Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 75):
A further contrast in purview for open propositions is shown in (39), from Halliday (1970: 22), where a wh-interrogative is used with different tones – a falling tone (tone 1) in the first example (39a.) and a rising tone (tone 2) in the second example (39b.).(39) a. //1 where are you going//b. //2 where are you going//As Halliday notes, “the first [39a with a falling tone] is a normal question, neither abrupt nor deferential, while the second is deferential: it is a question accompanied by a request for permission to ask ‘where are you going, may I ask’.” (Halliday 1970: 22). We can understand this by considering again the distinction between internal and external readings of these positions. Looking externally, in terms of the ‘information’ being asked for, both simply pose a question – they have the same purview, namely – speaker: + listener. Viewed internally in terms of their role as speech acts initiating exchanges on the other hand, they differ in their purview. Example (39a.), with a falling tone, does not seek permission in any way to ask the question – internally it can be read as an assert (+internal speaker purview; – internal listener purview). By contrast (39b.), with a rising tone, indicates some tentativeness (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 169) – in some sense asking permission to initiate the exchange. This example can be read internally as a pose (– internal speaker purview; + internal listener purview).
Similarly, in the Australian English dialect spoken by the first and third authors of this book, open propositions can be internally shared (+ internal speaker purview; + internal listener purview) by using non-lexical tags such as ay (/æɪ/) on a falling tone (tone 1).(40) But what do we do, ay?This example is still asking the question (externally speaking); but through the tag it is making it clear that this is a question which the interlocutors probably both share.
ChatGPT Comments:
Several points stand out:
1. Redundant re-description of mood and tone
-
The authors use Halliday’s falling/rising tone distinctions to motivate internal purview, but SFL already captures this through Mood + Key + intonation patterns.
-
The “internal vs external” distinction is a semantic overlay on phenomena that are already systematically handled by Mood: falling tone = normal declarative/interrogative force; rising tone = tentative or deferential. Their framework does not add explanatory power — it merely renames these distinctions in terms of ± internal speaker/listener purview.
2. Introduction of “internal purview” adds analytic complexity without gain
-
By splitting each proposition into “internal” vs “external” purview, the authors create a nested system on top of the existing SFL apparatus.
-
This doubling is not justified empirically: there is no demonstration that these “internal” values capture patterns beyond what tone, key, and mood already explain.
3. Conflation of surface markers and systemic categories
-
Tone, lexical tags, and intonation contours are used as evidence of purview categories.
-
But purview is positioned as a systemic feature of context, not a phonetic or prosodic feature. By grounding purview in tone and tags, they blur the line between language and context, which was already a problematic aspect of the earlier discussion.
4. Circular reasoning
-
They argue: rising/falling tone distinguishes internal purview, then show examples with rising/falling tone to demonstrate internal purview.
-
This mirrors the circularity seen in previous critiques: the data are interpreted to fit the framework rather than to test it.
Overall assessment
-
The excerpt exemplifies the recurring problem: the “purview” system often renames or overlays phenomena already described by SFL (Mood, intonation, key) without adding genuine analytic leverage.
-
The introduction of internal/external purview, and the use of sociolectal features like ay, highlights the fragility and non-generalisability of the framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment