tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.comments2024-03-16T09:24:41.378+11:00Thoughts That Cross My MindUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-91829470225111921532024-03-16T09:23:20.457+11:002024-03-16T09:23:20.457+11:001) This is precisely what I dispute. I do not beli...1) This is precisely what I dispute. I do not believe in "argument internal" logic. I also do not believe in God, and I find the two ideas clearly related.<br /><br />2) Again, this is precisely what I dispute. I do not believe that logic can be "applied" to scientific problems without mediating concepts and categories. These mediating concepts and categories have a good deal to say about what kind of logic we use. We do not use the same logic in arithmetic as we do in statistics. The search for some kind of logic that stands outside of all subject matter and allows you to pronounce on the truth or fallacy of all arguments is simply the search for a way to play God, and it does not become a scientist. <br /><br />3) This confuses confusing with comparing.<br /><br />4) Chris is not informing us of anything that cannot be readily gleaned from the Wikipedia material he simply copies and pastes, which includes the following:<br /><br />Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies<br />David Kellogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475025091900472300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-77264978283602102192023-12-29T15:49:47.306+11:002023-12-29T15:49:47.306+11:00It does not say YOU are misleading anyone.It does not say YOU are misleading anyone.Dr CLÉiRIGhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00949406590039661205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-81516533965660005312023-12-29T15:42:27.530+11:002023-12-29T15:42:27.530+11:00A masterful analysis, Chris--very convincing. For ...A masterful analysis, Chris--very convincing. For one thing, it explains the difference between "Who am I?" and "Who is me?"<br /><br />A note on your (uncharacteristically monotonous) use of polemical routines. I still (strongly) object to "This is misleading." I am not leading anyone anywhere, as you can very plainly see! I even think that "Because it is untrue" is, if I say so, rather misleading (even though I DO think it is true, at least in this case). <br /><br />It's misleading because I made a completely honest and probably very widespread mistake in my analysis. I don't think many people, even grammatically sophisticated native speakers, would readily see "Who am I?" as Finite-Subject (like "Who do I represent?") but "Who is me?" as Subject-Finite (like "Who represents me?"). <br /><br />For one thing, it would mean that the correct form really ought to be "Whom am I?" and not "Who am I?" That is hardly typical usage. Does typical usage mislead us too?David Kellogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475025091900472300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-11643746655502360402023-12-26T09:54:47.670+11:002023-12-26T09:54:47.670+11:00Thanks David. I have used your comments to improve...Thanks David. I have used your comments to improve the post.Dr CLÉiRIGhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00949406590039661205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-54472490589394393292023-12-22T17:41:24.905+11:002023-12-22T17:41:24.905+11:001) I wasn’t trying to give an example of theory, C...1) I wasn’t trying to give an example of theory, Chris. I was giving an example of a category error (Ryle). “cow”, “bull”, “couple” are different kinds of categories, and don’t belong in the same level of analysis. Similarly, I think that the stratification model involves one kind of category, and “Token-Process-Value” involves a different kind of category. Yes, of course, “Token-Process-Value” is a wording, and wording is part of the stratification model, but “cow” and “bull” are also part of “couple of cows”. A category error is what allowed Descartes to think of himself as a body, a soul, and a coupled body and soul; Spinoza would have straightened him out but he moved to Sweden and his body died of pneumonia. <br /><br />2) I am objecting to the whole procedure of removing the hyphens, Chris, because when you remove the hyphens and put a word complex in the form of a clause, you are construing a very different relationship. The word complex “four table legs” means something very different from “a table has four legs”. So “meaning-identifies-wording is identified as sounding” means something different (more reversible) than “wording identifies meaning, and then sounding identifies wording”. That was why Halliday borrowed the concept of meta-redundancy and used the “ying-yang” model to lay it out. <br /><br />3) I think this is compelling evidence that your use of “realize” is very close to “cause” or “determine”. My use of “realize” is actually closer to your use of “identifies”. <br /><br />4) I wasn’t making an argument here: I was identifying the motivation of your own argument. When I said that you made it impossible for me to argue for a reversible realization relationship by removing the hyphen and translating it into a “Token-Process-Value” clause, I was appealing to consequences in order to understand why you would want to do such a thing, since it very obviously confuses stratification with metafunction. <br /><br />5) The distinction between decoding and encoding is very important here. I am not very good at it, and I once tried to write a whole article on it (“What is your name?” vs. “What are names?”, something that is realized by exactly the same clause in Korean). I seem to have gotten even more confused! <br /><br />6) I object to the term “misleading”, because I don’t think I am trying to lead anyone anywhere…. However, that move—turning identifying relations back on stratification—is indeed what I was objecting to. I don’t think you would agree if Martin were to say that he was turning instantiation back on stratification when he exapted the term ‘register’ as a stratum of context.<br /><br />7) Yes, that is what YOU said. But then you asked me for examples of where Halliday actually WROTE the two points I attributed to him, and you apparently disapproved when I could only provide two different quotes, because the one that you had a copy of only made one point and not both of them. It was this that made me entirely lose confidence in the whole method of quotation slinging. It seems to me better and more straightforward to just say what I think rather than try to get Halliday to say it for me.<br /><br />8) I agree entirely with this. But as you can see, it does make it possible for texts to create contexts, and that is precisely the point under dispute.<br /><br />9) Halliday has given different reasons for choosing “realize”, including the idea that it “materializes” meaning. But I think we can agree that “realization” is ineffable.<br /><br />10) Granted. The opposite movement would be placing certain meanings “at risk”. Both are moments of “identifying”—I will try to use THAT word from now on.<br />David Kellogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475025091900472300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-78016167203730688062023-12-19T16:28:12.348+11:002023-12-19T16:28:12.348+11:00From ChRIS CLÉiRIGh On The Expression Plane Of Lan...From <i>ChRIS CLÉiRIGh On The Expression Plane Of Languaging Bonobos</i> on Tuesday 14 November 2023:<br /><br />The languaging bonobos obviously do have a phonological system, since it is this that enables them to identify the words spoken by humans.Dr CLÉiRIGhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00949406590039661205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-72733026963156485582023-12-19T16:12:48.123+11:002023-12-19T16:12:48.123+11:00I can see that you are a very busy man, Chris. But...I can see that you are a very busy man, Chris. But it's not enough to just change the TITLE of the post. The argument I am making has to do with whether or not the VIEWERS of the cave paintings require language to interpret them. It is similar to the problem that you had earlier with Bonobo phonology. We know that Bonobos have phonology because they interpret human sounds phonologically. Similarly, we know that language is not required to interpret these paintings because we do not require it, nor do we need to assume that the cave painters had it. I don't see how this is "the opposite of the truth", although I must admit that the phrase "the opposite of the truth" is, despite what you say, very far from being clear.David Kellogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475025091900472300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-42208133519432495562023-12-11T14:10:18.391+11:002023-12-11T14:10:18.391+11:00Quite right about the post being about the viewer,...Quite right about the post being about the viewer, not the painter. I have amended the post accordingly.Dr CLÉiRIGhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00949406590039661205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-71522873393403420932023-12-11T13:23:09.181+11:002023-12-11T13:23:09.181+11:00Careful, Chris. What I said was that the VIEWER di...Careful, Chris. What I said was that the VIEWER did not require language to interpret the cave painting. I don't want to speculate whether the painters themselves had language; I am quite sure they did. But I can easily imagine non-linguistic humans or even animals being able to interpret the paintings as we do without language. In fact, I suspect that a non-linguistic interpretation might be superior to ours, because both you and I tend to interpret the mural as showing hunting, but if you look at it objectively, the way someone without language might, you will see that it probably shows herding.David Kellogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475025091900472300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-79957733795479263382022-07-04T18:50:28.192+10:002022-07-04T18:50:28.192+10:00I am indebted to David Kellogg for alerting me to ...I am indebted to David Kellogg for alerting me to an error I failed to notice in the first draft of Comment [1]. This has now been rectified. The remainder of the comments remain unaltered.Dr CLÉiRIGhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00949406590039661205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-79445491585848530452020-09-22T09:32:46.149+10:002020-09-22T09:32:46.149+10:00Well, it's the sort of mistake we can all make...Well, it's the sort of mistake we can all make, but because CMIM has such standing (deservedly), I had no choice but to clarify the situation.Dr CLÉiRIGhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00949406590039661205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-76251665082352446732020-09-04T21:39:59.137+10:002020-09-04T21:39:59.137+10:00I don't really get how someone who composed th...I don't really get how someone who composed the book "Lexicogrammatical Cartography" (which seems to me to be at least superficially, immensely complex) makes an error of this sought. I'm still a beginner when it comes to SFL, and almost everything goes right over my head. So, I'm not too sure how to feel about this case. Am I suppose to be relieved that even experts make relatively simple errors,or should I be concerned that one of the most prolific authors in the field still makes such mistakes? Or maybe i'm just being too black and white about it.Hakuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14193002725638571627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-7807996689018794502020-08-28T19:13:30.885+10:002020-08-28T19:13:30.885+10:00"even to the extent of denying the importance..."even to the extent of denying the importance of Darwin's principle of Natural Selection."<br /><br />Not just to the extent but even beyond. Which leads Micheal C. Corballis in his book "The Truth about Language" to refer to Chomsky's hypothesis of the origin of language as "Language as Miracle". Because of its fundamentally anti-evolutionary perspective.Hakuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14193002725638571627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-51949578379812159382019-06-14T09:04:40.244+10:002019-06-14T09:04:40.244+10:00Recommended for anyone looking for a clear, access...Recommended for anyone looking for a clear, accessible account at the differences between Halliday and Matin re formulations of stratification and instantiationprrwhitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06018958000883381865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5665235524238431756.post-19040552534704006582014-08-29T00:41:09.290+10:002014-08-29T00:41:09.290+10:00Wouldn't hypotaxis be necessary to distinguish...Wouldn't hypotaxis be necessary to distinguish between <br /><br />He said what he had always wanted to say but was unable to<br /><br />He asked what the difference between hypotaxis and parataxis was.<br /><br />It seems to me the first one would be an embedded clause, the second one a dependent projected one.<br /><br />Interesting and very Useful blog!<br /><br />Laura HlavackaLaura Hlavackahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867342626346079168noreply@blogger.com