David Rose Misrepresenting The Basis Of Systems

David Rose replied to David Kellogg on asflanet on 23/8/22 at 12:28:

Beyond Korean... good chance to sort out axis and strata

Re axis: Distinctions in mood options (features) must be realised by regular structural distinctions, that are dependent on other mood choices... e.g. modality options within the English mood system. Systems can only be drawn from structural proportionalities that are consistent across all instances.

Re strata: 

a) indicative-interrogative etc are features in grammatical mood systems. Speech functions are features in (discourse) semantic systems, that are realised by variations in mood.

b) Face-to-face meeting or newspaper reading is a choice at the stratum of tenor and mode (register), which is realised in interpersonal and textual language patterns. ...

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, systemic distinctions between features are not realised by structural distinctions between elements. For example, in the system of MODALITY, the systemic distinction between probability and obligation is not realised by the structural distinction between Finite and mood Adjunct, and either systemic feature may be realised by either structural element.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, it misunderstands systemic proportionalities as structural. As Halliday (2008: 121) explains:

Proportionality means that the terms in the system stand in a constant relationship to one another; their significance will vary according to the context, but (for example) hats is to hat as hairs is to hair as silk is to silks, even though hats are more than hat, hairs are less than hair, and silks are kinds of silk.

On the other hand, contrary to Rose's formulation, it is the system that “gives value to” the elements of syntagmatic structure, as Halliday (2008: 5,6):

This is the “system” in the sense in which it was formulated and defined by JR Firth (Firth 1957a,b); the system is the paradigmatic relation that “gives value to” the elements of syntagmatic structure. […] It is the system that defines the set of options from which any feature derives its value. […] What characterises the system is the regular proportionality between its terms. The system is closed, so that its terms are mutually defining […]

[3] This is misleading, because it repeats Martin's confusion of context with register. To be clear, in SFL Theory, field, tenor and mode are systems of context, the culture as semiotic system, whereas register is a sub-potential of language. Halliday (2005 [1995]: 254):