Reductive Glosses Of Semogenesis

Martin & Rose (2007: 319):

Read from the perspective of critical theory, phylogenesis might be glossed in terms of a concern with the evolution of discourse formations (as explored in Fairclough (1995)), ontogenesis with the development of social subjectivities (e.g. Walkerdine and Lucey (1989)) and logogenesis with the de/naturalisation of reading positions (e.g. Cranny-Francis (1996)). Glossing with respect to Bernstein (1996), phylogenesis is concerned with changes in a culture’s reservoir of meanings, ontogenesis with the development of individual repertoires (i.e. coding orientations); logogenesis is concerned with what in SFL is referred to as the instantiation of system in text (or 'process’ for a more dynamic perspective). These perspectives are illustrated in Figure 9.7.

 Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'phylogenesis' refers to the evolution of the system in the species, 'ontogenesis' refers to the development of the system in the individual, and 'logogenesis' refers to the instantiation of the system in the text (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 17-8).

[1] This reduces (the phylogenesis of) language to (the phylogenesis of) an aspect of the semantic stratum of language.

[Foucault's] term discursive formation identifies and describes written and spoken statements with semantic relations that produce discourses.

[2] This reduces (the ontogenesis of) language to (the ontogenesis of) one metafunction: the interpersonal enactment of intersubjective relations.

[3] This confuses the logogenesis of texts with critiques of the meanings of texts.

[4] To be clear, this wording invites the confusion of language with culture that pervades the work of Martin & Rose (e.g. confusing language variants, register and genre, with culture).

[5] This reduces (the ontogenesis of) language to (the ontogenesis of) socially-correlated variants.

[6] To be clear, the instantiation of the system is a dynamic process.

Critical Discourse Analysis, Ideology And Power

Martin & Rose (2007: 314):

Where CDA [critical discourse analysis] has tended to focus on semiosis in the service of power, and even to define its concern with language and ideology in such terms (e.g. Fairclough 1995), SFL has tended to take a wider view which takes ideology as permeating linguistic and other semiotic systems (as we suggested in Chapter 1). 

On the one hand this is suggesting that every choice for meaning is ideologically motivated; on the other it focuses attention on the distribution of meaning in a culture. Which meanings are shared across the community and which are not, how is access to meaning distributed, and what kinds of principles are there for distributing access? 

In our discussion of tenor above we considered the principle of social status in relation to generation, gender, ethnicity, incapacity and class, and this is critical to making generalisations about reciprocity of choice across genres. But beyond this, generation, gender, ethnicity, incapacity and class are major parameters along which all meaning is distributed and every social subject is positioned. In Bernstein’s terms these parameters predispose our generalised orientations to meaning, or ‘coding orientations’, which distinguish one social subjectivity from another. This makes every text an interested one (acting on someone’s interests); from this perspective there is no meaning outside of power.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these are not mutually exclusive positions. Focusing on semiosis in the service of power does not exclude the view that ideology permeates linguistic and other semiotic systems.

[2] This is manifestly untrue. What is the ideological motivation for saying Is that a fern tree? What is the ideological motivation for saying Was that thunder? What is the ideological motivation for writing a² + b² = c² ?

[3] See the earlier post: Misunderstanding Bernstein.

[4] This is manifestly untrue. Whose interests does Lewis Carroll's text Jabberwocky act on?

[5] To be clear, if power is all that you are interested in, power is all that you will see.