Misunderstanding And Misrepresenting Instantiation

Martin & Rose (2007: 2):

The relationship between these phenomena is schematised in Figure 1.1, illustrating the scaling in size and complexity from clause to text to culture. Figure 1.1 shows one clause as an instance of the story of ‘Helena’, whose life was caught up in the injustices of apartheid South Africa, as Helena’s story is one instance of the cultural changes that culminated with the release of Nelson Mandela and the overthrow of apartheid.

Blogger Comments:

This misunderstands and misrepresents the theoretical dimension of instantiation:

• a clause is not an instance of a text — a text is an instance! — and
• a story is not an instance of cultural change.

Instantiation is the relation between potential and instance:

• the clause in question is an instance of clause as potential (system),
• the story in question, as a text, is an instance of language as potential (system), and
• a situation is an instance of culture as potential (system).

The relation of the clause in question to the text in question is stratal — the two are units at different levels of symbolic abstraction.  Clause is the largest unit at the level of wording: the stratum of lexicogrammar, whereas text is the largest unit at the level of meaning: the stratum of semantics.  The relation between strata is realisation.  Wording realises meaning.

The relation of the text in question to cultural change involves three distinct theoretical dimensions: 

Firstly, the relation between text, as language, and culture, as context, is stratal — language and context are different levels of symbolic abstraction. The relation between them is thus realisation. Language realises context. 

Secondly, text and culture differ in terms of instantiation.  Text is language as instance, whereas culture is context as potential. 

Thirdly, text and cultural change differ in terms of semogenesis.  The instantiation of the system in the text is logogenesis, whereas the evolution of culture is phylogenesis. Importantly, the logogenesis of the story (language) is not an instance of the phylogenesis of the culture (context). Logogenesis provides the material for ontogenesis, which provides the material for phylogenesis, while phylogenesis provides the environment for ontogenesis, which provides the environment for logogenesis.

One reason for distinguishing the theoretical dimensions of stratification, instantiation and semogenesis is that it makes the complexity of language more manageable; doing so facilitates a systematic approach to further theorising, to text analysis, and to pedagogical practice.  Consequently, not distinguishing such dimensions is more likely to impair further theorising, text analysis and pedagogical practice.