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.

"The Interface Of Context And Lexicology"

Fontaine (2017: 2):

The two dimensions mentioned above, delicacy and instantiation, provide complementary rather than contradictory approaches. Work on lexis within SFL is scarce as will be discussed below and as with most challenging areas, there is merit in tackling a problem from more than one angle. The realm of word study is the domain of lexicology and so it seems sensible to ask whether there is any common ground to be found between this more bottom up approach to the lexico-grammar and SFL’s more top down approach. The point of departure and the nature of the concerns are very different. Lexicologists tend to start with the word as the unit of study and work outwards, where outwards can mean into the mind or lexicon (typically psycholinguistics and to some extent cognitive linguistics) or into (co-)text and beyond (typically corpus linguistics). 

Lexicology covers all areas of interest related to what we think of as the word from lexical semantics to etymology and morphology, including the general area of phraseology. When it comes to phraseology, connections to context offer a potential area of common interest to the two perspectives on the lexico-grammar. What they share to some extent is an interest in lexico-grammar and in data that focusses on “the occurrence of patterns which lie somewhere between abstract structures and individual lexical items or combinations of these” (Butler, 2013:206). The interface of context and lexicology spans the range of lexical studies from the more cognitive perspective to the more social perspective.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, since delicacy and instantiation are ordering principles of dimensions of SFL Theory, they cannot be contradictory approaches — just as the ordering principles realisation and metafunction are not contradictory approaches.

[2] To be clear, such approaches are fundamentally inconsistent with the approach of SFL Theory.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 2, 603):

But at the same time our own approach, both in theory and in method, is in contradistinction to that of cognitive science: we treat "information" as meaning rather than as knowledge and interpret language as a semiotic system, and more specifically as a social semiotic, rather than as a system of the human mind. …

Others have also been critical of the established academic view of mind; and some recent book titles suggest the kinds of alternatives that have been offered: "embodied mind", "social mind", "discursive mind". These suggest that the concept of 'mind' should be brought into close relation with other phenomena — biological, social, or semiotic. … But once this has been done, the mind itself tends to disappear, it is no longer necessary as a construct sui generis. Instead of experience being construed by the mind, in the form of knowledge, we can say that experience is construed by the grammar; to 'know' something is to have transformed some portion of experience into meaning. To adopt this perspective is to theorise "cognitive processes" in terms of semiotic, social and biological systems; and thus to see them as a natural concomitant of the processes of evolution.

This does not mean that these other approaches are invalid, but that the uncritical importation of such theorising into SFL Theory creates theoretical inconsistencies of a fundamental kind.

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, paradigmatically, phraseology is concerned with an intermediate degree of delicacy: the theoretical space between grammatical systems and lexical sets; syntagmatically, this is the theoretical space between grammatical structure and lexical collocation. (The Butler quote merely presents his less precise understanding of the syntagmatic aspect of Halliday's insight.)

[4]  To be clear, for the most part, the use of the word 'context' in this paper, bears little resemblance to it's theoretical meaning in SFL: the culture as semiotic system-&-process. In terms of SFL Theory, the way that SFL and lexicology could be said to "connect to context" is that they share the field category 'linguistics'. However, this is not Fontaine's understanding, as demonstrated by her wordings "connections to context" and "the interface of context and lexicology".

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.

Delicacy

Fontaine (2017: 1):

For Halliday (1961:272), delicacy is “the scale of differentiation, or depth in detail” and it is clear from Hasan (1996) and also Martin (1992) that lexis as most delicate grammar is pursued along this dimension, which runs through the lexicogrammatical stratum and is generally represented as a system network of options. As Martin (1992:278) explains, “looked at from the perspective of grammar lexis is not different in kind but simply different in generality.” The least delicate options are extended in increasing differentiation within the network to the most delicate options.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, delicacy is the ordering principle of a system network: the arrangement of features from the most general to the most fine.

[2] To be clear, the Martin quote is invalid on two grounds. Firstly, it confuses delicacy with lexis. The difference in generality is the scale of delicacy of feature choices in system networks. Each lexical item, on the other hand, is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate features in the lexicogrammatical system — just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the phonological features [voiced, bilabial, stop].

Secondly, grammar and lexis do differ in kind, both syntagmatically and paradigmatically; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 58-66). For example, 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). …

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.