This makes excellent sense. Metafunctionality as I tried to suggest, is a property of lg that its syntagmatic structuring has evolved to enable, together with ranks and strata. So it’s basic to lg but not to semiotic modes in general.My original point was that axis is the basis of semiosis and that these are all dimensions in which axis proliferates in lg. John singled out metafunction as less basic than the others (for his own ends we now see).What about ranks and strata? Lg has a stratified content plane and elaborate rank systems in grammar and phonology. Again metafunctionality is enabled by the evolved syntagmatic structuring of texts, clauses, groups, words and morphemes, together with tone groups, feet and syllables.How much of these are basic to other modalities?
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, here Rose is endorsing Doran's misunderstanding of the metafunctions in mathematical and chemical symbolism. For detailed reasons as to why it does not make excellent sense, see the previous post Yaegan Doran On The Metafunctions In Mathematical And Chemical Symbolism.
[2] To be clear, here Rose gives priority to the view 'from below', structure, and suggests that structure evolved to enable metafunctional meanings. This would mean, for example, that Theme^Rheme structure evolved to enable the textual metafunction.
In SFL Theory, on the other hand, it is the other way round: priority is given to the view 'from above', system and meaning, and it is the different systems of metafunctional meaning that are realised as different types of structure.
[3] It is not clear here, if Rose is suggesting that ranks and strata evolved to enable the metafunctions, or that ranks and strata were enabled by syntagmatic structuring. In any case, neither suggestion is tenable. Rank is a local dimension and the ordering principle of structure, and stratification is a global dimension whose organising principle is realisation. Metafunction is a distinct global dimension with a distinct ordering principle. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20, 32):
These three "metafunctions" are interdependent; no one could be developed except in the context of the other two. When we talk of the clause as a mapping of these three dimensions of meaning into a single complex grammatical structure, we seem to imply that each somehow "exists" independently; but they do not. There are — or could be — semiotics that are monofunctional in this way; but only very partial ones, dedicated to specific tasks. A general, all-purpose semiotic system could not evolve except in the interplay of action and reflection, a mode of understanding and a mode of doing — with itself included within its operational domain. Such a semiotic system is called a language.
[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, axis is a local dimension whose orders are the paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Since there are semiotic systems without syntagmatic chaining, such as protolanguage, axis cannot be the basis of semiosis. A more fundamental dimension is Saussure's distinction between the two components of the sign, signified and signifier, which SFL Theory models as the dimension of stratification: content and expression.
[6] To be clear, here Rose gives priority to the view 'from below', phonological form, and suggests that phonological form evolved to enable metafunctional meanings. This would mean, for example, that the foot evolved to enable the textual metafunction.
In SFL Theory, on the other hand, it is the other way round: priority is given to the view 'from above', content, and it is metafunctional content that is realised by phonological forms.
No comments:
Post a Comment