Saturday, 31 October 2015

Thematic Spaces & Semogenesis

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407):
The speaker thus selects ‘thematic spaces’ as points of entry into larger regions of the ideational semantic network. From the listener’s point of view, these thematic spaces constitute indications of where to integrate the new information being presented in the text… . If we think of the listener’s processing of a text as being partly a matter of expanding his or her current semantic network with new information, the thematic spaces guide him/her to appropriate expansion points.

Friday, 30 October 2015

Thematic Spaces In An Ideational Semantic Network

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407):
Thematic spaces in an ideational semantic network can be seen as a model of the systemic understanding of Theme and method of development articulated by Martin, where [Martin’s] “field” corresponds to what has been discussed here in terms of ideational semantic networks in the ideation base.

Thursday, 29 October 2015

How Information In The Text Base Can Be Modelled

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 406-7):
(i) The second-order character of textual information is captured by defining it in terms of the already existing semantic network in the ideation base (the first-order representation…). This is clearly only a first approximation… the textual metafunction may in fact motivate ideational metaphor as a means of ‘carrying’ textual organisation. 
(ii) Textual prominences constituting textual statuses can then be modelled as partitioned textual spaces of the semantic network. … This is also only a first approximation: textual prominence is a matter of degree and we need to think of a textual space not as a clearly bounded region but rather as a central region, the peak of prominence, from which one can move to more peripheral regions, the troughs of non-prominence. Such gradience is necessary not only to deal with degrees of thematicity and newsworthiness but also to handle identifiability by ‘bridging’…

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

The Text Base As Patterns Stated Over The Ideation Base

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 403):
The principle of the deployment of ideational metaphor by the textual component also applies to the bases of the semantic stratum.  The text base both sets up information states within figures (presents them as messages organised around quanta of information) and guides the movement from one figure to another. In the former capacity, the text base can be interpreted as patterns stated over the ideation base. That is, the representation of ideational meaning in the ideation base constitutes the first order of representation in terms of which second–order, textual meaning can be specified.

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

The Typical Discourse Function Of Ideational Grammatical Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 401):
These two clause systems, theme identification and theme predication, are components of the overall system of theme in English grammar. They produce structures in which identifying relational processes are used to reconstrue figures as equations (the two together are referred to as “thematic equatives” in Halliday 1985: 41-4). But ideational grammatical metaphors typically have a discourse function of this kind; they are as it were pressed into service by the textual metafunction, to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information.

Monday, 26 October 2015

Experiential Metaphor As A Second-Order Resource For Creating A ‘Carrier’ Of Textual Meanings

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 399-400):
What is significant here is that the textual organisation is realised by the second-order resource of grammatical metaphor. That is, the grammar is as it were turned back on itself: it reconstrues itself with a particular effect in the discourse. We can see, then, that experiential grammatical metaphor is a strategy for creating a ‘carrier’ of textual meanings.

Sunday, 25 October 2015

Grammatical Metaphor As A Manifestation Of The Second–Order Nature Of The Textual Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-9):
One manifestation of the second–order nature of the textual metafunction that is important for our purposes is grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor is a ‘second-order’ use of grammatical resources: one grammatical feature or set of features is used as a metaphor for another feature or set of features; and since features are realised by structures, one grammatical structure comes to stand for another.

Saturday, 24 October 2015

The Second–Order Nature Of The Textual Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398): 
This second–order enabling nature of the textual metafunction is seen both at the level of context, where mode (the functions assigned to language in the situation) is second–order in relation to field and tenor (the ongoing social processes and interactant rôles), and the level of content — the semantics and the lexicogrammar, where the systems of theme and information, and the various types of cohesion, are second–order in relation to ideational and interpersonal systems of transitivity, mood, and the rest.

Friday, 23 October 2015

The Second–Order Nature Of The Textual Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398): 
The textual metafunction second–order in the sense that it is concerned with semiotic reality: that is, reality in the form of meaning. This dimension of reality is itself constructed by [the] other two metafunctions: the ideational, which construes a natural reality, and the interpersonal, which enacts an intersubjective reality. … The function of the textual metafunction is thus an enabling one with respect to the rest; it takes over the semiotic resources brought into being by the other two metafunctions and as it were operationalises them …

Thursday, 22 October 2015

The Textual Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398): 
The textual metafunction differs from the ideational one in a number of fundamental respects — its mode of syntagmatic progression is wave–like, with periodic prominence; it is inherently dynamic in that it organises text as process; and it is a second–order mode of meaning.

Tuesday, 20 October 2015

Logogenesis: The Relation Of Instantiation To Stratification

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 385-6):
The strata are ordered in symbolic abstraction, but they are not ordered in instantiation time. The process of instantiation can shunt up and down the stratal hierarchy. However, the general tendency in instantiation is one of stratal descent. First systemic features are instantiated (selected) at the highest stratum and their associated realisation statements are also instantiated (executed). Then the instantial specifications at this stratum are realised at the stratum below. 
Within this overall stratal descent, there is interleaving: higher-stratal systems need not be fully instantiated until lower-stratal ones have been instantiated. This means that selections at higher strata can be made in the logogenetic environment of preceding selections at lower strata. This reflects the general theoretical principle that the relationship between two strata is a solidary one, with instantiation proceeding “dialogically”.

Monday, 19 October 2015

Instantial System & Register

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 385):
An instantial system may fall entirely within the registerial system it instantiates; in other words, the meanings created within it may all have been created before. However, it may also create new meanings — new to the speaker and/or listener. In either case, the instantial system is built up successively by the generation process; but as it is developed, it in turn becomes a resource for further instantiation.

Sunday, 18 October 2015

Logogenesis: Instantiation & Instantial System

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 385):
Logogenesis — creation of meaning in instantiation, maintained as a changing instantial system.

Saturday, 17 October 2015

Instantial System [Definition]

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384): 
If we look at logogenesis from the point of view of the system (rather than from the point of view of each instance), we can see that logogenesis builds up a version of the system that is particular to the text being generated: the speaker/writer uses this changing system as a resource in creating the text; and the listener/reader has to reconstruct something like that system in the process of interpreting the text — with the changing system as a resource for the process of interpretation. We call this an instantial system.

Friday, 16 October 2015

Logogenesis And Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
A text is generated within the logogenetic time-frame. In fact, generation is a logogenetic process: it creates meaning in the course of instantiation as the text unfolds.

Thursday, 15 October 2015

Lexicogrammar Instance: Text As Wording

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
lexicogrammatical selection expressions (features from passes through lexicogrammatical networks), and their manifestations as wordings; particular texts, spoken or written, with their organisation.

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

Lexicogrammar Subpotential: Register

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
networks of typological regions of lexicogrammatical space.

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Lexicogrammar Potential: Lexicogrammatical System

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
networks of ideational, interpersonal and textual wordings; their construction as clauses, groups/phrases, words and morphemes.

Monday, 12 October 2015

Semantics Instance: Text As Meaning

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
semantic selection expressions (features from passes through the semantic networks), and their representations as meanings; particular texts with their organisation

Sunday, 11 October 2015

Semantics Subpotential: Register

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
networks of topological regions of semantic space.

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Semantics Potential: Semantic System (Meaning Base)

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
networks of ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings; their construction as texts, subtexts, parasemes, sequences, figures & elements.

Friday, 9 October 2015

Context Instance: Situation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
instantial values of field, tenor & mode; particular social semiotic situation events, with their organisation.

Thursday, 8 October 2015

Context Subpotential: “Subculture” / Situation Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
networks of regions of social-semiotic space

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Context Potential: Context Of Culture

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):
the culture as social-semiotic system: networks of social semiotic features constituting the systems–&–processes of the culture; defined as potential clusters of field, tenor and mode.

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

The Cline Of Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 381):
… these [stratally organised and metafunctionally diversified] resources are extended along the cline of instantiation from potential (language in context of culture) via subpotentials (registers in situation types) to instances (texts in contexts of situation).

Monday, 5 October 2015

The Realisational Relationship Between Semantics And Lexicogrammar: Metafunctional Unification

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 381):
The grammar unifies the different metafunctional contributions; for example, a figure, a move and a message are unified in their realisation as a clause. It achieves this unification by realising combinations of ideational, interpersonal and textual features in the same wording. For example, the wording well unfortunately they must have missed the train is a realisational unification of a figure (of doing & happening), a move (of giving information, assessed as certain and undesirable) and a message.

Sunday, 4 October 2015

The Realisational Relationship Between Semantics And Lexicogrammar: Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 381):
… the ideation base is realised by ideational resources: sequences and figures are realised at clause rank by clause complexes and (simple) clauses respectively; and elements are realised at group/phrase rank. In a similar way, interpersonal meanings are realised by interpersonal features in the lexicogrammar, and textual meanings by textual ones.

Saturday, 3 October 2015

Lexicogrammar: Syntax & Morphology

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 380n):
In systemic functional theory, lexis is thus interpreted as most delicate or specific grammar. Grammar comprises syntax and morphology; there is no stratal boundary between the two, but merely a move down the rank scale: “syntax” is simply the grammar of clauses and groups/phrases and morphology is the grammar of words and morphemes.

Friday, 2 October 2015

Lexicogrammatical System Networks: Metafunction, Rank & Delicacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 380):
The lexicogrammatical system networks are distributed by metafunction (ideational: experiential & logical — interpersonal — textual) and by rank (clause — group/phrase — word — morpheme) and extend in delicacy from grammar to lexis.

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Lexicogrammar [Defined]

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 380):
Lexicogrammar is the resource for construing meaning as wording. It is organised as a set of system networks representing options in wording. Systemic options may have realisation statements associated with them; these statements specify how the options are realised in wording (structure & grammatical/lexical items).