Rather than an argument, I’d call the macro-genre of this thread a jointly constructed factorial explanation, more informing for anyone interested, than arguing a position. Its factorial structure was given by the points you raised in your 3 August sysfunc post, and each Factor drew on others’ explanations. So explicitly heteroglossic (trying not to mansplain, pace Lexi). Factors were...
1. MAKH’s view of axis (following Firth and Saussure)2. Relations between features and structures in systems3. Differences between stratal and axial realisation4. Stratal relations between phonology/lexicogrammar and semantics in the ‘meaning/wording/sounding’ formula5. Axis and strata in other modalities6. Hjelmslev’s influence on MAKH’s stratal model7. Axis and strata in protolanguageSo yes, very much theory internal (strong verticality in Jo Muller’s terms), but also highly appliable (strong grammaticality). That’s how axis is usually presented in SFL, as a theoretical tool for describing language and other modalities, and for theory building. But I think it is not simply a linguistic innovation by MAKH, but a discovery of how semiosis works. That was the inspiration for my diagram in Factor 2, centred on the claim ‘Structures are perceivable tokens of the abstract values of features’.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue on several counts.
- Firstly, the email thread in question was not jointly constructed. No other list members contributed to the points that Rose tried to make.
- Secondly, it was not a 'factorial explanation'. According to Martin & Rose (2007: 345), a factorial explanation is a genre ('text type' in SFL) whose purpose ('rhetorical mode' in SFL) is explaining multiple causes, and whose stages ('semantic structure' in SFL) are Phenomenon^Explanation. The previous 20+ posts demonstrate that Rose was not concerned with multiple causes, but with multiple examples of theoretical uses of 'axis', inter alia.
- Thirdly, the posts in the thread were not informing, but misinforming, as demonstrated by the previous 20+ posts on this blog.
- Fourthly, the posts in the thread were indeed arguing a position, Martin's, which Rose explicitly stated as 'axis is key', axis is sufficient' etc.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The previous 20+ blog posts demonstrate that Rose's emails do not have the 'factorial' structure of Phenomenon^Explanation. Rose and his citations have been strong on assertion, but weak on explanation.
[3] This misunderstands heteroglossia. Heteroglossia involves the expressions of different points of view. In his posts, Rose has cited different authors that he believes support the same point of view.
[4] Mansplain verb. (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronising.
[5] See, for example:
- David Rose Misrepresenting Axis As Key To Semantics-Grammar Relations
- David Rose Misrepresenting Halliday's Development Of SFL Theory
- David Rose Misrepresenting Axis
- David Rose Misrepresenting Halliday On Axis
- David Rose Misunderstanding Halliday's "Axial Breakthrough"
- David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstanding Of Stratal Relations As Axial
- David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstandings Of Protolanguage
[6] This is potentially misleading. On the one hand, the innovation, the distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, was made in Course in General Linguistics (Saussure 1916), nine years before Halliday's birth.
On the other hand, on the epistemological assumptions of SFL Theory, theories do not "discover truth" ('how semiosis works'). Instead, they reconstrue data validly, or otherwise, on the basis of the assumptions of the theory, valid or otherwise, and vary in their explanatory potential in different contexts of use. Rose here expresses a transcendent view of meaning — meanings are 'out there' to be discovered — whereas SFL assumes an immanent perspective, wherein meanings are construed in semiotic systems. See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 415-8).
[7] For the self-contradictions in Rose's diagram, see
No comments:
Post a Comment