Well done David!
From: <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "David Rose ("david.rose")"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply to: <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 17 June 2022 at 4:15 pm
To: "sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Again, I apologise to John, Peter, Fran, Alison, Geoff, Annabelle and everyone
in the community for my lack of judgement and respect, and thank you for
calling me out.
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of John Knox <john.knox@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 17 June 2022 at 3:43 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
I've bought out of much of the discussion in the SFL community lately but I
agree with Peter, and Fran, and Alison.
wow
j
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Alison Moore <amoore@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2022, 2:18 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Relevant here is that Ruqaiya always took pains to situate her work as 'a'
systemic functional approach (not an asystemic approach LOL) - ie one of
several if not many ways of elaborating on/applying/examining/questioning some
shared core principles within the community. And as Annabelle says often quite
different from Halliday's position.
By contrast I keep hearing lately how such and such a new model 'subsumes' so
and so, where 'so and so' is often a key plank of Halliday's position, but
where there has not been any agreement outside those immediately working on the
new model that the relation between the various old and new views in play is
best described as subsumption.
I would rather encourage/acknowledge the diversity in our
temporo-spatio-socio-ideational matrix of views, instead of seeing ourselves
engaged in a linear progression that cleanly gathers up the 'correct' views
making them no longer statements in their own right.
The views I don't always agree with (including Halliday's and Hasan's) but the
diversity I greatly value.
Best to all,
Alison
On 17/06/22 01.03 PM, Geoff Williams (geoffshould) wrote:
It's relevant to recall Bernstein's perspective on Hasan’s contribution after
Cohesion in English in 'Sociolinguistics: A personal view”, Pedagogy, symbolic
control and identity: Theory, research, critique, (1996: pp.132-133).
… Ruqaiya Hasan joined the Sociological Research Unit in 1964 and provided an
exciting, theoretically driven, expansion of the research beyond cohesion
analysis. We have kept up a correspondence since, and her theory of semantic
variation opens up new vistas in our understanding of the role of language in
the construction of consciousness and its power positioning. ‘My claim is that
as Saussure limited the domain of linguistics, so also Labov limits the domain
of sociolinguistics, which is reduced to social diagnostics, ignoring deeper
issues in the role of language in the creation, maintenance, and change of
social institutions’ (Hasan, 1992, p.8). Thus the Halliday/Hasan contribution
to my development is incalculable.
See also pp. 132-133 of this book for a more detailed citation of Hasan’s
semantic variation research, but there’s nothing about 'cataloguing of
messages’.
Geoff
--
Alison Moore, PhD MPH
Associate Professor in English Language & Linguistics
Head of Postgraduate Studies
School of Humanities & Social Inquiry
Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities
University of Wollongong 2522 NSW Australia
email: amoore@xxxxxxxxxx
