differentiation of one piece of text from another is the
differentiation of the 'content' of those pieces of text, what some
philosophers might talk of as intentionality. That is, we don't refer to
some 'text' we always refer to some 'meanings', with those meanings being
fundamentally meanings within a world, rather than language/text. When I say
'In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland and that led to the Second World War',
*that* does not refer to a piece of text, given that a piece of text,
even if waved by Neville Chamberlain, doesn't lead to wars. In fact, *Hitler's
invasion of Poland* led to the second world war. And this point has
consequences for nominalisation. *This* and *Hitler's invasion of Poland*
play similar roles in utterances such as
*This led to the Second World War,*
and
*Hitler's invasion of Poland led to the Second World War*
*This*, in grouping together complex content under a term which points to
that complex content, and *Hitler's invasion of Poland*, in grouping
together a set of relations as a nominal group which points to that complex
content, perhaps with additional implications and detail, entail the same
kind of cognitive work, with the cognitive grouping being the crucial move.
It is the worldly content of the clause/nominal group which led to the
second world war, not the clause or text which points to that content.
Such that, what *means* is not preceding text but the relation between
states of affairs, such as whether the earth is tilting towards the sun in
one way or another. What *means*, is not language or semiosis, (pace
biosemioticians) but the relation between the earth or the sun, which has
most probably been learnt through an image indicating those relations. If
the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, then this *means* that
the southern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun. It also * means*
that the rays of the sun will the more directly and in concentrated fashion
hit the surface of the earth, in contrast with how the rays of the sun will
strike the southern hemisphere.
a) When the Northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun
that *means* [[that it is summer in the Northern hemisphere]].
does not mean the same as
b) When the Northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun
it is summer in the Northern hemisphere.
a) indicates that there is necessary relation between one phenomenon and
the other, while b) doesn't necessarily mean that there is this
causal/implicatory relation. If we look too closely at text in text terms
we can lose track of the students coming to grips with (what they perceive
as) real world phenomena.
The implication is not 'logical'. It is an implication founded on the
nature of things, and of their potentials for interactions, with, for
example, the implications founded on rays of light travelling in parallel
lines, which has probably not been explained/shown to the students yet. a)
provides strong evidence that the student is understanding the important
implicatory relations between states of affairs. b) does not.
There is a further problem with 'means' in that it could appropriately be
understood as projection, with the *this/that* saying something, being
appositional or summative of the state of affairs 'When the Northern
hemisphere is tilting towards the sun', except I would think that if
'that' is appositional, then we have an identifying relational process with
Token and Value. I know that projection and identifying relationals can be
friends, and perhaps more than just friends.
Things and events tell me stuff all the time, and 'means' relates to me
understanding what things/events/relations have meant to say. Also, what I
see, Token, tells me stuff, Value.
The voices, the voices, do you hear the voices?
Kieran
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 05:58:33 CEST, emma vale <
emmaavale@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Shooshi,
Thanks for responding. The 'that' is definitely text reference (back at
least to the preceding clause in the sequence, it's the 'means' I'm
wondering about. So connecting the previous stretch of reasoning to the
next activity in the implication sequence. I felt like the means had some
kind of logical or reasoning function , but perhaps it is relational.
'means' can of course be used to encode or decode, I don't feel it is doing
that here though. Kieran seems to have gone off on an entirely different
road trip, looking at internal and external reference (exophoric and
endophoric) but I'll look at that later.
And yes, apologies, I do want to present this niggly matter at ASFLA. I
will get that abstract to you tomorrow.
Emma
------------------------------
*From:* asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Shoshana Dreyfus <shooshi@xxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, 16 October 2023 1:56 PM
*To:* asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [asflanet] Re: A question related to conjunction
Hi Emma,
I think “that means” is whole text reference not conjunction – whole text
reference are reference items that refer back to a whole chunk of prior
text 😊
Shooshi
*From: *asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of emma vale <emmaavale@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Date: *Monday, 16 October 2023 at 12:17 pm
*To: *asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject: *[asflanet] A question related to conjunction
This email has originated from outside your organisation. Only click
links, open attachments or follow guidance if you have verified with the
sender and know the content is safe.
------------------------------
Hi All,
I have a question related to conjunction which I am hoping someone might
be able to contribute to me solving. Sorry the post is rather longwinded.
I have analysed a set of *year 7 explanation texts on the seasons*. I
noticed three students have used a phrasing *'this means'* in their
explanations, which I have highlighted below in yellow. I have seen this
phrasing before in a number of science explanations in other contexts and
in my year 6 data and I have been wondering how to interpret the process
'means'.
I have highlighted the phrasing below in yellow.
The writing is first draft and has a somewhat spoken, reasoning aloud
quality to me. I have been wondering if 'that means' could be considered an
example of conjunction. If it were conjunction, it would be an example of
logical metaphor, and logical metaphor is usually accompanied by
nominalisation, but I believe it can also be accompanied by embeddings
(rankshift). (pg 6 Hao, J. (2018). Reconsidering "cause in the clause" in
scientific discourse - from a discourse semantic perspective in systemic
functional linguistics. *Text and Talk*.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0013
- *So my question is, could the yellow highlighted be an example of
conjunction or is it simply a relating process (or something else)? *
I am also struggling a little with identifying internal and external
conjunction in these texts where students seem to move between explaining
events and reasoning about them. *Any insights on my green and red
coding of internal and external conjunction is also very much appreciated. *
*Jack explanation excerpt (**red* is internal conjunction, *green* is
external conjunction).
*(Please bear in mind the explanations are first draft writing and some
of the science is not right.) *
The Earth is created with two halves, the northern hemisphere and the
southern hemisphere. //
So while the Earth is rotating around the sun //
it tilts towards and away from the sun. //
When the Northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun
that* means* [[that it is summer in the Northern hemisphere]].
And because the northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun//
*that** means* [[that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away]].
*We can observe that Jack could have written: *
When the Northen hemisphere is tilting towards the sun
It is summer in the Northern hemisphere.
and it would have the same meaning. He doesn’t need the ‘ that means’
which gives the writing a flavour of ' writing as thinking aloud'.
The 'that' refers to the preceding figure in the sequence and I think the
*means* has a kind of logical meaning of 'then' condition: expectant -
Working with Discourse p. 153
Thanks to anyone who has time to respond.
Kind regards,
Emma
*Emma Rutherford Vale*
WORK DAYS: Mon, Weds, Friday
Subject Coordinator EDU112, EMT510
Masters in Education (Literacy), Grad. Dip. Ed (TESOL), Grad. Dip.
Linguistics
Doctoral Candidate, UOW
Thesis Title: *Drowning or waving in the uncommonsense: exploring writing
developing at the transition from primary to high school science*
Rm 225, Level 2, Centenary Building
Sandy Bay Campus
School of Education and School of Social Sciences
College of Arts, Law and Education
University of Tasmania
*utas.edu.au <http://utas.edu.au/>*
