Extensions Of 'Sensing' In Folk And Scientific Models

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 601):

Ethnographic Commentary

(Cognitive) Scientific Reconstrual Of The Mental Domain

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 597):

Ideational Construal Metaphorically Realising Interpersonal Enactment

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 584):

Blogger Comments:

Cf the 'uncertainty' argued by Hume and demonstrated by Quantum Physics.

The Grammar's Construal Of Consciousness As Meaning

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 580):

Blogger Comments:

 Omitted from this diagram, for simplicity, is Phenomenon as Agent or Range.

Taxonomy Of English Word Classes

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 515):

Logogenesis vs Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 385):

The Distinct Theoretical Locations Of Context And Register

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):

Martin's 'Move' & 'Field' And Hao's 'Figure'

Exploring field in 'social science' (?): Oral examinations in a tertiary Spanish Law course

The presentation starts by setting the general context of the project, followed by a general description of the key analytical tools for this examination – in interpersonal terms, the notion of move from the NEGOTIATION system (Martin, 1992), and in ideational terms, the concept of figure as proposed by Hao (2015). Discourse semantic patterns of ideational and interpersonal meaning are described and then examined in the light of recent theoretical developments in relation to field (Doran & Martin, forthcoming).

Doran, Y.J. & J.R. Martin to appear Field relations: understanding scientific explanations. In K. Maton, J.R. Martin & Y.J. Doran (eds.), Studying science: Knowledge, language, pedagogy. London: Routledge. 

Hao, J. (2015). Construing biology: An Ideational perspective. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Sydney, Sydney. 

Martin, J.R. (1992). English text. System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the SFL notion of a 'move' in an exchange derives from Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION, which Martin (1992) relabels as his own discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION.

[2] To be clear, the SFL notion of 'figure' derives from Halliday's ideational semantics, as set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 128-76).

[3] To be clear, Martin misunderstands the SFL notion of 'field', as demonstrated  in great detail here.  Essentially,

• In SFL theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of context (the instantiation cline from culture to subculture/situation type to situation);
• Martin misconstrues context as register, which in SFL theory is language, not context, and subpotential, not potential, and thus misunderstands field as the ideational dimension of register;
• In terms of SFL theory, in confusing context potential (culture) with language subpotential (register), Martin's discussions of field confuse field (context) with the ideational meaning (semantics) of a text (of a register).  For example, in terms of SFL theory, Martin's notion of 'building a field' corresponds to the instantiation of ideational semantics during the unfolding of a text (logogenesis).

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 322):

Ideational Metaphor As Identifying Relation Within Semantics

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 289):

Congruent vs Metaphorical Grammatical Realisations

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 279-80):

Ideational Metaphor As Junctional Construct

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 272):

Step By Step "Unpacking" Of Ideational Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 256):

Metaphorical Expansion Of Ideational Semantics

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 226):

Crafting Content To Appeal To Dumb People

Projection And Expansion Manifested Throughout Ideational Semantics

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 224):

Two Fundamental Semantic Motifs: Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 223):

Tentative Classification Of Qualities In Terms Of Projection And Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 211):

The SFL Perspective On Nominal Group Complexity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 726, 728-9):

Typically, written language becomes complex by being lexically dense: it packs a large number of lexical items into each clause; whereas spoken language becomes complex by being grammatically intricate: it builds up elaborate clause complexes out of parataxis and hypotaxis. … 

The nominal group is the primary resource used by the grammar for packing in lexical items at high density. … In written language, the clausal patterns are typically rather simple; but the ideational content is densely packed in nominal constructions … And it is the written kind of complexity that involves grammatical metaphor.

The Intermediate Status Of Qualities

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 208):

Projections And Expansions Construed As Things

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 202):

Comparison Of Nominal And Verbal Group Structures

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 180):

The Spectrum Of Circumstances According To The Different Types Of Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174):

Doing & Being As Complementary Perspectives On Change

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 161):

Expansion Relations Between Ergative Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 158):

Delicacy, Realisation And Instantiation As Modes Of Relational Processes

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145):

The Orientations Of The Different Types Of Sensing

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 144):

The Overall Semantic Space Of Figures With Principal Areas Of Indeterminacy And Complementarity

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 137):

Rallying The Discourse Analysts To The Latest Cause

Process Types In Clause Grammar

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 136):