"SFL Needs To Offer Detail On Multiword Expressions And On Polysemy Vs Homonymy"

Fontaine (2017: 10):

However, the nature of lexical representation is not clearly articulated in SFL. As Davidse (2017:79) makes very clear, “linguistic theories specify one’s fundamental assumptions about language and the nature of the linguistic sign. It is within these assumptions that the facts of a language are described – that is, its categories identified and interpreted”. The preference in lexical representation for homonymy or polysemy is not theory neutral, there are assumptions related to each position. SFL needs to offer detail on multiword expressions (MWEs) and on polysemy vs homonymy.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory, which accounts for its lack of articulation in SFL Theory.

[2] This is very true. This is why it is very important to understand the assumptions of the theory being used.

[3] This is very true. The assumptions on which lexical representation and modelling lexis in terms of homonymy and polysemy are based are those of other theories, and are not consistent with the assumptions of SFL Theory.

[4] To be clear, as already explained, the notions of polysemy and homonymy view the lexical item 'from below', which is inconsistent with SFL Theory, which views the lexical item 'from above': the meaning it realises. Polysemy views the lexical item as grammatical form that realises many meanings, whereas homonymy views the lexical item as (shared) phonological form.

The approach of SFL Theory to multi-word expressions, such as phrasal verbs, is systemic. For example, the experiential function of put up with as a Process is argued by reference to its agnate tolerate.