If formal logic is derived from ‘natural' logic of language, then this kind of symbolism may be useful for a ’natural’ philosophy of language. It frees us to re-interpret choices we are given, beyond simply either/or. Are simultaneous choices possible? Are there more general or more delicate choices we can make?For example, if we choose the metalinguistic feature [functional], then [systemic], must we then choose between lexicogrammatical or discourse semantic analysis, or are both possible? If we choose a [solidary] relation between language and social context, must we choose between a denotative or connotative perspective, or are both possible?Selections from these metalinguistic systems are continually instantiated as linguistic fields unfold, and always couple features from both field and tenor systems. As with language systems, 'users share attitude and ideation couplings…to form bonds’ , to affiliate with one or another group (or both:)…
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the choice of stratum for analysis is a choice of level of symbolic abstraction: wording (lexicogrammar) or meaning (semantics). But as Halliday (1985: xvii) points out:
A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one. But meanings are realised through wordings; and without a theory of wordings — that is, a grammar — there is no way of making explicit one's interpretation of the meaning of a text.
Martin's discourse semantics, however, is another matter entirely. For evidence that the model of discourse semantics is, inter alia, rebrandings of Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday & Hasan's COHESION (textual lexicogrammar) and Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION (interpersonal semantics) see the close examination of English Text (Martin 1992) here, and the close examination of Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007) here.
Importantly, in SFL Theory, lexicogrammar is interpreted in terms of the meaning it realises — e.g. verbal group as Process — and in the absence of grammatical metaphor, lexicogrammar (wording) and semantics (meaning) are in agreement (congruent). Martin's discourse semantics, however, as a rebranding of COHESION, cannot provide a congruent relation between wording and meaning, because it actually models textual lexicogrammar rather than multifunctional semantics. This, in turn, undermines the systematic description of grammatical metaphor: the incongruent relation between wording and meaning.
[2] To be clear, 'solidary' is Martin's term — taken from Barthes (1977: 101) — for what he claims (1992: 20) is the 'natural' relation between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. (The word 'solidary' actually means of a group or community: characterised by solidarity or coincidence of interests.)
However, in SFL Theory, the natural relation between semantics and lexicogrammar actually refers to the non-arbitrary relation between experiential meanings and grammatical form, such as that between process and verbal group, participant and nominal group, circumstance and adverbial group. It is this natural relation that makes a functional grammar possible. See Halliday (1985: xvii-xx).
Here Rose applies 'solidary' to the relation between language and social context, where social context is misunderstood, in Martin's model, as varieties of language (register and genre). The reader is invited to identify a linguistic theory that models the relation between language and context, whether understood as culture, or misunderstood as varieties of language, as 'unnatural'.
[3] To be clear, here Rose is referring to Martin's stratified model, which identifies the context plane with a connotative semiotic system and the language plane with a denotative semiotic system. However, this is a serious misunderstanding of Hjelmslev's notion of a connotative semiotic, which Martin (1992: 493) claims to be using.
Importantly, for Hjelmslev, a connotative semiotic is a semiotic system that has a denotative semiotic system as its expression plane. Martin (1992), however, misunderstands the connotative semiotic to be merely its content plane, context, excluding its expression plane: language.
Moreover, Martin compounds the error by locating register and genre, varieties of language, a denotative semiotic — the expression plane of the connotative semiotic — in the content plane of the connotative semiotic. That is, in Martin's stratification hierarchy, varieties of language are not modelled as language. This is analogous to claiming that varieties of dog — terriers, poodles etc. — are not dogs.
[4] To be clear, what Rose refers to as 'metalinguistic systems' are systems that classify linguistic theories. In SFL Theory, these are systems whose entry condition is the FIELD feature 'linguistics', where 'field' means the ideational dimension of context; that is: the culture as semiotic system. Rose, on the other hand, follows Martin in misunderstanding FIELD as a system of register. In SFL Theory, register is a subpotential of language, not a system of context.
[5] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the claim here is that selections from linguistic FIELD systems ("metalinguistic systems") are continually instantiated as linguistic fields unfold. Firstly, this misunderstands instantiation. Selections from systems are not instantiated; the selection of features is the instantiation.
Secondly, there is no "continual" instantiation of FIELD system features. The instantiation of the context of culture as a context of situation is the selection of a specific configuration of FIELD, TENOR and MODE system features. If a different FIELD system feature is selected, a different context is instantiated.
Rose's misunderstanding here derives from the misunderstanding of field in Martin's model. Although, Martin misunderstands field as a dimension of register, he further compounds the problem by confusing field with ideational semantics; see the evidence here. So, from the perspective of SFL Theory, what Rose is actually concerned with here is the instantiation of ideational semantic features in the logogenesis of a text.
[6] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the claim here is that selections from linguistic FIELD systems ("metalinguistic systems") always couple features from both field and tenor systems. Clearly, this is incoherent when expressed this way, since it is not the selection of FIELD features that causes the "coupling" (co-selection of features across FIELD and TENOR systems). More coherently, any situation involves the instantiation of a configuration of contextual features (from the systems of FIELD, TENOR and MODE).
[7] To be clear, this bears no relation to any of the text that precedes it. The terms 'coupling', 'bonding' and 'affiliation' are from Martin and his students, and the unremarkable claim here is simply that people form social alliances on the basis of shared values. The same might be said of social insects; see also:
David Rose Negatively Appreciating The Deployment Of Logic
