Showing posts with label Constituency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constituency. Show all posts

Saturday, 26 August 2023

David Rose Misunderstanding The Dimensions Of SFL Theory Through Biological Analogies

It’s a missing piece of other theories John, but central to SFS. 
It originates and is reproduced in interaction, the original replicating nucleus of semiosis, analogous with the original proteins of life... always replicating in/as a community. 
As those proteins make life possible, axis makes culture possible. 
Its ideational and textual functions are much later developments, like the eukaryotic cell... ranks the first multicellular organisms, strata the first complex ones (the proteins of which we still share with all other organisms).


Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is nucleic acids, not proteins, that replicate in biological systems. But even with this correction, the analogy is invalid, since if anything replicates in semiosis, it is in the semiotic system, not the interactions of meaners.

[2] To be clear, proteins make life possible in the sense that they are the expressions (Tokens) of genes (Values). Axis, on the other hand, in SFL Theory, is a local dimension with two orders: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Culture, by contrast, is the contextual semiotic realised by language and other social semiotic systems. Thus, it is not axis that makes culture possible but social semiosis.

[3] To be clear, this misunderstands the metafunctions as independent of one another. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 532-3):

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.

[4] To be clear, the eukaryotic cell was a phenotypic innovation in biological evolution, whereas the metafunctions were in language from the start as types of meaning that might be said to have "phenotypic effects".

[5] To be clear, multicellular organisms arose from the aggregation of eukaryotic cells, but ranks did not arise from the aggregation of the ideational and textual metafunctions. Rank is one way of modelling formal constituency.

[6] To be clear, complex multicellular organisms evolved from simpler multicellular organisms, but strata did not evolve from rank. Strata are different levels of symbolic abstraction, different perspectives on the one phenomenon, and are a dimension of all semiotic systems from the start, though only language has a stratified content plane.

Sunday, 18 November 2018

Christian Matthiessen On 'In Particular'

Can anyone help me out? …
8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
… What kind of Adjunct is "in particular"??

It’s not an Adjunct; it modifies “when”; cf.:
8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~ 
in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes,
8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
But if placed as if it were an Adjunct, it has a different sense, e.g.:
8(1) The Court shall, in particular, have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~
Or of course:
in particular, 8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~
So it modifies when, just as other adverbs such as particularly, exactly, just can do. This possibility is mentioned in IFG 4 p. 423, Section 6.2.3, but it’s very brief.


Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the question here is one of constituency.  Is in particular a constituent of a clause, as Lukin assumes, or a constituent of a conjunction group, in particular when, as Matthiessen argues?

The instance in question involves two clauses:
  1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes 
  2. in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
(Cf. the exemplifying agnate: The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes for example when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes)

If in particular modifies when, then it cannot be moved around the clause, whereas if in particular is a constituent of the clause, it can be moved.  As the following agnates demonstrate, in particular can be moved around the clause, and so is a constituent of the clause, not a constituent of the conjunction group:
  • when, in particular, committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes
  • when committed, in particular, as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes
  • when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular
The flaw in Matthiessen's argument is that, although he locates in particular in the second clause (modifying when), his argument against it being a clause constituent assumes that it is part of the first clause.