Fontaine's Achievement In This Paper

Fontaine (2017: 15):

In closing, I follow Thompson (2015:26) when he says “everything we know about language suggests that structural configurations always take on a semiotic life of their own”. This also applies to lexis. In SFL, one of the main approaches to working with variation is through context (especially context of situation or register). I have tried to reconcile these different perspectives by drawing on context to enable the representation of the semiotic life of words.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, structural configurations constitute the syntagmatic dimension of grammar. The syntagmatic dimension of lexis is collocation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 64, 644).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, context of situation and register are not the same thing — as Fontaine's own Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, adapted from Halliday, both illustrate. A context of situation is an instance of context (the culture as a semiotic system), whereas register is a sub-potential of language. That is, situation and register differ in terms of both stratification and instantiation. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):

[3] As the examination of this paper has demonstrated, Fontaine has suggested applying the cline of instantiation to lexical items, oblivious of the fact that, in SFL Theory, the cline of instantiation already applies to lexical items, as it does to all strata. In doing so, Fontaine has equated 'lexical item as potential' with 'most local context', despite the fact that SFL Theory (i) locates lexical items within a stratum of language, lexicogrammar, and (ii) identifies context with the culture — not language — as a semiotic system. The theoretical relevance of the term 'most local' to context, or lexis, has not been discussed anywhere in the paper.

"The Theoretical Ideas Presented Here"

Fontaine (2017: 15):

The view of lexis as most local context, where the lexeme (or lemma) is seen as a resource, or meaning potential, allows us to reconcile SFL with corpus-based approaches to lexico-grammar. As Hunston and Francis have suggested, it may be worth exploring what it would look like if “each bundle of system choices should end, not in a lexical item per se but in a ‘unit of meaning’” (2000:28). The problem is, of course, determining where such a choice point should be within the system network and whether or not this would ultimately require a stratal distinction. The implementation of the theoretical ideas presented here is a work in progress and a concrete proposal is not yet ready for publication.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, unknown to Fontaine, her "new" theoretical idea, that the lexical item can be viewed as potential ("lexeme/lemma") as well as instance, is already part of SFL Theory. It therefore adds nothing to the reconciliation of SFL Theory with corpus-based approaches to lexicogrammar that was not already present.

[2] To be clear, Fontaine has nowhere explained why she equates the lexical item as potential with 'most local context', nor explained what she means by 'most local' in this regard. In SFL Theory, 'context' refers to the culture as semiotic system, not to language as a semiotic system wherein lexis is located.

[3] As previously demonstrated here, Hunston and Francis misunderstand the SFL model of lexis as most delicate grammar. Each bundle of system choices does not end in a lexical item; each bundle is realised by a lexical item. The features and the lexical item are modelled as different levels of symbolic abstraction, with lexical item as Token of feature bundle as Value. Moreover, in the absence of metaphor, wording and meaning are in agreement (congruent), so that the meaning realised by a lexical item is in agreement with the bundle of features at the level of wording (lexicogrammar).

[4] To be clear, these are not problems in SFL Theory, because (i) lexical items are not choice points in a system network, and (ii) lexical items are located on the stratum of lexicogammar.

"The Meaning Potential Of A Lexeme Is Construed"

Fontaine (2017: 14-5): 

Lexis can be seen, rather than most delicate grammar, as most local context. Perhaps in some respects this is saying the same thing. As Halliday (1991:274) states, “the context for the meaning potential – for language as a system – is the context of culture. How do you construe this potential, and how do you use it when you’ve got it? You build it up, and you act it out, in the form of text”. The meaning potential of a lexeme is construed, it is built up by its use and more specifically by its use in context. The meaning of a lexical item comes from its local context (lexeme), its collocations and the constructions or patterns (lexico-grammar) in which it appears.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in no respects is this saying the same thing. 'Lexis as most delicate grammar' means that lexical items are the synthetic realisations of the most delicate lexicogrammatical systems. Fontaine's 'lexis as most local context' is her misunderstanding of the instantiation relation between potential and instance.

[2] To be clear, Halliday (1991: 274) is concerned with the construal of higher level context by lower level language in the instantiation of language during logogenesis.

	potential		instance
context	culture	instantiated as	situation
	construed by		construed by
language	system	instantiated as	text

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, lexical item as potential (Fontaine's "lexeme") and lexical item as instance are not two different things; they are the same thing seen from different points of view. That is, as potential or instance, a lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features, just as the phoneme /k/, as potential or instance, is the synthetic realisation of the features [voiceless, velar, stop].

Fontaine's description of the lexical item as potential ("the meaning potential of a lexeme") misunderstands the preceding Halliday quote, and misapplies it to lexis, confusing stratification ("construed") with instantiation ("use"):

potential		instance
lexeme
	construed by
		lexical item

It can be seen that this misunderstanding locates the lexeme and lexical item on different strata.

Fontaine's description of the lexical item, as instance, attributes the meaning it realises to

• its local context (lexeme),
• its collocations, and
• the constructions or patterns (lexico-grammar) in which it appears.

That is, the meaning of lexical item, as instance, is said to derive from 

• its potential (inexplicably termed its 'local context'),
• its syntagmatic relations, and
• the grammatical function of the word as rank scale unit.

By introducing all these misunderstandings in the final section termed 'Concluding remarks', Fontaine gives the false impression that these bare assertions have been supported by reasoned argumentation in the body of the paper.

"Even Though SFL Has An Integrated Lexico-grammar It Does Not Mean That There Is No Word Meaning"

Fontaine (2017: 14):

Even though SFL has an integrated lexico-grammar, it does not mean that there is no word meaning. As I have shown here, word meaning operates only in context and by introducing meaning potential at the lexical level, i.e. a mental lexicon, we open up the model to developments in lexicology both in terms of contributing and benefitting from research. 

This conceptualisation brings with it assumptions that must be tested but it does create an opportunity for building bridges with other theoretical approaches since it may be reasonable to talk about lexical meaning potential and how ‘a meaning’ is activated and how we can allow a more formal account of lexis into SFL theory. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, wording (lexicogrammar) realises meaning (semantics), and so lexical items (lexicogrammar) realise meaning (semantics).

[2] This is misleading. On the one hand, Fontaine has not demonstrated in this paper that "word meaning operates only in context"; that is, no argument has been presented on the matter. On the other hand, the contextualisation of language, including word meaning, is modelled in SFL Theory by the stratification hierarchy. Here Fontaine is taking credit for Halliday's model.

[3] This is misleading. Fontaine has not introduced "meaning potential at the lexical level". In SFL Theory, the instantiation relation applies to all strata, including the lexical items of lexicogrammar. Again, Fontaine is taking credit for Halliday's model.

[4] To be clear, the SFL notion of lexical item as potential is not equivalent to the cognitive linguistics notion of a mental lexicon. Moreover, as previously explained, the notion of lexical representations in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman 1989: 228).

[5] To be clear, it is not possible to "build bridges" between theoretical approaches that differ in their fundamental assumptions, and mode of inquiry, without creating theoretical inconsistencies.

[6] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the activation of meaning is the process of instantiation: the selection of features and the activation of realisation statements during logogenesis (the unfolding of text).

[7] To be clear, on the one hand, the formalism of SFL Theory is the system network, and this is the means of accounting for lexis, since each lexical item is the synthetic realisation of a bundle of the most delicate features of lexicogrammatical systems. On the other hand, a formal account of lexis, rather than a functional account, is inconsistent with the theoretical assumptions and mode of inquiry of Systemic Functional Theory.

"It Is Not Yet Clear That System Networks Are Appropriate For The Analyst Or The Understander"

Fontaine (2017: 14):

There is often a conflict for the analyst when trying to determine what the speaker has done with language and how the model used by the analyst can fit the instances of language being analysed. The speaker is generating language, while the analyst is parsing language, and doing so for very different reasons. In psycholinguistics, the problem of viewing these two processes (production vs understanding) as separate process is referred to by Pickering and Garrod (2013:347) as “the ‘cognitive sandwich’, a perspective that is incompatible both with the demands of communication and with extensive data indicating that production and comprehension are tightly interwoven”. Reconciling the role of language producer and language understander is important for many reasons, not least of which is the development of a better tool for text analysis. Since it is not yet clear that the system networks are appropriate for the analyst or for the understander, as noted by Tucker (2009:424) above, this development is needed for those using the framework for analysis.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this passage is irrelevant and unconnected to all that has been previously written in this paper.

[1] To be clear, there is no conflict here, because the theory is a model of the language that is used in both speaking and analysing. The different purposes of the speaker and analyst have no impact on the language of the speaker that the analyst is "parsing".

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, system networks are as "appropriate" for the "understander" and the analyst as they are for the speaker. In logogenesis, the speaker produces an instance of the system, a text, and the "understander" and the analyst relate the instance to the system. Halliday (2008: 192):

The system and the text are not two different phenomena: what we call the “system” of a language is equivalent to its “text potential”. Analysing discourse means, first and foremost, relating the text to the potential that lies behind it.

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):

If we look at logogenesis from the point of view of the system (rather than from the point of view of each instance), we can see that logogenesis builds up a version of the system that is particular to the text being generated: the speaker/writer uses this changing system as a resource in creating the text; and the listener/reader has to reconstruct something like that system in the process of interpreting the text — with the changing system as a resource for the process of interpretation. We can call this an instantial system.

[3] Trivially, this was not noted above.

"This Proposal Would Have To Be Examined And Evaluated"

Fontaine (2017: 13-4):

Such an approach might open up the theory of SFL to more lexicological concerns and potentially address both diachronic perspectives as well as the fluidity, flexibility and indeterminacy that we find in language. This proposal is only tentative and it would have to be examined and evaluated to see whether the modelling of lexis in terms of context as suggested here may offer opportunities to account for shifting lexico-semantics. For example, according to García Velasco (2016: 940-941) “[usage] patterns may be modified or updated on the basis of new uses of the lexeme in different contexts. Meaning construction and sense modification is thus understood as the joint and cooperative activity of language users in verbal interaction”. Context of culture and context of situation play an important role in this. 

The individual lexemes of the language constitute a semiotic repertoire that is available to the speaker and this must allow for innovative, meaning creating uses, or exploitations in Hanks’ (2013) terminology.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fontaine's proposal is to apply the cline of instantiation to lexis, using the terms 'lexeme' for potential and 'lexical item' for instance. Unknown to Fontaine, this is already part of the architecture of SFL Theory, since instantiation applies to all strata, including the lexicogrammatical systems whose most delicate features are synthetically realised by lexical items.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Fontaine is not "modelling lexis in terms of context". The claim seems to rest on the misunderstanding that instantiation applies only to context, which suggests a misunderstanding of the theoretical dimensions depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

[3] To be clear, since Fontaine's proposal is already part of SFL Theory, it does not offer anything that the theory does not already offer.

[4] To be clear, this is already modelled by SFL Theory in terms of instantiation, where changes in instance frequencies have the effect of changing system probabilities.

Lexis As Most Local Context

Fontaine (2017: 13):

At this point it is useful to return to the concepts discussed above in relation to context. The question now is whether lexis can be said to be distributed within the SFL model in a similar way to context. If we accept that the meaning potential is construed by systems of language choice; the instance is construed by patterns of language use, then we might be willing to consider that the lexical item (instance) is construed by patterns of use and that the lexeme (meaning potential) is construed by systems of lexico-grammar. This does not imply that lexis is separate from lexico-grammar. The idea of meaning potential in terms of the lexeme is not far from Halliday and Matthiessen’s view of items: “[t]he class of an item indicates in a general way its potential range of grammatical functions” (2014:76). If we are willing to entertain this idea as a proposal then it would suggest that rather than thinking of lexis only as most delicate grammar, we can think of lexis as most local context. This suggestion is illustrated in Fig. 3 below, which includes Halliday’s (1991) diagram of language and context. The dotted line in the figure indicates that the proposal here concerns primarily the horizontal relation of instantiation but it is unclear at this point how this can be integrated into the vertical relation of realisation, especially in terms of the lexico-grammar systems.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this paragraph and diagram constitute the theoretical proposal of this paper.

[1] To be clear, context is not "distributed within the SFL model". Context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system and constitutes one stratum in the theoretical architecture. It would appear that  by "distributed", Fontaine means the cline of instantiation on this stratum. But since instantiation applies to all strata, singling out context suggests that Fontaine does not understand that instantiation applies to language as well as context — despite the representations in Figures 2 and 3.

[2] To be clear, the wording "if we accept that" presents the application of instantiation to language (that follows) as if it were Fontaine's idea, established in this paper, rather than a dimension of SFL Theory devised by Halliday.

[3] To be clear, this is a very confused rendering of instantiation. Systems of language choice are the theoretical means of representing language as meaning potential. Patterns of language use do not "construe" the instance; patterns of language use are patterns of instances, and so represent a move up the cline of instantiation from the instance pole (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 659).

[4] To be clear, the wording "we might be willing to consider that" presents the application of instantiation to lexis (that follows) as if it were Fontaine's idea, established in this paper, rather than a dimension of SFL Theory devised by Halliday.

[5] To be clear, this is a very confused rendering of instantiation as applied to lexis. Patterns of use do not "construe" the lexical item as instance; patterns of use are patterns of instances, and so represent a move up the cline of instantiation from the instance pole. Systems of lexicogrammar are the theoretical means of representing the lexical item as potential, since a lexical item is the synthetic realisation of a bundle of the most delicate features of the system.

[6] This is true, and could not be otherwise.

[7] To be clear, Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 76) are concerned with the grammatical classes of the word as rank scale unit, not with lexical items:

The class of an item indicates in a general way its potential range of grammatical functions. Hence words can be assigned to classes in a dictionary, as part of their decontextualised definition. But the class label does not show what part the item is playing in any actual structure. For that we have to indicate its function. The functional categories provide an interpretation of grammatical structure in terms of the overall meaning potential of the language.

Again, the implication is that the application of instantiation to lexis is Fontaine's idea, established in this paper, rather than a dimension of SFL Theory devised by Halliday.

[8] Here Fontaine explicitly claims the application of instantiation to lexis as her own idea, established in this paper, rather than a dimension of SFL Theory devised by Halliday.

[9] To be clear, this is a non-sequitur. The instantiation relation between lexical item as potential and instance does not relocate lexis from lexicogrammar to context, local or otherwise. This non-sequitur is the theoretical proposal of this paper.

[10] To be clear, Fig. 3 does not illustrate the notion of lexis as most local context, since it locates lexeme and lexical item in language, not context, and does not represent a dimension of 'locality'.

[11] As was also the case for Fig. 2, this diagram misrepresents Halliday's model, since it locates different perspectives on the same point on the cline of instantiation — for context (cultural domain/situation type) and language (register/text type) — as different points on the cline.

[12] To be clear, Fig. 3 misrepresents 'lexeme' as sub-potential instead of potential, and 'lexical item' as instance type rather than instance.

[13] To be clear, lexical items, as both potential and instance, are located on the stratum of lexicogrammar.

"The Meaning Potential Of A Lexeme"

Fontaine (2017: 12):

In terms of lexical meaning, Hanks (2013:65) states his position as follows: “strictly speaking, words in isolation have meaning potential rather than meaning, and that actual meanings are best seen as events, only coming into existence when people use words, putting them together in clauses and sentences”. This position needs to be re-expressed in more SFL terms. The reference to ‘words in isolation’ can be equated to Hanks’ use of lemma, a term used in corpus linguistics to capture an abstract or uninflected form of a lexical item. This is equivalent to the term lexeme, which is typically used in psycholinguistic research. The terminology here is not very important but since lexeme has been used throughout this paper, we will continue to use it. What is significant is Hanks’ view of the meaning potential of a lexeme. In this sense the semantics are represented as potential, as non-instantiated lexeme. The lexeme then has the full meaning potential, some of which (not necessarily all) is then activated when instantiated in text.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Hanks' "position" includes the SFL distinction between potential and instance, and this, at least, does not need "to be re-expressed in more SFL terms"; but see [3]. This confirms that Fontaine is unaware that SFL Theory already models lexis in terms of potential and instance.

[2] To be clear, although Formal approaches to lexicography are inconsistent with SFL Theory, 'lemma' approximates the SFL notion of lexical item. However, this is not equivalent to 'lexeme', which is closer to the SFL notion of a word as grammatical unit, since it is an abstraction that includes all the grammatical forms:

In morphology and lexicography, a lemma is the canonical form, dictionary form, or citation form of a set of words (headword). In English, for example, run, runs, ran and running are forms of the same lexeme, with run as the lemma by which they are indexed. Lexeme, in this context, refers to the set of all the forms that have the same meaning, and lemma refers to the particular form that is chosen by convention to represent the lexeme.

[3] To be clear, here Fontaine repeats Fawcett's confusion — evidence here — of 'meaning potential' (language as system) with meaning as a stratum of language (semantics: from potential to instance). The relation between lexical item as potential and lexical item as instance is the dimension of instantiation. The relation between a lexical item (as potential or instance) and the meaning (as potential or instance) that it realises, is the stratal relation between lexicogrammar and semantics.

Mistaking Grammatical Rank Units For Lexical Items

Fontaine (2017: 10-1):

The main reason for being be concerned with lexical representation relates to the role of lexical classification in descriptions of lexicogrammatical structure. It is generally agreed that structural units tend to take shape around ‘head’ items. For example, in analysis, we distinguish the nominal group from the verbal group in terms of the class of item functioning as the head element of the unit. The label of the lexical item (e.g. noun or verb) is not so important (cf. Fawcett, 2000). Nevertheless, the classification of lexis and of units on the rank scale runs through grammatical description and indeed many key concepts in SFL theory, such as grammatical metaphor (see Taverniers, 2017). 

The example given in (1) provides an instance of ‘smack dab’ that is infrequent since it is instantiated here as a nominal but whether it is a single lexical item or not is a good question and so is whether or not its class or categorisation is important (see discussion of transcategorisation in Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999). Knowing its etymology helps in part, the OED lists it as an adverb (“smack dab” adv. 2016) but as speakers we know something about its frequency too. It is by far more frequently instantiated as in (2). If categorisation or class of unit are important to the theory, as I think they are, then a more developed description of lexical representation is needed since the nature of the lexical item as instantiated form has serious impact on the theoretical model.

(1) in the course of 2 years I’ve gotten used to living in the equivalent of a medium-sized house right in the smack dab of Central London 

(2) that puts your street address smack dab in the middle of the map

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here again Fontaine confuses the word as lexical item with word as a grammatical unit on the rank scale: nouns and verbs as grammatical classes and constituents of nominal and verbal groups.

[2] As previously explained, the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory and, as Edelman (1989: 228) argues, inconsistent with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science'.

[3] To be clear, this is a use of smack dab by someone who mistakenly thinks it means 'middle' instead of 'precisely'.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, such questions are answered by taking a paradigmatic perspective. In this example, smack dab is agnate with middle, which would make it a lexical item — though one that is unlikely to be used by native speakers of English.

[5] To be clear, this is the grammatical class of smack dab, not its etymology.

"If We Consider The Possibility That The Lexical Item Construes The Meaning Potential Of The Lexeme"

Fontaine (2017: 10):

Context, co-text and collocation: Where do (new) meanings come from?

Since within the SFL framework, grammar and lexis are considered, as mentioned above (cf. Martin, 1992), as in essence the same but differentiated by degrees of generality, it is difficult to talk about lexical meaning outside of grammar. However, while I would agree this is not effectively possible since every lexical item is instantiated in text and therefore is fully integrated in the grammatical construction in which it appears. However, if we consider the possibility that the lexical item construes the meaning potential of the lexeme, then we can begin to see a way to capture lexical meaning through the lens of context, even if this is by analogy.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained here, grammar and lexis are not "in essence the same", since they differ in kind both syntagmatically and paradigmatically. 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). …

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the meaning of a lexical item is the semantic correlate of the lexicogrammatical features that specify a lexical item. The reason Fontaine uses the term 'lexical meaning' is that she draws on work from theories that are inconsistent with SFL Theory, where the distinction is between form and meaning, and where lexis is viewed 'from below' (from form), such that a lexical item, as form, can be assigned several meanings.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, lexical items, like all of language, are modelled as both potential and instance, not just as instance.

[4] To be clear, here Fontaine again confuses word as lexical item with word as grammatical constituent. It is the word as grammatical constituent that is "fully integrated in the grammatical construction in which it appears", not the word as lexical item.

[5] To be clear, here Fontaine confuses the theoretical dimension of stratification (lexical item construes meaning) with the dimension of instantiation (lexical item as instance of potential).

[6] To be clear, this suggests that Fontaine is unaware that SFL already models the lexical item as both potential and instance.

[7] To be clear, in SFL Theory, context is the culture as semiotic system — instantiated as a situation — which is realised in language (and other semiotic systems). Considering this unnecessary appeal to context, together with [3] and [6], it would appear that Fontaine thinks that the cline of instantiation only applies to the stratum of context.

"The Need For Flexibility In Lexical Representation"

Fontaine (2017: 10):

In other functional approaches, the need for flexibility in lexical representation is being identified. For example, more flexible lexical representations and flexible lexicon (García Velasco, 2016), flexible word classes (Rijkhoff and van Lier, 2013) and fluid grammar (Steels and De Beule, 2006 and Steels, 2011). Indeed, cognitive models also suggest the need for a more flexible grammar. Pickering and Garrod (2004:21) state that their model of interactive alignment “challenges linguists to come up with a more flexible account of grammar capable of capturing linguistic constraints on linked sentence fragments”. While a detailed look at flexible models is beyond the scope of this paper, these approaches have influenced my thinking on this topic. In the next section I will argue for a loosening of semantics in terms of lexical representation to allow for the meaning potential (Hanks, 2013) of a lexeme instantiated by a lexical item.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the needs of theories that do not share the same theoretical assumptions and method of inquiry are not evidence of the needs of SFL Theory. The need for this type of flexibility in such approaches stems from viewing language 'from below' (from the expression of meaning) rather than 'from above' (from the meaning that is expressed) — the latter being the perspective taken in SFL Theory.

[2] As previously explained, the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory and, as Edelman (1989: 228) argues, inconsistent with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science'.

[3] As will be seen in the examination of the next section, this loosening of semantics — despite the location of lexical items on the lexicogrammatical stratum — involves viewing language 'from below', such that a single form is the expression of different meanings. This is the opposite perspective of the  view 'from above' in SFL Theory, which takes meaning as the point of departure, and inquires as to how it is expressed lexically.

[4] To be clear, unknown to Fontaine, the instantiation relation between a lexical item as potential and as instance is already part of the architecture of SFL Theory, and it is a relation that obtains on the lexicogrammatical stratum, not the semantic stratum.

"Meaning Potential Is Construed By Systems Of Language Choice"

Fontaine (2017: 6):

The relationship between context and lexicogrammatical systems is still being developed within SFL. For the position taken in this paper, the relationship of instantiation may provide one way to develop an account of lexical representation within the framework. The concept of construal is also significant. Halliday (1991:282) explains that “the culture is construed by systems of language choice; the situation is construed by patterns of language use”. Based on Fig. 2, this statement can be rephrased in more abstract general terms as follows: the meaning potential is construed by systems of language choice; the instance is construed by patterns of language use. This is a point we will come back to in the next section when considering meaning potential and instance in terms of lexical representation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, the "relationship between context and lexicogrammar" is precisely specified, as the relation between levels in a hierarchy of symbolic abstraction: realisation (elaborating identification). On this model, taking metaredundancy into account, context is realised by the realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar.

[2] To be clear, the "relationship of instantiation" is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, this says nothing about relations between different levels of abstraction, such as context and lexicogrammar.

[3] As previously explained, the notion of lexical representation, which assumes a mental lexicon, is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman: 1989: 152, 228, 234).

[4] To be clear, by 'construal' Halliday means 'intellectual construction', and the meaning of the Halliday quote is that culture (context as potential) is an intellectual construction of systems of language (language as potential) and situation (context as instance) is an intellectual construction of patterns of language use (language as instance). That is, Halliday here relates context to language at the two poles of the cline of instantiation.

[5] This seriously misunderstands the Halliday quote. Fontaine's interpretation is that language as potential ('meaning potential') is an intellectual construction of language as potential ('systems of language choice') and that language as instance ('the instance') is an intellectual construction of language as instance ('patterns of language use'). That is, Fontaine's tautological gloss omits Halliday's crucial point that context is an intellectual construction of language.

"Frequency (Often Described As Probability In SFL)"

Fontaine (2017: 5-6):

According to Hasan (2009:169), “instantiation is the relationship between a potential and its instance, context of culture is the potential, i.e. the system, while context of situation is an instance of that potential”. The role of frequency (often described as probability in SFL) is important to the understanding of system and instantiation since it has a mediating role between system and instance. In theory, every instance perturbs the system to some degree or another, however (in)significant this may be. Plum (1998:31) states that the premise that “the realisation of context in text is probabilistic provides not only the key to making the hypothesis of the functional determination of text by its context testable but also provides a way of accounting for the variability found in text”. This is a now common view within SFL but it leads to viewing lexis or at least lexicogrammatical structure as deterministic. It is at some level difficult to reconcile this view with Halliday’s (1991:282) claim that “text and situation come into being together; so whatever kind of order we set up between them, it must be such that we can start from either end”. One way to view this relationship is to consider, as suggested by Tucker (2006:960), that “the full potential of language is reduced under the influence of the context of culture and the context of situation”, which maintains the relationship between meaning potential and instance.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, in SFL Theory, there is an important difference between probability and frequency. Probability quantifies the features of potential, whereas frequency quantifies the features of an instance. Frequencies of features instantiated as text eventually have the effect of changing their systemic probability of being instantiated.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, probabilistic instantiation is not deterministic, because it introduces a degree of uncertainty — and so indeterminacy — into the system–&–process. On the other hand, there is no deterministic relation between context and language, because the relation between them is realisation (elaborating identification), not cause (enhancing identification).

[3] To be clear, the Tucker quote is potentially misleading, because the "full potential of language" is not reduced under the influence of the context of culture, since the context of culture is the "full potential" of context which is realised by the "full potential" of language.

What is true is that less and less of the "full potential" (of culture and language) is instantiated as our perspective descends the cline of instantiation. That is, the potential of a register is less than the overall potential of a language, and the potential instantiated as text is less than the potential of its register.

However, contrary to Fontaine's claim, the Tucker quote has no bearing whatsoever on any supposed determinism in instantiation or lexis or grammatical structure.

"The Relationship Of Context And Language Through Instantiation"

Fontaine (2017: 5, 6):

The relationship of context and language through realisation and instantiation is shown in Fig. 2, taken from Halliday (1991).

Matthiessen (2015:34) explains that in Fig. 2, “situation type has the same location as context of culture (and context of situation) in terms of the hierarchy of stratification, but they are instead differentiated in terms of the cline of instantiation: context of culture is located at the potential pole, context of situation at the instance pole”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, context and language are related by realisation, but not through instantiation, which is the relation between potential and instance, as Figure 2 illustrates.

[2] To be clear, this figure, adapted from Halliday, is potentially misleading, since it locates different perspectives of the same mid-point on the cline of instantiation as different locations on the cline of instantiation.

That is, cultural domain and situation type are not different points on the cline of instantiation, they are different perspectives on the same point: cultural domain takes the perspective of the potential pole of the cline of instantiation, whereas situation type takes the perspective of the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Likewise, register and text type are not different points on the cline of instantiation, they are different perspectives on the same point: register takes the perspective of the potential pole of the cline of instantiation, whereas text type takes the perspective of the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):

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 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):