Furthermore, Halliday and Matthiessen ( 1999: 327) state that these three dimensions each refer to a “distinct scale of abstraction”. Similarly, the dimension of delicacy is described by Halliday ( 1961) as operating over a scale of abstraction. Instantiation has also been linked to the notion of abstraction: both in Halliday’s ( 1961) foundational work, but more explicitly, Matthiessen ( 2012: 450) makes the connection in a comparison of SFL with Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis. Indeed, stratification is often linked to the notion of abstraction in SFL (see, for example, Halliday 1961, 1981, Hasan 1995, 2013, Matthiessen 2007a., Taverniers 2011, and Martin 2014). For stratification, Halliday and Matthiessen ( 1999: 4) state that the strata of phonology, lexicogrammar, and semantics are “differentiated according to order of abstraction”. This article focuses on three of these: delicacy, stratification, and instantiation, since they have all been associated with the theoretical notion of abstraction. Martin ( 2009) also proposes the dimension of individuation. In doing so, SFL highlights five fundamental dimensions for studying language: rank, delicacy, stratification, instantiation, and metafunction (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 20). Whereas the trend in Generative Linguistics has been to aim for increased parsimony in theoretical constructs since the advent of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), SFL practitioners argue that a complex theoretical architecture is needed to reflect the equally complex nature of language itself (Matthiessen 2007b Halliday 2009).
Systemic Functional Linguistic theory employs a theoretical architecture more elaborate than other linguistic theories. Therefore, the basis of this ordering is in need of further investigation. We argue that this attempt fails to accurate describe inter-stratal relations in the theory. The paper concludes by examining a proposal that attempts to account for the explicit ordering between strata in terms of supervenience. The conclusion reached is that, although the dimensions of delicacy and instantiation can be described using the criteria above, the explicit ordering behind the dimension of stratification cannot. By using these criteria, this article develops a typology of abstraction types for SFL. This conclusion is reached by examining three related, but distinct, factors: (1) omission of detail, (2) generalisation, and (3) decontextualisation. The claim is that, although the same term is used in each case, the precise meaning of abstraction differs depending on the theoretical focus. It does so by examining the nature of the concept of ‘abstraction’ with respect to these terms. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the theoretical dimensions of stratification, instantiation, and delicacy within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
0 kommentar(er)
