Fontaine (2017: 14):
In this paper, I set out to examine the relationship between context and lexicology. The way SFL talks about context is surprisingly similar to the way lexicologists talk about lexis. To date, very little attention has been given to developing an approach to lexical representation in SFL. This seems to be related to the top-down approach to lexico-grammar and to the view of lexis as most delicate grammar. The relationship between lexis and grammar cannot be denied, however some work from the bottom-up may contribute significantly to improving the overall account of the lexico-grammar.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system, whereas lexicology is a subfield of linguistics. Fontaine has not examined the relationship between culture and that subfield of linguistics in this paper; but see [2].
[2] To be clear, here Fontaine is referring to the distinction of potential and instance in SFL Theory and the lexical analysis of Hanks (2013). By singling out context in the SFL model, Fontaine again confirms that she does not understand that instantiation applies to all the strata of language, as well as context, despite the fact that Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 both represent this dimension of the theory explicitly.
[3] To be clear, the reason why there has been no attention to lexical representation in SFL Theory is that the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman 1989: 228). In SFL Theory, it is the lexical items that are the representations, since they are realisations of bundles of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features.
[4] To be clear, it is not the case that "the relationship and grammar cannot be denied", but that, in a theory that models language in terms of lexis and grammar — rather than, say, lexicon and syntax — the relation between the two is established by the assumptions and mode of inquiry of the theory.
[5] To be clear, the view of lexis 'from below' identifies words with their forms, whereas the view 'from above' identifies words with the their functions. This is why a genuinely functional approach, like Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, takes the view 'from above'.
[5] To be clear, the view of lexis 'from below' identifies words with their forms, whereas the view 'from above' identifies words with the their functions. This is why a genuinely functional approach, like Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, takes the view 'from above'.