FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1785202482> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1785202482 endingPage "114" @default.
• W1785202482 startingPage "95" @default.
• W1785202482 abstract "At the heart of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a model of language as a semiotic system. As speakers of a language, we want to make meaning and as hearers of a language we want to make meaning out of what we hear. The semiotic system for language according to Halliday is modelled by a network of meaning potential (1978:40-41): “The network consists very simply of a set of interrelated systems … a semantic network is a representation of semantic options or choices in meaning.” According to Fawcett (1988:3), this representation of choice “lies at the heart of systemic linguistics”. SFL has shown itself to be extremely attractive for many applications. For many, the attraction is the centrality of the notion of ‘choice’. There is no doubt that the representation of choice in a semiotic system is the main strong point of SFL. However, it is precisely ‘choice’ itself that causes the most misunderstanding. The way in which this core concept is interpreted, both within SFL and for those wanting to adopt its framework (e.g. computational linguists), is very important since it is the concept that lies at the heart of SFL. For example, Winograd had hoped to avoid using this term in his own work because he felt it was inappropriate to think of ‘choice’ as active choosing (1983:289). As he pointed out, the classification inherent in the networks “is being imposed by an observer”. However, since, as he concluded, “the term choice is standard in discussions of systemic grammar”, there was no way to avoid using it and the term was adopted in his computational approach “in spite of its connotation of intentionality (ibid).Halliday has never claimed that ‘choice’ means choosing. However there is a lack of clarity about the term in most SFL literature. In earlier writing, Halliday states clearly that “the semantic system is a network of meaning potential. The network consists very simply of a set of interrelated systems ... a system is a set of options, a set of possibilities ... Hence, a semantic network is a representation of semantic options, or choices in meaning” (Halliday, 1978:40-41). The meaning potential held within the network represents the semantic choices available in the language. Butler (2002:65-66) discusses the systematic ambiguity of the use of the term ‘meaning potential’, which is integral to the understanding of ‘choice’, calling it a “slippery” term having at least two interpretations. Tucker (1998:41) writes very clearly that: “a system network displays the choices in meaning which can be made, and which lead to a possible realization at the level of form. What they do not do, and cannot do, is provide the basis for these choices”. However it would be possible to infer from this that choices are made and this could lead one to think that choice is an active process. There are two issues underlying the problems highlighted above. One is the interpretation of the system networks and the other is in the interpretation of the term choice. Language is best viewed as a process rather than an object (Fawcett, 1993: 626). Lamb makes a similar point: “the important thing to realize is that (the word) is not an object. The word that comes out of a speaker’s mouth comes out because a particular portion of network gets activated” (Lamb, 1999: 62). This is true for all utterances, even though we often treat text as object (product) in text analysis. This distinction between process and product is extremely important but raises problems of its own. The difficulty is as Andersen describes, “that the model describes wholes as emergent entities, generated by the activities of the parts, but does not specify the relationship between the new macro behaviour and the micro behaviours that created it” (2002:39). Trying to account for the interaction of the parts in a language system is incredibly challenging and it requires a view of language as a complex system. Although few linguists explicitly state so, language is a complex system (Lemke, 1993; Andersen, 2002; Smith, Brighton, Kirby, 2003; Halliday and Martin, 1993) and some go further in considering it as a complex adaptive system (Steels, 2000; Briscoe, 1998). The nature of complex systems is such that recursion is necessarily a central notion.In this chapter, ‘choice’ will be explored with respect to two different views. The first concerns the system network where ‘choice’ is seen as representing the available (semantic) options; this is a classification problem. The second concerns the (complex) language system where ‘choice’ is seen as a means to select options; this is a recursion problem. The main aim of this chapter is to explain how ‘choice’ can be (re)defined as a simple term and a complex function." @default.
• W1785202482 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1785202482 creator A5065341742 @default.
• W1785202482 date "2013-12-19" @default.
• W1785202482 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1785202482 title "Semantic options and complex functions: a recursive view of choice" @default.
• W1785202482 doi "https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139583077.007" @default.
• W1785202482 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1785202482 type Work @default.
• W1785202482 sameAs 1785202482 @default.
• W1785202482 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1785202482 countsByYear W17852024822020 @default.
• W1785202482 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W1785202482 hasAuthorship W1785202482A5065341742 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C139997677 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C26022165 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C2776359362 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C53811970 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C111472728 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C114614502 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C138885662 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C139997677 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C177264268 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C17744445 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C199360897 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C199539241 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C26022165 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C2776359362 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C2780876879 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C33923547 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C41008148 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C41895202 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C53811970 @default.
• W1785202482 hasConceptScore W1785202482C94625758 @default.
• W1785202482 hasLocation W17852024821 @default.
• W1785202482 hasOpenAccess W1785202482 @default.
• W1785202482 hasPrimaryLocation W17852024821 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W10043089 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W1606389 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W3753517 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W5587780 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W5857409 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W6465518 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W697772 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W7933008 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W8782577 @default.
• W1785202482 hasRelatedWork W9018314 @default.
• W1785202482 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1785202482 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1785202482 magId "1785202482" @default.
• W1785202482 workType "book-chapter" @default.