The bot’s synopsis reads to me like a long struggle over the material and relational versions...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Immanence and transcendence carry so much religious baggage. Could we simply say that SFL rejects the dualizing of meaning and form? Then ask how that plays out stratally.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the "bot's synopsis" identified philosophers whose ideas were compatible in some way with the epistemological assumptions of SFL Theory. See here.
[2] To be clear, the immanence/transcendence distinction carries no "religious baggage" whatsoever, since it is simply the question of whether or not meaning is seen as solely a property of semiotic systems.
[3] To be clear, on the one hand, the meaning and form of semiotic systems is irrelevant to the epistemological question of meaning as immanent or transcendent. On the other hand, SFL does "dualise" meaning and form, most obviously through the natural relation between meaning (e.g. process) and form (e.g. verbal group) against which grammatical metaphor is measured. SFL models lexicogrammar as form interpreted in terms of its function in realising meaning.
∞
See also The Practice Of Public Bluffing In The SFL Community.
