Fontaine's Notion That Context of Culture "Captures" The Potential Of Language

Fontaine (2017: 5):

The difference between context of culture and context of situation according to Halliday (1991) is one of perspective; this difference is not meant to suggest different objects of study. Halliday (1991:276) explains this as follows:

These also are not two different things; they are the same thing seen from different points of view. A situation, as we are envisaging it, is simply an instance of culture; or, to put it the other way round, a culture is the potential behind all the different types of situation that occur. 

Context of culture differs in its relationship to language since it is not tied to a context of situation through text but rather captures its potential. According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2014:32), “a given language is thus interpreted by reference to its semiotic habitat”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the relation between these two perspectives, context of culture (potential) and context of situation (instance) is instantiation.

[2] The claim here seems to be:

• Context of culture differs from context of situation in its relationship to language 
• because 
• context of culture is not tied to a context of situation through text 
• but rather context of culture captures language's potential

To be clear, relations between context and language do not involve notions of "capturing" or "tying". Context is related to language stratally, by realisation, whereas culture and language (potential) are related to situation and text (instance) by instantiation.

[3] To be clear, as this quote makes explicit, the context ("habitat") of language is semiotic, not material.

Fontaine's Claim That Context Of Situation Is Effectively The Collection Of "Instances Of Text"

Fontaine (2017: 4-5):

Context itself is not ‘out there’ as in outside the speaker. While it might be considered to be outside the language system, it cannot be denied that whatever context is, it is connected to or can interact with the language system. Halliday (1991:281) explains the connection as follows:

How do you set about “creating” a context for language? You cannot do it by means of legislation, like decreeing that poems are to be written in praise of a national leader. The only way is for the text itself to create its own context of situation.

This suggests that textual, i.e. linguistic, features are meaningful and that context of situation is effectively the collection of instances of text. Halliday (1991:277) sees this context as “a theoretical construct for explaining how a text relates to the social processes within which it is located”. It is well established in SFL literature that this construct involves three variables or components, commonly termed Field, Tenor and Mode of Discourse, respectively as “the underlying social activity, the persons or “voices” involved in that activity, and the particular functions accorded to the text within it” (ibid.).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, context does not "interact" with language, because they are distinct levels of symbolic abstraction, not modules at the same level of abstraction. The "connection" between context and language is thus the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction: realisation.

[2] To be clear, the Halliday quote relates an instance of language (text) to an instance of context (situation). The point is that, because language realises context, an instance of language "creates" an instance of context.

[3] To be clear, the Halliday quote does not suggest that the linguistic features instantiated as text are meaningful; see [2] above. Since SFL Theory models language as meaning potential, this is a given.

[4] To be clear, the Halliday quote does not suggest that an instance of context (situation) is "the collection of instances of text"; see [2] above. On the one hand, the relation between context and language is realisation (elaborating identification), not composition (extending identification or ascription); see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145-6). On the other hand, the wording "instances of text" misunderstands instantiation, according to which a text is an instance of language.

Fontaine's Claim That She Is Using Halliday's Model

Fontaine (2017: 4):

In this paper, the conceptualisation of context is taken primarily from Halliday (1991), see Hasan (2009) which examines the place of context in the SFL framework, including an excellent discussion of Halliday’s 1991 view of context and language.

The two aspects of context are explained by Halliday (1991: 271) as follows:

Language considered as a system – its lexical items and grammatical categories – is to be related to its context of culture; while instances of language in use – specific texts and their component parts – are to be related to their context of situation. Both these contexts are of course outside of language itself.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. By 'context' Halliday means the culture as semiotic system. Fontaine has already demonstrated (p3) that she misunderstands context as language, co-text, on the one hand, and as the material environment of a text, on the other. It is this claim that Fontaine is using Halliday's model that justifies critiquing her paper in terms of Halliday's model.

[2] To be clear, the two "aspects" of context are the two poles of the cline of instantiation on that stratum: potential (culture) and instance (situation).

"Two Strata Of Context: Culture And Situation"

Fontaine (2017: 4):

Bartlett (2017: 375) explains context as “a unifying element within the overall architecture of SFL, linking language as system and instance (langue and parole) to the material conditions of those who use it”. However, its definition and place within the theory is interpreted somewhat differently by different scholars (see for example Martin (1992), Butt et al. (2000), Matthiessen (2015), Wegener (2011), Bartlett (2017) and contributions by various authors in Fontaine et al., (2013), especially Bartlett (2013) and Bowcher (2013), to name only a few. At a more abstract level there is general agreement concerning some key points, including for example that context is accounted for by stratification and instantiation; that “[i]n exploring contextual and linguistic patterns in systemic functional linguistics, we try to interpret them in terms of dimensions” (Matthiessen, 2015:32) and that there are at least two strata of context, culture and situation. A full review of these positions is beyond the scope of this paper but see Bartlett (2017) for an overview of context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it seriously misunderstands the SFL notion of 'context'. Context is neither a "unifying element" nor a link to "the material conditions of those who use it". On the one hand, context is but one level of symbolic abstraction (stratum) in the overall architecture of SFL Theory. On the other hand, and more importantly, context is semiotic — metaphenomenonal — the culture as semiotic system, not material — phenomenal — the perceptual field of speaker and addressee.

[2] To be clear, the model of context in Martin (1992) is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and itself, as demonstrated in meticulous detail here. For example, Martin equates context-as-potential (culture) with varieties of language (genre), and context-as-instance (situation) with varieties of language (register) and mistakes the instantiation relation between them as symbolic abstraction (stratification), such that context is constituted by varieties of language (genre) realised by varieties of language (register). In Hjelmslevian terms, Martin mistakes varieties of a denotative semiotic for the content plane of a connotative semiotic.

[3] To be clear, theoretical consistency is not a matter of scholars agreeing, but their work "agreeing" with theory. The unreliability of interpersonal agreement is humorously captured by the following B Kliban cartoon:

[4] To be clear, here Fontaine misunderstands the relation between culture (potential) and situation (instance) as realisation (stratified symbolic abstraction) instead of instantiation.

"The Need To Develop Lexical Representation Within SFL"

Fontaine (2017: 4):

In this section, I will first briefly outline the view of context taken in this paper and in the process draw on the key aspects for discussing the need to develop lexical representation within SFL.

Context is a specialised term in SFL, a theoretical metaphor, like the term 'choice', among others. Hasan (2013:298) argues that “[t]hese theoretical metaphors enable the analyst to enter into an explicit discourse on how language as a semiotic system becomes a powerful resource for the exchange of meanings in social contexts”. By expanding context, as a theoretical metaphor, we can enable some important developments in terms of an SFL approach to lexicology or what we might simply call lexical representation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as already explained here, the notion of 'lexical representation' — the representation of words in a mental lexicon — is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman 1989: 152, 228, 234).

[2] To be clear, in order to expand the SFL notion of 'context' in a theoretically consistent way, it is first necessary to understand the SFL notion of 'context'. As already demonstrated, this is not the case here.

"The SFL Conceptualisation Of Context"

Fontaine (2017: 4):

The other part of the meaning of ‘putting lexicology into context’ concerns how lexicology can be viewed in relation to context, without restricting the notion of context to co-text or collocation. Normally SFL linguists interested in context and lexicologists generally are almost worlds apart. As suggested above, these are two perspectives that in many ways seem too distant to be merged. Certainly we do find research on context that relates to lexis and lexical analysis but this is not usually framed in lexicological terms which would be accessible to lexicologists. Similarly, it is true that lexicologists are increasingly interested in context (moving beyond co-text) but they do not generally adopt the SFL conceptualisation of context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the 'SFL conceptualisation of context', which does not include either co-text or collocation. To be clear, in SFL Theory, the term 'context' refers to the culture modelled as a semiotic system. On the other hand, the terms 'co-text' and 'collocation' refer to language, not context. The term 'co-text' refers to (a complementary portion of) an instance of language, whereas 'collocation' refers to the syntagmatic dimension of lexis, analogous to structure in the grammar.

[2] Interest in context and interest in lexicology are not two different perspectives on the same phenomenon, but interests in two different phenomena: culture and words, respectively.

[3] To be clear, as already demonstrated, Fontaine, also, does not adopt the 'SFL conceptualisation of context'.

Fontaine's Crucial Misunderstanding Of Halliday's Notion Of Context

Fontaine (2017: 3-4):

Putting lexicology into context 

There is a deliberate play on words in the heading for this section. One part of the meaning relates to the frame, PUT X INTO CONTEXT, which means that X is given with the textual and/or situational context in which it was produced, i.e. provides more information so that X can be better understood. There is another related expression to this one, TAKE X OUT OF CONTEXT, which means that X has been removed from the textual and/or situational context in which it was produced, i.e. information is missing which makes understanding flawed in some way. In these two everyday expressions, we get a sense of what context suggests to most people and that is meaning or at least meaningful information. Context is where we ‘get’ meaning but it is also a kind of meaning, or rather kinds of meanings. In SFL terms, context “is that which helps determine meaning. This includes the surrounding text and the surrounding circumstances whatever they may be” (Wegener, 2011:4–5). The concept of meaning within SFL stems from Firth (1957), who saw meaning as function in context. For Halliday meaning is best viewed as ‘choice’ (Halliday, 2013), which he sees as an extension of Saussur[e]an paradigmatic relations (Ibid.: 16).

Blogger Comments:

This misrepresents the SFL notion of context. To be clear, 

• context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system; it is modelled as a higher level of symbolic abstraction than language;
• the surrounding text, the co-text, is (an instance of) language, not context; and
• the surrounding circumstances of a text, in the sense of the material environment of a text, is the perceptual field of the speaker.

The context (and co-text) of a text and the environment of a text differ in terms of order of experience. The context of a text, a situation, is second-order (semiotic) experience, since it is construed by the language of a text that is projected by a speaker. The environment of a text, on the other hand, is first-order (material) experience. Where the semiotic context of a text is metaphenomenal, the material environment of a text is phenomenal.

"The Question Of Whether It Makes Sense To Talk About Lexical Meaning In SFL"

Fontaine (2017: 2-3):

In this paper, I will propose some ways in which lexis can be explored by examining the dimension of instantiation and considering how the SFL approach to context can be applied to lexis. The main aim of the paper is to develop a new approach to the study of lexis within SFL. Drawing substantially from Halliday (1991) and Hanks (2013), I will use the SFL approach to context to argue for the need for an analogous approach to lexicology.

The paper will be organised as follows. The next section will situate lexicology in relation to SFL and outline the view of context adopted for the purposes of this paper, moving towards questions related to lexis and lexical representation in particular. Section 3 examines the current status of lexicology within the SFL framework and it argues for the need for a flexible lexicon (García Velasco, 2016). Section 4 considers the relationship between the meaning potential (Hanks, 2013) of a lexeme and the meaning of a word in use. Finally, section 5 closes the paper by addressing the question of whether it makes sense to talk about lexical meaning in SFL. I suggest that the framework for representing context could be applied by analogy to lexical representation. In this view, lexis is seen, not as most delicate grammar, but as most local context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not a new approach, because the "SFL approach to context" — that is: modelling it as a cline of instantiation — already applies to lexis in SFL Theory. Because instantiation applies to all systems on all strata, it already applies to the lexicogrammatical systems that specify lexical items.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, lexical meaning is the semantic correlate of lexical items — each of which is specified by a bundle of the most delicate features of lexicogrammatical systems.

[3] To be clear, the instantiation dimension of lexis has no bearing on the notion of lexis as most delicate grammar, because instantiation is the relation between a system and its instance, whereas delicacy is the ordering principle of a system and its instance.

[4] To be clear, the instantiation dimension of lexis has no bearing on either context or "locality". On the one hand, in SFL Theory, lexis is located within language, on the stratum of lexicogrammar, whereas context is located outside language — it is the culture as semiotic system — at two levels of symbolic abstraction above lexicogrammar.

On the other hand, even if the notion of "most local context" made sense*, the instantiation relation between potential and instance has no bearing on "locality".

* One reason why most local context does not make sense in everyday registers is because it misconstrues a Classifier (local), which does not accept degrees of comparison or intensity, for an Epithet, which does; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 377). On the other hand, the theoretical notion of a 'most local domain' derives from Chomsky (1995) The Minimalist Program.

The Multiple Dimensions Of The Lexeme

Fontaine (2017: 2, 3):

As we move forward in this discussion, I propose another metaphor for the study of lexis, that of the Tardis from the BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who. The Tardis is remarkable, not only because it can travel through time and space but precisely because it is bigger on the inside. We find, with the lexeme, multiple dimensions which challenge our linguistic notions of size and relativity. Halliday has developed not only a multi-functional approach to language but also a multi-dimensional one. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014:20) identify five dimensions: structure or syntagmatic order (rank); system or paradigmatic order (delicacy); stratification (realisation); instantiation; and metafunction. Figure 1 illustrates how instantiation and delicacy can be represented as distinct dimensions.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these are the dimensions of language, not of 'lexemes' — which Fontaine later defines as 'lexical items as potential, rather than as instance. Each lexical item, on the other hand, as potential or instance, is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate features of lexicogrammatical systems, analogous to the phoneme /b/ being the synthetic realisation of the features [voiced, bilabial, stop]. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 20) locate lexis within the dimensional architecture of SFL Theory:

[2] To be clear, Figure 1 is potentially misleading. To counter this, the reader may wish to imagine the following:

• the removal of the terms: 'stratification', 'metafunction', 'realisation', 'specificity' and 'structure'; and 
• the relocation of the system network, and the term 'delicacy', so as to be under the term 'system'.

Compare the distinction of delicacy and instantiation for ideational semantics in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 14):

"An Especially Provocative Thought"

Fontaine (2017: 2):

Given the focus within systemic functional linguistics (SFL) on language as socially oriented semiotic, it can sometimes seem that the study of context and the study of lexis are worlds apart but they are not. We tend to think, metaphorically, that the word is a small unit and language is a much bigger unit but perhaps this is not actually the case. As Mel’ćuk (1981:57) says, ‘not only every language but every lexeme of a language is an entire world in itself ’. The world of the word is vast and complex and it is generally accepted that it is represented as part of a large complex network. The ‘knowing about’ a context and the ‘knowing about’ a word is contained and maintained within an individual’s networked cognitive system. In this sense, there is perhaps not as much difference between knowing about a context and knowing about a word as we might have thought. This is an especially provocative thought if we consider how the concepts of meaning potential and instantiation apply to both.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, SFL construes language as a social semiotic system — as opposed to, say, a somatic semiotic system — not as a socially oriented (aligned) semiotic system.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, context and lexis differ by two levels of symbolic abstraction, strata, and whereas the study of context is the study of the culture as a semiotic system, the study of lexis is the study (of one aspect) of language as a semiotic system.

[3] To be clear, metaphorically or otherwise, language is indeed much bigger than a single word. This can be demonstrated by comparing what can be said using all of language with what can be said using just one word.

But note that the relative sizes of a language and a word are entirely irrelevant to the claim that it is meant to support: that the study of context (culture) and the study of lexis (lexicogrammar) are not "worlds apart".

[4] To be clear, the notion of 'word representation' derives from the notion of a 'mental lexicon' in Formal linguistics, and the "general acceptance" that words are represented as parts of a 'large complex network' is limited to practitioners of semantic network theory, which assumes a mental lexicon. Such notions are not just inconsistent with SFL Theory, they are biologically implausible. Edelman (1989: 152, 228):

Mental representations that are supposedly syntactically organised (in a "language of thought") and then mapped onto a vaguely specified semantic model or onto an overly constrained objectivist one are incompatible with the facts of evolution. The properties proposed by these cognitive models are incompatible with the properties of brains, bodies, and the world. …

The acceptance of this view or versions of it is widespread in psychology, linguistics, computer science, and artificial intelligence. It is one of the most remarkable misunderstandings in the history of science. Indeed, not only is it not in accord with the known facts of human biology and brain science, but it constitutes a major category error as well.

For the interested reader, Edelman (1989: 234) outlines eight fundamental problems that invalidate the idea of mental representations.

[5] To be clear, the notion of 'knowing about language' — as opposed to 'language' — derives from Chomskyan Formal Linguistics. To explain, Chomsky's theorising of language is Cartesian in its orientation; see, e.g., his Cartesian Linguistics (1966). Cartesian dualism makes a fundamental distinction between two mutually exclusive substances: res cogitans ('thinking thing') and res extensa ('extended thing'), the former being that of an immaterial mind. Chomsky's theory of language is concerned with the immaterial mind (res cogitans), which is why he couches the theory in terms of knowledge of language rather than in terms of language itself.

But, again, note that differences between the relative sizes of a language and a word are entirely irrelevant to the claim that it is meant to support: that knowing about a context (culture) and knowing about a word (lexicogrammar) are not as different as "we may have thought". It is clear that, at this point, Fontaine mistakes context for language.

[6] To be clear, this not a provocative thought, given the number of misunderstandings and irrelevancies identified above. Moreover, considering how instantiation applies to both context and lexis is merely using SFL theory as it stands. Contrary to the implication, it is not a new thought, let alone a theoretical innovation.

"The Interface Of Context And Lexicology"

Fontaine (2017: 2):

The two dimensions mentioned above, delicacy and instantiation, provide complementary rather than contradictory approaches. Work on lexis within SFL is scarce as will be discussed below and as with most challenging areas, there is merit in tackling a problem from more than one angle. The realm of word study is the domain of lexicology and so it seems sensible to ask whether there is any common ground to be found between this more bottom up approach to the lexico-grammar and SFL’s more top down approach. The point of departure and the nature of the concerns are very different. Lexicologists tend to start with the word as the unit of study and work outwards, where outwards can mean into the mind or lexicon (typically psycholinguistics and to some extent cognitive linguistics) or into (co-)text and beyond (typically corpus linguistics). 

Lexicology covers all areas of interest related to what we think of as the word from lexical semantics to etymology and morphology, including the general area of phraseology. When it comes to phraseology, connections to context offer a potential area of common interest to the two perspectives on the lexico-grammar. What they share to some extent is an interest in lexico-grammar and in data that focusses on “the occurrence of patterns which lie somewhere between abstract structures and individual lexical items or combinations of these” (Butler, 2013:206). The interface of context and lexicology spans the range of lexical studies from the more cognitive perspective to the more social perspective.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, since delicacy and instantiation are ordering principles of dimensions of SFL Theory, they cannot be contradictory approaches — just as the ordering principles realisation and metafunction are not contradictory approaches.

[2] To be clear, such approaches are fundamentally inconsistent with the approach of SFL Theory.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 2, 603):

But at the same time our own approach, both in theory and in method, is in contradistinction to that of cognitive science: we treat "information" as meaning rather than as knowledge and interpret language as a semiotic system, and more specifically as a social semiotic, rather than as a system of the human mind. …

Others have also been critical of the established academic view of mind; and some recent book titles suggest the kinds of alternatives that have been offered: "embodied mind", "social mind", "discursive mind". These suggest that the concept of 'mind' should be brought into close relation with other phenomena — biological, social, or semiotic. … But once this has been done, the mind itself tends to disappear, it is no longer necessary as a construct sui generis. Instead of experience being construed by the mind, in the form of knowledge, we can say that experience is construed by the grammar; to 'know' something is to have transformed some portion of experience into meaning. To adopt this perspective is to theorise "cognitive processes" in terms of semiotic, social and biological systems; and thus to see them as a natural concomitant of the processes of evolution.

This does not mean that these other approaches are invalid, but that the uncritical importation of such theorising into SFL Theory creates theoretical inconsistencies of a fundamental kind.

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, paradigmatically, phraseology is concerned with an intermediate degree of delicacy: the theoretical space between grammatical systems and lexical sets; syntagmatically, this is the theoretical space between grammatical structure and lexical collocation. (The Butler quote merely presents his less precise understanding of the syntagmatic aspect of Halliday's insight.)

[4]  To be clear, for the most part, the use of the word 'context' in this paper, bears little resemblance to it's theoretical meaning in SFL: the culture as semiotic system-&-process. In terms of SFL Theory, the way that SFL and lexicology could be said to "connect to context" is that they share the field category 'linguistics'. However, this is not Fontaine's understanding, as demonstrated by her wordings "connections to context" and "the interface of context and lexicology".

Extending 'Context' To Account For The Instantiation Of Lexical Items

Fontaine (2017: 1-2):

As attractive as it may seem to model lexis as most delicate grammar, it is not without problems as will be discussed below. This paper introduces a new theoretical perspective on lexis in SFL theory by developing it within a different dimension, instantiation, which as will be shown, leads to a different approach – lexis as most local context. Looked at from the perspective of instantiation, lexis can be seen in terms of meaning potential and as I argue in this paper, through this lens, the SFL concept of ‘context’ can be extended to account for the relationship between a lexeme (or lemma) and its instantiation as a lexical item in text. This is a potentially exciting development since it can offer a bridge between the more textually oriented theory of SFL and the more lexically driven approaches to lexis as typically found within corpus linguistics.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these problems arise from Fontaine's misunderstandings of lexis, including her confusion of word as lexical item with word as grammatical unit, as will be discussed in situ.

[2] To be clear, this is not a new theoretical perspective. In SFL Theory, the cline of instantiation already applies to lexis, as will be explained in situ.

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of the architecture of SFL Theory, the notion of 'lexis as most local context' is absurd, and derives from Fontaine's misunderstandings of lexis, context and instantiation, as will be demonstrated  in situ.

[4] To be clear, from the perspective of the architecture of SFL Theory, the notion that the stratum of context, can be extended to account for the instantiation dimension of lexical items is absurd, not least because context is not language, but the culture as a semiotic system, whereas lexical items are language, on the stratum of lexicogrammar.

[5] To be clear, this is not a "potentially exciting development", since it is an absurdity deriving from Fontaine's multiple misunderstandings of SFL Theory, as will be demonstrated in situ.

Delicacy

Fontaine (2017: 1):

For Halliday (1961:272), delicacy is “the scale of differentiation, or depth in detail” and it is clear from Hasan (1996) and also Martin (1992) that lexis as most delicate grammar is pursued along this dimension, which runs through the lexicogrammatical stratum and is generally represented as a system network of options. As Martin (1992:278) explains, “looked at from the perspective of grammar lexis is not different in kind but simply different in generality.” The least delicate options are extended in increasing differentiation within the network to the most delicate options.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, delicacy is the ordering principle of a system network: the arrangement of features from the most general to the most fine.

[2] To be clear, the Martin quote is invalid on two grounds. Firstly, it confuses delicacy with lexis. The difference in generality is the scale of delicacy of feature choices in system networks. Each lexical item, on the other hand, is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate features in the lexicogrammatical system — just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the phonological features [voiced, bilabial, stop].

Secondly, grammar and lexis do differ in kind, both syntagmatically and paradigmatically; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 58-66). For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 59, 64):

On either of these two axes we can establish relationships of a lexical kind (collocations and sets) and of a grammatical kind (structures and systems). …

The Theoretical Plausibility Of Modelling Lexis As Most Local Context

Fontaine (2017: 1):

In this paper, I use the SFL approach to context to establish the first steps towards an analogous approach to lexicology. The conclusion offered here is that it is theoretically plausible to draw on the dimension of instantiation, in a complementary way to delicacy, in order to model lexis as most local context, where the lexeme (or lemma) is modelled as meaning potential.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, to model lexis as "most local" context is not theoretically plausible, if only because, in SFL Theory, lexis is a dimension of language (lexicogrammar) whereas context is not language at all, but the culture as a semiotic system. The claim here is that most delicate grammar (lexis) can be modelled as most local culture — on the basis of instantiation: the relation between potential and instance.