Thus, for example, whereas some accounts of interaction previously have needed to go inside the structure of individual discourse moves, … the discourse semantics of English Text can instead leave much of the work here to grammar and retain simpler congruent move realisations as an independent clause or incongruent move realisations as sequences of sentences related conjunctively. …
As Martin writes:
“The general point here is that if the grammar, or phonology for that matter ..., does the work, so be it. The model developed here does not dualise meaning and form so does not have to re-state the contributions made by phonology and lexicogrammar to text structure at the level of semantics. Equally important, ... is the fact that negotiation provides just one of four perspectives on text structure...’’ [p56] ... “[T]he modular approach to discourse means that no one component is responsible for accounting comprehensively for textual relations.’’[p268]
Blogger Comments:
[1] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin's model is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the architecture of SFL theory, in as much as he misunderstands both strata and metafunctions as interacting modules, instead of levels of symbolic abstraction and organising principles, respectively.
[2] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin does not understand that strata represent different levels of symbolic abstraction. Because of this, discourse semantics cannot "leave much of the work to grammar". Instead, the grammar realises semantics, and if the theorising is to be consistent, the semantics that the grammar realises needs to be identified.
[3] The thoughts that didn't occur to Bateman here are that Martin confuses 'marked' with 'incongruent' and proposes incongruent grammatical realisations that are not metaphorical.
[4] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin mistakes all strata — even phonology — as levels of meaning; hence the claim that his model "does not dualise meaning and form". Martin's error derives from mistaking semogenesis — his "all strata make meaning" — for stratification, where meaning, wording and sounding constitute different levels of symbolic abstraction. See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment