The Economic Value Of Meaning

Explaining Something In SFL

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features. Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation).

Registering A Complaint

Our Centres Of Excellence

Criteria For Distinguishing Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 354):

Leading SFL Toward Failure

Supervision

Compromise(d) Theorising

Material Setting Vs Semiotic Context

Using the theory of language to interpret the language of theory:

1. The material setting is what is mentally perceived by people when they speak, sign or write.
2. The semiotic context is what is verbally construed by people when they speak, sign or write.

That is:

1. The material setting is a first-order phenomenon of a mental process of perception.
2. The semiotic context is a second-order phenomenon (metaphenomenon) realised by a projection of a verbal process.

Social Parameters Vs Semiotic Context

IF

context is construed by / realised in language

THEN

the social parameters that can be used to characterise the interactants (gender, class, ethnicity, etc.) are not context

UNLESS

they are construed by / realised in the language of the interactants.

Solving Grammatical Problems On Email Lists

What Does The Theoretical Term 'Realisation' Actually Mean Precisely?

Linguistic theory is 'language turned back on itself'. This just means that linguistic theory is the use of language to model language.

As a consequence, the language of theory can be analysed in terms of the theory of language.

For example, the theoretical relation of 'realisation' can be understood in terms of grammatical theory.

In transitivity theory, 'realise' is an intensive identifying Process — subtype 'symbol'.

It construes an identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction: a lower Token and a higher Value.

In an identity relation, either level can be used to identify the other.

If the lower Token is used to identify the higher Value, the relation is encoding:

the identity encodes the Value by reference to the Token.

If the higher Value is used to identify the lower Token, the relation is decoding:

the identity decodes the Token by reference to the Value.

So when the language of theory says that the stratum of wording (lexicogrammar) realises the stratum of meaning (semantics), the theory of language says that this construes an identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction, a lower Token (wording) and a higher Value (meaning).

If the lower Token (wording) is used to identify the higher Value (meaning), then the identity encodes the meaning by reference to the wording.

If the higher Value (meaning) is used to identify the lower Token (wording), then the identity decodes the wording by reference to the meaning.

(In this regard, Halliday's argument in On the ineffability of grammatical categories was that a theory of meaning can only be encoded by reference to a theory of wording.  That is, a theory of wording cannot be decoded by reference to a theory of meaning.)

Similarly, when the language of theory says that form (e.g. verbal group) realises function (e.g. Process), the theory of language says that this construes an identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction, a lower Token (form) and a higher Value (function).

If the lower Token (form) is used to identify the higher Value (function), then the identity encodes the function by reference to the form.

If the higher Value (function) is used to identify the lower Token (form), then the identity decodes the form by reference to the function.

Finally, when the language of theory says that structure (syntagmatic axis) realises system (paradigmatic axis), the theory of language says that this construes an identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction, a lower Token (structure) and a higher Value (system).

If the lower Token (structure) is used to identify the higher Value (system), then the identity encodes the system by reference to the structure.

If the higher Value (system) is used to identify the lower Token (structure), then the identity decodes the structure by reference to the system.

Research Misconduct

Make research misconduct public

Even when investigations are exemplary and findings clear, universities rarely report them publicly, says research ethicist C. K. Gunsalus — and that perpetuates misbehaviour and breeds mistrust. Gunsalus argues that open misconduct reports would create a virtuous circle of mutual learning and trust among institutions, leaders and researchers.

Joint Authorship

Spelling B…

How To Get Credited With Other People's Ideas Without Being Accused Of Plagiarism

Step 1: Acknowledge your source at least once.

Step 2: Change the name of their model.

Result: All future references by you and your students can be made to your name of the model, and to your publications, instead of the original work.

The genius of this approach is that it converts an inability to understand the original model into a positive advantage, because every misunderstanding differentiates your relabelled model from the source model, giving the impression that your model is genuinely novel theorising.

For example, suppose some genuine theorists came up with a model of lexicogrammatical cohesion, you could relabel it as your model of discourse semantics.  Then you could relabel all its original systems as your systems.  For example:

• if there is an original system called reference, you could relabel it as your system of identification;
• if there is an original system called lexical cohesion, you could relabel it as your system of ideation;
• if there is an original system called conjunction, you could relabel it as your system of connexion.

Having set this up, you could relabel other original work and add it to your model.  For example, if a genuine theorist came up with a semantic system of speech function, you could relabel it as your discourse semantic system of negotiation.

You could also consolidate your achievement by falsely accusing one of the theorists whose work you have relabelled as your own of plagiarism, and by urging colleagues to use your model instead of hers.  For maximum effect, you could do this after she has died, at a memorial symposium convened to honour her achievements.

But why stop there?  If your research assistant came up with a model of body language, you could relabel it as your model of paralanguage.  Then you could relabel its original systems as your systems.  For example:

• if there is an original system called linguistic body language, you could relabel it as your system of sonovergent paralanguage;
• if there is an original system called epilinguistic body language, you could relabel it as your system of semovergent paralanguage.

This approach can, of course, be applied to pedagogical fields as well.  For example, suppose you had just finished a PhD describing an indigenous language, and had just begun working in an unfamiliar field, say, for a more experienced colleague who had painstakingly developed a teaching model called Accelerated Literacy.  All you need to do, in this case, is relabel it as, say, Reading To Learn, and if you add more of other people's work, such as a model of genre pedagogy, it would further differentiate your relabelled programme from the source of your ideas.

Not only will you not be found out, but you'll be actively promoted and defended by those you have duped.

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):