Many thanks MaoWen
Your contributions have been refreshing, both ideationally and interpersonally.
It has been interesting to see SFL analyses reinterpreted through different theories. Alas they are up against the imperialist ambitions of SFL, as Halliday flagged back in 1961...
...the grammarian's dream is (and must be, such is the nature of grammar) of constant territorial expansion.At the time he was interested in colonising lexicology with grammatics, but SFL continues to poke into every corner of human activity, with its relentless theory of meaning making as system and structure.
In that vein, the semantic interpretations you have offered are confronted in SFL by the discourse semantics of lexical relations, particularly appraisal systems. Relevant reasoning is nicely summarised in...
Martin, J. R. (2017). The discourse semantics of attitudinal relations: continuing the study of lexis. Russian Journal of Linguistics Vestnik RUDN (Special Issue on Discourse Analysis in the 21st Century: theory and practice) 21.1. 2017. 22-47 [republished as Attitudinal relations: continuing the study of lexis. in L Barbara, A S Rodriques-Júnior & G M V Hoy [Eds.] Estudos e Pesquisas em Linguística Sistêmico-Funcional. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras. 2017. 53-87]
Best wishes
David
ChatGPT Comments:
David Rose’s Rhetorical Strategy: SFL’s Imperial Ambitions and the Guru Move
David Rose’s post on the SFL mailing list showcases a subtle but effective rhetorical strategy. By leveraging humour, authority, and strategic framing, he not only justifies SFL’s theoretical dominance but also redirects debate and frames resistance as futile.
1. Playful but Loaded Tone
Rose begins with a warm, almost playful tone—“refreshing, both ideationally and interpersonally”—which positions him as a generous mentor. This allows him to introduce a provocative claim about SFL’s “imperialist ambitions” without sounding too harsh. The tone softens the impact of a serious assertion, framing the discussion as inevitable and harmless.
2. The Imperialist Metaphor
Building on Halliday’s 1961 metaphor of “territorial expansion,” Rose redefines SFL’s growth as imperialism, extending beyond language and into all human activity. This shift transforms Halliday’s internal theoretical expansion into a sociological claim about SFL’s dominance across disciplines. By doing this, he makes any resistance to SFL seem futile—like fighting an inevitable force.
3. Other Theories “Up Against” SFL
Rose frames non-SFL theories as “up against” SFL’s unyielding nature, implying they are always reactive, never proactive. This subtly undermines other approaches by suggesting that SFL’s expansion is a natural, unstoppable force, positioning its dominance as a foregone conclusion rather than the result of sociological power struggles.
4. Justifying SFL’s Reach
Rose justifies SFL’s theoretical expansion by invoking Halliday’s logic: SFL extends grammar, so it’s only natural that it expands into other areas of human activity. This frames SFL’s reach as a necessary, inevitable consequence of its theory, rather than something driven by institutional power or ambition.
5. The Guru Move: Appeal to Authority
Rose directs Maowen to Martin’s work, subtly implying that the questions raised have already been answered. This functions as an argument from authority, framing Martin’s scholarship as the final word. It closes off further debate by suggesting that those who haven’t read Martin’s work are missing the point.
6. Selective Framing of Discourse Semantics
By suggesting that Maowen’s interpretations are “confronted” by Martin’s discourse semantics, Rose casts them as incomplete. This reinforces Martin’s position as the superior framework, while redirecting the conversation to Martin’s established theories, shutting down any real engagement with alternative perspectives.
7. Closing Theoretical Space
Rose’s strategy ultimately closes off the space for further discussion. While acknowledging Maowen’s contributions, he implies that they’re already resolved within the SFL framework. By directing Maowen to Martin’s work, Rose effectively prevents further debate by framing the conversation as already settled.
Final Takeaway: Subtle Control of the Discussion
Rose’s rhetorical strategy reinforces SFL’s dominance while keeping up the appearance of openness. He positions SFL’s reach as inevitable, frames resistance as futile, and closes off alternative perspectives by appealing to authority. It’s a sophisticated way of maintaining control over the discussion without shutting it down overtly.
No comments:
Post a Comment