No “Distanciation” During Logogenesis

Apr 18

ChRIS CLÉiRIGhinstantiation 14 Comments

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

A text is thus a unit of meaning — more accurately, a unit in the flow of meaning that is always taking place at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

14 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. eldon
    Apr 19, 2011 @ 17:35:03

    can you supply more context for this quotation please…
    e.g. what is the purpose of this quotation,
    and/or what is it in aid of?

    ….what, in fact, is ‘distanciation’?
    is it the way many people keep their distance from things they do not like?
    or is something to do with firing rockets into space?
    i looked up distanciation on the interweb and i did not find any answers.

    signed,
    inexpert reader.

  2. ThE CLOwN
    Apr 21, 2011 @ 08:15:15

    (1) Here’s the preceding paragraph:
    Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

    Through the accumulation of logognetic patterns and through the resources of cohesion, lexicogrammar makes a considerable contribution to the development of patterns in the text that extend beyond a single grammatical unit such as the clause, or a complex of units such as the clause complex; and this is of course why lexicogrammatical analysis of a text ca tell us so much about how it works…The patterns that are developed in this way are, however, patterns of meaning, not patterns of wording; they are patterns at the level of semantics rather than the level of lexicogrammar. This is so because text is, as we have emphasised, a semantic phenomenon in the first instance; it is meaning unfolding in some particular context of situation. For example, the grammatical system of conjunction gives speakers and writers the resources to mark transitions n the development of a text — that is, to mark rhetorical relations used to expand the text step by step; and the rhetorical relations that are marked in this way are semantic relations organising the text as a flow of meaning.

    (2) ‘Distanciation’ refers to going up the cline of instantiation, as from text to register, during logogenesis. This is, of course, like saying meteorological systems can shift between weather and climate while snow falls. It is therefore based on a misunderstanding of instantiation, one that sees it as a dimension within the system — largely as a type of taxonomic delicacy of the meaning lexical items (so semantic stratum focused) — rather than a dimension along which the system varies from the overall to that of just one text.

    Note that a taxonomic delicacy of the meaning lexical items is not the same as delicacy as a dimension of system (semantic or lexicogrammatical).

  3. jmartin
    May 25, 2011 @ 12:57:52

    The term distinciation evolved in the context of interpreting instantiation as a logogenetic process subpotentialising system into unfolding text and thinking about how ‘intertextuality’ could be conceived in this kind of framework.

    I believe Halliday would prefer the term ‘actualisation’ for the interaction of his realisation and instantiation at play in the above reading of instantiation (referred to as misunderstanding above).

    Since instantiation as a logogenetic process involves coupling, commitment and iconisation (at least), distanciation cannot be reduced to matter of delicay.

    • eldon
      May 28, 2011 @ 15:04:25

      Since instantiation as a logogenetic process involves coupling, commitment and iconisation (at least), distanciation cannot be reduced to matter of delicay.

      the issue may not be with reduction, but with explosion.

    • The Crimson Avenger
      May 29, 2011 @ 14:45:43

      Alas, distanciation is not even remotely a coherent concept in terms of the cline of instantiation, and coupling, commitment and iconisation have not yet been demonstrated to be ‘involved’ in instantiation as a process, as the term was originally defined (as a traversal of the system network and activation of realisation statements). [See the May 29 post.]
      Couplings in a text, for example, are not instances of couplings in the generalised system. The system itself does not have couplings, so there cannot be a system-instance relation involving coupling.

      • eldon
        May 31, 2011 @ 15:02:30

        yes, but see Martin (2000: 161) where the notion of “coupling” at the level of field (ideation) at least, suggests some system-atic, socially-motivated accretion of ‘meanings’ through use, aka repeated instances.

        ..this coupling of ideational and interpersonal meanings is presented for appreciations of research in the field of linguistics in Table 8.8

        where martin above refers to ‘interpersonal’ meanings he is at the same time referring to what we categorise under the appraisal framework as evaluative meanings [attitude and its sub-types. here, appreciation].

        in this sense, the notion of ‘coupling’ only has meaning for me as system-instance relation. it does not make much sense as an instance-instance term.

        so that, in charlotte and i’s analysis of the language of wine criticism, we note that certain (new) categories of appreciation are regularly “coupled” (in this sense) with the positive and negative attributes of the wines discussed. one needs to be familiar with repeated instances of the language of wine evaluation to be privy to the valencies of the terms used, as they are sometimes opaque as far as more conventional meanings would suggest.

        when i refer to instance-instance relation, i speak of the notion that coupling can be seen as discrete instances of coupling between elements within the same text. we already have robust ways of referring to and analysing these types of relationship – e.g. ideational chaining, co-reference, taxonomic relations, negative/positive prosody, thematic formations, clustering, and more… to group these types of clustering under the same banner as the regular and conventionalised patterns of field-related usage of particular terms is once more i think, to muddy the waters – to introduce lack of specificity when it seems more specificity is being promulgated.

        • The Crimson Avenger
          May 31, 2011 @ 15:58:01

          well, keep in mind that the different probabilities of feature co-selection is what differentiates registers.
          but I can’t make sense of coupling as a system-instance relation, given that system and instance are two ways of viewing the same phenomenon.

          • eldon
            May 31, 2011 @ 17:24:01

            The term ‘instantiation as scale’ — ‘the cline of instantiation’ — refers to the relation between the entire system and the green bits.

            The green bits represent both a subpotential of the system, and the “activation” of that subpotential.

            these statements do not seem to contradict the sense of the label of convenience, ‘system-instance relation’, which i have used above.
            if the term ‘coupling’ is used to cover such relations, then perhaps this is what seems non-sensical to you.

            • The Crimson Avenger
              May 31, 2011 @ 17:36:58

              yep, that’s what I can’t get my head around.

              • eldon
                Jun 02, 2011 @ 10:38:52

                try re-reading the chapter by martin in “the purple book” [alternately known as “the mauve book”] where this term is first(?) used. near the end of the chapter…

                i mean, it seems to me that ‘coupling’ is a cover term for this at least:

                …the different probabilities of feature co-selection is what differentiates registers.

                and so patterns of co-selection (aka ‘coupling’) are what differentiates registers… in my understanding of the term, i.e. when it DOES make sense to me.

                • The Crimson Avenger
                  Jun 02, 2011 @ 11:08:22

                  so what would be an example of a coupling at the system pole of the cline of instantiation?

                  • eldon
                    Jun 02, 2011 @ 19:45:31

                    we’re running out of space at this pole of the cline of instantiation.

                    didst re-read martin 2000, in the purple book? i might give those as examples of instances of terms that ‘couple’ with the register of linguistic reviews of scholarly articles. …patterns of co-selection with the social purpose of evaluating in the field/discipline of linguistics.

                    i think your issue is with the term ‘coupling’, mine is with its indiscriminate application.

                    • The Crimson Avenger
                      Jun 03, 2011 @ 04:40:03

                      I looked at 1992 p5.
                      What reference did you have in mind?

                    • eldon
                      Jun 04, 2011 @ 10:49:25

                      no more replies in this space!
                      the one i have in mind is hunston & thompson (eds) 2000. not the ‘new testament’, aka 1992.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Get Adobe Flash player