Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 80):
Purview can be more or less grammaticalised across languages. In English, as we have seen, it’s realisation is distributed across a range of interpersonal grammatical systems. But as (Bartlett, 2021) notes, Scottish Gaelic makes a primary distinction within indicative clauses which parallels to an extent how we have described speaker purview in both monologue and dialogue. Bartlett notes that within indicatives, rather than having a distinction between interrogatives and declaratives, Scottish Gaelic makes a distinction between [assertive] and [non-assertive] clauses – which is realised through distinct verb forms and the use of mood clitics. The non-assertive choice ‘render[s] propositions open to alternatives, whether this be through questioning, attributing or entertaining other possibilities. In contrast, independent forms without mood clitics [i.e. assertive choices] realise the monogloss semantics of unmodalised K1 moves and of K2 moves eliciting specific details in an uncontested propositions.’ (Bartlett 2021: 276). (Wang, 2021) describes a similar choice for Mandarin Chinese between what he calls [pose] and [tender], which is simultaneous with indicative and imperative – where ‘[pose] indicates that we table a proposition or proposal for assessment, opening up the dialogic space and [tender] on the other hand means that we proffer the proposition or proposal as non-negotiable’. In this regard, as we have noted above, it was Zhang’s (2020a, b, c, 2021) rich description of Khorchin Mongolian in this area that was a primary influence on our work here. See also the description of STANCE in Korean by (Kim, Martin, Shin, & Choi, 2023). They in effect propose that informal Korean negotiates propositions and proposals through options in a system grammaticalising purview, in contrast to formal Korean which negotiates through MOOD (i.e., declarative, interrogative, imperative) options (see also (Martin & Cruz, 2021) on ASSESSMENT systems in Tagalog). Work of this kind indicates that the interpersonal grammar of languages needs to be re/interpreted from a top-down perspective, beginning with something like the range of tenor options proposed in this volume. Otherwise it runs the risk of being trapped by an 'Anglocentric' perspective which foregrounds declarative, interrogative and imperative as basic interpersonal options.
ChatGPT Comments:
Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 80) continue their exposition of purview by highlighting its “grammaticalisation” across languages. However, a closer reading exposes fundamental theoretical confusions within the model itself, even in English.
First, the purview system duplicates semantic and grammatical distinctions at the level of context. By rebranding the management of interpersonal meaning as a system of tenor (speaker/listener purview), the authors effectively recast mood distinctions in grammar (assertive vs non-assertive clauses) and engagement choices in semantics (hedging, modality) as independent context-level categories. Yet these distinctions are already modelled in English through grammatical and semantic systems—modality, and hedging. Treating them as a separate system of purview creates redundancy: the model purports to operate at the context stratum, but its categories mirror those already realised on the content plane.
Second, the model blurs the boundaries between levels of stratification. By claiming that purview operates at the tenor/context level while simultaneously being “distributed across a range of interpersonal grammatical systems” in English, the authors collapse context and realisation. The examples they give (falling vs rising tone, supine hand posture) are clearly expression-level realisations, yet the framework treats them as purview at the abstract contextual level. This confounding of strata undermines the internal coherence of the model.
Third, the internal logic of purview is overextended even within a single language. The system posits speaker and listener purview as orthogonal variables (+/–), yet the examples reveal a complex interplay in which realisation, tone, hedging, and body language interact in ways the binary schema cannot adequately capture. For instance, falling vs rising tone on a declarative both interacts with hedging and engagement choices, yet the model reduces these nuanced interactions to a simplistic +/– matrix. This risks oversimplifying dynamic meaning-making processes in discourse.
Finally, the theoretical framing obscures what is genuinely novel. Purview is presented as a new resource for interpersonal meaning, but in effect it repackages already known features of mood and engagement under a different label. While the authors’ terminology may highlight subtle nuances of control in conversation and text, it does so at the cost of creating conceptual inflation: multiple layers of labels now describe phenomena that are already systematically captured by grammar and semantics in canonical SFL terms.
In short, even within English, the purview framework duplicates, conflates, and oversimplifies existing distinctions between grammar, semantics, and context. Its theoretical ambitions exceed the clarity of its conceptual design, leaving readers with a model that is internally inconsistent and redundant, rather than genuinely explanatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment