Celebrating Our Achievements

He who praises everybody, praises nobody. — Samuel Johnson

A Close Examination Of Yaegan Doran's 2023 ASFLA Plenary Abstract

Negotiating social relations: Viewing tenor from multiple perspectives

Whenever we talk or write, we negotiate our social relations. This may involve small seemingly inconsequential chats with friends, families and colleagues that help us stay in contact and possibly get us closer to them; or they may be large, momentous events that bring us together or tear us apart. In all cases, we negotiate these social relations through the discourse we use – through language and a range of related semiotic resources. In SFL, this has typically been explored through tenor, a variable of context (Halliday 1978; or register, Martin 1992, depending on the model being used). Tenor has variously been described in terms of the 'roles played by those taking part’ in a situation, ‘the values that the interactants imbue’ the activity with (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 33) and the relationships between addressees or interactants (Gregory 1967; Hasan 2020). Or, more broadly, the ‘general dimensions of social relations’ (Poynton 1990:70) and their negotiation (Martin 1992: 523). However, to this point, there has been little by way of comprehensive models of tenor that have been able to link the various dimensions underpinning our social relations with the set of language resources that realise them, in particular, resources within the interpersonal metafunction (Hasan 2020 and related work such as Butt et al. 2021 being perhaps the most comprehensive proposal thus far).

As a step toward such a model, this talk will focus on how we can consider tenor in SFL in relation to recent expansions of SFL theory that have distinguished realisation, instantiation and individuation (Halliday 1991, Matthiessen 1993, Martin 2010). It will propose that a fruitful avenue for understanding the link between language and social relations is to view tenor from these multiple perspectives. 

From the perspective of realisation, tenor can be viewed as a set of resources for enacting social relations (drawing on a model developed in Doran, Martin and Zappavigna forthcoming). 

From the perspective of instantiation, it can be viewed as sets of guiding principles that underly how we co-select and arrange different language features (such as the principles of status and contact, described by, e.g. Poynton 1990, Martin 1992, Hasan 2020 and Butt et al. 2021). 

And in terms of individuation, it can be viewed as sets of social roles and relationships – or more broadly, arenas of sociality – that offer possibilities for variation, contestation and collaboration, in terms of the meaning making resources that are taken up or presumed. 

In short, given the major role tenor plays in our understanding of how language and broader semiosis enacts social relations, this talk will propose that it is time to give it the theoretical space it needs.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the fundamental misunderstanding in this abstract, as in two of Doran's previous seminars on the subject, is the confusion of interpersonal context with interpersonal semantics. This is a consequence of not understanding the meaning of distinct levels of symbolic abstraction. See further below.

[1] To be clear, even in Martin's model, negotiation is a matter of discourse semantics, whereas social relations are a matter of context. Speakers and writers do not negotiate tenor variables. For example, the essay of a primary school student does not negotiate the status roles  — equal or unequal power — with the teacher for whom the essay was written. In his work, The Lord Of The Rings, the author Tolkien does not negotiate the contact roles — familiar or unfamiliar — of himself with his readers.

What speakers and writers potentially negotiate are their propositions and proposals — statements, questions, offers and commands — their speech functional moves in exchanges, as realised by the grammar of MOOD. But such negotiation is largely restricted to the semantics that realise dialogic MODE. For example, what propositions or proposals does Lewis Carroll negotiate with his readers in The Hunting Of The Snark?

[2] To be clear, the linking of social relations with the interpersonal language that realise them is not a model of tenor. It is a description of interstratal relations: how tenor variables are realised by semantic options. See [4] below.

[3] This misunderstands realisation. Specifically, it confuses context with the language that realises it. That is, the set of resources for enacting social relations as meaning is interpersonal language, not tenor. Tenor is the interpersonal context that language realises.

[4] This confuses instantiation with interstratal realisation. From the perspective of instantiation, tenor is the interpersonal dimension of the culture > subcultures/situation types > situations. The notion of tenor as "guiding principles" for the selection of language features is modelled in SFL Theory by interstratal preselection. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 375):

At the same time, this stratal organisation means that it is crucial to specify the realisational relations between strata — inter-stratal realisation. … More specifically, inter-stratal realisation is specified by means of inter-stratal preselection: contextual features are realised by preselection within the semantic system, semantic features are realised by preselection within the lexicogrammatical system, and lexicogrammatical features are realised by preselection within the phonological/graphological system. This type of preselection may take different forms between different strata! boundaries, but the principle is quite general.

[5] To be clear, individuation is the process of creating different types of individuals. Individuated tenor thus refers to the different types of tenor (from potential to instance) at the level of the individual. Moving up the cline of individuation (of tenor) is moving up to ever more inclusive types of individuations (of tenor). This is distinct from the individuation of language, and the use of language to contest and collaborate.

[6] To be clear, this presents Doran's paper as righting a wrong, which, in terms of logical fallacies, might be interpreted as an appeal to emotion.

ASFLA Awards The Inaugural MAK Halliday Prize To Cléirigh's Plagiarisers

The inaugural MAK Halliday Prize has been awarded to Thu Ngo, Susan Hood, J.R. Martin, Clare Painter, Bradley A. Smith and Michele Zappavigna for their book Modelling Paralanguage using Systemic Functional Semiotics: Theory and Application.

As demonstrated in meticulous detail here for a previous publication, the authors have rebranded Cléirigh's model of body language as their model of paralanguage, in which Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language is rebranded as their 'sonovergent' paralanguage, and Cléirigh's 'epilinguistic' body language is rebranded as their 'semovergent' paralanguage. By unnecessarily relabelling Cléirigh's model, they give the false impression that Cléirigh's ideas are theirs.

Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

See, for example:

An Approach "Inspired" By Cléirigh’s "Contributions"

Misrepresenting Cléirigh's Ideas As Their Own

The Pretext For Rebranding Cléirigh's Body Language Systems As The Authors' Paralanguage Systems

Misrepresenting Cléirigh's Work As The Authors' Work

Martin's Model Of Paralanguage

The fact that more worthy contenders were passed over — the works of Matthiessen et al, McCabe, and Maagerø et al — suggests either that theoretical competence and intellectual integrity were not high on the list of criteria for determining the winner, or that the judges lacked the knowledge and ability to apply these criteria to the works submitted for the prize.

All in all, if this first award is any indication, the MAK Halliday Prize has been established by the Sydney-based members of ASFLA merely to confer the prestige status of 'Halliday' on themselves. This conclusion is supported by the fact that ASFLA chose a judging committee that was mostly composed of educationalists affiliated with Martin's pedagogy, rather than experts on SFL theory, and the fact that the only nominee from Sydney-based members of ASFLA was the work that just happened to be awarded the prize — at an ASFLA conference.

Conference 'Bonding' T-Shirt

 

A Close Examination Of David Rose's 2023 SFLIG Plenary Abstract

Plenary 3: Cultures, Texts and People: Challenges Of Change In SFL Practice 

Dr David Rose, University of Sydney 

Abstract: 

Thanks to Jay Lemke, SFL has a model for interpreting change at three time scales, named for us by Michael Halliday as phylogenesis for the evolution of semiotic systems, ontogenesis for the growth of persons, and logogenesis for the unfolding of texts. Jim Martin has associated these scales of change with three hierachies [sic] in our model of semiosis. Phylogenesis is associated with the hierachy [sic] of realisation, between evolving systems at the strata of genre, register, discourse, grammar and phonology. Ontogenesis is associated with the cline of individuation, from personae to groups, communities and master identities. Logogenesis is associated with the instantiation cline, from systems to text types to texts to readings. 

Perhaps most relevant to the research themes of this conference are clines of individuation - how communities affiliate around issues of environment, governance and conflict, how semiotic repertoires are allocated by institutions such as education and healthcare, and now how to characterise the place of AI in semiotic communities. For SFL researchers, variations in affiliation and allocation are found by comparing patterns instantiated in texts. A difficult question is how to grapple with this complexity in our data and our arguments. 

The traditional practice of listing features with clause examples falters beyond systems of grammar and phonology. One alternative is to leave linguistic analysis for statistics, mining texts for clause or item types and counting their frequencies. Another is to interpret data discursively with loosely defined topologies. But if our goal is changing practices in these fields, we need to be able to show how systems are instantiated and individuated at each semiotic stratum, in ways that will be useful for non-specialists. For me, that means hanging on to texts, and presenting them in novel formats that foreground the patterns we are concerned with. These formats must also be economical for the analyst, and concise enough for publication. In this talk I will illustrate some processes for designing analyses, that couple multiple perspectives on texts, while keeping them intact.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As the term suggests, 'ontogenesis' is the coming into being of the system (in the individual).

[2] This is very misleading indeed. This was not Martin's innovation but Halliday's model. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 18):

[3] This is misleading. Phylogenesis is the evolution of the system — meaning potential — in the species, whereas realisation is merely the relation of symbolic abstraction that obtains between system and structure and between strata. Phylogenesis involves change in all dimensions of language, for example, change within the systems of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, change in the structures of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, change in the instantiation probabilities of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology.

[4] To be clear, these are Martin's strata, all of which are proposed on the basis of theoretical misunderstandings, as demonstrated in great detail here. For example, Martin's genre misconstrues text type and the semantic structures of various text types as non-linguistic context. Martin's register misconstrues functional varieties of language as the non-linguistic context that are realised by such varieties. Martin's 'discourse' is primarily his rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's lexicogrammatical cohesion as his discourse semantics.

[5] To be clear, this has Martin's cline of individuation backwards. Individuation is the process by which an individual becomes distinct. But see further below.

[6] This misunderstands the cline of instantiation. Texts are instances of a speaker's meaning potential, whereas readings are addressees' interpretation of such texts.

[7] This misunderstands the cline of individuation. The organising principle of individuation, like instantiation, is elaboration (hyponymy). Moving down the cline is viewing the elaboration of types. The organising principle of affiliation, on the other hand, is extension (meronymy). Affiliation is concerned with the groups that individuals associate with. This confusion explains why Rose described Martin's cline from the bottom up, instead of the top down.

[8] Clearly, there are no clause features in phonology.

[9] To be clear, in SFL Theory, statistics are the means of distinguishing varieties on the cline of instantiation. Viewed from the system pole, varieties differ in terms of the instantiation probabilities of features; viewed from the instance pole, varieties differ in terms of the instantiation frequencies of features.

[10] To be clear, "hanging on to texts" should go without saying in SFL. Halliday (2003[1994]: 437):

… systemic theory gives prominence to discourse, or 'text'; not — or not only — as evidence for the system, but valued, rather, as constitutive of the culture.

∞

See also:

David Rose Promoting Jim Martin's Misunderstandings Of Realisation, Instantiation And Individuation
David Rose On Martin's Context-Bound/Free And Individuation As Allocation/Affiliation
David Rose On Jim Martin's Individuation
David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstandings Of Individuation
A Close Examination Of Martin's 2023 ISFC Plenary Abstract

This Calls For Immediate Discussion

Anaphoric Reference

Explaining Lexis As Most Delicate Grammar Through A Phonological Analogy

The notion of lexis as most delicate grammar is made difficult to understand by the fact that we don't have the grammar elaborated sufficiently delicately to the features that specify individual lexical items and the lexical sets that they form through shared features. But the principle can be understood by looking at articulatory phonology, where systems are sufficiently delicate.

In lexicogrammar, 'word' conflates two abstractions: word as grammatical rank and word as lexical item. The same conflation can be applied to the phoneme in articulatory phonology: a phoneme can be understood as both a phonological rank and an articulatory item.

As a phonological rank unit, the phoneme is a constituent of the higher rank unit, the syllable, and classes of phoneme, consonants and vowels, realise elements of syllable structure, Onset, Nucleus and Coda — just as a grammatical rank unit, the word is a constituent of the higher rank unit, the group, and classes of word, nominal, verbal etc., realise elements of group structure, Thing, Event etc.

As an articulatory item, the phoneme is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate articulatory features. For example, the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the features [voiced, bilabial, stop] and phonemes can be grouped into articulatory sets on the basis of shared features, such as [voiced] and/or [bilabial] and/or [stop]. For example, the [voiced] set includes {b d g v z m n a e i o u w y}, the [bilabial] set includes {p b m} and the [stop] set includes {p b m t d n k g}.

It is in this sense that the lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate grammatical features, and that lexical items form lexical sets on the basis of shared features.