The best resources for exploring new directions in discourse analysis in SFL is Bednarek and Martin 2010 (see also Hasan et al. 2005a, b; Halliday and Webster 2009). This edited collection focuses on two relatively unexplored hierarchies in SFL, instantiation and individuation, in relation to genesis.
Instantiation is the cline relating system and text. Unlike realization, which is a hierarchy of abstraction, instantiation is a hierarchy of generality.
Figure 7.5 The hierarchy of instantiation – sub-potentialization in relation to system use
system genre/ register) text type text reading
Instantiation relates a culture’s systems of meanings as a whole to their spe- cialization as registers and genres; at the same time, it generalizes recurring
patterns of meaning across instances as text types4; and from the perspective
of critical theory, texts themselves can be interpreted as potentials since they afford readings of different kinds according to the social subjectivity of their consumers. Overall, what we are looking at is a scale of potentiality – all of the meanings a semiotic system allows in relation to their sub-potentialization as instances of language use (a cricketer’s batting average, in other words, in rela- tion to his shots and the way an umpire has adjudicated them as runs or not). A crude outline of this scale is presented as Figure 7.5.
Whereas instantiation refers to the specialization of the meaning poten- tial of a culture text by text, individuation specializes that meaning potential according to people (how meaning is deployed in relation to users rather than uses of language). The Modern Guru foregrounds individuation in the con- trast he sets up between the schoolkid’s and schoolteacher’s response to the extra mark:
‘Nawwwww, keep that extra mark coz, like, the teacher totally stuffed up, y’know, specially if it was, like, a maths test and she added up wrong, haw haw, that’d be, like hilarical’
‘You caddish little rotter! By pilfering that extra point, not only are you behaving reprehensibly, but you are failing to recognise your true scholastic abilities, which could lead to ongoing exam failures, resulting in a botched education, culminating in a life of destitution at a Dickensian workhouse, blacking boots for Mr Bumble!’
And he explicitly claims these responses to be representative of the way all schoolkids and all schoolteachers talk:
– and, by the way, this is how all schoolkids talk; I know, I’ve snuck peeks at my own kids’ msn messages, until they blocked me out using the parental control filter. Apparently it can also filter out controlling parents.
– and by the way, that’s how I imagine all schoolteachers talk, and they all wear mortarboards and black gowns, and look like old wire-moustached Latin masters as drawn by Ronald Searle.
In SFL the main work on individuation has been oriented to generation, gen- der and class in the language of the mothers of pre-school children (Hasan 2009). For further discussion of the user-oriented hierarchy presented in Figure 7.6 see Martin 2009d.
Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis
Figure 7.7 Realization, instantiation and individuation in relation to genesis system/ reservoir repertoire ontogenesis phylogenesis logogenesis text instantiation
Figure 7.6 Individuation and affiliation
culture master identity sub-culture persona affiliation individuation
Current research on instantiation and individuation has rekindled interest in genesis, and the issue of how to model time as a variable in relation to mean- ing in unfolding discourse (logogenesis), individual development (ontogenesis) and cultural evolution (phylogenesis).
The relation of these complementary perspectives on time in relation to real- ization, instantiation and individuation is outlined in Figure 7. 7.
Notes
1. Unless otherwise specified the grammar analysis deployed here is taken from Halliday and Matthiessen 2004.
2. To these we might add three instances of the bonus mark, which is graded (extra) to flag appreciation.
3. To these we might arguably add the implied ‘schoolkid’ Subjects of imperative clauses 8 and 11, and arguably subtract it in 13 by taking the dependent conditional clause if it was, like, a maths test as a marked Theme.
4. Halliday and Matthiessen (e.g. 1999, 2004) do not distinguish between genre/register and text type as different levels on this scale, treat text as the instance end of the cline, and do not of course explicitly position genre on the scale (since they do not operate with a stratified model of context).
Key Readings
Halliday and Greaves outline English resources for intonation; Halliday and Matthiessen is the foundational text for English grammatical resources, extended to other language families in Caffarel et al. Martin and Rose 2003/2007 is an accessible introduction to discourse semantics, elaborated for evaluative language in Martin and White, and applied to casual conversation in Eggins and Slade. Christie and Martin comprises studies of school and workplace reg- isters and genres, and Martin and Rose 2008 provides a basic introduction to SFL genre theory. For reasons of space I have foregrounded my own SFL per- spective on discourse analysis here; for a broader purchase see Halliday and Webster 2009.
Caffarel, A., Martin, J. R. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (eds) (2004), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds) (1997), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School. London: Pinter (Open Linguistics Series).
Eggins, S. and Slade, D. (1997), Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell [reprinted Equinox 2005].
Halliday, M. A. K. and Greaves, W. S. (2008), Intonation in the Grammar of English. London: Equinox.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004), An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd edn). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. (eds) (2009), Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2003), Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum [2nd revised edn 2007].
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. (2008), Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005), The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.