A related difference in the models is in the nature of the features. In the negotiation system, features are motivated from above by exchange type: knowledge/action, and within the same stratum, by sequencing of interactant roles. So the entry condition is [exchange], and the features are alternating exchange roles.In contrast, semantic networks are not concerned with sequencing of roles, but with classifying subtypes of what MAKH calls ‘verbal behaviour’. They are motivated from above by ‘behaviour potential’, and from below by grammatical realisations, but not axially by exchange structure. Their entry conditions are behaviour types, and their features specify behaviours realised by instantiating clauses, below...
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is very misleading indeed. Rose is here misrepresenting a network from Halliday (1972) as a network of Halliday's current model, and comparing it with Martin's negotiation network (Martin & Rose 2007):
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The features 'knowledge' and 'action' are located within the negotiation network, and so are not 'above' the network. Rose here confuses delicacy with stratification.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'sequencing of interactant roles' is how features are realised structurally, and so are 'below' the system.
[4] For the serious problems with the negotiation network, see
- Problems With The Exchange Structure NEGOTIATION System
- Problems With The Authors' Negotiation System Network
[5] To be clear, in this early paper, Halliday (1972) was exploring the possibility of a sociological semantics, where context was conceived as behavioural potential, with language as one means of realising behavioural potential. This is very different from the semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) where context is conceived metafunctionally in terms of field, tenor and mode, and semantic systems are the meanings construed by lexicogrammatical systems.
[6] This is very misleading. The reason why the networks in Halliday (1972) are not concerned with the sequencing of roles or exchange structure is that they predate Halliday's system of SPEECH FUNCTION, which Martin misunderstood and rebranded as his system of NEGOTIATION. Evidence here. It is Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION network that would be the appropriate model for comparison.
[7] This is misleading. In Halliday (1972), the entry conditions to semantic systems are not behaviour types. Instead, behavioural potential is the higher-level context that semantic systems realise. Halliday (2003 [1972]: 341):
[8] This confuses the relation between strata (realisation) with the relation between potential and instance (instantiation).
No comments:
Post a Comment