Thanks David K, I’ve read them
I tried to say this more subtly before, as ‘judgement overtaking reason’... the
rhetorical problem with forceful appreciations like ‘rejection’ and
‘refutation’, is that they shut down readers’ options for evaluation, and so
weaken the writer’s argument, except for the already convinced.
Over lunch at a roadside stop between Bandung and Jakarta a few years ago, I
was chatting with CMIMM about his failure to penetrate the descriptivist lg
typology scene, despite continually referencing them. His wry explanation was
that he had been approaching the field ideationally, but that he had since
learnt that the actual criteria for being listened to were interpersonal. JRM
and colleagues would call it affiliation.
David R
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of 데이브드켈로그_교수_영어교육과 <dkellogg60@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 11:19 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
There is an excellent discussion of the important differences (and also the
even more important similarities) between the 1961 grammar and the SFL of ten
years later in
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Wang, B., Ma, Y.-Y. and Mwinllaaru, I.N. (2022).
Systemic Functional Insights on Language and Linguistics. Singapore: Springer
Nature.
See p. 104, and table 4.3. But see also Christian Matthiessen's comment on how
scale-&-category theory was already neo-Firthian, because it introduced the
paradigmatic axis as co-equal to the syntagmatic one. Matthiessen has a
beautiful demonstration of how this made it easier for Halliday to deal with
consonant clusters (because you could treat them as offering different
paradigmatic systems at different points in the syntagmatic structure) and how
that, in turn, led to the clear distinction between instantiation and
realization that is rejected in the Martin model.
But see also Ruqaiya Hasan's refutation of "connotative semiotic" and
"discourse semantics" in Volume Four of her Collected Works:
Hasan, R. (2016). Context in the System and Process of Language. London:
Equinox.
(There's some reading homework for you, David Rose!)
dk
2022년 6월 16일 (목) 오전 8:47, David Rose
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>님이 작성:
Thanks Fran
It would be interesting to know why he stuck with the same stratal model, of
semantics without discourse, and context without systems, despite JRM’s 1992
massive empirical description of these strata’s systems.
Particularly so, as he and RH made it abundantly clear in Cohesion in English
in 1976, that the ‘cohesive’ resources they describe are discourse semantic
systems, e.g...
‘The concept of cohesion is set up to account for relations in discourse...
what is in question is the set of meaning relations which function in this way:
the semantic resources which are drawn on for the purpose of creating text.’
They also made explicit the stratal relation between these systems and LG...
‘The means of expressing these various types of cohesion are, as we have seen,
drawn from a number of areas of the lexicogrammatical system, which have in
common merely the fact that they contribute to the realization of cohesion.’
They had begun to flesh out the semantic stratum as discourse semantic systems,
as he had done for LG and PH. But Cohesion in English was written as a basic
introduction to the resources, without describing the systems. The imbalance in
research and theory between LG and DS ‘cohesion’ systems is stark in Table 1
below. However CinE then became the point of departure and constant reference
for JRM’s metafunctional description of the systems in English Text.
David
[cid:image001.png@01D88175.E9A96860]
From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Frances Christie <fchr3976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:fchr3976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 6:51 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
This is just to say that I have really enjoyed following all these exchanges.
It has been great to see something of the evolution of the theory like this.
Fran
From: <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on
behalf of "David Rose ("david.rose")"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply to: <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 3:53 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)
His own research focused on phonology and grammar, expanding the model into
metafunctions, axis and delicacy. This helps explain why phonology becomes an
inner language level by 2004, rather than an ‘interlevel’. Both grammar and
phonology are fleshed out as metafunctional, axial systems.
In contrast, semantics remains as ‘interlevel’, lacking the axial relations of
LG and PH systems. Instead, its organisation is realised only interstratally by
lexicogrammatical systems. Its descriptions derive from grammatical research,
including H&M 1999, and RH’s ‘message semantics’.
As an ‘interlevel’ semantics ‘interfaces’ with the tenor, field and mode of
contexts. As context is ‘extra-textual’, tenor, field and mode are not
organised systemically, but are described instead as notes on ‘settings’, in
various publications from the 1970s on.
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: Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 11:20 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Can I also admire how neatly his 1961 model synthesises his three major 20C
influences...
1. Firth’s ‘linguistic levels’ – phonetics, phonology, grammar, lexis,
semantics, context
2. Hjelmslev’s form and substance
- expression form -> phonetics
- expression substance -> phonology
- content form -> lexicogrammar
- content substance -> semantics
3. Malinowski’s contexts of ‘situation’ and ‘culture’.
These are precisely the categories arranged as strata in CMIMM’s 2004 diagram
in IFG below.
It’s a neat hypothesis that points both back to prior authorities, and forward
to empirical research (which we’ve all been doing ever since).
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: Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 9:58 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Thanks Chris
It’s illuminating to follow the path of his model. He does in fact explain why
he avoided ‘semantics’ in 1961...
‘Context* is an interlevel, since it relates language to something that is not
language; it is an interlevel because it is not with the nonlanguage activity
itself that linguistics is concerned but with the relation of this to language
form.’
‘*The reason why "context" is preferred to "semantics" as the name of this
interlevel is that "semantics” is too closely tied to one particular method of
statement, the conceptual method… The linguistic statement of context attempts
to relate language form to (abstractions from) other (i.e. extratextual)
observables.’
[1961 Categories of the Theory of Grammar]
Despite the empirical developments you mention, in metafunctions and axis, his
stratal model remained essentially identical for the next 40 years... 1961
‘situation’ becomes ‘context’ and 1961 ‘context’ becomes ‘semantics’...
semantics remains an ‘interlevel’ between lexicogrammar and ‘extra-textual’
context.
The symmetry of the model was appealing and persuasive, with (lexico)grammar at
the centre. In 1961, phonology was also an ‘interlevel’ with phonetics. By
2004, phonetics becomes the ‘interlevel’, to maintain the symmetry...
[cid:1816a0a964f4cff311]
[2004 On Grammar as the Driving Force from Primary to Higher-Order
Consciousness]
This is the same model drawn by CMIMM in IFG3/4, as co-tangential circles.
[cid:1816a0a964f5b16b22]
As ‘context’ is modelled as an asemiotic ‘extra-textual’, ‘eco-social
environment’, this model is incommensurable with semiotic models such as JRM’s
1992 description of register and genre as connotative semiotics.
David
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, 13 June 2022 at 9:33 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [sys-func] Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961)
Dear Colleagues,
The following might be useful to anyone who is unaware of the extent to which
Halliday's first theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961),
is different from the theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar. Its
stratal organisation is given by Halliday (2002 [1961]: 39) as:
[cid:1816a0a964f692e333]
It can be seen that Scale & Category Grammar has no semantic level,
and in fact, the words 'semantic' and 'semantics' do not feature at all in this
paper.
'Context' is defined as 'an interlevel relating form to extratextual features'
(ibid.).
The theory does not include system networks, nor metafunctions,
and the elements of clause structure are simply Subject, Predicator, Complement
and Adjunct.
The theory also does not distinguish realisation from instantiation,
the word 'exponence' being used to cover both of the later concepts.
--
chEers,
dr chris cléirigh
We have now sunk to a depth
at which restatement of the obvious
is the first duty of intelligent men.
— George Orwell
====================================
My Linguistics Sites
Thoughts That Cross My
Mind<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/-UCtCYW8Noc3jrJwqH0hSGn?domain=thoughts-that-cross-my-mind.blogspot.com.au>
Deploying Functional
Grammar<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/g2ybCZY1NqiMXJV0LSjmTf1?domain=deployingfunctionalgrammar.blogspot.com>
Martin's Model Of
Paralanguage<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/dI41C1WLPxcpLVDloTpzp3e?domain=sflparalanguage.blogspot.com>
Informing
Thoughts<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Saj2C2xMQzik0MJgXH2P0Ie?domain=informingthoughts.blogspot.com.au>
Making Sense Of
Meaning<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/H_xbC3QNPBimWnJOlCQelzO?domain=meta-sfl-theory.blogspot.com>
Systemic Functional
Linguistics<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/T8gRC4QOPEiJRXQqOUMGHm6?domain=systemictheory.blogspot.com>
Sys-Func<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/1ES_C5QPXJi0wBQ27fNR6SB?domain=sys-func.blogspot.com.au>
Sysfling<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/W3UCC6XQ4LfoZ5Aqvf2HQqk?domain=sysfling.blogspot.com.au>
The Thought
Occurs<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/mumyC71R2NTmnDxwKCAaq0Z?domain=thethoughtoccurs.blogspot.com.au>…
Martin's Discourse Semantics, Register &
Genre<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/GlFIC81V0PTjBoZE0s9BlIB?domain=discourse-semantics.blogspot.com.au>
Thoughts That Didn't
Occur<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Sc1ZC91WPRTmrGgDXCqD10Y?domain=master-bateman.blogspot.com.au>…
Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The
Clause<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/3FTyC0YKPvi2Y1Dp5iqPCSm?domain=workingwithdiscourse.blogspot.com.au>
The Cardiff
Grammar<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/bx1eCgZ0N1il4MxDRik7ya-?domain=cardiff-grammar.blogspot.com.au>
Lexis As Most Local
Context<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/h3HDCjZ1N7ijZWMVXspVfjJ?domain=lexisasmostlocalcontext.blogspot.com>
Factoring Out
Structure<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/mwNZCk81N9tnox6PjFYD24F?domain=yaegandoran.blogspot.com>
Attitude In Systemic Functional
Linguistics<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/A5ueClx1Njio6Q5j8fvkNoQ?domain=attitude-in-sfl.blogspot.com.au>
====================================
--
David Kellogg
Sangmyung University
정서 학설 2 - 역사-심리학적 연구 | 비고츠키 선집 14
레프 세묘노비치 비고츠키 (지은이),비고츠키 연구회 (옮긴이)살림터2022-06-18
https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=296200809<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/vVkeCmO5glu5kOK93Sxn4QN?domain=aladin.co.kr>