PS Bev, you can download a preprint here
David
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351969186
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 1:37 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Thanks Bev
I know his work on stories, but ‘a completely new theory of language’ in the
blurb begs a gander!
David
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Bev Derewianka <bevder@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 1:01 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Hi David,
Without being able to see your article, I wasn’t sure whether the work of
Michael Hoey was at all relevant. You’re probably more than familiar with it -
and I have no idea whether it addresses similar concerns to yours.
Cheers,
Bev
https://www.routledge.com/Lexical-Priming-A-New-Theory-of-Words-and-Language/Hoey/p/book/9780415328630<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/mzFICK1DvKTqPyvyOHMNofy?domain=routledge.com>
On 21 Jun 2022, at 12:26 pm, David Rose
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Mick
It’s not there in the clause either is it? Grammatico-semantically, the
experiential nucleus is the book (Medium) and the stealing (Process), so in
this instance English construes the thief as not relevant. (Many other lgs
won’t do this.)
At the level of discourse, this grammatical resource affords a choice in
expectancy, for the thief’s identity to be expected or not.
But we know that the activity of stealing involves a thief, so it’s expected by
the field, isn’t it? As a pound of sausages expects a butcher, not a bus driver.
Your examples illustrate that field expectancy varies with the instance, but
also with individuation (between yourself and the Scotsman in your audience).
Texts re-instantiate what we’ve heard before, which varies between us.
So how do we model field elements that are not explicitly realised in a text?
That is so complex that SFL has avoided trying to describe lexical items,
beyond their very general relations, as ‘sets’ vs systems, as delicate grammar,
and as lexical relations in discourse.
It’s long worried me, as I would like to describe how we learn to read
(comprehend written texts), and that can’t be done without tackling lexis.
In this paper on reading metaphor I’ve suggested we technicalise the term
connote for these kinds of relations.
Rose, D. (2021). Reading metaphor: Symbolising, connoting and abducing
meanings. Linguistics and Education, 64, 100932.
Please tell me if it makes sense.
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, 20 June 2022 at 10:05 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Hi David,
Never mentioned a resolution, I was after an understanding. I
asked a question to you whether in the Martin-Rose model whether there
can be meaning which is not anchored to text, e.g., in a Hallidayan
semantics, there may be an Actor to a process (talking about
Ideational semantics, not Transitivity) which is not realised in the
text (The book was stolen), but I get the sense that Discourse
semantics is not a "semantics" in Halliday's sense, but rather, a
grammar above the clause, and thus has no place to meaning-annotate
elements which are not there in the text.
My question to you as above was the last post before we got shut down
for being unruly interpersonally, and the question has bugged me ever
since.
Sorry, not sure if my question is clear enough, but if so, an answer
appreciated...
Mick
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 11:15, David Rose
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Mick
A decade’s not such a long time in lx is it? getting to the point of
resolving key Martin vs Hallidayan model differences is still making it
interesting ;-
As BB predicted... ‘At some point, sometimes later than sooner, because of
special investments, a choice is possible’ ...well, it’s been 30 years so far
since ET.
But is resolution or refutation really necessary? A model is valid if it
works, according to Popper and MAKH. Maybe we should just be looking at
differences in appliability, and labelling models by those criteria, or by
internal features that afford them.
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, 20 June 2022 at 5:57 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Hi all,
On David K's request, the example I posted was:
Talking about the e predictivity of language instances from known context :
in a conference in 1996 I made the point that some language choices, while
possible, are inappropriate, thus unlikely. I gave the example of getting on
a bus and saying to the busdriver "pound of sausages please". A Scotsman in
the audience said that in his remote village, that is exactly what you would
say to the busdriver, who would pick up the sausages in the next village and
bring them back to you.
So, whatever we think about the predictability of language needs to be taken
along with a wide allowance of cultural variation in context-meaning
appropriacies.
Now, Kieran was spot-on when he said I basically posted it for interpersonal
rather than ideational motives, I was trying to lighten the tone of a
conversation getting a little tense. But not aimed at you Kieran as an
individual, but rather at the whole chain getting too personal. And you are
not a 'coldhearted, completely insensitive, vicious batard'. You are a
pussycat inside.
Although I do think that the tension in the air brings us to our best. I
think Keiran has never expressed his ideas so clearly, and DavidK has been
forced to put into words his position (and his reading of Keiran's) more
explicitly than ever, which is only good.
It reminds me with a biff we were having with David Rose on Sysfling a decade
ago. For me, it was getting to the point of resolving key Martin vs
Hallidayan model differences when the thread was shut down for being too
rowdy.
Ths my injection. Be polite and considerate guys, but keep moving towards the
truth.
Mick
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 09:12, Kieran McGillicuddy
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Yo David 2 and whatever remaining others,
I took Mick's 'example' as a generally directed attempt to inject a
friendlier tenor into the exchanges. I didn't pick up that it was also a good
illustration of a particular point, as Geoff Williams observed, but the
quality of Mick's example, I think, would have been 'in addition' to the
attempt to introduce a friendlier tone.
I don't think Mick's attempt to introduce a friendlier tone would have been
directed towards me, either to protect me from attack or discouraging my
attacking. Mick has plenty of reasons to believe in my gross insensitivity,
and related utter imperviosity to personal attacks, or reasons.
On the other hand, I would endorse Mick's implied call for a more civilized
discourse, if that is what he was implying, but no-one would take me
seriously. I observe, if anyone were to care what I observe, that there are
many reasons for people to care, and to care deeply, about what is said in
systemic fora. I understand, that for me to say that the weather/climate
analogy is silly or stupid, especially when I write stupid 'stoopid', is
offensive to the memory of Michael Halliday, even though I seem to think that
I have huge respect for Michael Halliday, and Ruqaiya incidentally, but
bugger it, the analogy is stoopid, and in saying that, I am also insulting
people who have accepted the analogy, implying that they who accept it are
'stoopid', but luckily my thinking is sufficiently shallow, I am so
insensitive, that I am not aware of that offensiveness.
If you take offense, well, yeah, fair enough, and if I was someone else, with
power within the systemic community, then perhaps I would behave otherwise,
and I would be a little bit more careful about insulting people directly,
rather than Halliday, who is a big boy who can look after himself. I remember
in 94? I gave a paper somewhere, a systemic conference, which attacked
Halliday's discussion of modality in the then current IFG, but in a very rare
attempt to be civil I identified another very close version of Halliday's
position and attacked that instead. And after the talk a senior systemicist
praised me on the quality of my arguments but said that I should have
highlighted the quality of Halliday's alternative approach. What moral was I
to take from that?
I'm going to quote David 2, momentarily, but firstly, to show that Mick
O'Donnell is correct in describing me as a 'coldhearted, completely
insensitive, vicious batard', I am going to agree with a point that David 2
makes, or implies, at least in his capitalisation. I did not address a
delicacy in Michael's arguing, that 'we invest' a theory with explanatory
power. I ignored the 'we invest'. I was aware that I was ignoring it. And I
am not going to unignore it now.
As for the 'monstrously bad' in the monstrously bad atheoretical and even
anti-theoretical pose, and even the use of 'pose' instead of, say, 'stance',
I can cope with that, I can perhaps even cope with 'atheoretical', but
'antitheoretical', I will see you sir at dawn.
Roy? I am not his fault. My position, which you identify as the
integrationist stance, comes from reading Bhaskar and Harre between 94 and
97. Admittedly, I was shocked when I finally learnt of Roy Harris' existence,
and that he agreed me with me on so many points.
First of all, there is the monstrously bad atheoretical and even
anti-theoretical pose. In defense of Kieren, it's not original; it's the
stance that Roy Harris and the integrationists take. Any attempt to try to
INVEST a theory with explanatory power is halted by their stout insistence
that a theory of language cannot explain anything because it leaves out the
non-linguistic channels of communication. This "refusal to rise to the level
of theory" (as Halliday called it) is also category error: if it is a mistake
to go by a field with two cows and insist that there are three objects
there--a cow, a calf and a pair of animals--then it is likewise a mistake to
stoutly insist that there are no cattle there (only two cows) and no such
"thing" as cattle to begin with. Yes, of course, a theory explains no actual
"thing" by itself; a theory is a virtual object and not a sentient being and
"explaining" is a verbal process. That is precisely why Halliday says that WE
invest the theory with explanatory power.
Now, I don't take the integrationist position..., let's not get into that, but
Any attempt to try to INVEST a theory with explanatory power is halted by
their stout insistence that a theory of language cannot explain anything
because it leaves out the non-linguistic channels of communication.
that's not really the integrationist position is it? There must be something
I misunderstood. And, do I take that integrationist position? I wouldn't have
thought so, but who am I to disagree with David 2?
I observe, if anyone were to care what I observe, that there are many reasons
for people to care, and to care deeply, about what is said in systemic fora.
And when people care so deeply, and have so much of their lives invested in
the theory, and the good that the theory does, (I mean 'invested' in a
non-financial sense) at times things go wrong, and sometimes rather
profoundly wrong. But, I certainly don't think David 2's attack on me is a
'going wrong', it's Mick O'Donnell I can't forgive.
There's a string of issues that David 2 has (re-)introduced, such as
propositions/proposals
But I am not deceived or disarmed when he breaks off before he tackles
propositions and proposals--in fact, the distinction between proposals and
propositions--that is, between language as action and language as meaning--is
just what we were talking about.
I broke off at that point. Fair enough. The propositions/proposals
distinction is a crucial issue. I have to be careful, because I might say
something about the non-existence of the imperative, when the existence of
the imperative is obvious to anyone with half a brain, and obviously it has
existed since, well, forever. And then, there is risk that I might say that
the distinction is not between language as action and language as meaning,
and we would be down a rabbit hole, at least I would be and David and most
others would be refusing to follow.
Kieren misconstrues Halliday... for the integrationist, text cannot include
context, because context is always and only what Ruqaiya Hasan called the
material situational setting.
context is always and only (…) the material situational setting
And again here, I break off, as I see 'the material situational setting' as
an oxymoron, and explaining how I see it as oxymoronic, would be..., to start
off with, not now the important issue.
I'd kind of like to apologise to David 1, but explaining why there might be a
need to apologize would be a pain in the ar.e, at a time when I have some
sciatica, and I certainly don't trust me not to do it again. Who would?
Perhaps though, David 2, you need to appreciate the extent of insult to David
1 when you say,
Kieren misconstrues Halliday in very much the same way that David Rose was
misconstruing him
That is borderline unforgiveable.
And finally, a personal explanation as to why I broke off with respect to
some issues in my previous post,
But I am not deceived or disarmed when he breaks off before he tackles
propositions and proposals
To my mind, the post wasn't 'about' those kinds of issues. I see a great
(huge? enormous?) streak of intensity and faith and commitment and community
within the systemic community, which I don't share, and which I have
consciously chosen, from my earliest engagement with systemics, not to share,
for reasons which muchly don't matter to you guys. However, also, over the
years, repeatedly, there have been outbreaks of intolerance and malevolence,
and paranoia and misinterpretations, directed internally and externally, and
perhaps the community might like to get a grip on it.
A suggestion in that respect, consider blaming Mick O'Donnell.
On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 23:22:37 BST,
데이브드켈로그_교수_영어교육과<dkellogg60@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dkellogg60@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Geoff:
I don't think that Kieren's example is a beautiful one--I find it, to coin a
phrase, "monstrously bad".
First of all, there is the monstrously bad atheoretical and even
anti-theoretical pose. In defense of Kieren, it's not original; it's the
stance that Roy Harris and the integrationists take. Any attempt to try to
INVEST a theory with explanatory power is halted by their stout insistence
that a theory of language cannot explain anything because it leaves out the
non-linguistic channels of communication. This "refusal to rise to the level
of theory" (as Halliday called it) is also category error: if it is a mistake
to go by a field with two cows and insist that there are three objects
there--a cow, a calf and a pair of animals--then it is likewise a mistake to
stoutly insist that there are no cattle there (only two cows) and no such
"thing" as cattle to begin with. Yes, of course, a theory explains no actual
"thing" by itself; a theory is a virtual object and not a sentient being and
"explaining" is a verbal process. That is precisely why Halliday says that WE
invest the theory with explanatory power.
Secondly, Kieren misconstrues Halliday in very much the same way that David
Rose was misconstruing him (i.e. a semantics without discourse). For the
integrationist, text cannot include context, because context is always and
only what Ruqaiya Hasan called the material situational setting. Similarly,
language is always and only embodied language. Yes, it is impossible to
order a macchiato without a coffee shop to order it in--an admirable grasp of
the utterly obvious that makes these protestations about being taken to be an
idiot somewhat more ironic than the protestor intended. It is likewise
unnecessary to order it without a body to drink it with. But it is also
impossible to order a macchiato without the word "macchiato" and something
very much like a system network (i.e. a menu), not to mention some aliquot
and fungible form of value (cash or credit), and that's a little hard to
explain without investing in some form of abstraction.
Thirdly, and more generally, Annabelle is right. An important lesson of this
whole sorry-cum-wacky thread is the amount of crudely anti-intellectual
"thinking" that can be disguised behind appeals to good or bad feelings,
onomatopoeia, grunts, moans, gestures, etc. Kieren would like to fit his
acute content to a cutesy form, and I am willing to accept it and even admire
it--for a moment. But I am not deceived or disarmed when he breaks off before
he tackles propositions and proposals--in fact, the distinction between
proposals and propositions--that is, between language as action and language
as meaning--is just what we were talking about. It's the whole
meta-functional distinction between the interpersonal and the ideational that
was the chief difference between Halliday 1961 and Halliday 1985. More
importantly for me (because I work on child language) it is the
"macrofunctional breakthrough" that Halliday notes in Learning How to Mean:
it's the distinction between the pragmatic orientation and the mathetic one.
In the end, I think all that Kieren does is to prove my argument and not his
own. He accidentally slips back into the non-relational one-to-one analogy
between weather and text and climate and language in that very email (there
is no reason to accept the cogency or even relevance of his argument that a
theory of climate explains nothing about climate unless you accept the
climate-to-language analogy). He also shows how little explanatory power we
can invest in anti-theoretical integrationist posturing. It will butter no
parsnips, and code no clauses. To coin another phrase, it is language that
doesn't do stuff.
dk
2022년 6월 18일 (토) 오후 7:26, Geoff Williams
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>님이 작성:
Beautiful example, Mick!
Geoff
Geoff Williams
mobile: +61 (0)417540821
====================================================
Sys-func is the original email list of the Australian SFL community.
It was established in 1992, first for the benefit of Sydney scholars,
but very quickly came to service the needs of scholars worldwide.
====================================================
--
David Kellogg
Sangmyung University
정서 학설 2 - 역사-심리학적 연구 | 비고츠키 선집 14
레프 세묘노비치 비고츠키 (지은이),비고츠키 연구회 (옮긴이)살림터2022-06-18
https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/hhfmCP7LAXf49PNRLFzELQF?domain=aladin.co.kr<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/bdSyCL7EwMfPVDpDKhqt_wd?domain=aladin.co.kr>
