RSSa question of realisation
Apr 13
i was commenting on a student’s work the other day and i happened to make a remark regarding her discussion of appraisal.
i said:
“Also, do not forget that appraisal is not grammar, it is discourse semantics. It is not part of the interpersonal metafunction – this, I believe.”
to which she replied:
B-b-but Martin and White (2005) opens with the sentence: “This book is concerned with the interpersonal in language…”, and at the bottom of the same page, they say: “Our purpose in the book is to develop and extend the SFL account of the interpersonal by attending to three axes along which the speaker’s/writer’s intersubjective stance may vary.” (those being Affect, Engagement and Graduation). Do you mean: appraisal is an extension (rather than a part) of the interpersonal metafunction (which is concerned with grammar) into the domain of discourse semantics? I.e., is it just a question of formulation?
hmmmm. i was running out the door, but i just had to at least confirm a distinction between “the interpersonal in language” and the interpersonal metafunction. there’s more to say, but i’m worried i will muddy rather than clarify, when an MA is being written-up.
the issue was, for me, that we cannot say attitude is realised by the interpersonal grammar. this suggests a way of ‘reading off’ attitude from the grammar, and the system…
what we are really doing is classifying instances of attitude when we do an appraisal analysis – classifying these instances as representative of a number of common categories. the categories are in effect ad hoc: they of borne out of previous analysis and an intuition regarding the conventions (system?) of language that we have experienced.
because of this, i cannot bring myself to say that the grammar – in these instances – actually realises the attitudes – i.e. the term ‘realisation’ and its variations have a more specific meaning.
i thus pose my question of realisation for comment
Mouth of Sauron
Apr 13, 2010 @ 15:49:20
If Appraisal is discourse–semantics,
and if discourse–semantics is the stratum above lexicogrammar,
and if stratification means what Halliday says it means,
then Appraisal selections are realised by lexicogrammatical selections,
because the relation between strata is realisation.
But, if this is so, the lexicogrammatical realisation of Appraisal is not limited to an interpersonal perspective on the lexicogrammar. eg experientially:
Affect may be realised by a mental Process (its target by a Phenomenon),
or by an Attribute (its target by a Matter circumstance),
or by an attitudinal Epithet,
or wherever attitudinal lexis can show itself.
Mr Curly
Apr 14, 2010 @ 16:35:09
Martin definitely identifies APPRAISAL systems as interpersonal.
Some possible lines of exploration:
(1) the extent to which appraisal theory is independent of SFL
(2) the apparent mixing of metafunctions: ATTITUDE is an interpersonal system but do the appraised tend to be viewed from an ideational perspective — ie as construals of experience?
eldon
Apr 16, 2010 @ 23:38:10
and then if discourse semantics is a level between lexicogrammar and register, we have the next leetle conundrum which has to do with the issue of Tenor being realised by the interpersonal metafunctional aspects of the lexicogrammar.
-well, i maintain that it needs to be conceived as between lexicogrammar and register.
others may disagree-
my interest in this area stems from an interest in genre, and the sequence of text events which constitute an instance of a recognisable genre. for the purpose of describing genre, lexicogrammar works as a tool. the “registerians” headed by hasan, maintain that shifts in register signal shifts or stages in the sequence of text events, and hence ‘realise’ genre… but while it do not disagree with this, i still find the notion of a separate level of genre which is not JUST sequences of register shifts, but a phasing together of a whole myriad of lexicogrammatical effects/functions in different ways, dependent on context of situation itself… CoS being split in two…. (not to get into that, here, but CoS is also another term for register)…er, a useful notion.
if i consider tenor as realised by the interpersonal metafunctional aspects of text, then whither discourse semantics. many would point out that by insisting on it occupying a position between lexicogrammar and register i am doing myself a disservice and it is wrong in any case.
and yet, the realisation relationship that obtains between the lexicogrammar of the interpersonal and tenor is not fixed and not always determinative…
and it is from this that i sorta draw my view that attitude is a product of many aspects of the lexicogrammar in context, and that it cannot have a realisation relationship with any one particular metafunction, as it is actually a product of context of situation and culture… readings of attitude are (cough-cough) “instantiated” in text, rather than lexicogrammar of one metafunction realising attitude.
Farquar McFarquar
Apr 18, 2010 @ 09:34:22
I’ll have a go at commenting bit by bit.
First:
“and then if discourse semantics is a level between lexicogrammar and register, we have the next leetle conundrum which has to do with the issue of Tenor being realised by the interpersonal metafunctional aspects of the lexicogrammar.
-well, i maintain that it needs to be conceived as between lexicogrammar and register.
others may disagree-”
Martin’s stratification:
Register (field tenor mode)
Discourse Semantics
Lexicogrammar
Phonology
Halliday’s stratification:
Context (field tenor mode)
Semantics
Lexicogrammar
Phonology
Halliday’s register =
language system subpotential realising context of culture subpotential =
text type realising context of situation type
If Appraisal is conceived as meaning (rather than wording or context),
then that conception locates it at discourse/semantics.
As far as realising tenor is concerned, the valeur of ‘tenor’ varies with the model being used, so it needs to be pinned down before we can talk about what is being realised by interpersonal meaning such as Appraisal.
Farquar McFarquar
Apr 18, 2010 @ 09:50:59
Second:
“the “registerians” headed by hasan, maintain that shifts in register signal shifts or stages in the sequence of text events, and hence ‘realise’ genre… ”
But note that ‘register’ conceived by Hasan (after Halliday) is not a stratum and doesn’t realise ‘genre’ as a stratum.
On their model, registers vary in terms of probabilities of instantiation (at each stratum), so a shift in register means a shift in instantiation probabilities, and so should result in a shift in what is actually instantiated in an ongoing text, so that such shifts should provide boundaries and so stages in the unfolding of the text (logogenesis).
Farquar McFarquar
Apr 18, 2010 @ 10:09:23
Third:
“but while it do not disagree with this, i still find the notion of a separate level of genre which is not JUST sequences of register shifts, but a phasing together of a whole myriad of lexicogrammatical effects/functions in different ways, dependent on context of situation itself… CoS being split in two…. (not to get into that, here, but CoS is also another term for register)…er, a useful notion.”
Yes, Martin intends his ‘register’ to replace Halliday’s ‘context’, which he took to be more material than semiotic. And he stratified his ‘context’ into genre and register, whereas Halliday’s ‘context’ is not stratified.
Note that Halliday’s ‘context of situation’ specifies a location on two scales:
stratification: the stratum of context
instantiation: the instance pole (of context)
It is the contextual instance realised by the instance of the language system (the text)
And I think ‘genre’ as a theory has unquestionably demonstrated its usefulness. The problem is how to locate it in the architecture of SFL, because its current position isn’t consistent with the rest of the theory. It was theorised on different principles and could exist independently of SFL (as could Appraisal).
Farquar McFarquar
Apr 18, 2010 @ 10:23:56
Fourth:
“if i consider tenor as realised by the interpersonal metafunctional aspects of text, then whither discourse semantics. many would point out that by insisting on it occupying a position between lexicogrammar and register i am doing myself a disservice and it is wrong in any case.”
I thought Appraisal is explicitly located in Martin’s discourse-semantics, which is between Martin’s register and lexicogrammar.
Note that the interpersonal ‘slice’ through the strata is
interpersonal context/register: called ‘tenor’ on both models
interpersonal semantics/discourse: eg speech function
interpersonal grammar: eg mood & modality at clause rank
& Note that “realised by the interpersonal metafunctional aspects of text” refers to two distinct dimensions simultaneously:
stratification (realisation) &
instantiation (text)
Farquar McFarquar
Apr 18, 2010 @ 11:04:43
Fifth:
“and it is from this that i sorta draw my view that attitude is a product of many aspects of the lexicogrammar in context, and that it cannot have a realisation relationship with any one particular metafunction, as it is actually a product of context of situation and culture… readings of attitude are (cough-cough) “instantiated” in text, rather than lexicogrammar of one metafunction realising attitude.”
On metafunctional realisation, yes, since the metafunctions are dimensions, we can use any of them as lenses on language, and we can note, for example, that propositions and proposals (interpersonal semantics) may be realised by projected or unprojected clauses (ideational lexicogrammar).
Note that the use of ‘product’ is construing attitude in its guise as the outcome of a process, and so as already instantiated in texts, rather than as a system of meaning potential. I mention it because I think a lot of misunderstandings in SFL arise from people not being aware that one is conceiving of language as ‘text’ (instantiated) while the other is conceiving it as system (potential).
On the opposition: attitude instantiated in text vs realised by lexicogrammar, note that both are relevant because one is the scale of stratification (realisation) and the other the scale of instantiation.
eldon
Apr 18, 2010 @ 18:26:32
one issue i keep coming up against is how to conceive of the differences between ‘instantiation’ and ‘realisation’ – precisely because of this need for both perspectives in analysing attitude and appraisal in general in context.
[the issues are also partly down to an inability to keep a lot of information in working memory, e.g. one reads several halliday articles which make sense and clarify issues at the time of reading, but then that reading event fades into the distance of time as other errands take precedence, and other writers are read. e.g. martin and others, whose ideas are sometimes worth incorporating.
…and partly down to an individual need for (or ability to make extra sense out of) the visual representation of abstract concepts.]
but certainly the addressing of the points above goes some way to precipitating the solution. in a chemical metaphorical sense (and a continuation of visual metaphorical allusions also).
my questioning gaze now therefore looks towards that very conception of the differences. the scales or clines of representation used by martin and/or halliday [for instantiation and realisation] thus also appear to differ slightly – in nomenclature only (i hardly think so) or in conception only? or both?
Farquar McFarquar
Apr 19, 2010 @ 10:36:31
yes indeed, the importance of distinguishing realisation and instantiation.
they are clearly defined by being characterised in terms of the two types of relational processes.
(1) realisation is an [intensive] identifying relation:
the lower stratum (Token) realises the higher stratum (Value).
The difference is one of (symbolic) abstraction or signification.
Compare: a coin (Token) representing two dollars (Value).
These are two levels of abstraction of the same phenomenon.
(2) instantiation is an [intensive] attributive relation:
a text as instance is a member/specimen (Carrier) of English as system (Attribute).
Compare: Tony Abbott (Carrier) is an instance of the biological category Homo Sapiens (Attribute).
Here’s a way to check usage:
If the relation being described crosses strata, then it is realisation.
Instantiation does not cross strata:
the system of semantics is ‘instantiated’ by the semantics of the text;
the system of lexicogrammar is ‘instantiated’ by the lexicogrammar of the text;
the system of phonology is ‘instantiated’ by the phonology of the text.
And at the level of context:
the system of context (of culture) is ‘instantiated’ by the context (of situation).
eldon
Apr 22, 2010 @ 09:06:16
this comment has been very useful and clearly sets out the differences. it would be good to gather, cut and paste, and slightly edit all these comments as one top level post… such a text object would serve as one of the monthly essays… although on a much higher plane than originally envisaged, at least by me.
[note preponderance of stratal and visual metaphor]
JonathanCreep
Apr 19, 2010 @ 16:36:10
Have we confused “the language” and “the model of the language” somewhere along the way in this discussion.
SFL does not equal language, it is one model (bloody good if i shall say) of language. I don’t like the phrase ‘meaning-making’ I think it unintentionally brings in the human agency, like the word “choice”.
Lots of my students think people make meaning through systemic function grammar and lots of people (no name mentioning here) think speakers make ‘choices’ from the grammatical systems (or whatever other systems they described)……….now that is something for discussion.
Torquil
Apr 20, 2010 @ 08:52:28
I don’t see any confusion between language and model here.
It’s all about the model: beginning with worrying about how Appraisal theory is situated in the larger model of SFL, and to that end, trying to tease apart the different SFL models in use and how they relate to one another.
You don’t like the idea of human agency and choice in this context?
Could you say more?
eldon
Apr 21, 2010 @ 15:44:59
ahhh, the word – yea, the very IDEA (!) of ‘choice’.
yes, i agree that the use of the word ‘choice’ leads people to take it literally. before we know it, we’ll be ‘performing’ ‘competently’ or not, according to whether we have made the correct or conventional or acceptable language choices before we utter a sound.
but i believe that the word choice is only used to alert acolytes (of SFL) that we are treating language as a paradigmatic system, and that there are various options in language for fulfilling the requirements of a grammatical clause… any choices are made beneath consciousness in the human individual, and are thus somewhat out of our realm of enquiry.
even if we treat language as a pretty much syntagmatic “system”, there is still the matter of “choice”, which narrows dependent on where one has got to in the clause.
to answer your other question which does not seem to have been made ironically this time, JC, i do not think we have confused language with representation of it (the model) at all. in fact we have been discussing the very modelling of language presented by our two most eminent purveyors of theory – how are they different and what elements of ‘language’ can be said to be represented by what elements of the model. if there is confusion about this, then people will continue for example to see the process types as semantic categories rather than grammatical categories…
and more…
i could go on.
and on.
but i desist.
just for the moment.
eldon
Apr 24, 2010 @ 22:39:28
you’ll be interested to come to adelaide for this year’s ASFLA gabfest then, where i hope to wax eloquent on the langwedge of wine appreciation. that’s Appreciation with a big ‘A’.
jacobs creep is no more than a pathetic trickle these days, just btw. they have a big museum of tasting though, up there, on the property by the creep…