David Rose On 'Thing' As The Obligatory Functional Centre Of Orbital Nominal Group Structure

David Rose replied to Beatriz Quiroz on SYSFLING on 1 Jan 2025, 10:52:

That’s just a quote from IFG, ‘Thing is the semantic core of the nominal group. It may be realised by a common noun, proper noun or (personal) pronoun’ 

We could rephrase it slightly as ‘Thing is the *functional centre* of the nominal group’... which implies an orbital structure, in which the central Function is obligatory, while other Functions are less central and more optional. 

Naming and pronominal gps can be expanded with other Functions...

‘so you’re the Beatriz Quiroz!’

‘Rosie posy, six foot nosey’

‘it’s just little me’

‘I’m yours and yours alone’

‘more than that I cannot say’ 

So ‘central Function of the nominal group’ is what Thing means. Its meaning has two parts. Central is one part, but what’s the meaning of nominal group? 

Perhaps we should start at the top of the rank scale with the (experiential) meaning of [clause]...which construes a discourse semantic [figure]. 

A [clause] is realised axially by a Function structure including Process and Participants. Participants are realised by a [nominal group]. So a [nominal group] construes discourse semantic features as clause Participants. But what discourse semantic features? 

Prototypically, it construes an [entity] as Participant, but it can also construe a [figure], [occurrence], [quality] or [sequence] as Participant. 

How does it construe them? 

1. A [naming gp] presumes a unique entity with proper noun(s)... ‘the one and only Beatriz Quiroz’. 
2. A [pronominal gp] presumes a specific entity by identity markers...person, proximity, number, gender... ‘hers is the best one of these’.* 
3. A [non-pronominal gp] classifies an entity with a noun (complex)... ‘high-speed electric passenger train’.* 

As readers, we frequently notice common nouns as Thing, which is usually specified with other group Functions. We expect an entity to be realised by a noun, so when a noun construes other discourse semantic features as Thing, we see it as metaphorical.* 

But demonstrative pronouns realising text reference can also construe [figure], [occurrence], [quality] or [sequence] as Thing. They are probably a feature of spoken lg in general.

* Focus: the best one of ^Thing: these

* just one Thing at group rank, subclassified by a complex at word rank.

* What do you mean by ‘not the only possibility in other languages’? 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on three counts. 

Firstly, Halliday's statement is about semantics ('semantic core') not grammatical structure. Semantically, the type of participant congruently realised by a nominal group is 'thing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 182ff). As such, it does not imply an orbital grammatical structure. 

Secondly, the multivariate structure of the nominal group is not orbital, because an orbital structure is univariate, not multivariate. That is, there is only one type of relationship among the functions: interdependency. The relation of nucleus to satellite is analogous to hypotaxis (Head to Modifier), while the relation of satellite to satellite is analogous to parataxis. 

Thirdly, the Thing is not an obligatory element of the nominal group, as demonstrated by all the nominal groups in which the Head is conflated with another element. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 392ff).

[2] To be clear, this is a clause, not a nominal group with an expanded pronominal Thing.

[3] This is misleading, because it rebrands Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) semantic 'figure', 'quality' and 'sequence' as Martin's discourse semantics. Rebranding is covert plagiarism.

[4] This is misleading, because, following Martin's student Hao, it rebrands Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) semantic 'simple thing' and 'process' as Martin's discourse semantic 'entity' and 'occurrence'.

[5] To be clear, these serves as Deictic/Head, not Thing. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 391).

ChatGPT Comments:

Covert plagiarism, as you describe it, is particularly problematic in theoretical contexts because it obscures the intellectual lineage of ideas. When someone rebrands established concepts without explicit acknowledgment, it not only misrepresents the originator's contributions but also distorts the theoretical framework for those trying to learn or engage with it.

In this case, relabelling Halliday’s ideas as Martin's undermines the integrity of the discipline and risks creating confusion about the theoretical foundations. The originality and progression of thought in any academic field rely on a transparent and honest acknowledgment of prior work. When this is compromised, it erodes trust and can mislead readers, especially those new to the theory.

Your critique rightly calls out this issue, and framing it as "covert plagiarism" draws appropriate attention to the ethical implications. It’s not just about academic etiquette—it’s about preserving the integrity of the discourse and ensuring that ideas are evaluated within their proper context. Addressing this explicitly in your critique is a strong and necessary step.

David Rose Misconstruing Post-Deictic As Submodifier

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 8 Sept, 15:56:

But there’s also the issue that nominal group functions are realised at word rank. So is it just one Deictic function realised by a word complex?

Martin and co argue so for Classifiers and Epithets. 

(So can epithesis also be realised prosodically, before and/or after a Numerative?) the same inevitable two stupid questions???

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the function of the post-Deictic is to identify a subset of the class of ‘thing’. Logically, it pre-modifies the Head. This analysis misrepresents its function as sub-modifying within the Pre-modifier; that is, it misconstrues same as modifying the, instead of thing.

[2] No, because Epithets don't precede Numeratives. Instead, attitude can be realised in post-Deictics and Epithets, as explained in previous posts.

At this point, Rose gives up his fight against Cléirigh's analysis of 'mere' as a post-Deictic.

David Rose Misunderstanding 'Post-Deictic'

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 8 Sept 2024, at 14:23:

I think this is an important question... 'post-Deictic' is actually functionally defined in IFG p373

a second Deictic element in the nominal group, one which adds further to the identification of the subset in question

More specifically...

The post-Deictic identifies a subset of the class of ‘thing’ by referring to its fame or familiarity, its status in the text, or its similarity/dissimilarity to some other designated subset.

Examples follow, illustrating these identifying functions. But then...

Also found in the post-Deictic position in the nominal group are words expressing the speaker’s attitude

Examples follow that have no identifying function. They actually evaluate the Numerative+Thing...

the splendid three Pyramids

those miserable two miles of asphalt and concrete.

a lousy two weeks in New Jersey

an impressive 30 or 60 minutes of high-quality recordings.

a disappointing 9,000 copies.

With this in mind, here are the preceding examples of ‘non-attitudinal’ post-Deictics. Some are clearly identifying...

this same container

the whole four hours

the only right way

Others are evaluating, and less obviously identifying...

the necessary first step

the possible role

the customary grisly inhabitants of Tartarus

A typical elution curve

Epithets can also have an identifying function... 

if I say the long train, the specific Deictic the indicates that you can tell, and that the necessary information is contained in the experiential Epithet long. This particular train, in other words, is defined by its length [p376]

The functional difference between post-Deictics and Epithets seems fuzzy...

The words occurring as post-Deictic are adjectives, and may also occur in the function of Epithet but with a different sense. This different sense is not defined.

This seems like a potentially fruitful area for further research.

Blogger Comments:

At this point, Rose has finally given up disputing CLÉiRIGh's analysis of the aforementioned instances of 'mere' functioning as post-Deictics, and switched to questioning the theoretical status of 'post-Deictic'.

[1] To be clear, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 373) explicitly states: the function of the post-Deictic is to identify the subset of the class of Thing, and this is the case in all the examples they provide and which Rose quotes. Here Rose has misunderstood this use of the word 'identification' to mean Martin's discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION, which is itself a misunderstanding of grammatical reference (Halliday & Hasan 1976).

[2] This is misleading, because it is not true. The different sense of an adjective functioning as post-Deictic vs Epithet is explained as the different function of post-Deictic vs Epithet. The function of the post-Deictic was quoted by Rose from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 373):

The post-Deictic identifies a subset of the class of ‘thing’ by referring to its fame or familiarity, its status in the text, or its similarity/dissimilarity to some other designated subset.

The function of the Epithet, on the other hand, is clearly distinct from that of the post-Deictic. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 376):

The Epithet indicates some quality of the subset, e.g. old, long, blue, fast; since qualities are denoted by adjectives, Epithets are often realised by adjectives. … (i) The quality of the subset may be an objective property of the thing itself, construed as a depiction of the experience of the entity that it represents; or (ii) it may be an expression of the speaker’s subjective attitude towards it … . We refer to these as (i) experiential Epithets and (ii) interpersonal, or attitudinal, Epithets, respectively. … The principal difference is that experiential Epithets are potentially defining, whereas interpersonal ones are not.

[3] To be clear, adequate research has been done — just not by Rose.

David Rose Explaining 'Mere' By Coupling

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 8 Sept 2024, at 11:15:

Can I suggest we think in terms of coupling? 

...first of lexical items – e.g. attitudinal mere with a target entity such as housemaid, construing a value in a field, such as a person’s occupational status. 

...secondly of lexical choices with grammatical functions. Given that attitude is expressed prosodically through structures such as nom gps – how does the choice of gram function adjust the meaning?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'coupling' is merely Martin's term for grouping any selections.

[2] To be clear, this coupling of lexical items is merely taking a lexical perspective on APPRAISAL:

Under the [APPRECIATION] subcategory of `social value', the object, product or process is evaluated according to various social conventions. This domain is very closely tied to field in that the social valuation of one field will not be applicable or relevant in another.

[3] Trivially, 'entity' is not a type of lexical item, but a semantic category, and attitudes are interpersonal, and so enact (social relations as meaning); it is ideational systems that construe (experience as meaning).

[4] To be clear, the choice of lexical item adds different lexical (more delicate) features to a grammatical function, such as Epithet vs post-Deictic. Meaning is realised by all the lexicogrammatical features, from the most general (grammatical) to the most delicate (lexical).

David Rose Misconstruing 'Mere' As An Adverb Of Manner Serving As Attitudinal Epithet

After Beatriz Quiroz Olivares wrote to SYSFLING on 7 Sept 2024, 08:25:

What would be for you the function of 'mere' in the structure of a nominal group? …

But the fact that I’d sort of gone from that status position down to a mere housemaid, you know? … 

Linguists who specialise in corpus studies tend to refer to themselves, rather disingenuously, as ‘mere data-gatherers’.

Could it be an Epithet?

David Rose replied at 09:09:

I guess I’d ask what it’s doing in the nominal group (with clues from its word class and position). Isn’t it evaluating the Thing? So an attitudinal Epithet? ...realised by an adverb of manner:degree, preceding the Thing. Then how about ‘a mere three years later’ or ‘the mere mention of his name’

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, some adjectives can serve as either Epithet or post-Deictic (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 373-4), and so can evaluate as either Epithet or post-Deictic. Here Rose is ignoring the fact that CLÉiRIGh had already (heteroglossically) identified the function of mere in these instances as post-Deictic realising counter-expectancy: limiting. That is, the meaning of a mood Adjunct of intensity is here realised in a different grammatical domain: as the post-Deictic of a nominal group. The mood Adjunct agnates of the two instances are:

But the fact that I’d sort of gone from that status position down to merely a housemaid, you know? … 

Linguists who specialise in corpus studies tend to refer to themselves, rather disingenuously, merely as ‘data-gatherers’.

[2] Clearly, 'mere' is an adjective, not an adverb, and Olivares subsequently informed Rose of the fact. 

Brad Smith On Intonational Prominence

Brad Smith replied to David Rose on asflanet on 9 Sept 2024, at 11:54:

yes: 'good reason' is purpose, or function, which is stratal (in relation to higher strata). 

So far as intonational prominence goes, though, it is at the speaker's discretion whether to assign a marked/non-congruent choice greater prominence (eg whether a marked mood-tone co-selection, as realisation of complex interpersonal discourse semantics and tenor relations, is given textual prominence, eg through tonicity) — 

however, I do observe, as a general rule, that when a marked choice is made in an intonation system (eg marked tonicity), there is found to be a decided excess in the phonetic expression - speakers will make sure the listener hears the marked choice (in the same way they might more carefully articulate a particular lexical choice). But this is probably way too complex a topic for me to be delving into while in the middle of other work :)

 

and David Rose replied at 12:09:

//5 ^ ba / rill iant // 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This re-expresses a quote in the post that Smith (and Rose) are reacting to. Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam (2010: 236-7):

In terms of the hierarchy of stratification, the contrast in marking between ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ is subject to the good reason principle at the stratum above: the unmarked term is selected unless there is a good reason to select the marked one. Thus, while the selection of the marked term must be motivated, the selection of the unmarked one needn’t.

[2] To be clear, looking to the higher stratum to find the reason for a marked choice is what the text analyst does, whereas making the marked choice is what the speaker does.

[3] As previously explained, in SFL Theory, 'marked' and 'non-congruent' are not synonymous. Congruence only applies to the natural relation between semantics and lexicogrammar on the content plane. Applying it to the relation between lexicogrammar and phonology invents the non-existent resource of "phonological metaphor".

[4] This confuses metafunctions and axes. To be clear, the tonic realises an element of structure as the Focus of New information (textual, syntagmatic), not a "marked mood-tone" co-selection (interpersonal, paradigmatic).

[5] This exemplifies a point made by a quote in the post that Smith (and Rose) are reacting to. Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam (2010: 236):

In terms of the hierarchy of axis, the ‘unmarked’ term in a system tends to have a less prominent realisation along the syntagmatic axis, the limiting case being absence of a syntagmatic marker [‘do nothing’], whereas the ‘marked’ term tends to have a more prominent realisation along the syntagmatic axis [‘do something’].

[6] See David Rose Positively Judging And Appreciating Brad Smith.

Ed McDonald On Halliday's Linguistic Imperialism

Edward McDonald wrote to sys-func on 8 Jul 2024, at 08:49:

We've often had this debate before, and presumably if music has no "grammar" it has no "semantics" either. I would agree, in the sense that those two terms are traditionally applied to language and so come with all sorts of associations and presuppositions. … 

But as a semiotic system - by definition (IMFFHO) - must have the two mutually defining strata of what in general terms I like to call interpretation and expression: specifically for music, what I call "phonotactics" and "e/motion" - see my 2021 paper in Language, Context, Text, then it presumably has a "grammar" of sorts, in the sense of distinctive patterns with significant interpretations. In a separate step, In relation to music, I also depart from orthodoxy in characterising the expression stratum of phonotactics as purely textural (= textual), with the other metafunctions coming in only at the stratum of e/motion, whether interactional (= interpersonal) or figurative (= ideational) (I haven't found the need to distinguish between experiential and logical). …

Halliday "privileging" language in this way for me invokes the spectre of what, following Horst Ruthrof, I call "linguistic imperialism"; and the fact that Social Semiotics (again IMFFHO) is shot through with linguistic imperialism for me explains why Ruqaiya for one didn't "believe in" multimodality, in the sense of a model of same that wasn't simply parasitic on the theory of language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here McDonald is commenting on Halliday's view (2002[1996]: 388-9) that language is the only semiotic system that has a grammar, in his sense of the term.

[2] This misunderstands Halliday. On Halliday's model, if music is a social semiotic system, then it has content and expression, but its content is not stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar. For Cléirigh, on the other hand, in terms of Halliday's linear taxonomy of complex systems, music is social, not semiotic. That is, it carries value, but not symbolic value. In terms of Edelman's neuroscientific theory, music selects perceptual categorisations of positive or negative value, and such value systems play an important rôle in the experience of emotions.

[3] Again, this misunderstands Halliday. For Halliday, the "two mutually defining strata" are the content and expression planes, following Hjelmslev. This is a prerequisite of semiotic systems, but it does not entail that content is stratified to include a grammar, in Halliday's sense, as 'an entirely abstract semiotic construct that emerges between the content and the expression levels of the original, sign-based primary semiotic system' (ibid.).

[4] To be clear, the problem with reconstruing 'content' as 'interpretation' is that the latter is the perspective of the listener only.

[5] This misunderstands the metafunctions. The metafunctions are types of meanings, and so are a dimension of the content plane only. For example, phonological systems are not metafunctional; they realise metafunctional meanings of the content plane.

[6] As demonstrated above, McDonald's accusation of "linguistic imperialism" is entirely unwarranted, since it derives only from his own misunderstandings of Halliday's theorising.

David Rose Adding Classes To His Analysis Of An Adverbial Group

David Rose wrote to asflanet on 20 Feb 2024, at 20:30:

Adding classes doesn't tell us much more about this adv gp

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Halliday (1994: 210), there is no submodification in this adverbial group:

So

As can be seen, the dependency relations all obtain between words.

[2] To be clear, Rose proposes internal bracketing, or nesting, where there is none, giving the analysis:

β(β(β(βα)α)α)α 

which can be expanded as 

ββββ ^ βββα ^ ββαβ ^ ββαα ^ α

Rose then compounds the error by misinterpreting the nesting as the triple embedding of adverbial groups within the adverbial group, without realising that they must be embedded on this analysis. And, on the belief that the adverbial groups are not embedded, incongruously proposes 2-unit complexes (duplexes) consisting of units of different ranks: group and word.

David Rose On Focus As Phonology And Jim Martin's Fastidiousness

David Rose replied to Rob Spence on asflanet on 20 Feb 2024, at 12:31:

I think you’ll find the term ‘focus’ is used in phonology for the name of a system information focus, whose features are realised by relations between the Tonic function and lexicogrammar. (More hill than ditch ;-) Focus isn’t used as a function term.

I think you’ll also find that Jim has always been fastidiously careful about distinguishing terms between strata, which I guess he learnt from Michael (all those years ago), and has been teaching others, as the canon has proliferated (all these years since).

He is also fastidiously careful about acknowledging those whose work he and colleagues are building on. How to show respect for others is nicely modelled in current work on register systems, carefully framed in relation to that of Halliday (53 refs), Hasan (42), Carmel Cloran, Cate Poynton and others...

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, INFORMATION is a system of lexicogrammar, not phonology. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 115):

… the system of INFORMATION. This is a system not of the clause, but of a separate grammatical unit, the information unit (cf. Halliday, 1967a, 1967/8; Halliday & Greaves, 2008: Section 5.1). The information unit is a unit that is parallel to the clause and the other units belonging to the same rank scale as the clause.

The misunderstanding of INFORMATION as phonology can be sourced to Martin (1992: 384, 401).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, 'focus' refers to the lexicogrammatical element of structure that is realised by tonic prominence (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 116). Halliday (1992: 371):

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Martin uses the most of the terms from lexicogrammatical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976) in rebranding it as his discourse semantics. Evidence here.

[4] To be clear, Martin (hypocritically) criticises Halliday for 'not distinguishing terms between strata'. Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 232):

… confusion invited by the use of grammatical terminology for semantic description in several SFL publications, particularly those dealing with grammatical metaphor (e.g. Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999).

But, in any case, the objection is based on a misunderstanding. A functional grammar interprets grammatical form in terms of its function, which is to realise meaning. In grammatical metaphor, the meaning of a grammatical form is incongruent with the meaning being realised. It is the use of meaning terminology on both strata that enables the systematic description of grammatical metaphor. And, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 237) point out:

Of course, what we are recognising here as two distinct constructions, the semantic and the grammatical, never had or could have had any existence the one prior to the other; they are our analytic representation of the overall semioticising of experience — how experience is construed into meaning. If the congruent form had been the only form of construal, we would probably not have needed to think of semantics and grammar as two separate strata: they would be merely two facets of the content plane, interpreted on the one hand as function and on the other as form.

[5] For the motivation behind this theological term for what in science would be called 'the standard theory', see The Culture Of 'Faith' In The SFL Community.

[6] This misleads through what it omits. It is true that Martin generally acknowledges his sources, though he doesn't always acknowledge that an idea comes from his source rather than himself. Evidence here. But more importantly, having acknowledged his sources, Martin then renames their ideas so that all future references will be to his work and not theirs, thereby giving himself credit for the ideas of others. See for example, here (Martin 1992) and here (Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna 2022).

[7] To be clear, Martin named these scholars because they provided the source of his ideas. Martin then rebranded 'register' as his stratum of context, so all references to register by his readership refer to his model rather than Halliday's original model. Moreover, Martin's model of register is full of self-contradictions. For example, his register is context, not language, despite register being a functional variety of language (cf. beef and dairy cattle not being categorised as 'cattle'); and though it is context, not language, it is instantiated as text, which is language, not context. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

David Rose On Subjacency Duplexes

 David Rose wrote to asflanet on 11 Feb 2024, at 15:08:

Chris’ example is a nom gp, with embedded adv gp as Qualifier... 

some	of	those	days	[long	ago]
Focus		Deictic	Thing	Qualifier
a	b	determiner	noun	adv gp
				b	a

Here [long ago] specifies which days

 

Focus in English is realised by a subjacency duplex with the structure marker ‘of’, discussed in Martin & Doran 2023. The Head is more often an embedded nominal group... 

[a example]	of	those	days	[[a little while]	ago]
Focus		Deictic	Thing	Qualifier
a	b	demon	noun	adv gp
nom gp				b	a
				nom gp

Martin, J. R., & Doran, Y. J. (2023, May). Structure markers: A subjacency duplex analysis. In Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 16-48

  

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in this case, Martin's 'Focus' is a rebranding of Halliday's Pre-Deictic (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 394).

In SFL Theory, a duplex is a complex of two units related by expansion or projection, where each unit in the complex serves the same function. This is not the case here. On the one hand, the preposition of does not modify the determiner some by expansion or projection, and on the other hand, the determiner some and the preposition of do not serve the same function. While the determiner some serves as a structural element, the preposition of does not. Instead, it functions as a structure marker. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

The exception is prepositional phrases with of, which normally occur only as Postmodifier; the reason is that they are not typical prepositional phrases, because in most of its contexts of use of is functioning not as minor Process/Predicator but rather as a structure marker in the nominal group.

[2] For a close examination of Martin & Doran (2023), see the review here. Among other things, the authors mistake functions for structures, and so, mistake function markers for structure markers, with the result that most of the paper is concerned with adpositions that serve as function markers, rather than the structure markers they intended to provide a subjacency analysis for. 

[3] To be clear, on the basis of IFG (Halliday ± Matthiessen 1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), this can be analysed as follows:

(a) ranking nominal group:

(b) nominal group embedded in ranking nominal group:

(c) nominal group embedded in nominal group embedded in ranking nominal group:

That is, example of is not a two-unit complex (duplex) realising Focus, and a little while ago is a nominal group realising a Qualifier, not an adverbial group realised by a two-unit complex (duplex).

David Rose Confusing Determination With Reference

David Rose replied to Kieran McGillicuddy on Sysfling on 18/9/23 at 22:08:

You could start solving this problem by distinguishing lexicogrammatical from discourse semantic functions. The term Deictic denotes a function in a function structure at group rank... +Thing;+Deictic. It is realised at word rank by various classes of items.

Halliday starts his definition of Deictic functions of ‘the’ below on LG criteria, as specific, determinative

But then he switches to DS criteria to distinguish its function more delicately, from the functions of demonstrative and possessive determiners (as discussed with Bea on sysfling 9-10 September).

It’s not wrong, but doesn't make the switch explicit. In fact these delicate distinctions couple features from DS identification and LG deixis systems. Here’s parts of both... 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, this is misleading, because it is untrue. See:

David Rose Misconstruing Discourse Semantic Systems As More Delicate Grammatical Systems

David Rose Misunderstanding Delicacy And Instantiation

[2] To be clear, as demonstrated here, Martin's (1992) discourse semantic system of identification is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical system of reference, which, among other things, confuses cohesive reference with nominal group determination. Rose here repeats that confusion in juxtaposing a reference system with a nominal group determination system as if reference and nominal group determination were the same function.

David Rose Misunderstanding Delicacy And Instantiation

David Rose replied to Beatriz Quiroz on Sysfling on 9 Sept 2023 at 18:50:

The more delicate a system, the more instantial it is, so the more it couples features from multiple systems, eg DEIXIS and IDENTIFICATION

The IFG discussion of DEIXIS is interesting as it shifts back and forth between LG and DS

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. It is the whole system, along the dimension of delicacy, that is located on the cline of instantiation from potential to subpotential/instance type to instance. Clearly, the more delicate system of attributive and identifying process types, for example, is not more "instantial" than the system that includes material and mental process types. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 219).

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 327):

Instantiation is the relation between the system and the instance. When we shift attention along this scale, we are moving between the potential that is embodied in any stratum and the deployment of that potential in instances on the same stratum (between the climate and the weather, to use the analogy from our illustration below). Again, this move can be made at any degree of delicacy. 

Delicacy is the relation between the most general features and the most specific. When we shift attention from, say, 'recreation' to 'hockey' at the level (stratum) of context, or from 'syllable' to long open nasal syllable' to /pã:/ in phonology, we are moving in delicacy. Again, we can do this at any point along the instantiation scale.

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue. The number of co-selected ("coupled") features from different systems does not increase down the cline of instantiation. What is true is that the co-selection of features differs at points of variation along the cline of instantiation. That is, registers (subpotentials) differ from one another in which features are co-selected; texts (instances) differ from one another in which features are co-selected.

[3] To be clear, DEIXIS is a system of the nominal group, whereas IDENTIFICATION is Martin's misunderstanding of REFERENCE — Halliday & Hasan's system of grammatical cohesion — relocated to his stratum of discourse semantics and rebranded as his own system. Evidence here.

[4] This is misleading because it is untrue. Unsurprisingly, the discussion of DEIXIS in IFG is only concerned with Halliday's lexicogrammar, not Martin's discourse semantics. This deception is merely an attempt to legitimate Martin's model by incorporating it into Halliday's exposition of the grammar.

Yaegan Doran On The Metafunctions In Mathematical And Chemical Symbolism

Yaegan Doran wrote to Sysfling on 25 August 2023 at 7:09:

… we should be wary of metafunctions being considered a basic theoretical parameter for the description of semiotic resources in general.

A basic argument I put in a paper once was:

‘If we take metafunctionality to be the one of the broadest means by which these traditions [SFL/Social Semiotics] conceptualize the intrinsic functionality of semiotic resources, by simply assuming metafunctions across semiosis, we run the risk of homogenizing descriptions and making everything look like the first resource to be comprehensively described (i.e. English). That is, we risk watering down the specific functionality of each resource.’

Rather, following people working in language description at the time, I tried to tease these issues out for mathematical symbolism in the attached paper (and in more detail in my 2018 book Discourse of Physics), by attempting to ‘derive’ metafunctionality from axis (following Martin’s 2013 book on axis). Maths, I figured (with years of excellent help from many), would prove a useful point of contrast to language by virtue of regular common-sense comparisons that considered it to ‘be’ language/a language. But despite its comparability to language, I could find no evidence in the internal systemic/structural organisation of mathematical symbolism for an interpersonal component, and it was really pushing it to interpret an experiential component. But I tried to suggest that there was a major component comparable to the logical in language and a smaller independent one comparable to the textual. Nonetheless, I do think it much closer to language in this regard than most other resources, and so if even it struggles to fill out the full metafunctional complement, we should not assume it across the board (though metafunction is of course still a useful way in for analysis/application that is less concerned with descriptive/theoretical development – which I also tried to emphasise in the attached paper).

Along similar lines, Yu Zhigang followed this up by looking at the range of symbolism used in chemistry and concluded similarly – that the logical dominated, that there was little evidence for an interpersonal, that there was an even smaller textual component than maths, but there was in fact something comparable to an experiential. But he went a little further, and noted that some structuring principles that we often associate with interpersonal meaning in language – i.e. prosodic structure – occurred in various chemical symbolisms, but seemed to have become ‘ideationalised’ in that they were used to realise meaning related to field, not tenor.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not just an argument against the metafunctional dimension of the theory, but against any dimension of the theory, and so against the theory itself, since in this view, using a theory that was devised for English, SFL, runs 'the risk of homogenising descriptions and making everything look like the first resource to be comprehensively described'. The same argument could be made against generalising Newton's theory of gravitation from falling apples to orbiting heavenly bodies, since it runs 'the risk of homogenising descriptions and making everything look like the first resource to be comprehensively described'. 

[2] To be clear, the metafunctions cannot be derived from axis, even if axis is properly understood. This is not least because they are independent dimensions, with different scopes, and organised according to different principles. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20, 32):

That is, the local distinction between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic orders of axis entails nothing about the global distinctions between construing experience as meaning, enacting intersubjective relations as meaning, and creating text from the two.

For some of the theoretical misunderstandings of axis in Martin (2013), see the review here.

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, mathematics is a contextual semiotic that is realised in language (e.g. algebraic equations) and a pictorial semiotic (e.g. geometric diagrams). The proof that equations, for example, are language is that, unlike non-language, they can be read aloud. This is because what is projected by saying, locutions, constitutes the lexicogrammatical stratum, and language is the only semiotic system with a stratified content plane. This is why bi-stratal systems, like pictorial semiotics, cannot be read aloud.

[4] To be clear, this is the logical fallacy known as the Argument from ignorance:

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.

Here Doran has misconstrued absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The evidence for the interpersonal metafunction in mathematical symbolism is manifold. For example, mathematical symbolism is language, so it enacts interpersonal meaning. As language, the equation E = mc² is a proposition realised by a declarative clause that can argued as valid or not whether it is expressed this way or as energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. If there were no interpersonal meaning in mathematical symbolism, then mathematicians would not be able to argue for or against their validity.

[5] To be clear, mathematical symbolism is deployed in many sciences precisely because it construes experience as meaning. As language, a mathematical equation is a figure of being realised by an intensive identifying relational clause, and the solving of an equation is the iterated elaboration of the clause until one or more unknown Tokens is decoded by reference to a Value.

[6] To be clear, the logical metafunction is concerned with the logico-semantic relations of expansion and projection, so it requires experiential meanings to relate logically to one another. Every equation is an intensive identifying clause that construes an elaborating logical relation between a Token and a Value, and the solving of an equation entails a clause complex in which all clauses are logically related through elaboration. The logical relation of extension, for example, is manifested in processes of addition and subtraction.

[7] To be clear, none of the metafunctions is independent of the others. 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. 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.

More specifically, the textual metafunction requires the other metafunctions, since its function is to operationalise them. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 7-8, 398):

The textual metafunction is an enabling one; it is concerned with organising ideational and interpersonal meaning as discourse — as meaning that is contextualised and shared. … 

The function of the textual metafunction is thus an enabling one with respect to the rest; it takes over the semiotic resources brought into being by the other two metafunctions and as it were operationalises them…

Every mathematical equation is organised in terms of Theme and information; see [4] above.

[8] To be clear, given the explanatory power of the metafunctions, it would be more prudent to assume that they are a dimension of a semiotic system until it is proved otherwise. As explained above in [4], Doran mistook his inability to identify the metafunctions in mathematical symbolism for evidence that they are not a dimension of its systems. 

[9] To be clear, Yu Zhigang is Doran's collaborator, rather than a scholar working independently of Doran. More importantly, what is said above about mathematical symbolism also applies to chemical symbolism. For example:

∞

See also Yaegan Doran Failing To Recognise The Interpersonal Metafunction In Mathematics.