Martin & Rose (2007: 179):
The things we’ve covered so far tell us most of what we need to know because identification is essentially a device for tracking people, who are after all the mainstays of storytelling and casual conversation. As we’ve seen, the same kinds of resources can be used for concrete things, and for abstract things and even discourse itself; but in general, with non-humans, there is much less tracking going on. As a rule of thumb, the more abstract a participant, the less likely it is to be presumed.
One important reason for this is that abstractions tend to occur in discourse which generalises about things. Helena does make moves in this direction towards the end of her story as she spells out the point of her narrative. When she refers to white people for example, it’s to white people in general; she doesn’t have specific individuals in mind:
If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it.
Blogger Comments:
[1] As previously demonstrated, the notion that identification is a device for tracking people leads to absurdities such as a speaker keeping track of herself and people being tracked by not being mentioned. To be clear, identification is Martin's (1992) rebranding of his misunderstandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) reference, relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.
[2] To be clear, the nature of referents will vary with the context that the text realises. For example, in a book explaining Quantum Theory, much reference will necessarily be made to abstractions.
[3] To be clear, generalisation is not necessarily abstraction. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 615) point out: 'a bird is no more abstract than a pigeon'.
[4] To be clear, this is reference in the sense of ideational denotation, not reference in the textual sense.
[5] To be clear, the nominal group white people does not denote an abstraction, since both people and their coloured skin have concrete, material form. In construing white people as observable, Helena emphasises the fact.
[2] To be clear, the nature of referents will vary with the context that the text realises. For example, in a book explaining Quantum Theory, much reference will necessarily be made to abstractions.
[3] To be clear, generalisation is not necessarily abstraction. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 615) point out: 'a bird is no more abstract than a pigeon'.
[4] To be clear, this is reference in the sense of ideational denotation, not reference in the textual sense.
[5] To be clear, the nominal group white people does not denote an abstraction, since both people and their coloured skin have concrete, material form. In construing white people as observable, Helena emphasises the fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment