Martin & Rose (2007: 73-4):
Section 3.5 describes relations between activities as a text unfolds. As they construe experience as unfolding in series of activities, these relations are known as activity sequences. …
Section 3.5 concludes with a method for analysing activity sequences in a text that displays its phases of activities as well as its patterns of participation by people and things.
Blogger Comments:
[1] It will be seen that "relations between activities" are logical relations — addition and cause —between the semantic counterpart of clauses — in SFL: figures — rebranded as experiential discourse semantics. In the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), figures are related logically in sequences.
As already explained, the inclusion of activity sequences in the experiential system of IDEATION is inconsistent with the informing work, Martin (1992), where activity sequences are modelled as field, the ideational dimension of context, itself misconstrued by Martin as register. Adding to the confusion, logical relations between the semantic counterpart of clauses are also modelled, here and in the informing work, by the logical discourse system of CONJUNCTION, itself a rebranding of misunderstandings of the textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction, confused with misunderstandings of the logical systems of clause complexing.
[2] It will be seen that this method for analysing activity sequences (in SFL: logical relations between figures) is actually a method for analysing nuclear relations (in SFL: logical relations between elements of figures). The confusion here is in terms of order of phenomena (in SFL: sequence and figure), and given that the chapter is concerned with experiential meaning, the theoretical inconsistency is once again metafunctional.
No comments:
Post a Comment