Ed McDonald:
[1.] The “variability of relations” in stratification sounds interesting: could you elaborate a bit on what other kinds of relations you would recognise here?
OK…'natural/conventional’ debates pre-date development of phono rank scale. They assumed ‘arbitrary’ sound/word relations, to then debate grammar/semantic relations. But phono/grammar relations actually vary by phono rank and system. So let’s allow for such variability between other strata.
Blogger Comments:
[1] The terms 'debates' and 'assumed' are misleading here. The conventional (arbitrary) relation between a word (e.g. the) and the sounds that realise it (e.g. [ꝺə]) is evident from observation, and so does not need to be assumed. The natural relation between semantics and grammar, in SFL Theory, refers to such non-arbitrary relations as those between participant and nominal group and between process and verbal group, in the absence of grammatical metaphor.
[2] To be clear, the stratal relation between grammatical forms (e.g. nominal groups and verbal groups) and their phonological realisations is invariably conventional (arbitrary), and does not vary by phonological rank. That is, the semantic distinction between participant and process, which is realised by a grammatical distinction between nominal group and verbal group, is not realised by a phonological distinction in intonation, rhythm or articulation.
What Rose could have in mind here is the relation between speech function and tone, and perhaps the relation between information focus and tonic prominence, neither of which is a relation between lexicogrammatical form and phonology.
[3] To be clear, the relation between other linguistic strata, semantics and lexicogrammar, in the absence of grammatical metaphor, is invariably natural (non-arbitrary) in the sense specified by Halliday. Moreover, the relation between adjacent strata is invariably realisation (intensive identification). Any model in which strata are not related by realisation is inconsistent with the ordering principle of stratification; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20).
[2] To be clear, the stratal relation between grammatical forms (e.g. nominal groups and verbal groups) and their phonological realisations is invariably conventional (arbitrary), and does not vary by phonological rank. That is, the semantic distinction between participant and process, which is realised by a grammatical distinction between nominal group and verbal group, is not realised by a phonological distinction in intonation, rhythm or articulation.
What Rose could have in mind here is the relation between speech function and tone, and perhaps the relation between information focus and tonic prominence, neither of which is a relation between lexicogrammatical form and phonology.
[3] To be clear, the relation between other linguistic strata, semantics and lexicogrammar, in the absence of grammatical metaphor, is invariably natural (non-arbitrary) in the sense specified by Halliday. Moreover, the relation between adjacent strata is invariably realisation (intensive identification). Any model in which strata are not related by realisation is inconsistent with the ordering principle of stratification; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20).
