"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.

"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.

"Separate Lexemes, Despite The Similar Form"

Fontaine (2017: 12-3):

Hanks’ solution is to identify the main semantic components as constituting the meaning potential of the lexeme. The semantic components for BANK include, according to Hanks (2013:70):

IS an institution.
IS a large building.
FOR storage.
FOR safekeeping of things.
FOR (esp.) safekeeping of finance/money.
CARRIES out transactions.
CONSISTS of a staff of people.

Semantic components are “separate, combinable, exploitable entities” (ibid.). The instantiated lexical item such as in (9) or (10) will involve some combination of the components. Using semantic components this way enables a clearer sense of where the division between polysemy and homonymy lies. For example, BANK as in river bank does not share any semantic components with BANK in the examples which suggests separate lexemes, despite the similar form. For Hanks, a word gets its meaning from its use and in this sense, meaning is dynamic.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these two homonyms are also construed as distinct lexical items in SFL Theory, since SFL views language 'from above' — from the perspective of the meaning that is realised — and each word construes a different meaning. This is clearly unknown to Fontaine, since she has cited work from a different theory to make the point.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the term 'word' involves two distinct abstractions: (i) word as a grammatical rank unit that realises functions of group/phrase structure, and (ii) word as lexical item that realises the most delicate features of lexicogrammatical systems. The meaning of a word is thus construed by both its grammatical function and lexical specification. The use of a word is its instantiation during logogenesis, and the dynamics of meaning are modelled in terms of the three dimensions of semogenesis: logogenesis, ontogenesis and phylogenesisis.

"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.

"Significant Theoretical Implications Which Could Send Reverberations Throughout The Framework"

Fontaine (2017: 11-2):

It could be argued that these stems [talk, walk] are ambiguous in terms of their lexical class. This would force us to consider their lexical representation and we could ask whether they should be represented as the same lexeme or different (this could be considered in terms of polysemy or homonymy). Luuk (2010:362) argues that “they are neither nouns nor verbs but flexibles”, i.e. polysemous lexemes. This suggests that in terms of lexical representation that there is one lexeme which encodes this type of flexibility but this is not true of all nouns or verbs so there must be something specific to this set (see Davies, 2004). According to Luuk, an implication of the assumption that accompanies alternative solutions for these items (either zero derivation or homophony) is that they “posit unnecessary hidden structure” (ibid., see also Don, 2005). At the moment, it would seem that SFL would assume homonymy but whether it would or would not consider such a solution is an unanswered question. In Fontaine (2017b), I argue for a preference for polysemy in lexical representation within the SFL framework. In considering the case of prepositions and particles, I show how this is not inconsistent with current SFL descriptions of English. While such representations may seem trivial at first sight, they have significant theoretical implications, which could send reverberations throughout the framework.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this could not be argued, because word classes, such as noun and verb, are grammatical, not lexical. That is, Fontaine has again confused the word as lexical item with word as grammatical rank scale unit.

[2] To be clear, this would not "force us to consider their lexical representation" because the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory, and with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science (Edelman 1989: 228).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the noun talk and the verb talk — like the noun walk and the verb walk — are different words grammatically, noun versus verb, but the same word lexically. Polysemy and homonymy are irrelevant considerations, since a word is viewed from the meaning expressed ('from above'), not from the form that expresses ('from below').

[4] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, discussions of nouns and verbs are concerned with grammatical word classes, not lexical items. Again, the theoretical approach here is inconsistent with SFL Theory, since it views the word 'from below', as a form which is assigned different meanings.

[5] To be clear, SFL Theory "assumes" neither homonymy nor polysemy, since both assume the view 'from below', as previously explained.

[6] To be clear, 'preposition' and 'particle' are classes of word as grammatical unit, rather than lexical item, and arguing for polysemy takes the view 'from below'. The proposal in Fontaine (2017b) is thus inconsistent with theory-competent "SFL descriptions of English".

[7] To be clear, these fundamental misunderstandings of SFL Theory do not "have significant theoretical implications, which could send reverberations throughout the framework".

"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.

Fontaine's Argument Against Lexis As Most Delicate Grammar

Fontaine (2017: 9-10):

As mentioned above, Martin points out the backgrounding of lexis in SFL, suggesting that this is related to an account of lexis as most delicate grammar. This view of lexis brings with it some degree of risk since it could result in treating lexis as taxonomically organised and this could lead to prioritising homophonous lexical relations rather than semantic ones. The reason for this is that if we take as a starting point Halliday's (1972/2013:8) view that “the output of any path through the network of systems is a structure”, the ‘most’ delicate system will lead directly to a lexical item (cf criticisms by Hunston and Francis, 2000 and Groom, 2005). This is a view of lexical representation which would be very difficult to accept for most lexicologists as it would predict that a lexeme with polysemes would need to be available at the terminal point of a variety of systems.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands Martin's claim. To be clear, Martin claims that what has been backgrounded is Halliday's distinction between grammatical words and lexical items and a syntagmatic perspective on lexical items. Martin (2016:45):

Firth's interest in collocation (‘the company words keep’) has been developed in corpus linguistic research – chiefly by Sinclair and his colleagues (e.g. 1966; 1991) but less so in SFL where Halliday's early acknowledgement of the distinction between words and lexical items and the need for a syntagmatic perspective on expectancy relations among lexical items has tended to be backgrounded in relation to an interest in lexis as delicate grammar (the ‘grammarian's dream’, pursued by Hasan, and others).

See here for the misunderstandings in Martin's claim.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, paradigmatically, relations between lexical items can be represented as hyponymic and meronymic taxonomies. It is just such relations that are exploited in lexical cohesion.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To classify lexical items in terms of how they are realised in phonology ("homophonous') is to take the view 'from below', which is the direct opposite of SFL Theory, which takes the view 'from above' (the meaning being realised in wording).

[4] This is a non-sequitur. The specification of grammatical structures and lexical items by lexicogrammatical systems does not entail classifying lexical items according to how they are realised in phonology.

[5] See here for the misunderstandings of Hunston and Francis (2000). (Fontaine does not outline the criticisms of Groom (2005).)

[6] To be clear, as [3] demonstrates, this is a view that is not consistent with SFL Theory, and as [4] demonstrates, this is a view that is not validated by Fontaine's argument. Moreover, the acceptability judgements of lexicologists are irrelevant to SFL Theory, unless they uncover inconsistency in the architecture of SFL Theory, or inabilities of the theory to account for data.

[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, Fontaine again takes the view 'from below', identifying lexemes as expressions of many meanings ("polysemes"), instead of the SFL view 'from above', where a lexeme is identified as the meaning that is expressed. On the other hand, the conclusion does not follow from the argument presented, as [3] and [4] demonstrate.

"Within SFL, Very Little Work Has Been Done On What Constitutes A Word"

Fontaine (2017: 9):

Within SFL, very little work has been done on what constitutes a word and it is often the case, as it is generally in linguistics, that the orthographic word is the default but this is problematic for a variety of reasons. The most important reason is because English orthography has not been consistent (into but out of, corkscrew but tea towel, etc.). Indeed, the very nature of what is a word cannot be taken for granted (see Wray 2014). The focus on the orthographic word is a real danger to studies of lexis and as corpus linguistics increases in popularity, it becomes even more important to challenge the assumptions surrounding the identification of lexical items. The status of the lexeme and indeed lexical representation within the theory is critically important, not just for the theory itself but for the areas it ventures into including applications and dialogue with other theories of language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568-9) are quite explicit:

The folk notion of the "word" is really a conflation of two different abstractions, one lexical and one grammatical.

(i) Vocabulary (lexis): the word as lexical item, or "lexeme". This is construed as an isolate, a 'thing' that can be counted and sorted in (alphabetical) order. People "look for" words, they "put thoughts into" them, "put them into" or "take them out of another's mouth", and nowadays they keep collections of words on their shelves or in their computers in the form of dictionaries. Specialist knowledge is thought of as a matter of terminology. The taxonomic organisation of vocabulary is less exposed: it is made explicit in Roget's Thesaurus, but is only implicit in a standard dictionary. Lexical taxonomy was the first area of language to be systematically studied by anthropologists, when they began to explore cultural knowledge as it is embodied in folk taxonomies of plants, animals, diseases and the like.

(ii) Grammar: the word as one of the ranks in the grammatical system. This is, not surprisingly, where Western linguistic theory as we know it today began in classical times, with the study of words varying in form according to their case, number, aspect, person etc.. Word-based systems such as these do provide a way in to studying grammatical semantics: but the meanings they construe are always more complex than the categories that appear as formal variants, and grammarians have had to become aware of covert patterns.

[2] To be clear, SFL Theory models linguistic phenomena 'from above'; that is, lexicogrammatical phenomena, such as words, are modelled in terms of the meaning they express. This is the direct opposite of viewing the word 'from below'; that is, in terms of how it is expressed (orthographically).

[3] As previously demonstrated, unknown to Fontaine, the status of the lexeme in SFL Theory is clearly defined, and the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and, according to Edelman (1989: 228), 'the known facts of human biology and brain science'.

[4] To be clear, dialogue with other theories of language is dialogue with theories with different assumptions about language and how it is to be modelled.

"The Question About Where The Lexical Items Are"

Fontaine (2017: 7-8):

It is often assumed that as the system networks become more delicate in terms of systemic choice, we find lexis in the most delicate systems. However, this is problematic in a number of ways. It is difficult to see how a lexeme could be represented as a choice in the system networks (although see Fawcett, 1994). The term ‘lexeme’ is used here in contrast to ‘lexical item’ in order to distinguish between an abstract entry in the mental lexicon (lexeme) and an instance of a lexeme in use (lexical item). However, the question is whether SFL needs to model lexemes or not. Questions of lexical representation have not been explicitly explored in detail, although Tucker’s work (1996, 1998, 2006, 2009) comes very close. The position of lexis in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is, theoretically, fully integrated into the grammar if we accept the theory’s assumption that “there is no need to postulate a separate ‘lexicon’ as a pre-existing entity on which the grammar is made to operate” (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999: 199). If this is the case, it leaves open the question about where the lexical items are. One interpretation of lexis as most delicate grammar is that they are somehow the end point of a bundle of system choices, which leads to a single lexical option.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This unsourced assumption is misleading. To be clear, in SFL Theory, we do not "find lexis in the most delicate systems" and a lexical item is not "a choice in the system networks". Instead, different bundles of features of the most delicate systems specify different lexical items. That is, a lexical item and the features that specify it are different levels of symbolic abstraction: with lexical item as Token and its features as Value.

[2] This confirms that Fontaine assumes a mental lexicon of lexical representations, which, as previously explained, is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and the known facts of human biology and brain science.

[3] This interpretation (by Hunston & Francis 2000) is misleading. To be clear, lexical items are not "the end point of a bundle of system choices which leads to a single lexical option"; see [1] above. The "end points" in systems are the features that are conjointly realised by lexical items.

"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.

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.

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.