Lexis, Delicacy And Instantiation

In Systemic Functional Grammatics, delicacy is the scale from the most general (grammatical) features to the most specific (lexical).

The notion of lexis as most delicate grammar is exemplified by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 198-9) as follows: 

… we can differentiate both processes and participants into finer and finer subcategories, until we reach a degree of differentiation that is associated with the choice of words (lexical items). Note that it is not (usually) the lexical items themselves that figure as terms of the systems in the network. Rather, the systems are systems of features, and the lexical items come in as the synthetic realisation of particular feature combinations. Thus lexis (vocabulary) is part of a unified lexicogrammar; there is no need to postulate a separate “lexicon” as a pre-existing entity on which the grammar is made to operate.

The process of instantiation is the selection of features and the activation of their realisation statements in a system network, from the most general (grammatical) systems to the most delicate (lexical) systems.

The cline of instantiation is the scale from the system, as potential, to the instance — to the features and activated realisation statements of an actual text.

The instantiation of lexis, therefore, is the instantiation of the most delicate systems of the lexicogrammar.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 327): 

Instantiation is the relation between the system and the instance. When we shift attention along this scale, we are moving between the potential that is embodied in any stratum and the deployment of that potential in instances of the same stratum … this move can be made at any degree of delicacy.

The notion of lexis as most local context (Fontaine ISFC 2017 Keynote) is, of course, nonsense.

The Problem With Martin's Notion Of Grammatical Metaphor As 'Stratal Tension'

(a) In terms of discourse semantics, Martin (1992: 199) analyses the logical relation in the following instance as concessive purpose:

Ben can train hard without improving his time.

In terms of lexicogrammar, on the other hand, the logical relation in this instance is not a type of enhancement (purpose), but the type of extension termed addition: adversative — X and conversely Y — as shown by the paratactic agnate Ben can train hard and not improve his time.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471-6).

There is thus a "tension" between discourse semantics (concessive purpose) and lexicogrammar (adversative addition). However, despite this tension, this does not constitute an instance of grammatical metaphor. The tension, rather, is between an understanding of logico-semantic relations and a misunderstanding of them.

(b) In terms of discourse semantics, Martin (1992: 203) analyses the logical relation in the following instance as manner: comparison: contrast:

Whereas usually we win, this time we lost.

In terms of lexicogrammar, on the other hand, the logical relation in this instance is not a type of enhancement (manner), but, again, the same type of extension as in (a): addition: adversative — X and conversely Y.

There is thus, again, a "tension" between discourse semantics (contrastive comparison) and lexicogrammar (adversative addition).  However, despite this tension, this does not constitute an instance of grammatical metaphor. The tension, again, is between an understanding of logico-semantic relations and a misunderstanding of them.

∞

The notion of grammatical metaphor as 'stratal tension' requires the establishment of discourse semantic systems that are not "in tension" with the lexicogrammar in order to identify those cases that are not metaphorical.

Grammatical Metaphor: Two Levels Of Semantic Abstraction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 288):

The correspondence that is construed through grammatical metaphor is an elaborating relationship: an identity is set up between two patterns … In this identity, the metaphorical term is the ‘Token’ and the congruent term is the ‘Value’ … The identity holds between the two configurations as a whole; but … the components of the configurations are also mapped one onto another …

The metaphorical relation is thus similar to inter-stratal realisation in that it construes a token–value type of relation. Here, however, the relation is intra-stratal: the identity holds between different meanings, not between meanings and wordings. The metaphor consists in relating different semantic domains of experience …

Do Ellipsed Subjects Function As Theme?

No — this would be a contradiction.  Ellipsis marks elements as textually non-prominent, whereas Theme marks elements as textually prominent. Therefore, ellipsed elements do not function as Theme.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 563):

Ellipsis marks the textual status of continuous information within a certain grammatical structure. At the same time, the non-ellipsed elements of that structure are given the status of being contrastive in the environment of continuous information. Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

Telepathy

The Difference Between The Social Environment Of A Text And Its Context Of Situation

When we construe the social environment of a text, we are construing phenomena of first-order experience.

When we construe the 'context of situation' of a text — an instance of the culture as semiotic system — we are construing phenomena of second-order experience, that is: metaphenomena.

The cultural context is realised by the language that is projected by interlocutors.  The semiotic context realised by language is second-order experience, whereas the interlocutors doing the projecting constitute first-order experience.

See also here.

Overhead Projection

Portmanteau

The Ergativity Of Identifying Clauses

In identifying clauses, the Identified is the Medium of the Process, but the Identifier varies according to the direction of coding, functioning as

• the Range of a decoding clause, where it maps onto Value, but
• the Agent of an encoding clause, where it maps onto Token.

In other words,

1. decoding: Token/Identified/Medium and Value/Identifier/Range,
2. encoding: Token/Identifier/Agent and Value/Identified/Medium.

(The Identifier is the element that is most likely to be realised by tonic prominence — it is presented as New information.)

Yet More Tenses That "Halliday's System Doesn't Cope With"

RED DWARF Series I Episode 2, "Future Echoes"

RIMMER: Lister, it has happened. You can't change it, any more than you can change what you had for breakfast yesterday. 

LISTER: Hey, it hasn't happened, has it? It has "will have going to have happened" happened, but it hasn't actually "happened" happened yet, actually. 

RIMMER: Poppycock! It will be happened; it shall be going to be happening; it will be was an event that could will have been taken place in the future. Simple as that.

(See related post here.)

A Non-Verbal Warning

Mathematical Equation As Representation, Exchange & Message

1 + 1	=		2
Identified Token	Process: relational		Identifier Value
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood		Residue
Theme	Rheme

Lexical Item vs Grammatical Item

Halliday (2004: 3):

But teachers of English have customarily distinguished between content words, like snow and mountain, and function words, like it and on and of and the; and it is the notion of a content word that corresponds to our lexical item.

Halliday (1985: 61):

Grammatical items are those that function in closed systems in the language: in English, determiners, pronouns, most prepositions, conjunctions, some classes of adverb, and finite verbs.  (Determiners include the articles.)

"What are the most frequent emotions encoded by interjections?"

[ANGER] damn! damnation! the devil! doggone! fuck! ha! hang it! hell! hunh! rats! shit! what! zounds!

[ANNOYANCE] bother ! damn! damnation! deuce! drat! drot! mercy! merde! oof! ouf(f)! ouch! rot! son of a bitch! spells! tut! tut-tut! zut!

[APPROVAL] hear! hear! hubba-hubba! hurrah! keno! olé! so!

[CONTEMPT] bah! boo! booh! faugh! hum! humph! hunh! paff! paf! pah! pfui! pho! phoh! phoo! phooey! pish! poof! pouf! pouff! pooh! prut! prute! pshaw! puff! poff! quotha! rot! sho! shoo! shuh! shah! soh! tcha! tchah! tchu! tchuh! tuh! tush! tusch! tusche! tuch! yech! zut!

[DELIGHT] ah! ach! coo! coo-er! goody! goody goody! whacko! wacko! whizzo! wizzo! yippee! yip-ee!

[DISGUST] aargh! bah! faugh! fuck! gad! humph! pah! phew! phooey! pish! pshaw! pugh! rot! shit! shoot! ugh! yech! yuck!

[ENTHUSIASM] hubba-hubba! wahoo! zowie!

[FEAR] eeeek! oh! oh, no!

[IMPATIENCE] chut! gah! pish! pooh! pshaw! psht! pshut! tcha! tchah! tchu! tchuh! tut! tut-tut! why! zut!

[INDIGNATION] here ! here! why!

[IRRITATION] cor! corks! doggone! hell! hoot! lord! lor'! lor! lors! lordy! lord me! merde! sapperment! shit! upon my word!

[JOY] heyday! hurrah! ole! whee! whoop! whoopee! yippee!

[PAIN] ah! oh! ouch! ow! wow! yipe! yow!

[PITY] alas! dear! dear me! ewhow! lackaday! lackadaisy! las! och! oche! wellaway! welladay! welliday!

[PLEASURE] aha! boy! crazy! doggone! good! heigh! ho! wow! yum! yumyum!

[RELIEF] whew! whoof!

[SORROW] alas! ay! eh! hech! heck! heh! lackaday! lackadaisy! las! mavrone! och! oche! wellaway! welladay! welliday! wirra!

[SURPRISE] ah! alack! blimey! boy! caramba! coo! cor! dear! dear me! deuce! the devil! doggone! gad! gee! gee-whiz! golly! good! goodness! gracious! gosh! ha! heck! heigh! heigh-ho! hey! heyday! ho! hollo! hoo-ha! huh! humph! indeed! jiminy! lord! man! mercy! my! nu! od! oh! oho! oh, no! phew! say! shit! so! son of a bitch! upon my soul! well! what! whoof! whoosh! why! upon my word! wow! yow! zounds!

[SYMPATHY] now! tsk!

[TRIUMPH] aha! ha! hurrah! ole! so!

[WONDER] blimey! crazy! gee! goodness! gosh! ha! heyday! oh! what! wow!

<source: Vladimir Ž. Jovanović: THE FORM, POSITION AND MEANING OF INTERJECTIONS IN ENGLISH (2004)>

Demanding Goods–&–Services Vs Giving Information

How To Identify Topical Theme

In a free major clause, topical Theme is the first experiential element of a clause, whether participant, circumstance or process.

It's that simple.

Any textual or interpersonal elements that precede the topical Theme are also thematic.

There is only one topical Theme to a clause.

No clause has both a marked a unmarked topical Theme.

A topical Theme is either marked or unmarked.

If a clause has a marked topical Theme, such as a circumstance, then it has no unmarked Theme.

Foolish	are	they who unquestioningly believe that Subject is always unmarked Theme
Theme: marked	Rheme
Complement	Finite	Subject

Wise	are	they who can think critically and are alert to the absurd consequences of poor theorising
Theme: marked	Rheme
Complement	Finite	Subject

Halliday's Predicament

Kœstler (1979 [1959]: 433-4):

The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass — which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught — but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning.  Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse.  The academic backwoodsmen have been the curse of genius from Aristarchus to Darwin and Freud; they stretch, a solid and hostile phalanx of pedantic mediocrities, across the centuries.

SFL Is A Dimensional — Not Modular — Theory

Halliday & Webster (2009: 231):

In SFL language is described, or “modelled”, in terms of several dimensions, or parameters, which taken together define the “architecture” of language. These are 

• (i) the hierarchy of strata (context, semantics, lexicogrammar, phonology, phonetics; related by realisation); 
• (ii) the hierarchy of rank (e.g. clause, phrase/group, word, morpheme; related by composition); 
• (iii) the cline of instantiation (system to instance); 
• (iv) the cline of delicacy (least delicate to most delicate, or grossest to finest); 
• (v) the opposition of axis (paradigmatic and syntagmatic); 
• (vi) the organisation by metafunction (ideational (experiential, logical), interpersonal, textual).

The mistaken notion that SFL is a theory of "interacting modules" can be sourced to Martin (1992).

(1) Martin (1992: 390);

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification and, within strata, metafunction.

See critique here.

(2) Martin (1992: 391):

Within discourse semantics, the ways in which systems co-operate in the process of making text is much less well understood. … A more explicit account of this co-operation is clearly an urgent research goal; English Text has been concerned not so much with addressing this goal as with making it addressable by proposing four relatively independent discourse modules to beg the question [sic] … . The point is that integrating meanings deriving from different metafunctions is not a task that can be left to lexicogrammar alone.

See critique here.

(3) Martin (1992: 392):

The modularity imposed by stratification is also an important issue. Discourse systems generate structures which in principle cut across grammatical and phonological ones.

See critique here.

(4) Martin (1992: 488):

In this chapter a brief sketch of some of the ways in which discourse semantics interacts with lexicogrammar and phonology has been presented. The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

See critique here.

(5) Martin (1992: 490-1):

Grammatical metaphor then is the meta-process behind a text. It co-ordinates the synoptic systems and dynamic processes that give rise to text. It is the technology that let's [sic] the modules harmonise. It is their medium, their catalyst, the groove of their symbiosis, their facilitator, their mediator. It is the re/source of texture.

See critique here.

Time Phase vs Reality Phase

Time phase, as the name suggests, is the unfolding of the process with regard to time: starting vs continuing vs ending.   Reality phase, as the name suggests, is the unfolding of the process with regard to reality: unreal (apparent) vs real (realised). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

At the deepest level time-phase and reality-phase are the same thing: both are concerned with the stages of becoming. A process is something that emerges out of imagination into reality, like the rising of the sun. Before dawn, the sun shines only in the future, or only in the imagination – as future turns into present, imagination turns into reality.

Bilingualism

Ergativity & Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 333n):

Note that ‘transitivity’ is the name for the whole system, including both the ‘transitive’ model and the ‘ergative’ one. ‘Ergativity’ is thus not the name of a system, but of a property of the system of transitivity: within this system of transitivity, we can recognise the ‘transitive model’ and the ‘ergative model’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):

A clause with no feature of ‘agency’ is neither active nor passive but middle. One with agency is non-middle, or effective, in agency. An effective clause is then either operative or receptive in voice. In an operative clause, the Subject is the Agent and the Process is realised by an active verbal group; in a receptive [clause] the Subject is Medium and the Process is realised by a passive verbal group.

 

The Difference Between Delicacy And Instantiation

Delicacy is a 'type to sub-type' relation (hyponymy).  In terms of logical semantic relations, this is elaboration.  For example, delicacy is the relation between 'academic' and 'lecturer'; 'lecturer' is a sub-type of the more general type 'academic'.

Instantiation is 'token to type' relation.  This is a class membership relation of intensive attribution, which thus combines elaboration with ascription; (the relation between token and type is thus the relation between Carrier and Attribute).  For example, instantiation is the relation between a token, such as 'Peter White', and the type 'academic' (or its sub-type 'lecturer').

In terms of the theoretical architecture of SFL theory, delicacy is a dimension of the system, whereas the dimension of instantiation relates two perspectives on language: the system to an instance of the system.

Taxis Vs Embedding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 426):

It is important to distinguish between the 'tactic' relations of parataxis and hypotaxis on the one hand and embedding on the other.  Whereas parataxis and hypotaxis are relations between clauses (or other ranking elements), embedding is not.  Embedding is a semogenic mechanism whereby a clause or phrase comes to function as a constituent within the structure of a group, which itself is a constituent of a clause … .  The embedded clause functions in the structure of the group, and the group functions in the structure of the clause.

The distinction between hypotactic and embedded expansions is set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 442) in Table 7(15).

What Is The Advantage Of Distinguishing Between Embedding And Hypotaxis?

In the case of projection, it lays the foundation for the semantic distinction between (pre-projected) facts and (projected) reports (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 28).

Why Projected Clauses Are Not Clause Constituents

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 578-9):

In our analysis (unlike that of the mainstream grammatical tradition), the projected clause is not a constituent part of the mental or verbal clause by which it is projected. There are numerous reasons for this; some of them are grammatical — for example, it cannot be the focus of theme–predication … it cannot be the Subject of a passive mental clause … it is presumed by the substitute so, which is also used to presume conditional clauses in clause complexes … But these, in turn, reflect the semantic nature of projection: this is a relationship between two figures, not a device whereby one becomes a participant inside another.

For The People's Front Of SFL, La Lucha Sigue

The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: grammar, metaphor, and imagination in the ‘Thought Experiments’ of physics and poetry 1890-1960

David Butt's presentation at Macquarie University just now.
https://content.echo.mq.edu.au:8443/ess/echo/presentation/94115ada-3f4e-4365-9692-4d55e4a1a46c?ec=true