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.

"The Relationship Between Lexis And Grammar Cannot Be Denied"

Fontaine (2017: 14):

In this paper, I set out to examine the relationship between context and lexicology. The way SFL talks about context is surprisingly similar to the way lexicologists talk about lexis. To date, very little attention has been given to developing an approach to lexical representation in SFL. This seems to be related to the top-down approach to lexico-grammar and to the view of lexis as most delicate grammar. The relationship between lexis and grammar cannot be denied, however some work from the bottom-up may contribute significantly to improving the overall account of the lexico-grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system, whereas lexicology is a subfield of linguistics. Fontaine has not examined the relationship between culture and that subfield of linguistics in this paper; but see [2].

[2] To be clear, here Fontaine is referring to the distinction of potential and instance in SFL Theory and the lexical analysis of Hanks (2013). By singling out context in the SFL model, Fontaine again confirms that she does not understand that instantiation applies to all the strata of language, as well as context, despite the fact that Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 both represent this dimension of the theory explicitly.

[3] To be clear, the reason why there has been no attention to lexical representation in SFL Theory is that the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman 1989: 228). In SFL Theory, it is the lexical items that are the representations, since they are realisations of bundles of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features.

[4] To be clear, it is not the case that "the relationship and grammar cannot be denied", but that, in a theory that models language in terms of lexis and grammar — rather than, say, lexicon and syntax — the relation between the two is established by the assumptions and mode of inquiry of the theory.

[5] To be clear, the view of lexis 'from below' identifies words with their forms, whereas the view 'from above' identifies words with the their functions. This is why a genuinely functional approach, like Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, takes the view 'from above'.

"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.

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.

"Some Issues That Need To Be Resolved"

Fontaine (2017: 10):

There are some issues that need to be resolved if we want to claim as Hasan does that realisation mediates between networks and structures (Hasan, 1996:74) since as concerns lexis, this suggests that a single lexical item is “the expression of a set of choices made in the system network” (Halliday, 1972/2013:8). The close connection of delicacy and paradigmatic arrangement can only take us so far; e.g. if lexical meaning is in part at least in its collocational associations or frames, it is difficult to think of lexical meaning as having paradigmatic relations. Even the definition of word and lexical item or the distinction between lexical/content words and grammatical/function words are areas which are not yet fully explained in terms of lexical representation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there are no theoretical "issues that need to be resolved" here. As will be seen below, the "issues" only arise from Fontaine's lack of familiarity with SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, this is not merely Hasan's claim, but a statement of the architecture of SFL Theory. The relation between the paradigmatic axis (system) and the syntagmatic axis (structure) is realisation; that is, they are different levels of symbolic abstraction: structure (Token) realises system (Value).

[3] To be clear, the Hasan quote on grammar does not "suggest" the Halliday quote on lexis. Hasan is concerned with the realisation relation between grammatical systems and grammatical structures, such as those of clause rank, whereas Halliday is concerned with the realisation relation between the most delicate grammatical systems and lexical items (which are not structures).

[4] To be clear, the "close connection of delicacy and paradigmatic arrangement" is that delicacy is the ordering principle of paradigmatic order (system); see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20).

[5] To be clear, collocation is the syntagmatic dimension of lexical items, whereas paradigmatically, lexical items function in sets. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 61):

Paradigmatically, lexical items function in sets having shared semantic features and common patterns of collocation. … Typically, the semantic features that link the members of a lexical set are those of synonymy or antonymy, hyponymy and meronymy;

[6] To be clear, in addition to the paradigmatic relations between lexical items — synonymy etc. — each lexical item is specified by a bundle of paradigmatic features, just as, on the phonological stratum, the phoneme /k/ is specified by the feature bundle [voiceless, velar, stop].

[7] To be clear, these aspects "are not yet fully explained in terms of lexical representation" because the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory and, according to Edelman (1989: 228), with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science'.

However, within SFL Theory, the distinction between word as grammatical unit and word as lexical item is clearly defined (see the previous quote from Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568-9), as is the distinction between 'grammatical/function' words, and 'lexical/content' words. Unlike 'lexical' words, 'grammatical' words are those that 'function as the direct realisation of terms in grammatical systems' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 64).

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 Lexical Items Must Be Somewhere"

Fontaine (2017: 8):

However, these positions are not necessarily entirely opposing. Butler (2009:59) suggests that “since a lexical item is defined by the selection expression through which it is generated, it could be claimed that there is in effect a kind of lexicon, and furthermore that the realisation statements attached to networks will specify the syntactic patterns associated with lexical items”. In this sense, there may need to be some kind of lexicon, a large, complex network of lexical entries (however they are defined). The lexical items must be somewhere and must be accounted for somehow in the model. It is perhaps worth noting that Fawcett (1994, 2014) describes modelling nouns in the computational implementation of his model of SFL. The representation is in the form of an ontological network but there is no examination of the nature of the lexical item itself, i.e. in terms of its form(s) and functions or its semantic properties. Due to limitations of space, a full discussion of this is not possible here. On the issue of lexis discussed at this point, Fawcett concludes that “Halliday’s original 1961 insight was well-founded, the only major modification needed being that lexically realised meanings are not necessarily most delicate’, in the sense of ‘at or near the terminal leaves of the system network” (1994:79).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, lexical items are accounted for, but they are not accounted for by a lexicon. Instead, lexical items are accounted for by the system networks of the lexicogrammatical stratum, whose most delicate features are synthetically realised by lexical items.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, features in networks are explanatory, not ontological; or as Halliday (2003 [1992]: 200) puts it:

They are not "reified": that is, they are not endowed with a spurious reality of their own.

"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.

"A Lexical Entry In The Lexicon"

Fontaine (2017: 7):

While the approaches to lexis mentioned above certainly offer important insights to our understanding of lexis and lexico-grammar, they generally do not discuss in detail issues related to lexical representation or provide an account of what might be needed in terms of a lexical entry in the lexicon. As Martin (2016:45) points out:

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).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory and, as the neuroscientist Edelman (1989: 228) points out, with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science'. The first of these inconsistencies, at least, accounts for the lack of discussion of such matters in SFL approaches to lexis.

[2] To be clear, the quote from Martin (2016) has no bearing on lexical representation or lexical entries in "the" lexicon; see further below.

[3] Martin's proposition can be analysed as follows:

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
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Adjunct
Mood		Residue

To be clear, neither (i) the 'distinction of words and lexical items' nor (ii) 'expectancy relations among lexical items' are "backgrounded in relation to" lexis as most delicate grammar, because both are aspects of 'lexis as most delicate grammar'.

Firstly, 'lexis as most delicate grammar' means that lexical items are theorised as the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features. Secondly, the 'distinction of words and lexical items' distinguishes this view of lexis from the word as a grammatical rank, where it is the entry condition to grammatical systems. Thirdly, 'expectancy relations between lexical items' is the syntagmatic dimension of 'lexis as most delicate grammar', collocation, which is exploited to create textual cohesion.

Mistaking Grammatical Words For Lexical Items

Fontaine (2017: 7):

It is also worth mentioning work done on lexis within an SFL framework on verb sense classification. For example, Matthiessen (2014) and Thompson (2015) have both offered advances on lexical issues within transitivity. Discussions of transitivity configurations in SFL come very close to describing lexical representation for a given verb is typically the case in other approaches to transitivity. Finally, while there is no space here to discuss lexical modelling in computational approaches within SFL, it is worth noting very briefly work done by Fawcett, Tucker, and Lin, 1993; Fawcett, 1994; Matthiessen and Bateman, 1991; and O'Donnell, Cheng and Hitzeman, 1998 to name only a few. One important insight coming out of this work suggests there is a need for lexical representation of one kind or another, at least for computational applications.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fontaine confuses word as lexical item with word as grammatical rank unit. The verb is a class of grammatical unit, and discussions of verbs in relation to experiential grammar (transitivity) are discussions of the verb as a constituent of the verbal group realising the clause function: Process. Lexical items, on the other hand, are the synthetic realisation of a bundle of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features — analogous to the phoneme /b/ being the synthetic realisation of the feature bundle [voiced, bilabial, stop].

[2] To be clear, the need for lexical representation is not an "important insight" coming out of this work, because 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, as previously noted.

"Martin’s (1992) Work In This Area Is Noteworthy"

Fontaine (2017: 7):

Martin’s (1992) work in this area is noteworthy, in particular chapter five in English Text draws out some important issues and offers a very useful overview of how lexical relations can be approached within SFL. In particular, he discusses very well the “problem of units” (1992:290), which raises important questions about lexical representation. Indeed, as I do here, he asks how we can define lexical items. Interestingly, he proposes an alternative, suggesting it would be fruitful to “turn to the level of context” (p.291) and he shows that it is, but his interests and the types of questions he seeks to address lead the discussion towards register variables. This is not in any way a criticism since this perspective brings with it important insights. However it nevertheless remains concentrated on system networks and therefore the dimension of delicacy. Most approaches to lexis within SFL adhere to the dimension of delicacy. Martin (2016: 46-47) points out important contributions to studies of lexis in the area of phraseology, e.g. Tucker (2006) and Bednarek (e.g. 2008), where the focus is on corpus-based approaches to lexis; both make significant contributions to phraseology.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Martin (1992) is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical cohesion as Martin's model of discourse semantics (evidence here), with his Chapter 5 being his rebranding of their lexical cohesion as his experiential system of IDEATION (evidence here). Halliday & Hasan's lexical cohesion is not so much concerned with lexical relations, but with how relations between lexical items can be used to create textual cohesion.

[2] To be clear, Martin's discussion is concerned with the problem of 'semantic units' (p290), and the unit he comes up with is a 'message part' (p293), which 'may or may not be realised by a single lexical item' (p293).

[3] To be clear, Martin's discussion of his semantic unit, the message part, does not raise important questions about lexical representation, even if the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon were consistent with SFL Theory and the known facts of human biology and brain science.

[4] To be clear, Martin's discussion of the problem of delimiting lexical items (p290-1) takes the syntagmatic perspective of collocation, instead of the paradigmatic perspective of agnation. Systemically, the argument for a lexical item involves providing evidence that the wording in question can be replaced by a single lexical item.

[5] To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands the SFL notion of context, confusing it with varieties of language: genre and register (evidence here). In Hjelmslevian terms, he mistakes varieties of a denotative semiotic for the content plane of a connotative semiotic. Because of these misunderstandings, Martin's discussion is neither fruitful nor insightful.

[6] Here Fontaine misunderstands Martin's text. To be clear, what Martin purports to be doing is using field, the ideational dimension of context, which Martin mistakes as a register variable, to 'set up' his experiential semantic unit 'message part'.

[7] To be clear, there are two reasons why approaches to lexis in Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory remain "concentrated" on system networks. The first is that the system network is the formalism for representing language as meaning potential. The second is that SFL defines lexis as most delicate grammar.

"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 SFL Conceptualisation Of Context"

Fontaine (2017: 4):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

"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.