Fontaine's Notion That Context of Culture "Captures" The Potential Of Language

Fontaine (2017: 5):

The difference between context of culture and context of situation according to Halliday (1991) is one of perspective; this difference is not meant to suggest different objects of study. Halliday (1991:276) explains this as follows:

These also are not two different things; they are the same thing seen from different points of view. A situation, as we are envisaging it, is simply an instance of culture; or, to put it the other way round, a culture is the potential behind all the different types of situation that occur. 

Context of culture differs in its relationship to language since it is not tied to a context of situation through text but rather captures its potential. According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2014:32), “a given language is thus interpreted by reference to its semiotic habitat”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the relation between these two perspectives, context of culture (potential) and context of situation (instance) is instantiation.

[2] The claim here seems to be:

• Context of culture differs from context of situation in its relationship to language 
• because 
• context of culture is not tied to a context of situation through text 
• but rather context of culture captures language's potential

To be clear, relations between context and language do not involve notions of "capturing" or "tying". Context is related to language stratally, by realisation, whereas culture and language (potential) are related to situation and text (instance) by instantiation.

[3] To be clear, as this quote makes explicit, the context ("habitat") of language is semiotic, not material.

"Two Strata Of Context: Culture And Situation"

Fontaine (2017: 4):

Bartlett (2017: 375) explains context as “a unifying element within the overall architecture of SFL, linking language as system and instance (langue and parole) to the material conditions of those who use it”. However, its definition and place within the theory is interpreted somewhat differently by different scholars (see for example Martin (1992), Butt et al. (2000), Matthiessen (2015), Wegener (2011), Bartlett (2017) and contributions by various authors in Fontaine et al., (2013), especially Bartlett (2013) and Bowcher (2013), to name only a few. At a more abstract level there is general agreement concerning some key points, including for example that context is accounted for by stratification and instantiation; that “[i]n exploring contextual and linguistic patterns in systemic functional linguistics, we try to interpret them in terms of dimensions” (Matthiessen, 2015:32) and that there are at least two strata of context, culture and situation. A full review of these positions is beyond the scope of this paper but see Bartlett (2017) for an overview of context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it seriously misunderstands the SFL notion of 'context'. Context is neither a "unifying element" nor a link to "the material conditions of those who use it". On the one hand, context is but one level of symbolic abstraction (stratum) in the overall architecture of SFL Theory. On the other hand, and more importantly, context is semiotic — metaphenomenonal — the culture as semiotic system, not material — phenomenal — the perceptual field of speaker and addressee.

[2] To be clear, the model of context in Martin (1992) is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and itself, as demonstrated in meticulous detail here. For example, Martin equates context-as-potential (culture) with varieties of language (genre), and context-as-instance (situation) with varieties of language (register) and mistakes the instantiation relation between them as symbolic abstraction (stratification), such that context is constituted by varieties of language (genre) realised by varieties of language (register). In Hjelmslevian terms, Martin mistakes varieties of a denotative semiotic for the content plane of a connotative semiotic.

[3] To be clear, theoretical consistency is not a matter of scholars agreeing, but their work "agreeing" with theory. The unreliability of interpersonal agreement is humorously captured by the following B Kliban cartoon:

[4] To be clear, here Fontaine misunderstands the relation between culture (potential) and situation (instance) as realisation (stratified symbolic abstraction) instead of instantiation.

Fontaine's Crucial Misunderstanding Of Halliday's Notion Of Context

Fontaine (2017: 3-4):

Putting lexicology into context 

There is a deliberate play on words in the heading for this section. One part of the meaning relates to the frame, PUT X INTO CONTEXT, which means that X is given with the textual and/or situational context in which it was produced, i.e. provides more information so that X can be better understood. There is another related expression to this one, TAKE X OUT OF CONTEXT, which means that X has been removed from the textual and/or situational context in which it was produced, i.e. information is missing which makes understanding flawed in some way. In these two everyday expressions, we get a sense of what context suggests to most people and that is meaning or at least meaningful information. Context is where we ‘get’ meaning but it is also a kind of meaning, or rather kinds of meanings. In SFL terms, context “is that which helps determine meaning. This includes the surrounding text and the surrounding circumstances whatever they may be” (Wegener, 2011:4–5). The concept of meaning within SFL stems from Firth (1957), who saw meaning as function in context. For Halliday meaning is best viewed as ‘choice’ (Halliday, 2013), which he sees as an extension of Saussur[e]an paradigmatic relations (Ibid.: 16).

Blogger Comments:

This misrepresents the SFL notion of context. To be clear, 

• context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system; it is modelled as a higher level of symbolic abstraction than language;
• the surrounding text, the co-text, is (an instance of) language, not context; and
• the surrounding circumstances of a text, in the sense of the material environment of a text, is the perceptual field of the speaker.

The context (and co-text) of a text and the environment of a text differ in terms of order of experience. The context of a text, a situation, is second-order (semiotic) experience, since it is construed by the language of a text that is projected by a speaker. The environment of a text, on the other hand, is first-order (material) experience. Where the semiotic context of a text is metaphenomenal, the material environment of a text is phenomenal.