Friday Research Student Course Semester 1 2024

James Martin wrote to asflanet on 21 Jan 2024, at 11:20:

Hi all

This semester's course will be convened by me, with a focus on axial argumentation in linguistic descriptions informed by SFL. We'll begin with an introduction to system/structure relations in SFL, before moving on to modelling the relation of axis to basic theoretical dimensions of SFL (i.e., rank, metafunction and stratification).

The course assumes familiarity with Halliday's description of English grammar, up to the level of delicacy canvassed in Martin et al.'s 2010 Deploying Functional Grammar workbook.

The course is open to all research students. There is no need to register; simply come along to the first meeting Feb 23, at 2pm, in Quad Seminar Room 204 (Oriental Room).

There is no auditing or on-line participation for this course – all students are expected to attend in person and do the coursework assigned; completed assignments will be submitted to the course instructor and their supervisors (with formal assessment undertaken by their supervisors).

Bring some paper and writing instruments to practice network drawing.

Cheers

Jim

Blogger Comments:

For some of the theoretical misunderstandings that Martin will be inculcating in students in this course, see the review of Systemic Functional Grammar: A Next Step Into The Theory — Axial Relations.

For some of the theoretical misunderstandings in Martin et al.'s 2010 Deploying Functional Grammar workbook, see the meticulous review here.

Paradigmatic Lexicogrammar vs Syntagmatic Lexical Collocation

Graham Lock wrote to SYSFLING on 23 Mar 2023, at 11:21:

A question for the theorists among us. Like so many I have been trying out ChatGPT and have been astounded at what it can do. For example, I asked it to translate into English passages from an obscure Buddhist text in Classical Chinese that I am 99.9% sure has never been translated before and it produced a reasonably good translation. That is not particularly surprising. What did surprise me is that when challenged on parts of its translation, it was able to engage in a discussion of why it had translated in a certain way, including unpacking some metaphors (I can upload some screen shots if anyone is interested). It was also able to consider and evaluate alternative translations. How does it do this without some semantic “understanding”? I know nothing about AI, but from everything I have read and heard its language processing is entirely connectionist. It trawls through huge amounts of text identifying and matching patters, and making predictions. It can do some basic parsing of syntax but, I am assured, cannot do any kind of semantic analysis, including semantically oriented functional analyses.. Any semantic “understanding” it comes to must be gleaned through identifying and comparing intra text relations, i.e. collocations. So here’s my question. Was John Sinclair right when he said that SFL greatly exaggerated the role of (paradigmatic) lexicogrammar and greatly underestimated the role of (syntagmatic) lexical collocation in generating coherent text?

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the claim attributed to John Sinclair misunderstands SFL Theory. The syntagmatic juxtaposition of words is the realisation of choices in paradigmatic lexicogrammatical systems in logogenesis. So it is not a matter of "underestimating the role" of one and "exaggerating the role" of the other. One is the (less abstract) realisation of the other.

Postscript:

There have been more than 50 replies to this post on Sysfling, not one of them answering Graham Lock's theoretical question.

The Global And Local Dimensions That Define The Architecture Of Language

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20, 31-2)

… We have now introduced the major semiotic dimensions that define the ‘architecture’ of language in context. Some of these dimensions enable us to locate lexicogrammar in relation to the other sub-systems that make up the total system of language; these are known as global dimensions because they determine the overall organisation of language in context: the hierarchy of stratification, the cline of instantiation, and the spectrum of metafunctions. The other dimensions enable us to characterise the internal organisation of lexicogrammar and also of the other sub-systems of language, and of context; these are known as local dimensions because they operate locally within linguistic sub-systems. Let us summarise the semiotic dimensions of language in context under these two headings: see Table 1-7. 

Halliday (1979) On Logical Structure As Recursive

Halliday (2002 [1979]: 212, 213, 215):

In the logical mode, reality is represented in more abstract terms, in the form of abstract relations which are independent of and make no reference to things. …

Since we are claiming these structural manifestations are only tendencies, such an argument is only tenable on the grounds that the type of structure that is generated by the logical component is in fact significantly different from all the other three. The principle is easy to state: logical structures are recursive. …

True recursion arises when there is a recursive option in the network, of the form shown in Figure 14, where A:x,y,z… n is any system and B is the option ‘stop or go round again’. This I have called “linear recursion”; it generates lineally recursive structures of the form a₁ + a₂ + a₃ + . . . (not necessarily sequential):

… Logical structures are different in kind from all the other three. In the terms of systemic theory, where the other types of structure – particulate (elemental), prosodic and periodic – generate simplexes (clauses, groups, words, information units), logical structures generate complexes (clause complexes, group complexes, etc.) (Huddleston 1965). … While the point of origin of a non-recursive structure is a particular rank – each one is a structure “of” the clause, or of the group, etc. – recursive structures are in principle rank-free: coordination, apposition, subcategorisation are possible at all ranks.

Postscript:

In his seminar paper (13/8/21) on 'construing entities', Martin claimed that there are no recursive networks anywhere in the SFL literature. The network above occurs in one of the references he provided.

Example Of Delicacy In Field (i.e. Cultural Context, Not Register Of Language)

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 322):

Ideational Semantic System

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 67):

System Networks

System networks are not flowcharts.

Nothing flows through the network.

A speaker does not choose how far to go in delicacy.

System networks map how features relate to each other.  The architecture of the network can be understood in terms of the logical relations set out in the theory: specifically, the three types of expansion.

i. delicacy: elaboration

ii. disjunction: extension: alternative

iii. conjunction: extension: addition

iv. entry condition: enhancement: condition

The arrows in a system network represent the relation of condition, not temporality.
A "traversal" of the network is a specific map — an instantiation — of logically related features.

SFL's Architecture Of Language Classified By SFL Relations

A. system networks

i. delicacy: elaboration

ii. disjunction: extension: alternative

iii. conjunction: extension: addition

iv. entry condition: enhancement: condition

B. rank scale: extension: composition (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 146)

C. realisation: elaboration + identifying (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 145)

1. higher stratum realised by lower stratum [stratification]

2. system realised by structure [axis]

3. function realised by form; eg clause rank function structure realised by group rank syntagm

D. instantiation cline: elaboration + attributive (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 145)


P.S. The pedagogical advantage of understanding SFL's architecture of language in these very precise ways is that it enables the learner to immediately identify the bluffers in the SFL community who don't understand the theory — but whose confident bullying might suggest otherwise — so that the learner doesn't waste time trying to accommodate their misunderstandings.