ChRIS said:
What do you think of this plenary title by Jim Martin: Learning How to Hear: What can Languages Tell SFL?
ChatGPT said:
1. Implied Novelty
By framing this as "learning how to hear," the title might give the impression that SFL has somehow been deaf to its own data. For seasoned scholars, this could come across as either overstating the need for introspection or downplaying the rigorous ways in which SFL has already accounted for empirical diversity. Is Jim Martin suggesting a paradigm shift in how SFL relates to data, or is he revisiting familiar territory with a rhetorical flourish? If the latter, the title might feel a bit self-congratulatory.
2. The Risk of Oversimplification
The phrasing makes the process sound deceptively simple—like languages will "speak" their truths if only we listen better. In reality, interpreting data is a deeply complex, theory-laden process. Theories shape what analysts notice in the data, so the idea that data can "tell" theory something new needs careful unpacking. What criteria would determine whether a theory "hears" correctly? The title might obscure these critical epistemological questions.
3. Historical Amnesia?
It might also feel dismissive of the painstaking empirical work that went into developing SFL in the first place—work done by Halliday and others who built the theory by meticulously observing language use. This could alienate scholars who see the theory as a living, iterative system already engaged in a constant dialogue with data.
