Bateman (1998: 16):
The final chapter on discourse semantic regions, Chapter 5 [pp271--379], introduces the area of IDEATION, by which Martin means in the context of English Text, the “contribution made by open system items to discourse structure’’ [p271]— i.e., the role that lexis plays in creating and manipulating discourse structure and discourse coherence. This includes Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) notion of lexical cohesion and so critically involves many issues of ‘lexis’. Lexis is in any case a difficult and troubled area in systemic-functional accounts and Chapter 5 is probably one of the more difficult chapters of the book; the position taken on lexis and its description is sufficiently novel to pose difficulties should the reader’s map of the area not align sufficiently closely.
Blogger Comments:
[1] Bateman's use of the terms 'regions' and 'area' helps to disguise a fundamental theoretical inconsistency in Martin's model of discourse semantics. The "regions" are systems organised according to the four metafunctions, but three of the systems, IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are all rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) systems of the textual metafunction — reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion — misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.
[2] To be clear, Martin's experiential discourse semantic system of IDEATION is a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar), lexis as most delicate grammar (lexicogrammar), clause nuclearity (experiential lexicogrammar) and logical relations between clause transitivity functions (ideational lexicogrammar). For the detailed evidence on which this assessment is based, see here.
[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, lexis — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate systems at the level of lexicogrammar — does not "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of discourse semantics. The absurdity can be made more apparent by considering the analogous claim that phonemes — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate phonological systems — "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of lexicogrammar.
[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, coherence is achieved through the textual metafunction (e.g lexical cohesion), not the experiential metafunction (Martin's IDEATION). Here Bateman has connected with the source of Martin's ideas (lexical cohesion), but failed to notice the metafunctional inconsistency in Martin's rebranding the original system as an experiential system.
[5] To be clear, lexis is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical systems as lexical items, whereas lexical cohesion involves relations between lexical items in the creation of texture.
[6] To be clear, lexis in SFL is not "a difficult and troubled area". The principle itself is clear and theoretically consistent; the difficulty lies in developing lexicogrammatical networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 67) put it:
[7] To be clear, the difficulty in Martin's Chapter Five, especially for the reader of average theoretical competence, lies in the multidimensional theoretical confusions that form its foundation.
[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, lexis — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate systems at the level of lexicogrammar — does not "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of discourse semantics. The absurdity can be made more apparent by considering the analogous claim that phonemes — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate phonological systems — "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of lexicogrammar.
[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, coherence is achieved through the textual metafunction (e.g lexical cohesion), not the experiential metafunction (Martin's IDEATION). Here Bateman has connected with the source of Martin's ideas (lexical cohesion), but failed to notice the metafunctional inconsistency in Martin's rebranding the original system as an experiential system.
[5] To be clear, lexis is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical systems as lexical items, whereas lexical cohesion involves relations between lexical items in the creation of texture.
[6] To be clear, lexis in SFL is not "a difficult and troubled area". The principle itself is clear and theoretically consistent; the difficulty lies in developing lexicogrammatical networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 67) put it:
If we maintain the grammarian’s viewpoint all the way across the cline, lexis will be defined as grammar extended to the point of maximum delicacy. It would take at least a hundred volumes of the present size to extend the description of the grammar up to that point for any substantial portion of the vocabulary of English; and, as we have noted, the returns diminish the farther one proceeds.
[7] To be clear, the difficulty in Martin's Chapter Five, especially for the reader of average theoretical competence, lies in the multidimensional theoretical confusions that form its foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment