David Rose replied to Ed McDonald on Sysfling on 12/9/23 at 16:55:
For recentish work on "context-bound" vs "context-free" seeRevisiting mode: Context in/dependency in Ancient History classroom discourseJR Martin, E MatruglioStudies in functional linguistics and discourse analysis 5, 72-95Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in secondary school science and humanities discourseJR MartinOnomázein, 111-148SF work on coding orientation is now being reframed as individuation: allocation/affiliationDiscourse and Diversionary Justice: an analysis of youth justice conferencingM Zappavigna, JR MartinPalgrave Macmillan
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Martin mistakes language varieties, register and genre, for context. If register and genre are misunderstood as the context of language, then the claim is that language is either independent or dependent of the context it construes. In this case, the realisation relation between context and language is misunderstood as dependency.
But even if register and genre are understood as language varieties, the claim is that texts are either independent or dependent of the varieties of which are instances. In this case, the instantiation relation between register/genre and text is misunderstood as dependency.
[2] To be clear, Halliday (2008: 114) explains Bernstein's coding orientation as follows:
… Bernstein’s concept of “code”, which he defined as sociolinguistic coding orientation […] with its opposition of “elaborated/restricted”, was the basic mechanism of cultural transmission: it was the different semiotic practices, or “meaning styles”, of different social classes that was responsible for transmitting social class distinctions across the generations.
See Misunderstanding Bernstein at Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause (Martin & Rose, 2007).
I shall use the term repertoire to refer to the set of strategies and their analogic potential possessed by any one individual and the term reservoir to refer to the total of sets and its potential of the community as a whole.
A second, complementary perspective on individuation looks at how personæ mobilise social semiotic resources to affiliate with one another — how users attitude and ideation couplings, in Knight's (2010) terms, to form bonds, and how these bonds then cluster as belongings of different orders (including relatively "local" familial, collegial, professional, and leisure/recreational affiliations and more "general" fellowships reflecting "master identities" including social class, gender, generation, ethnicity, and dis/ability).
No comments:
Post a Comment