Giving Priority To Structure And Form Over System And Function

Martin (2013: 21-2):

Once thou was lost, English speakers would have had to deploy alternative resources to negotiate their social relations. And this means that we need to revise our pronoun network for standard English, as outlined below (setting aside GENDER for the moment to simplify the presentation).

It might be objected that we should keep the same system we developed for Shakespeare's times, and simply allow you to realise both second person singular and plural; this is the grammarian's concept of neutralisation. But we're going to be very stringent in our introduction to axial relations here and argue that if there is no difference in structure then there is no difference in system. Accordingly, we oppose above first and third person pronouns that distinguish NUMBER to second person pronouns which don't. This illustrates a very important strategy for network drawing — namely, setting aside, as early in delicacy as possible, classes that in some sense lie outside the system. Since you is different from other pronouns, we set it aside, and then move on to capture the parameters that the rest of the system shares.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, interlocutors enact their social relations. A child does not negotiate her status or institutional role with a teacher. Negotiating propositions and proposals is a different matter.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, it wasn't that thou was lost and speakers were forced to 'deploy alternative resources'. It was because speakers 'deployed alternative resources' that the use of thou diminished.

[3] To be clear, this is the methodology of SFL Theory, where priority is given to system and function over structure and form. Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 62):

[4] To be clear, the relation between the axes is simply realisation.

[5] This is misleading. To be clear, this approach gives priority to structure over system, the exact opposite of SFL methodology. Martin (p10) has previously acknowledged SFL methodology:

so his contradiction here demonstrates that he does not understand what it means to give priority to system over structure. The misunderstanding also invalidates the fundamental premise of this monograph.

[6] This is misleading. To be clear, this is again giving priority to form (pronouns, classes) over function, the exact opposite of SFL methodology.