A. system networks
i. delicacy: elaboration + attributive
ii. disjunction: extension: alternative
iii. conjunction: extension: addition
iv. entry condition: enhancement: condition
B. rank scale: extension: composition
C. realisation: elaboration + identifying
1. higher stratum realised by lower stratum [stratification]
2. system realised by structure [axis]
3. function realised by form; eg clause rank function structure realised by group rank syntagm
Realisation and instantiation 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.
eg coin as Token represents two dollars as Value.
These are two levels of abstraction of the same phenomenon.
(2) instantiation is an [intensive] attributive relation:
a text as Carrier (instance/member/specimen) of English language system as Attribute (class).
eg Tony Abbott as Carrier (instance/member/specimen) of Homo sapiens as Attribute (biological category).
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.
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
here is an offending vimeo.
i test here whether it is the vid itself, or the words which go with it,
to wit: greenpeace, nestle, google, china,
because netdynam.org has suffered an internal server error… just after i posted it there…..
oh — it was pulled from youtube by request from nestle, so i just thought maybe nestle is more powerful than china… seeing as google has decided not to allow filtering of its content anymore there…
RSS
Recent Comments