David Rose On Exchange, Marxian Theory And Halliday (1961)

David Rose responded to Kieran McGillicuddy on sys-func on 3 June 2022 at 11:08:

Perhaps [Halliday's] greatest contribution was to show us how ‘production’ and ‘exchange’ happen simultaneously, through grammatical metafunctions, that it is in fact a co-production between speakers. But this co-production is necessarily sequenced in time – one person then another. And each person evaluates the other as they speak or gesture. That’s what the ‘exchange’ metaphor attempts to capture... to technicalise and iconise.

I’m interested in the fields these metaphors are imported from. Put ‘exchange’ together with ‘powerhouse where meaning are made’, with what we know of the old man’s history and what motivated his career, and we get the field of Marxist theory of economic production and exchange, combined with Hjelmslev’s theory of semiotic strata.

In my view this helps to explain how he conceptualised the grammar/semantics relation in 1961, when his research focus was grammar... with grammar as the productive ‘base’ where meanings are made, that redounds with a semantic ‘superstructure’ of these meanings.

Blogger Comments:

[1] For some, Halliday's greatest contribution was his formulation of a scientifically rigorous theory of language.

[2] To be clear, Halliday did not show that language is  'a coproduction between speakers … sequenced in time'. This has been the experience of language users since time immemorial. This is one aspect of the data that is modelled in his theory.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The "exchange metaphor" does not attempt to "capture…to technicalise and iconise" any reciprocal evaluation by interlocutors. Exchange means giving and demanding (to be given) information or goods-&-services: the system of SPEECH FUNCTION. Whether or not interlocutors actually evaluate each other in their texts is another matter entirely.

[4] To be clear, this is nonsense. On the one hand, exchange is not Marxian theory; as a social phenomenon, it is data that can be interpreted in terms of Marxian, or any other, theory. On the other hand, the word 'powerhouse' was Matthiessen's addition to his editions of IFG (2004, 2014) and it was used to elaborate Halliday's original (1985, 1994) metaphor, drawn from the functioning of a computer, of grammar as the central processing unit of language, not to evoke "economic production and exchange". 

[5] To be clear, as levels of symbolic abstraction in linguistic theory, strata ultimately derive from Saussure's sign, where Signified is the higher level and Signifier is the lower level. Hjelmslev conceived of the higher level as content, and lower level as expression, in his characterisation of a denotative semiotic. Hjelmslev distinguished this from a connotative semiotic, which has a denotative system as its expression plane, and Halliday adopted this to model culture as the content plane and language as the expression plane of a connotative semiotic.

[6] This misrepresents the theoretical architecture of Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961). Halliday (2002 [1961]: 39):

The words 'semantics' and 'semantic' were not used in Halliday (1961). The word 'context' in the above diagram was characterised by Halliday (ibid.) as follows:

The context is the relation of the form to non-linguistic features of the situations in which language operates, and to linguistic features other than those of the item under attention: these being together “extratextual” features. … Context is in fact (like phonology) an interlevel relating form to extratextual features.

And again, the compositional relation between a productive base and its superstructure is not analogous to the symbolic abstraction relation between grammar and semantics.

David Rose On How Halliday's Marxism Influenced The Various Dimensions Of His Model

David Rose wrote to sys-func on 2 June 2022 at 7:01:

It would be intriguing to know just how MAKH’s Marxism influenced the various dimensions of his model, as politics prevented him from making it explicit.

For example, he often describes grammar in terms like the ‘engine’ or ‘powerhouse’ in which ‘meanings are made’. The image is of industrial production, of labour and machines. The meanings produced are then ‘exchanged’, as Kieran discusses here.

The Marxian image of an economic base of production and exchange becomes more sharply outlined in the grammar/semantics relation. H&M’s 1999 Construing Experience is a description of the ideational meanings made by the grammar. It construes semantics as an ideational superstructure emerging from the production processes of the grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in the first two editions of IFG (1985, 1994), Halliday characterised the grammar in terms of computer technology: as the central processing unit of language. Halliday (1985: xxxiv-v):

In the two editions of IFG edited by Matthiessen (2004, 2014), the word 'powerhouse' was added as an elaboration of the computer technology metaphor. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 22):

Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created;

[2] This misleading, because it is untrue. The image of central processing unit is simply that of computer hardware performing functions; and the image of a powerhouse is a thing or person of great energy, strength or power.

But more importantly, an image 'of industrial production, of labour, of machines' is not Marxism. Such phenomena are data that can be analysed in terms of any socio-economic ideology.

[3] Following from the previous point, the mere exchange of commodities, information or goods-&-services, is not Marxism, as demonstrated by the exchange of Christmas greetings and presents.

[4] This is misleading because it is untrue. The relation between base and superstructure in Marxian theory is one of extension (composition) at the same level of symbolic abstraction. The relation between grammar and semantics, on the other hand, is one of elaboration at different levels of symbolic abstraction. That is, base does not symbolise superstructure, but grammar does symbolise semantics.

David Rose Misunderstanding Halliday's Distinction Between Value And Meaning

David Rose wrote to Kieran McGillicuddy on sys-func on 30 May 2022 at 17:34:

I too have wondered about this for 30 odd years since MAKH proposed this thumbnail phylogenesis of complexity.

But chatting with a colleague recently about MAKH’s Marxism it hit me that his social value/semiotic meaning contrast is just good traditional Marxist theory, contrasting material base and superstructure. It also helps to explain why ‘situation’ is contrasted with ‘text’ in his model from 1961 onwards.

Perhaps ironically, Marx’s whole theory of value is (I reckon) a semiotic theory of social relations, that demolishes the exploiters’ biological one.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Rose is referring to Halliday's linear taxonomy of systems. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 507):

We are treating language as a semiotic system, and it may be helpful to locate this concept within the context of the history of ideas, albeit in a very sketchy fashion. As we conceive of it, the term "semiotic" is framed within a linear taxonomy of "physical — biological — social — semiotic"; and the term "system" is a shortened form of "system-&-process"…

[2] To be clear, Halliday's "social value/semiotic meaning contrast" is not the Marxian contrast between material base and superstructure. Halliday's distinction is between value (social systems) and symbolic value (semiotic systems). Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 509):

… a social system is a biological system with the added component of "value"… . A [social] semiotic system, then, is a social system with the added component of "meaning". Meaning can be thought of (and was thought of by Saussure) as just a kind of social value; but it is value in a significantly different sense — value that is construed symbolically. Meaning can only be construed symbolically, because it is intrinsically paradigmatic, as Saussure understood and built in to his own definition of valeur. Semiotic systems are social systems where value has been further transformed into meaning.

Halliday's example of a social system organised by the exchange of value, but not symbolic value, is a eusocial insect colony.

In stark contrast, in Marxian theory, material base refers to the production forces, or the materials and resources, that generate the goods (human) society needs, and superstructure describes all other aspects of (human) society.

[4] To be clear, in Halliday (1961), 'text' means observed language events, whereas 'situation' means the nonlinguistic context in which language operates. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 38-9):

The data to be accounted for are observed language events, observed as spoken or as codified in writing, any corpus of which, when used as material for linguistic description, is a “text”.

…non-linguistic features of the situations in which language operates…

Importantly, Halliday's distinction between text and situation is not explained by the Marxian distinction between material base and superstructure. It is merely the distinction between the linguistic and the non-linguistic: between an instance of language (text) and an instance of culture (situation).

[5] To be clear, semiotic and biological explanations of (human) social relations are complementary perspectives, neither of which, therefore, can "demolish" the other. On the other hand, the unique identification of a biological approach with "exploiters" requires clarification, evidence and supporting argument.