it’s always good to read IFG closely (and critically)...It’s interesting that the terms FIGURATION and EXPANSION in Figure 10-2 below are printed in small caps, as though they are systems. It’s noteworthy that Halliday 1985/1994 (IFG 1/2) didn't describe expansion in general as a system, but as a ‘semantic motif’ that is dispersed across the grammar. A system in SFL is defined by axial relations between features and their realising structures. expansion is such a system in the grammar, at clause rank within clause complexing (IFG 7.4), and at group/phrase rank within verbal group complexing (IFG 8.6). But it is not a described semantic system.‘Figuration’ on the other hand corresponds to a described semantic system, of lexical relations within figures, entitled nuclear relations in ET 5.3, WWD 3.3. Figures are typically realised as clauses (IFG 5.1.1)...The canonical description of nuclear relations, and their stratal relations to grammar and field, isHao, J. (2020). Analysing scientific discourse from a systemic functional linguistic perspective: A framework for exploring knowledge building in biology. Routledge.Jing also carefully relates the discourse semantic ideation systems to the ideational semantics in Construing Experience.
Rose soon qualified this at 17:24:
Correction...Hao, J. (2020), re-analyses nuclear relations as the systems of FIGURE and ENTITY, to clearly distinguish systems of LG, DS and field.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, even a casual glance at IFG reveals that the caption of Figure 10-2 identifies FIGURATION and EXPANSION as semantic systems.
[2] This is misleading. Halliday (1985, 1994) describes expansion as a type of logico-semantic relation, along with projection, that has three subtypes: elaboration, extension and enhancement. The term EXPANSION appears in small capitals (e.g. 1994: 219), the convention for representing system names. This constitutes a verbal description of a system rather than a diagrammatic representation of a system as a network. Halliday (1985, 1994) did not feature any system networks.
Moreover, a close reading reveals that the term 'semantic motif' does not appear until Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 72, 223, 562, 612), where it explicitly refers to systems. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 223):
[3] This is misleading because a system is not 'defined by axial relations'. in SFL Theory, system constitutes the dimension of paradigmatic order (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 20). This a distinct dimension from structure, the dimension of syntagmatic order (ibid.), and axis is the dimension whose orders are the paradigmatic and syntagmatic (op. cit.: 32).
[4] To be clear, Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985, 1994) is focused on grammar, not semantics, which means modelling grammatical form in terms of its function in realising meaning. A focus on semantics, mainly ideational, is provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).
[5] This is very misleading indeed. As Figure 10-2, above, makes clear, FIGURATION is the semantic system that is congruently realised by the grammatical system of TRANSITIVITY. Martin's discourse semantic system of IDEATION, which is a rebranding of lexical cohesion, but within which 'nuclear relations' are modelled, does not feature the figure as either a system or structural unit.
For some of the problems with 'nuclear relations' in Martin (1992), see the close examination here. For some of the problems with 'nuclear relations' in Martin & Rose (1992), see the close examination here.
[6] Clearly, any "canonical" description of 'nuclear relations' lies not in the work of Martin's student, Hao, but in her source: Halliday & Mathiessen (1999). For the source of Hao's system of FIGURE, see Chapter 4 Figures (Halliday & Mathiessen 1999: 128-76), and for the source of Hao's system of ENTITY, see Chapter 5 Elements (Halliday & Mathiessen 1999: 177-226).
