[sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains

From: "David Rose" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ("david.rose")
To: "sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 03:40:44 +0000

So how do the models compare at this point? Three significant cleavages are
apparent. The first is axis. Both models posit realisations in grammar, but
MAKH suggested semantic structures were unnecessary for the ‘limited purpose’
of semantic networks...
This [grammatical system/structure] is already fairly abstract, and it may be
unnecessary therefore to interpose another layer of structure between the
semantic systems and the grammatical systems, given the limited purpose of the
semantic systems, which is to account for the meaning potential associated with
defined social contexts and settings.

Nevertheless, describing semantic structure is possible...
It is important to emphasize here that structure is defined as the
'configuration of functions', since this is abstract enough to cover semantic
structure if such a thing is to be formulated. The shape of a structure may
vary; we may express it literally or hierarchically or simultaneously. But all
such shapes have in common the property of being configurations of functions...
All that the term 'structure' implies is that there will be some configurations
of functions at that stratum, and that these will realize the meaning
selections, the combinations of options in the meaning potential.

Accordingly, discourse semantic systems are motivated by structural variations,
such as the negotiation system. Here from WWD, first with realisation
statements, then with examples...
[cid:image002.png@01D8A5AC.2F48FCA0]
[Graphical user interface, text, application  Description automatically
generated]

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 1 August 2022 at 9:11 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
Hoping other list members are as curious about relations between the models as
I am...
MAKH’s 1972 view of semantics differs from later approaches in e.g. Construing
Experience, here from above in specific ‘behaviours’, and later from below in
general grammar systems. At this point semantics as meaning potential is now
the point of departure...
Semantics, then, is 'what the speaker can mean'. It is the strategy that is
available for entering the language system. It is one form of, or rather one
form of the realization of, behaviour potential; 'can mean' is one form of 'can
do'. The behaviour potential may be realized not only by language but also by
other means. Behavioural strategics are outside language but may be actualized
through the medium of the language system.

Semantics was required as an ‘interface’ between not-language and grammar. But
notice that ‘behavioural options’ suggests systems...
We cannot, as a rule, relate behavioural options directly to the grammar. The
relationship is too complex, and some intermediate level of representation is
needed through which we express the meaning potential that is associated with
the particular behavioural context. It is this intermediate level that
constitutes our 'sociological' semantics. The semantic network then takes us,
by a second step, into the linguistic patterns that can be recognized and
stated in grammatical terms.

The 'sociological' semantic networks were only appliable for ‘clearly
circumscribed social contexts’, such as games and child control...
We would not be able to construct a socio-semantic network for highly
intellectuated abstract discourse, and in general the more self-sufficient the
language (the more it creates its own setting, as we expressed it earlier) the
less we should be able to say about it in these broadly sociological, or
social, terms. Of the total amount of speech by educated adults in a complex
society, only a small proportion would be accessible to this approach.

David

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, 30 July 2022 at 9:06 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
This para bears reviewing as it seems pivotal to the history of the
grammatico-semantic model...

The term «meaning» has traditionally been restricted to the input end of the
language system: the «content plane», in Hjelmslev's terms, and more
specifically to the relations of the semantic interface, Hjelmslev's «content
substance». We will therefore use «meaning potential» just to refer to the
semantic options (although we would regard it as an adequate designation for
language as a whole).

Interestingly, linguistic tradition is presented as point of departure, and the
reason for restricting the use of ‘meaning potential’ to the semantic stratum.
Its conflict with MAKH’s theoretical position is added almost apologetically in
brackets. Was it too radical to say out loud that language as a whole makes
meaning? At any rate, associating meaning with just one stratum, for whatever
reason, had far reaching consequences for the model’s development.
David

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 29 July 2022 at 1:21 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
As quoted earlier, axis was the breakthrough that opened up metafunctions and
rank scale system/structure cycles, which I’ve tried to symbolise with this
diagram (hexagons borrowed from Giacomo Figueredo)...
[cid:image001.png@01D8A34E.1D1128B0]
But there was a tension with the earlier model predating axis, that assumed the
abstraction relation lay between grammar as form and semantics as substance,
and kept being repeated alongside axis...
The term «meaning» has traditionally been restricted to the input end of the
language system: the «content plane», in Hjelmslev's terms, and more
specifically to the relations of the semantic interface, Hjelmslev's «content
substance». We will therefore use «meaning potential» just to refer to the
semantic options (although we would regard it as an adequate designation for
language as a whole).
This historically nuanced conditional formulation then gets reduced to a
catchphrase...
Grammar is what the speaker CAN SAY, and is the realization of what he means.
Semantics is what he CAN MEAN
...which is later cemented as the commonsensical triad ‘meaning, wording,
sounding’.
David

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 29 July 2022 at 8:29 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
Hoping it’s not too soon to return to the Subject...

MAKH explains here (1972) why it’s unnecessary to postulate semantic systems
that restate grammatical systems...axis makes them already ‘semantic’...
The combination of system and structure with rank leads to a fairly abstract
grammar (fairly 'deep', in the Chomskyan sense) and enables us to specify
fairly accurately in theoretical terms - though not or course in rule-of-thumb
terms - just how abstract it is. In principle, a grammatical system is as
abstract (is as 'semantic') as possible given only that it can generate
integrated structures; that is, that its output can be expressed in terms of
functions which can be mapped directly on to other functions, the result being
a single structural 'shape' (though one which is of course multiply labelled).
David

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 28 July 2022 at 3:20 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
Note that generalisation increases down strata (not up), Martin & Matthiessen
1991...
The most powerful generalization is, arguably, that there is a tendency towards
generalization as we move down either the stratal organization or the rank
scale. That is, to put it crudely, a given number of semantic systems is
realized by a smaller number of corresponding lexicogrammatical ones;
similarly, a given number of lexicogrammatical systems is realized by a smaller
number of phonological ones. And the same holds for the rank scale; for
example, a given number of clausal systems is realized by a smaller number of
verbal group systems. The reason for this state of affairs is easy to see. A
stratal descent or a rank descent always entails a generalization across
contexts and this generalization is reflected in the relatively smaller number
of realizing systems.
David

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 27 July 2022 at 8:07 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
Rather than a ‘semantic system of modality’, Martin & Matthiessen 1991 explain
such motifs as topologies, or ‘fractal principles’ that recur across ranks and
strata. They are generalisations of types of meanings that complement the
typological generalisations of systems. Crucially they are not more abstract
than the systems they generalise across. So does postulating a ‘semantic system
of modality’ above the grammatical systems of modality, confuse abstraction
with generalisation?
In any case these ‘semantic systems’ were not proposed in IFG1/2 but have been
added to IFG3/4.
David

J R Martin & C Matthiessen 1991. Systemic typology and topology. F Christie
[Ed.] Literacy in Social Processes: papers from the inaugural Australian
Systemic Linguistics Conference, held at Deakin University, January 1990.
Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language in Education, Northern Territory
University. 345-383. [reprinted in SFL Theory 2010 Collected Papers of J R
Martin edited by Wang Zhenhua, Vol. 1. 167-215 & J R Martin & Y J Doran [Eds.]
Grammatics London: Routledge (Critical Concepts in Linguistics: Systemic
Functional Linguistics, Vol. 1). 2015.158-200]
Draft downloaded at
http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/Print/Papers/BC-1992-SystemicTypologyTopology.pdf<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VXW2CQnMBZf6zxMvrFxI1Qj?domain=isfla.org>

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 25 July 2022 at 5:44 pm
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
Thanks Chris, for another opportunity to compare the models
Again, modality is a described grammatical system, at clause rank in English,
but the same term is used below for a semantic ‘domain’. And again, the account
in IFG 1/2 differed from the account in IFG 3/4. In IFG1/2, MAKH described the
implicit/explicit: subjective/objective orientations topologically, as
interpersonal metaphors of modality. But in IFG 3/4 they are presented instead
as features in the modality system, within the mood system (Fig 4-13, Fig
4-23). The entry condition for this system is [clause], but the metaphorical
realisations of subjective and objective orientations are projections and
embedding (I think.../it is likely that...), blurring the line between grammar
and semantics.
The described discourse semantic system is appraisal: engagement: heterogloss,
for which modality is one resource to introduce additional voices into a
discourse, alongside projection and concession.
David

From: sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Dr ChRIS CLÉiRIGh <c.cleirigh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 25 July 2022 at 8:59 am
To: sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <sys-func@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sys-func] Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
Dear Colleagues,

The following might be helpful for those who are unfamiliar with the notion of
one semantic domain mapping onto many locations in the grammar.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 665):
On the one hand, there are semantic domains that range over more than a single
grammatical unit. Thus the semantic domain of modality is realised in more than
one place in the grammar; for example, it is realised by ‘mental’ clauses such
as I suppose and by ‘relational’ clauses such as it is possible, by verbal
groups with finite modal operators such as may and by adverbial groups with
modal adverbs such as perhaps. These modal patterns within different
grammatical units are not interchangeable synonyms; they have distinct values
within the overall semantic system of modality. … while the forms above can all
realise ‘low probability’, I think is explicitly subjective, it is possible is
explicitly objective, may is implicitly subjective and perhaps is implicitly
objective. This means that the semantic system of modality is more extensive
than the modal features of any one given grammatical unit would suggest; it is
realised not by a single grammatical unit but by a range of units: semantic
unit a ↘ grammatical units m, n & o.
--

dr chris cléirigh
To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence
and scrutiny.
— Carl Sagan

====================================
My 'Review' Sites
Martin
(1992)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/YiGCCROND2ur7Vj4BFNY1dl?domain=discourse-semantics.blogspot.com.au/>
Bateman
(1998)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/p3HFCVARKgClOvNq9hypb_w?domain=master-bateman.blogspot.com.au/>
Martin & Rose
(2007)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/P7gXCWLVXkUjlkRrGUnaRGG?domain=workingwithdiscourse.blogspot.com.au/>
Martin, Matthiessen & Painter
(2010)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/aGSDCXLW2mUnpJVE0um2WR9?domain=deployingfunctionalgrammar.blogspot.com/>
Fawcett
(2010)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/UyiKCYW8Noc3G8EVOiZiU2r?domain=cardiff-grammar.blogspot.com.au/>
Fontaine
(2017)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/m_cGCZY1NqiMOGrK2iXp70N?domain=lexisasmostlocalcontext.blogspot.com/>
Martin & Zappavigna
(2019)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/-ApKC1WLPxcpvR2J5sOJknT?domain=sflparalanguage.blogspot.com/>
Doran
(2021)<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/2_k3C2xMQziknjP5OCLD6sI?domain=yaegandoran.blogspot.com/>
====================================

Follow-Ups:
- [sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains
  - From: David Rose

[sys-func] Re: Transgrammatical Semantic Domains

Other related posts: