3. Re linguistic ‘progress’...The term realisation is also used for relations between strata. Like axis, it is a relation of abstraction, but of a different order.In his foreword below, MAKH refers to phonology and grammar as ‘these two strata of linguistic form’. In the terms developed below, form is associated with perceivability of structures. The form of phonological structures is ‘sounding’ (i.e. patterns of sounds); the form of grammatical structures is ‘wording’ (patterns of words). The axial relation resolves the dualism of form and meaning, as patterns of forms at each stratum are at once patterns of meanings.Relations between the strata are patterns-of-patterns... patterns of lexicogrammatical structures are realised by patterns of phonological structures. Discourse semantics proposes that the semantic stratum is also organised axially (as MAKH predicted in 1972). Its structures are discourse structures... and patterns of discourse structures are realised by patterns of both lexicogrammatical structures and phonological structures.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is potentially misleading. Realisation is precisely the same relation (Token-Value) in each case. The difference lies in what is related: lower stratum to higher stratum (stratification) vs structure to system (axis).
[2] This again mistakes a lower level of abstraction for perceivability (see previous post).
[3] To be clear, 'sounding' refers to the stratum of phonology. A phonological system is not a 'pattern of sounds'; a phonological system models 'sounding' choices.
[4] This is a very serious misunderstanding. SFL Theory models lexicogrammatical form as a rank scale. The term 'wording' refers to lexicogrammar as a stratum, in which lexicogrammatical form (e.g. verbal group) is interpreted in terms of its function of realising meaning (e.g. process). A lexicogrammatical system is not a 'pattern of words'; a lexicogrammatical system models 'wording' choices.
[5] This is a very serious misunderstanding. The axial relation does not 'resolve the dualism of form and meaning'. Form and meaning are located on both axes in the lexicogrammar. (There is meaning, but not form, on the semantic stratum, and form, but not meaning, on the expression plane.) Paradigmatically, each formal rank unit is the entry condition to systems of functions, and syntagmatically, each element of function structure is realised by a formal unit of the rank below.
[6] This misunderstands stratification. There are no 'patterns of form' on the semantic stratum, and no 'patterns of meaning' on the expression plane. On the lexicogrammatical stratum, form is interpreted in terms of its function in realising meaning.
[7] This is misleading. SFL Theory, as the name implies, gives priority to system over structure. Systemically, a pattern is a pattern of instantiation, that is: a pattern of selecting features and activating realisation statements. The notion that 'patterns of lexicogrammatical structures are realised by patterns of phonological structures' not only gives priority to structure, but also confuses instantiation ('patterns') with stratification ('are realised by').
[8] This is misleading by implication. Rose has previously falsely claimed that Halliday does not model semantics in terms of both system and structure, despite the role semantic structure plays in grammatical metaphor, and despite explicit contradictions such as the following provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 429):
[9] This is misleading. Halliday (1972) weighs up the theoretical pros and cons of proposing structure for the semantic stratum, as demonstrated in previous posts. No "predictions" were made.… in our model there are two system-structure cycles, one in the semantics and one in the lexicogrammar. Terms in semantic systems are realised in semantic structures; and semantic systems and structures are in turn realised in lexicogrammatical ones.
[10] This again gives priority to structure over system and confuses instantiation ('patterns') with stratification ('are realised by'); see [7] above.
