Bateman (1998: 17):
The starting point for his model of IDEATION is given by the basic premises of English Text’s framework. Martin is attempting to set out a statement of the discourse semantic function of a variety of lexicogrammatical phenomena: however, due to their positioning in the linguistic system, both this discourse semantics and the lexicogrammar should be largely register-independent. The question that ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ has to address therefore becomes the following: what kind of account of lexical relations is it possible to build into the lexicogrammar, given that this must be neutral with respect to register (or at least to field within register)?
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. As already explained, Martin has merely taken models of lexicogrammatical phenomena, theorised by Halliday ± Hasan, and rebranded his misunderstanding of them as discourse semantic. For example, Martin does not set up discourse semantic systems that specify congruent realisations in lexicogrammar, by which metaphorical realisations can be compared.
[2] In terms of Martin's model, where register is misunderstood as context, this misunderstands stratification; in terms of SFL theory, this misunderstands instantiation.
In terms of Martin's model, discourse semantics (realised in lexicogrammar) realises register. That is, they are different levels of symbolic abstraction and, as such, are not "independent" of one another. On this model discourse semantics construes register.
In terms of SFL theory, where register is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, each register is a functional variety of semantics and lexicogrammar. That is, the systems of semantics and lexicogrammar provide the overall potential of which each register is a sub-potential. So, theorising a semantic system means theorising the overall system, of which all registers are variants.
[3] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (lexical items as the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical systems) with relations between lexical items, which, in SFL theory, function cohesively, creating texture.
[4] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between context (field) and register. On Martin's model, a variety of language, register, is not language, but what is realised by language. This is analogous to claiming that a variety of bird, such as magpie, is not a bird, but what is realised by a bird. For detailed arguments on the internal inconsistencies of Martin's model of 'stratified context', see here (register) or here (context).
[2] In terms of Martin's model, where register is misunderstood as context, this misunderstands stratification; in terms of SFL theory, this misunderstands instantiation.
In terms of Martin's model, discourse semantics (realised in lexicogrammar) realises register. That is, they are different levels of symbolic abstraction and, as such, are not "independent" of one another. On this model discourse semantics construes register.
In terms of SFL theory, where register is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, each register is a functional variety of semantics and lexicogrammar. That is, the systems of semantics and lexicogrammar provide the overall potential of which each register is a sub-potential. So, theorising a semantic system means theorising the overall system, of which all registers are variants.
[3] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (lexical items as the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical systems) with relations between lexical items, which, in SFL theory, function cohesively, creating texture.
[4] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between context (field) and register. On Martin's model, a variety of language, register, is not language, but what is realised by language. This is analogous to claiming that a variety of bird, such as magpie, is not a bird, but what is realised by a bird. For detailed arguments on the internal inconsistencies of Martin's model of 'stratified context', see here (register) or here (context).
No comments:
Post a Comment