The Difference Between Delicacy And Instantiation

Delicacy is a 'type to sub-type' relation (hyponymy).  In terms of logical semantic relations, this is elaboration.  For example, delicacy is the relation between 'academic' and 'lecturer'; 'lecturer' is a sub-type of the more general type 'academic'.

Instantiation is 'token to type' relation.  This is a class membership relation of intensive attribution, which thus combines elaboration with ascription; (the relation between token and type is thus the relation between Carrier and Attribute).  For example, instantiation is the relation between a token, such as 'Peter White', and the type 'academic' (or its sub-type 'lecturer').

In terms of the theoretical architecture of SFL theory, delicacy is a dimension of the system, whereas the dimension of instantiation relates two perspectives on language: the system to an instance of the system.

Taxis Vs Embedding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 426):

It is important to distinguish between the 'tactic' relations of parataxis and hypotaxis on the one hand and embedding on the other.  Whereas parataxis and hypotaxis are relations between clauses (or other ranking elements), embedding is not.  Embedding is a semogenic mechanism whereby a clause or phrase comes to function as a constituent within the structure of a group, which itself is a constituent of a clause … .  The embedded clause functions in the structure of the group, and the group functions in the structure of the clause.

The distinction between hypotactic and embedded expansions is set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 442) in Table 7(15).

What Is The Advantage Of Distinguishing Between Embedding And Hypotaxis?

In the case of projection, it lays the foundation for the semantic distinction between (pre-projected) facts and (projected) reports (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 28).

Why Projected Clauses Are Not Clause Constituents

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 578-9):

In our analysis (unlike that of the mainstream grammatical tradition), the projected clause is not a constituent part of the mental or verbal clause by which it is projected. There are numerous reasons for this; some of them are grammatical — for example, it cannot be the focus of theme–predication … it cannot be the Subject of a passive mental clause … it is presumed by the substitute so, which is also used to presume conditional clauses in clause complexes … But these, in turn, reflect the semantic nature of projection: this is a relationship between two figures, not a device whereby one becomes a participant inside another.

For The People's Front Of SFL, La Lucha Sigue

The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: grammar, metaphor, and imagination in the ‘Thought Experiments’ of physics and poetry 1890-1960

David Butt's presentation at Macquarie University just now.
https://content.echo.mq.edu.au:8443/ess/echo/presentation/94115ada-3f4e-4365-9692-4d55e4a1a46c?ec=true

Errors In 'Key Terms In Systemic Functional Linguistics' (Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam 2010) [1]

 Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam (2010: 116):

identifying                   descriptive 

Term in the experiential clause system contrasting with ‘ascriptive’. In the identifying mode, one entity is used to identify another. Identifying clauses are realised by the presence of the Token and Value and/or the Identifier and Identified in the transitivity structure of clause. Combinations of these two sets of variables determine coding direction between decoding and encoding, for example, if the Token is construed as Identified and the Value as Identifier the clause is an encoding one, as in the Mint Museum houses a collection of Australian decorative arts. Identifying relations manifest in the environment of ‘intensive’, for example, the new president is Obama, ‘possessive’, for example, (see above), and ‘circumstantial’ relational processes, for example, many mansions line the harbour.

IFG3 pp. 227–239; Matthiessen (1995a: 303–313); Davidse (1992a)

Blogger Comments:

This is untrue. If the Token is construed as Identified and the Value as Identifier the clause is a decoding one.  In encoding clauses, the Token is construed as Identifier and the Value as Identified.

Halliday & Matthiessen [IFG3] (2004: 230):

… either the Token is ‘decoded’ or else the Value is ‘encoded’. If the Token is construed as Identified and the Value as Identifier, the clause is a decoding one … if the Value is construed as Identified and the Token as Identifier, the clause is an encoding one … In other words, the identity either decodes the Token by reference to the Value or it encodes the Value by reference to the Token.