Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 25):
semovergent systems construe ideational meaning, enact interpersonal meaning and compose textual meaning convergently with the discourse semantics of language (and its realisation through lexi[c]ogrammar).
Blogger Comments:
Firstly, as previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim. That is to say, there are no instances of gestures realising the introduction of entities and their tracking through the discourse, and there are no instances of gestures realising macro-Themes, hyper-Themes, hyper-News or macro-News.
Secondly, Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION is his rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) COHESIVE REFERENCE, which is a grammatical system, not a semantic system; and Martin's system of PERIODICITY is writing pedagogy misunderstood as textual semantics.
[4] To be clear, Martin (1992) provides no specifications on how his discourse semantic systems are realised in lexicogrammatical systems.
[1] To be clear, the claim here is that semovergent paralanguage (Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language) and discourse semantics construe the same ideational meaning; that is to say, that semovergent paralanguage instantiates the meanings of Martin's systems of IDEATION (experiential) and CONNEXION (logical). There are two main problems with this claim:
Firstly, as previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim. Secondly, Martin's two systems, IDEATION and CONNEXION, are his rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) LEXICAL COHESION and COHESIVE CONJUNCTION, which are grammatical, not semantic, and textual in metafunction, not ideational.
Firstly, as previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim. Secondly, Martin's two systems, IDEATION and CONNEXION, are his rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) LEXICAL COHESION and COHESIVE CONJUNCTION, which are grammatical, not semantic, and textual in metafunction, not ideational.
[2] To be clear, the claim here is that semovergent paralanguage and discourse semantics enact the same interpersonal meaning; that is to say, that semovergent paralanguage instantiates the meanings of Martin's systems of NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL. There is one main problem with this claim:
As previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim. That is, there are no instances of gestures realising NEGOTIATION features, and the gestures presented as realising APPRAISAL features are protolinguistic, not epilinguistic (semovergent).
[3] To be clear, the claim here is that semovergent paralanguage and discourse semantics compose the same textual meaning; that is to say, that semovergent paralanguage instantiates the meanings of Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY. There are two main problems with this claim:
Firstly, as previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim. That is to say, there are no instances of gestures realising the introduction of entities and their tracking through the discourse, and there are no instances of gestures realising macro-Themes, hyper-Themes, hyper-News or macro-News.
Secondly, Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION is his rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) COHESIVE REFERENCE, which is a grammatical system, not a semantic system; and Martin's system of PERIODICITY is writing pedagogy misunderstood as textual semantics.
[4] To be clear, Martin (1992) provides no specifications on how his discourse semantic systems are realised in lexicogrammatical systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment