Perhaps what we can learn from discourse of this kind is the significance of interaction among discourse systems. Conjunction, identification, ideation and periodicity are all interfacing in various ways to scaffold the argument and grammatical metaphor is catalysing this symbiosis at every turn. For most of us, a little discourse analysis wouldn’t hurt, when first learning to access texture of this kind.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the notion of interaction between metafunctional systems continues the misunderstanding of metafunctions (and strata) as interacting modules in Martin (1992: 391, 488). The architecture of SFL Theory is relational, not modular. See the critiques here, and the clarification here.
[2] To be clear, if discourse semantic systems are scaffolding the argument, the question arises as to which systems are making the argument that they are scaffolding.
[3] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not demonstrated how grammatical metaphor catalyses anything. The authors have not unpacked any ideational metaphors in order to explain the nature of metaphor and how it functions; they have merely identified nominalised words in a text.
[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is the grammar that is the resource for discourse analysis.
[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, texture is created by the resources of the textual metafunction; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 650ff).
No comments:
Post a Comment