Hi Mick
Now you are probably asleep, but...
What differs between the message features in Figure 24.4 below and the mood
features that realise them is their systemic valeur. The valeur of mood
features is shaped by similarities and contrasts in the mood structures that
realise them, exemplified in Table 24.4.
The valeur of message features is shaped by three factors as far as I can see.
System G features by their position in exchange structures: verify/enquire etc.
System F features by appraisal: precise/tentative; by field: specify/explain;
again by exchange structure: prompted/unprompted; and again by field:
global/particular...
In sum, the message system attempts to synthesise the complementarity of two
discourse semantic systems, negotiation and appraisal. This complementarity is
explored in the following paper
Martin, J. R. 2019. Once more with feeling: negotiating evaluation. Language,
Context and Text 1.2. 234-259.
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 10:21 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Grammatical Metaphor
Yes, Mick I think you are on the track. Too tired to comment just now. Can I
just ask that we drop the term forms for the grammar?
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Michael O'Donnell <micko.madrid@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 10:07 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Grammatical Metaphor
DR: The semantic networks appear to re-systemicise the LG systems.
MO: But that is exactly the role of semantics, a more abstract representation
of the utterance. I also note the "systemicisation" in the semantics may
reflect a totally different way choices are realised in the grammar. For
instance, the choices in the speech functional network reflect lexicogram
choices in clause mood and mood-tag, but also in intonation, and in one case
the clause complex. So, the SEMANTIC NETWORK generalises over various forms
across the grammar, which is what one would want.
Mick
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 14:00, David Rose
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
As the systems below show, the grammatico-semantic model assumes a bijective or
one-to-one relation between LG features and semantic features. What differs is
the intrastratal relations between the features. The semantic networks appear
to re-systemicise the LG systems.
Crucially, the names given to the semantic features imply moves in unfolding
exchanges. They are therefore potentially complementary with the exchange
systems first proposed by Margaret Berry and further developed in ET as the
discourse semantic system of negotiation.
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 9:13 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Grammatical Metaphor
Hi Mick
I am most familiar with Williams, G. (1995). Joint book-reading and literacy
pedagogy: A socio-semantic examination. Which I’ve mined over the years for its
rich data on literacy learning and socioeconomic class.
A useful history and synopsis is given in Hasan, R., Cloran, C., Williams, G.,
& Lukin, A. CD6 Semantic networks: the description of linguistic meaning in SFL.
Here’s one system and its grammatical realisations set out in that paper.
David
[cid:image001.png@01D89574.92B12EE0]
[cid:image002.png@01D89574.92B12EE0]
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Michael O'Donnell <micko.madrid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:micko.madrid@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 8:53 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Grammatical Metaphor
Hi David,
If Hasanian semantic networks include systems which decide on
lexicogrammatical realisation, I would be surprised. Have you got a reference
for that? To me, that would be putting choices in the wrong stratum, and Hasan
was always very careful in her modelling.
Mick
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 12:10, David Rose
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Thanks Mick
I’m happy to be mistaken but my understanding is that incongruent grammatical
realisations of speech functions are treated as delicate features in message
semantic systems. That is, each feature in the semantic systems has a
particular grammatical realisation. Perhaps Geoff could explain more clearly.
One issue with your synopsis below, is a suggested correlation of form and
meaning with grammar and semantics. This is also suggested by the oft-used
terms ‘wording’ vs ‘meaning’, as though grammar was not meaningful in itself.
What makes grammar meaningful is axis... features realised as structures. The
features are the meanings of the structures. Or rather the features and
structures are two faces of the meanings, that MAKH showed us are made by the
grammar.
Btw, I found "Construing Experience" very beautiful, as it sets out the
intricate model of experience covertly construed by the ideational systems of
English grammar. It was certainly inspirational for me in my description of the
‘Western Desert Code’.
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Michael O'Donnell <micko.madrid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:micko.madrid@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 5:57 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Grammatical Metaphor
Hi David,
I would not think any Hallidayan would ever posit a 1-to-1 mapping between
Semantics and Grammar. That would invalidate the need for Semantics as a
separate stratum.
Case in point being the mapping from Speech Function to Mood, with, e.g.,
demand:information being realised as interrogative, declarative or imperative.
And visa versa, grammatical configurations often can express alternative
semantic configurations (e.g., "can" can express semantic possibility, ability,
permission, etc.
So, the mapping between Semantics and Grammar always needs to be seen as a
many-to-many mapping.
- language provides multiple forms for realising a particular meaning.
- a particular form can express alternative meanings
(but yes, "Construing Experience" can be read (misread?) to suggest a one to
one mapping between semantic process type selection and Transitivity selection
in the grammar. Something I and other have argued against in the past. And not
something that I think was intended by the authors, Christian and MAKH).
Mick
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 03:53, David Rose
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
To clarify, the grammatico-semantic model assumes a bijective or one-to-one
relation between LG features and semantic features, while the discourse
semantic model allows for multivalued or one-to-many relations between DS
features and LG features. The latter is consistent with MAKH’s model of
congruent/incongruent relations between semantic features and LG features. This
was described in Ch10 of IFG1/2 but was replaced in IFG3/4 by
‘‘transgrammatical semantic domains’, which relocates multivalued realisation
from an interstratal to an intrastratal relation within semantics.
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 10:26 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Grammatical Metaphor
Thanks Chris
This diagram is a good illustration of the grammatico-semantic model, with a
semantic ‘figure’ realised by a grammatical clause and a semantic ‘participant’
by a grammatical nominal group. It must then explain grammatical metaphor by
stratifying the semantic stratum into two ‘domains’, with the diagram showing a
more abstract ‘Value’ realised by a less abstract ‘Token’.
In the discourse semantic model, stratification is between the strata of DS and
LG. So a semantic figure may be realised ‘congruently’ by a clause, or
metaphorically by a nominal group. This paper proposes the term ‘symbolising’
for the latter metaphorical type of relation between DS and LG.
David
Martin, J. R. (2020). Metaphors we feel by: stratal tension. Journal of World
Languages, 6(1-2), 8-26.
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Dr ChRIS CLÉiRIGh <c.cleirigh@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.cleirigh@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, 11 July 2022 at 9:17 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Grammatical Metaphor
Dear Colleagues,
The following might be useful for those who are unclear on the semantics of
grammatical metaphor.
Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 288-9):
The metaphorical relation is thus similar to inter-stratal realisation in that
it construes a token-value type of relation. Here, however, the relation is
intra-stratal: the identity holds between different meanings, not between
meanings and wordings. The metaphor consists in relating different semantic
domains of experience: the domain of figures is construed in terms of the
domain of participants, and so on… . It is the fact that metaphor multiplies
meanings within the semantic system that opens up the possibility of
metaphorical chains, with one congruent starting-point and another highly
metaphorical end-point (A"' stands for A" stands for A' stands for A; e.g.
'engine failure' stands for 'the failing of an engine' stands for 'an engine
failed'). The semantic system is being expanded along the dimension of the
metaphorical token-value relation; but the expansion is still within the
semantic system itself.
[cid:image003.png@01D89574.92B12EE0]
--
dr chris cléirigh
The universe gives birth to consciousness,
and consciousness gives meaning to the universe.
― John Archibald Wheeler
====================================
Some Of My Sites
A Senser
Sensing<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/pTZdCL7EwMfP56pJlUB1FHM?domain=mental-projection.blogspot.com/>
Science And
Sciencibility<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/zpajCMwGxOt5GN0QvTkjYeK?domain=sciencibility.blogspot.com/>
Informing
Thoughts<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/26iGCNLJyQUN14r2wFjRTwx?domain=informingthoughts.blogspot.com.au/>
Making Sense Of
Meaning<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/TMOmCOMKzVTAoW96EIr847B?domain=meta-sfl-theory.blogspot.com/>
Towards A Linguistic Science Of
Sciences<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/IsD8CP7LAXf4qpr7JI6C_JN?domain=linguistic-science-of-sciences.blogspot.com/>
The Life Of
Meaning<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/PgToCQnMBZf6m0E5JTAD-pb?domain=the-life-of-meaning.blogspot.com/>
Rainbow Lorikeet
Semiosis<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VJ96CROND2ur82kAycQbWdU?domain=rainbowlorikeetsemiosis.blogspot.com/>
====================================