It would be intriguing to know just how MAKH’s Marxism influenced the various dimensions of his model, as politics prevented him from making it explicit.For example, he often describes grammar in terms like the ‘engine’ or ‘powerhouse’ in which ‘meanings are made’. The image is of industrial production, of labour and machines. The meanings produced are then ‘exchanged’, as Kieran discusses here.The Marxian image of an economic base of production and exchange becomes more sharply outlined in the grammar/semantics relation. H&M’s 1999 Construing Experience is a description of the ideational meanings made by the grammar. It construes semantics as an ideational superstructure emerging from the production processes of the grammar.
Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created;
[2] This misleading, because it is untrue. The image of central processing unit is simply that of computer hardware performing functions; and the image of a powerhouse is a thing or person of great energy, strength or power.
But more importantly, an image 'of industrial production, of labour, of machines' is not Marxism. Such phenomena are data that can be analysed in terms of any socio-economic ideology.
[3] Following from the previous point, the mere exchange of commodities, information or goods-&-services, is not Marxism, as demonstrated by the exchange of Christmas greetings and presents.
[4] This is misleading because it is untrue. The relation between base and superstructure in Marxian theory is one of extension (composition) at the same level of symbolic abstraction. The relation between grammar and semantics, on the other hand, is one of elaboration at different levels of symbolic abstraction. That is, base does not symbolise superstructure, but grammar does symbolise semantics.
