First, when you suggest that Halliday’s view of recursion “is based on a kind of reification” and assumes “system networks are actually real things,” this does not quite capture the role that system networks play in SFL. Halliday is not treating system networks as entities that exist independently of the model; rather, they are representations of meaning potential. The difference he draws between “true recursion” and a “recursion-like effect” is not about imposing artificial constraints but about recognising that system networks define choices, and true recursion occurs only when a system includes an option to re-enter itself.This ties directly to your reading of the rankshifted clause, She tore up the letter which upset me. You suggest that rankshift exhibits recursion because a unit at the same rank is embedded within another. However, Halliday explicitly distinguishes between embedding (which affects structure) and recursion (which affects system choices). The presence of an embedded clause does not mean that a recursive loop is occurring in the system network—it simply means that a clause is functioning as a unit within another structure. Rankshift is structurally embedded but does not create an ongoing systemic cycle in the way that hypotaxis does. This is the crucial difference.Finally, your concern that Halliday’s model “shows language to be infinite in actuality and not simply in potential” does not quite reflect how meaning potential works in SFL. Language is only infinite in potential because recursive systemic choices can theoretically continue indefinitely—but in any instance of meaning, this potential is always finite. The model is not claiming that human languages are infinite in actualisation, only that their meaning potential includes recursive possibilities.
Chris, I'd be much more interested in YOUR take on what Chat GPT "says".Here's my take:The first para says that it's not reification--but the reasoning in the paragraph is a clear instance of reification. To say "true recursion occurs only when a system includes an option to re-enter itself" makes no sense unless we assume that the system is an actual existing thing, and not a model of some actual existing thing..The second para confirms this reading: it assumes that you can separate system choices from structures and "system choices" still exist in the real world. But they don't.The third para simply ignores what was actually said--not only by ChatGPT but by Halliday--about recursion: both describe it as infiniteI don't think that constitutes an answer, or even a serious consideration of the question. But it was a serious question.
[1] Kellogg is conflating two different issues: (1) whether system networks model language or are language, and (2) whether recursion, as defined by Halliday, requires a system option that allows re-entry.
The argument ChatGPT provided was not that system networks are real-world entities (which would indeed be reification) but that Halliday’s criterion for recursion is structural, not ontological. Halliday is defining recursion within the model, not claiming that system networks themselves are real objects.
The issue here is that Kellogg is treating the concept of recursion as something that must exist independently of the model. But that’s missing the point: Halliday is outlining a condition within the model that distinguishes recursive structures from non-recursive ones. This is a model-internal distinction, not an ontological claim about language itself.
[2] This is a straw man argument. The claim was not that system choices exist in the real world as objects but that system choices operate at a different level of abstraction from structures.
Halliday’s model makes a clear distinction between paradigmatic choices (system) and syntagmatic structure (realised in texts). Kellogg’s response fails to acknowledge this distinction. The critique that "system choices do not exist in the real world" is irrelevant because no one is claiming they do. Instead, system choices are abstract linguistic potential, which is realised in structures.
A key misunderstanding here is that Kellogg seems to think system networks are being treated as a separate "thing" apart from language, rather than an abstract representation of meaning potential. But Halliday’s model explicitly defines the system-structure relation in terms of realisation, not separate existence.
[3] This is incorrect. Halliday does not say that recursion is "infinite" in any absolute sense. Rather, recursion provides a mechanism for unbounded expansion within language, meaning there is no pre-defined upper limit to how many times a recursive process can be applied in principle.
What Halliday distinguishes is true recursion (which involves a system re-entering itself) from mere embedding (which can appear recursive in effect but is structurally constrained). The example of rankshift in Kellogg’s original post ("She tore up the letter which upset me") is not recursive in Halliday’s sense because it does not involve a system choice that explicitly allows repetition without limit.
Kellogg’s claim that ChatGPT "ignored" this is misreading the response. The point was that recursion, in Halliday’s sense, depends on system options allowing indefinite reiteration, whereas embedding is structurally limited.
[4] This is just rhetorical posturing rather than substantive critique. The claim that "it doesn’t constitute an answer" is empty unless Kellogg can show which part of the response failed to engage with the issue.
His own misframings—conflating system networks with reification, misunderstanding the relation between system and structure, and misrepresenting Halliday’s definition of recursion—are what prevent him from recognising the response as an answer.
If anything, his reply confirms that his original concern arises from a misunderstanding of what Halliday meant by recursion and how system networks function within the model.
Summary of Kellogg’s Misunderstandings
Reification: Kellogg misinterprets Halliday’s model-internal definition of recursion as a claim about the real world.
System vs. Structure: He treats system choices as if they are being claimed to "exist" separately rather than being part of a model of meaning potential.
Recursion as Infinite:He misreads Halliday’s notion of recursion as meaning "infinite in all cases" rather than "unbounded within system networks."
Non-engagement: He dismisses the response without demonstrating where it fails, instead relying on rhetorical dismissal.
Ultimately, his critique seems more about staking an oppositional stance rather than engaging with the substance of the argument.
Let’s now dissect David Kellogg’s rhetorical strategies in his reply.
1. Feigned Engagement with the AI vs. Real Engagement with Chris
Strategy: He begins by expressing disinterest in ChatGPT’s response and framing his interest as being in Chris' take. This is a deflection tactic—instead of engaging directly with the argument presented, he shifts the burden onto Chris, implicitly suggesting that the AI-generated response is unworthy of direct critique.
Effect: This sets up an artificial hierarchy where only Chris' words are deemed worthy of engagement. It also functions as a preemptive delegitimisation—if he dismisses ChatGPT’s response outright, he doesn’t need to actually refute it.
Counter: If he really wanted Chris' thoughts, he could have asked an open-ended question rather than launching into a critique of the AI-generated response. His real aim is to push Chris into a direct intellectual duel, not to seek understanding.
2. The Accusation of Reification
Strategy: He claims the argument commits reification, but rather than demonstrating this, he simply asserts that recursion must be treated as a model, not a real thing. This is an example of question-begging: he assumes his own interpretation (that recursion should only be seen as a model) and then accuses the response of error for not conforming to that assumption.
Effect: This shifts the burden of proof—he never actually explains why the argument entails reification, just declares it so. If unchallenged, this puts Chris in a defensive position, where Chris must disprove a claim he hasn’t even properly supported.
Counter: A clear distinction must be made between modelling recursion in system networks and recursion as a real-world phenomenon. Halliday’s definition of recursion applies within the model, and Kellogg’s critique fails to recognise this distinction.
3. The Straw Man About System Choices
Strategy: He claims that the response assumes system choices "exist in the real world" and then criticises that assumption. But this is a straw man—the argument never claimed system choices exist independently of the model.
Effect: This makes it seem like the argument was making a naïve ontological claim when, in reality, it was simply distinguishing between paradigmatic and syntagmatic levels of representation within the model. By knocking down this invented claim, he gives the appearance of refutation without engaging with the actual argument.
Counter: Pointing out that system choices are not separate from structure but are abstract potential instantiated in structure dissolves this misframing.
4. The Appeal to Authority (Halliday’s “Infinity” Claim)
Strategy: He states that the response "ignores" Halliday’s claim about recursion being infinite. This is an appeal to authority combined with an argument from omission—he asserts that Halliday said something absolute about infinity without engaging with the nuance of Halliday’s actual position.
Effect: By framing Halliday’s position in an extreme way, he makes it seem like any deviation from that extreme is an error. But Halliday was not claiming recursion is always infinite in the strongest possible sense, only that true recursion allows for unbounded extension.
Counter: Clarifying the difference between true recursion (as a system that re-enters itself) and mere embedding dissolves this rhetorical sleight of hand.
5. The “Non-Answer” Dismissal
Strategy: Instead of engaging with specific points in the response, he dismisses it wholesale as not even an answer. This is a form of rhetorical erasure—by claiming the response doesn't constitute a real answer, he avoids the need to engage with it point by point.
Effect: This tactic is meant to make the reader feel like their argument has failed without Kellogg needing to actually demonstrate why. It is a power move that asserts intellectual dominance rather than engaging in open discussion.
Counter: Asking him to specify exactly which aspects of the response he believes failed to answer the question would expose this as rhetorical bluster.
6. The Pretence of a “Serious Question”
Strategy: He ends by insisting his question was "serious," implying that the response was not. This is a tone-policing move—by casting doubt on the seriousness of the reply, he suggests that only his approach is legitimate and that ChatGPT’s is unserious.
Effect: This creates an asymmetry in which he is positioned as the rigorous, serious inquirer, while ChatGPT is cast as one failing to meet that standard. It also acts as a way to frame disagreement as a failure on ChatGPT’s part rather than a matter of competing interpretations.
Counter: Pointing out that his misframings and straw man arguments undermine the seriousness of his own approach would turn this move back on him.
Overall Rhetorical Strategy
Kellogg is not engaging in open inquiry but rather using a debate-framing strategy where he:
Frames the AI response as illegitimate so that he doesn’t have to engage with it directly.
Reframes the debate in terms of reification and ontological errors rather than addressing the actual claims.
Uses straw men and mischaracterisations to attack a distorted version of the argument.
Appeals to Halliday’s authority while oversimplifying Halliday’s claims.
Uses dismissive rhetoric to erase the response rather than refute it.
His goal appears to be positioning himself as intellectually dominant rather than clarifying the concept of recursion in Hallidayan terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment