Johanna gave a helpful overview of issues covered on the
list over the last week or so. I am a bit confused about
terminology, however, no doubt because I enter linguistics
through SFG.
As 'levels' or 'strata' SFG would count
lexicogrammar
text-level meaning (not a semantics of morphemes only)
situation (register)
Most linguistic schools build on Saussure, drawing a clear line
between langue and parole. As a non-linguist, I have a great deal
of difficulty understanding the REAL difference between meaning in
SFG terms and semantics that is restricted in the Saussurian sense.
Conceptually I think I get it, but in terms of methods of analysis --
in empirical terms, I don't have a clue.
Johanna uses "semantics" to refer to representational values --
and by "intrinsic meaning" I take it to be a Sausurrian
not-of-parole-but-of-langue.
This is apparently the dominant view of semantics and one that
students should know about.
Johanna also treats "interpersonal meanings" as "register"
SFG would treat "interpersonal meanings" as only one dimension
of register -- TENOR; the dimension that tends to be realized by the
interpersonal metafunction of lexicogrammar (mood, modality, polarity)
I think I must have confused any linguists on ATEG by referring in
earlier messages to interpersonal meanings "OF" the grammar --
What I meant is that certain grammatical resources -- mood, modality,
polarity -- get deployed to realize role & status relations (the TENOR
dimension of register)
The interpersonal metafunction of lexicogrammar corresponds to --
realizes -- the TENOR dimension of REGISTER.
The notion of "realization" is key to the SFG meaning of
"level"
SFG would also treat representation as a dimension of register --
the "what this is about" or the FIELD of discourse, _realized_
by an elaborate (SFG-specific) system of case roles at the lexicogrammatical
level -- by the "ideational" or "experiential" metafunction of grammar.
Finally, SFG would treat textual meanings as the third dimension
of register, MODE, through which grammatical resources that represent
the world and grammatical reources that signal interpersonal meanings
are woven together.
It gets a little dizzying to sort out the different use of terms.
It would help me tremendously to have an explicit account of the
differences that make a difference between different maps of the
same territory :)
Since that's not likely to happen, I wonder, Johanna, if you
make it to the end of this message, if you could explain how you
mean "levels" -- and any help ounderstanding your use of
'semantics' or objections to specific SFG terms would be greatly
appreciated
Judy
>It is becoming ever clearer to me that linguistics has much to contribute
>on this score. It may be becoming clearer to other posters, as it is to
>me, that we cannot teach any of the three levels upon which language
>functions apart from the others; we have to find ways to coordinate them
>within a reasonable scope and sequence given children's developmental
>progress. (Those three levels are: semantics, or representing the world,
>i.e. the intrinsic meanings of words and constructions; interpersonal or
>register/genre, which is the adjustment of vocabulary and grammar to fit
>the social situation and personal relationship between sender and receiver
>of the message; and textual -- the need to maintain coherence and topic
>continuity within the message.)
>
>'Case roles', such as 'agent' or 'actant' are part of semantics: the scene
>a sentence encodes has participants doing or experiencing various things.
>
>AGENT
>PATIENT
>EXPERIENCER
>GOAL
>ABSOLUTE
>BENEFICIARY
>LOCATION
>
>This is a nearly exhaustive list of the participant roles that linguists
>have found useful for describing HUNDREDS of languages.
>
>How do these case roles line up with grammatical roles? There are
>prototypical (subject=agent) and nonprototypical (patient=subject,
>i.e. passive) ways that they line up, and many gradient phenomena that
>muddy the waters. Let's return to the possibly most difficult case: subject.
>
>The default choice for languages of the type of English is agent =
>subject. Hence our tendency to make even nonspecific agents subject, as in
>
>-They're gonna cut down that tree on Main St. (Who are 'they'?) vs.
>-That tree on Main St. is gonna be cut down.
>
>The default choice more broadly is also theme = subject ('theme' in SFG
>terms, that is, a scene-setter or cohesive opener for a sentence). E.g.,
>in a chapter from a history of English textbook entitled '1970-1770' (book
>published in 1970):
>
>"_The past two centuries_ have witnessed greater changes in the structure
>of the speech-community, of the audience and experiende of
>English-speakers, than any period in the history of the language." (Strang
>1970:73).
>
>But plenty of nonsubjects are themes. This is an irritating aspect of
>current journalistic practice -- the opening of the first sentence is not
>the topic of the article (nor does the specific topic emerge until
>sometimes very late in the article).
>
>In terms of discourse considerations, subject=topic is prototypical, but
>this is frequently violated. For example, in a New Yorker article about Robert
>Redford that I am analyzing, expressions referring to Redford himself are
>subject 500 times. No other single referent comes close to this statistic
>for this article of ca. 12,000 words, although there are hundreds of
>non-main-topic subjects.
>
>We can't, ourselves, develop a comprehensive understanding of any language
>unless we consider all three levels. So much work has been done on this in
>linguistics that we should take advantage of it -- no point in reinventing
>the wheel.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
>San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
>Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~
>E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
>Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~
>Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake
|
