7. (final) Ed may be thinking of MAKH’s model of protolanguage consisting of content and expression planes (a la Hjelmslev), with grammar ‘emerging’ between them in the transition to mother tongue. Martin 2011 comments...
Again axis is sufficient. The axial model of protolanguage microfunctions is expanded by Painter 2003 as an affect system...
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Ed McDonald had questioned the view that axis is somehow more fundamental than the other dimensions that SFL uses to model language. Because this view is Martin's, Rose has bombarded the sys-func (and sysfling) list with what he falsely believes to be support for Martin's view; see below, and the previous 20+ posts.
[2] To be clear, the Martin (2011) extract seriously misunderstands protolanguage. As Halliday and Painter have demonstrated, protolanguage shows no evidence of structural realisations, so there are no system-structure cycles at all, whether protolanguage is modelled as two strata or one. In protolanguage, content choices are realised by expression choices.
On this basis, Martin's Figure 9 falsely includes structure, and his mono-stratal model misrepresents the stratal realisational relation between the content and expression planes as an axial realisational relation between system and structure.
It can be seen also that Martin fudges his argument for his mono-stratal model by misrepresenting the expression plane of the bi-stratal model as realisation statements instead of systems.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Axis is insufficient to model protolanguage or language in SFL Theory, because it is only one of several dimensions required. Others include stratification, instantiation, metafunction, and delicacy (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32).
