Turning to the note option, these can be enacted through the heteroglossic option for entertain, where there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of different voices, but no explicit stance is taken.
A noting move in this kind of example will typically occur for the low and median positions of modality (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, pp. 178-179), e.g., using possible, perhaps, maybe, can, may etc. Higher modality, e.g., probably, likely, must, will, certainly etc., is more likely to realise some sort of support or reject (though see Chapter 3 for how this interacts with speaker and listener purview).
The authors propose ‘note’ as a subtype of ‘tender’, situated within their system of POSITIONING — which they treat as contextual (tenor). However, the example they give is clearly a move in an exchange — that is, a semantic choice in the interpersonal metafunction.
‘Noting’ is the authors' rebranding of ‘entertaining’ of the ENGAGEMENT system (White 1998), as realised lexicogrammatically through modal expressions such as possible, perhaps, maybe, can, may, etc. These are resources of language, not of context. Once again, the authors conflate language and context, misunderstanding the stratified architecture of SFL.
No comments:
Post a Comment