David Rose On Voice And Notional Reasoning

David Rose replied to David Banks on SYSFLING on 6 Mar 2022, 22:20:

… ‘reversible’ means operative/receptive:

[identifying] ‘a happy mother is made by a happy baby’

[attributive] ‘a mother is happy’/*’happy is a mother’ (except poetically)

‘Notional reasoning’ here means deriving grammatical categories from lexical notions. …

and to Tom Bartlett on SYSFLING on 6 Mar 2022, at 22:43:

… Features like [identifying] and [attributive] are defined in relation to each other (eg by your examples), not by dictionary-like glosses. Notional reasoning imagines such glosses.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the agnation here is in terms of thematicity, not voice. What Rose presents as the poetic 'receptive voice' agnate is actually a 'marked thematicity' agnate:

Even in assigned attributive clauses, which do admit a voice contrast, Attribute can never conflate with Subject:

[2] This misunderstands the meaning of 'notional reasoning'. In grammatical analysis, 'notional reasoning' means arguing for a analysis solely on the basis of the meanings being construed, without grounding the analysis in the lexicogrammatical systems of the wording, as exemplified by the previous two posts by David Banks. As Halliday (1985: xx) explains:

If we simply took account of differences in meaning, then any set of clauses or phrases could be analysed in all kinds of different ways; there would be no way of preferring one scheme over another. The fact that it is a 'functional' grammar means that it is based on meaning; but the fact that it is a 'grammar' means that it is an interpretation of linguistic forms. Every distinction that is recognised in the grammar — every set of options, or 'system' in systemic terms — makes some contribution to the form of the wording.

David Rose Misunderstanding The Trinocular Perspective

After John Knox asked the following on the sys-func and sysfling lists on 8 February 2017 at 16:31:

If a genre is a cultural pattern, is there an agnate term for a pattern used by an individual (perhaps group)? A term like 'genre', but for an individual? 

I don't mean 'text' (which is an instance). I mean an instance-generating pattern (or oft-instantiated pattern) that recurs across time and space that is used by an individual (perhaps (small) group), but that is not (necessarily) culture-wide. 

dialect:ideolect
reservoir:repertoire
genre:_?_ 

dialect:reservoir:genre::
ideolect:repertoire:_?_

David Rose replied on the sys-func and sysfling lists on 8 February 2017 at 17:26:

Have a look at Martin 2006 on instantiation/individuation
Martin, J R 2006 Genre, ideology and intertextuality: a systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 2(2), 275-298. 

Need to separate stratification from individuation
reservoir:repertoire refers to individuation 

from ‘above’ a cultural reservoir is a system of genres, of which groups and individuals control subsets 

from ‘below’ a language may include a set of dialects, of which groups and individuals speak subsets 

partial answer…

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated by the many analyses here and the detailed critique here, Martin does not understand the theoretical dimension of instantiation.

[2] This misunderstands the trinocular perspective.  'From above' means looking at a stratum from the perspective of what it realises on the stratum above, and 'from below' means looking at a stratum from the perspective of how it is realised on the stratum below.  The highest stratum, context, cannot be viewed 'from above'.  Dialects are variants of the linguistic system according to user, and thus do not constitute a stratal view 'from below'.

[3] This is Martin's model of context, which confuses diatypic varieties of language, registers/genres, with the culture as a semiotic system whose expression plane is language (and other semiotic modes of the same level of symbolic abstraction).  See any of the many critiques of Martin's genre here and context here.

[4] This is not even a partial answer to the query.  It doesn't address the question and merely tells the questioner what he already knows.

John Bateman On The Need For Inter-Rater Reliability In SFL Research

John Bateman wrote to Sysfling 21 July 2016 at 19:46:

Low interrater reliability scores can be indicative of several things: most of which relate to problems that should be considered. One cause of low reliability would be that the coders don't fully understand, or agree on, the way categories should be applied; another cause is that the categories are intrinsically poorly defined, and so agreement is unlikely.

Thus, when categories are meant to be applicable according to some theory (e.g., SFL), checking whether coders can actually apply the categories is not a bad step. The paper:

O'Donnell, M.; Zappavigna, M. & Whitelaw, C. (2008) 'A survey of process type classification over difficult cases'

In:

Jones, C. & Ventola, E. (Eds.) From Language to Multimodality: new developments in the study of ideational meaning, Equinox Publishing Ltd., 47-64.

provides some sobering data on how reliably some categories in transitivity are being applied.

and Margaret Berry added on 21 July 2016 at 20:52:

I too would recommend the O'Donnell et al paper. And another paper that is relevant is

Laura Gwilliams and Lise Fontaine. 2015. Indeterminacy in process type classification. Functional Linguistics, 2:8, pages 1-19.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Lack of theoretical understanding is clearly the major reason why Systemic Functional linguists disagree on analyses, as demonstrated by any public discussion — e.g. Sysfling, Sysfunc, Systemic Functional Linguistics Interest Group — in which instances are analysed.

[2] To be clear, it is not so much that "categories are intrinsically poorly defined" but that, on SFL model, language itself is said to be an indeterminate system.  For the types of indeterminacy, and the reasons for it, see the views of Halliday & Matthiessen here.

[3] Neither of these papers includes, in its experimental design, the most fundamental principle of grammatical analysis: taking a trinocular perspective.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 504):

A stratified semiotic defines three perspectives, which (following the most familiar metaphor) we refer to as ‘from above’, ‘from roundabout’, and ‘from below’: looking at a given stratum from above means treating it as the expression of some content, looking at it from below means treating it as the content of some expression, while looking at it from roundabout means treating it in the context of (i.e. in relation to other features of) its own stratum.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 31):

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective. But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise.

In contrast, O'Donnell, in O'Donnell et al. (2008: 63), demonstrates no knowledge of this fundamental principle, framing the problem in terms of a lack of explicit coding criteria:

Both our analysis of individual clauses (Section 3) and of the grouping of coders (Section 4) show that the divide between using conceptual vs. syntactic criteria is widespread throughout the community as a whole, and each individual chooses which path they follow. This is, we believe, the result of the lack of explicit coding criteria in general, and argue that what the community needs is explicitly stated sets of criteria for coding practices, and perhaps distinct criteria descriptions for particular applications.

Gwilliams & Fontaine (2015: 17) are similarly oblivious, recommending a more "delicate" two level grammatical analysis — one semantic, one syntactic:

Although the motivation for a single-level analysis of experiential meaning is desirable, it does not appear that a one-dimensional classification is always sufficient to account for both syntactic and semantic realisation. If a representative analysis is to be maintained within the SFL framework, it appears that a more delicate analysis of the experiential meta-function is required, in order to provide the individual with all the relevant tools to conduct a fully representative analysis. Specifically the option to annotate syntactic and semantic interpretations separately would alleviate problems associated with the lack of correspondence between these levels.

Lack of theoretical understanding is the pervasive problem in the SFL community, whether it be in analysing language, or in analysing analyses of language — or, indeed, in workbooks designed to teach the theory (evidence here and here).

Inter-rater reliability is merely a statistical measure of the degree of agreement among raters.  In a community where lack of theoretical understanding is demonstrably widespread, at all levels, agreement is not a measure of theoretical competence.

The distinction between interpersonal agreement and experiential consistency is comically enshrined in this drawing by B Kliban:

Mick O'Donnell On Transitivity Criteria

Mick O'Donnell wrote on 31 October 2014 to sysfling:

It all comes down to which criteria you put as primary in defining process types: the notional or the grammatical. You [David Banks] are saying meaning is first (processes of communication) and grammar (projection) second. 

Others put grammar first, dealing with verbs which project on one side, then splitting these into verbal and mental subsets. 

I argue elsewhere that the lack of clarity as to the priority between the notional and grammatical criteria is the reason behind much of the different classification decisions made within our community.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Transitivity criteria do not boil down to the opposition between 'notional' and 'grammatical'; the relevant theoretical dimension is stratification.  As already clarified here — where O'Donnell advocates following the 'grammatical principles that Halliday established' — SFL was theorised by taking a trinocular perspective, which means also looking at the grammar 'from above' (what meaning is being realised) and 'from below' (how the wording is realised) — as well as 'from roundabout' (the level of grammar). As Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 31) make clear:

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective. But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise. 

[2] A functional grammar gives priority to the 'view from above' — that's what makes it functional rather than formal, since function (Value) is realised by form (Token).  As Halliday & Matthiessen (ibid.) clarify:

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a ‘semanticky’ kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

The motivation for this priority is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 6) as follows:

But to show that a grammar is a theory of experience we use a functional, semantically motivated grammatics, since this allows us to seek explanations of the form of the grammar in terms of the functions to which language is adapted. 

Mick O'Donnell On Non-Defining Relative Clauses

Mick O'Donnell wrote on 7 Sep 2013 on the sysfling list:

Myself, I would have treated the two 'which' clauses as nondefining relative clauses, and thus as part of the nominal group structure, and not as part of the clause complex structure.

and then again on 15 September 2013:

And yes, I did mention that I disagreed with the treatment in the example of nondefining relatives being related as part of a clause complex.

My reasoning is that they only ever occur immediately after the noun (with possible interceding Qualifier) with which the relative pronoun is grounded.

And semantically: They do not extend on a clause, but on a participant.
I don note the possible counter example of postponed nominal relatives,
e.g.,

• The man is here who you were waiting for.

But note that this case is only possible where the postponed relative is in a defining relationship. The above sentence corresponds to:

• The man who you were waiting for is here.

NOT TO:

• The man, who you were waiting for, is here.

Blogger Comment:

[1] O'Donnell's stated reason for treating non-defining relative clauses as 'part of nominal group structure' is  'that they only ever occur immediately after a noun (with a possible interceding Qualifier) with which the relative pronoun is grounded'.

The domain that non-defining relative clauses elaborate is not restricted to the nominal group; they can elaborate the whole of the primary clause or some part of it that is more than the nominal group' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 400).  For example:

He often accuses others of his own shortcomings, which is hypocritical. 

Here the non-defining relative clause which is hypocritical elaborates the whole primary clause he often accuses others of his own shortcomings.  Clearly, it is not a constituent of the preceding nominal group, as any attempt to analyse it as such will demonstrate.  Therefore, O'Donnell's position is based on a false premise.

For some reasoning about the difference between non-defining and defining clauses, see:

http://thethoughtoccurs.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/defining-vs-non-defining-relative.html

[2] Relative clauses generally elaborate the primary clause rather than extend it, though there is one group that strictly belong with extension.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 402-3) for the reasoning.

Mick O'Donnell On Following SFL Analytical Principles

On 27 June 2013, on the sysfling list, Mick O'Donnell wrote: 

We are doing grammar, not notional semantics (well, I think so at least), so we need to use grammatical tests to determine process types. Not a reference to "same meaning". 

and then again on 28 June 2013: 

We need to follow the grammatical PRINCIPLES that Halliday established (how to argue Linguistically) rather then the grammatical FACTS that he put forward on the basis of applying these principles.

Blogger Comment:

Halliday's 'principle' for grammatical analysis is to take a trinocular perspective, which means also looking at the grammar 'from above' (what meaning is being realised) and 'from below' (how the wording is realised) — not just 'from roundabout' (the level of grammar).  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 31) make clear:

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective. But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise.

O'Donnell's application of the term 'facts' to theory, rather than data, betrays an epistemological confusion.  'Facts' are the construals of experience from which theory is designed.

David Rose On Register

David Rose wrote on Sysfling and Sys-Func on 17 August 2012: 

I just wanted to clarify, that in both Halliday's and Martin's interpretations, register refers to the relation between field, tenor and mode and their linguistic realisation. The difference is that Halliday defines the relation 'from below' as "the linguistic features which are typically associated with...particular values of the field, mode and tenor" (Halliday and Hasan 1976), while Martin defines it 'from above' as variations in "field, tenor and mode realised through language".

The difference seems to me not merely in terminology but in appliability, depending on one's goals. Likewise whether genre is construed as a more abstract level of context, or as a sub-class of tenor (functional tenor) or mode (rhetorical mode).

Blogger Comments:

[1] In Halliday's model, the term 'register' refers to a point of variation on the cline of instantiation.  Looked at from the system pole, each register is a subpotential of the linguistic system that realises a subpotential of the system of context; looked at from the instance pole, each register is a type of instance of the linguistic system, a text type, that realises a type of instance of the context system, a situation type.

In Martin's model, on the other hand, the term 'register' refers to a stratum.  This means it is modelled as a system — not a subpotential of the system — that is more abstract than the content plane of language. However, 'context' does not have the same meaning in Martin's model as Halliday's model, since its contextual strata, register and genre, are both levels of language rather than a semiotic that is more abstract than language.  As a result, the terms 'field' 'tenor' and 'mode' — at least to the extent that they are used self-consistently — also mean differently in Martin's model.

[2] As such, the difference between the models is not that Halliday "defines the relation 'from below'" and Martin defines it 'from above'".

[3] As such, the difference between the models is not a difference in terminology — "merely" or otherwise.  The models do not use different terms for the same theoretical meaning (valeur); they (confusingly) use the same term for different meanings (valeurs).

[4] As such, not "likewise" for genre — not that an argument for genre as a stratum of context was actually made.