Stratification and The

8/3/2019 Stratification and The

1/14

LinguisticStratificationandthetri-unityMatterSubstanceForm:AFunctionalDiscoursePragmatics

perspective

InmemoryofEliFischer-Jrgensen(1911-2010)atrueheroine,agreatscientist,andafineartist

Abstract

Inthispaperlinguisticstratification,i.e.theconceptionthatlanguageandspeecharestratified,or,

organizedondifferentstrata,orlevelsofrepresentation,willbedealtwith.LinguisticStratificationis

originallyastructuralistnotion,dealtwithbyi.a.deSaussure(1916),wherethedistinctionisbetween

formandsubstance.Theseterms,ofcourse,originateinAristotelianphilosophy,where,however,the

distinctionwastriadicratherthandyadic:form,substance,andmatter( hyle).Hjelmslev(1943),

confusingly,waversbetweenthedyadicandthetriadicconception,withabiastowardstheformer(Dahl

1998).Thispaperwillargueforthetriadicconceptionwithina FunctionalDiscoursePragmaticstheoryof

languageandspeech(NedergaardThomsen2006,2009).

0.Introduction:thedistinctionbetweenformandsubstanceinlanguagesomequestionsandsome

preliminaryanswers

Myconceptionwillbesummarizedbyansweringthefollowingsevenquestions,Q1-Q7:

Q1.Isitatallplausibletoconceiveoflanguageandspeechasstratified,i.e.asorganizedondifferent

strata,orlevelsofrepresentation?Ifanswerintheaffirmative,then

Q2.Whichstrataaretoberecognized?;howaretheytobecharacterized?;andhowaretheyinterrelated

(semiotically)?And,

Q3.Arethestrata(psycho-and/orsocio-,orother)linguisticrealities(realism)tobeobserved,described,

andexplained?;orarethey,rather,handypresentationaltoolsfordescribinglanguageandspeech

(nominalism,instrumentalism)?Ifansweraffirmsthefirstalternative,then

Q4.Arethestratamental(cognitive)phenomena,relatedtomemoryandconsciousness?Ifanswerin

theaffirmative,then,

Q5.Arethestrataimplemented/(causedbyand)realizedinthebrain?Andifso,how?Furthermore,

Q6.Howarethestratarelatedtotheextra-linguisticcontexttheexterioroflanguageandspeech?

Q7.Whatarethepurposes/functionsoflinguisticstratification,epigeneticallyandevolutionarily

(biologically)?

TothesequestionsFunctionalDiscoursePragmaticstentativelyanswers,A1-A7:

A1.Languageandspeechare(saidtobe)stratified,asamplydemonstratedthroughoutthehistoryof

linguistics,bothwithinthefunctionalistandtheformalistparadigms(e.g.Saussure1916;Hjelmslev1935,

1943,1954;Fischer-Jrgensen1966;Coseriu1954;Chafe1970;Andersen1984[1975];Chomsky2000;


2/14

Jackendoff2002;Lamb1999;Fawcett1983,2000;Halliday1961,Halliday&Matthiessen1999;Hengeveld

&Mackenzie2008).However,noconsensushasbeenreachedyetastotheprecisecharacterizationof

stratification.Perhapsneedlesstomention,someapproachesdonotrecognizetheconceptof

representationaltogether,e.g.connectionismandsomelinguisticapproachesinspiredbyHusserlian

phenomenology,becauseintheseapproachestheconceptofrepresentationistakentobecloselyallied

withalgorithmic,symbol-manipulatingcomputationalism.Ibelievethenaturalwaytodealwiththe

problemistoclaimthat,insofarasitisratherobviousthatwehavetodistinguishbetweene.g.phonemes

andallophones,itshouldbejustasevidentthatthereare(atleast)twolevelsofrepresentationinthe

linguisticexpression,aphonemic(form)andaphonic(substance)onerepresentationsbeingsimply,

inthisinstance,thephonemesandtheallophones.Wehavetoeitherdismissanydiscussionofwhatitis

thattheserepresentationsrepresent,orclaimthattheyrepresentneurolinguisticphenomenain

mentalform.

A2.Therearesixqualitativelydifferentstrata(1,2,3;-1,-2,-3),plusaninterface-stratum(0),listed

sequentially:

1.ContentMatter (contextualizedmeaning;discoursepragmatics,usage)realizedfrom:

2.ContentSubstance (normo-pragmatics)conventionalizedby:

3.ContentForm (functionalsemantics[systematicpragmatics])

0.,i.e.Symbolizedby:

-3.ExpressionForm(functionalphonology[systematicphonetics])conventionalizedfrom:

-2.ExpressionSubstance (normo-phonetics)realizedin:

-1.ExpressionMatter (contextualizedsounding;discoursephonetics,usage)

Evidently,thisdescriptionimpliesanassumptionthatthestratificationisasymmetricalcross-tabulation

betweenanaxisofformality/substantialityandanaxisofsignification.Thus,onewoulddeduceparallel

behaviorsofe.g.thematterofcontentandthematterofexpression,like,forinstance,beinginput/output

stratainproductionandreceptioncomparei.a.Chomskys(2000)characterizations:intentional-

conceptual(cp.ContentMatter)andarticulatory-perceptual(cp.ExpressionMatter)interfacestothe

exterioroflanguageandspeech.

Astotheaxisofformality/substantiality,manynon-structuralisttheoriesdonotemploythetermsformandsubstance(andmatter),butthetopictheydescribeissimilar.Someusethetermstructurefor

formandsomethetermfunctionforsubstance,whichmaybeperplexing.Thereisalsosome

unfortunateconfusionastothenomenclatureoftheaxisofsignification,inthatesp.USAmerican

linguisticsseemstopreferthetermsformandfunctionforexpressionandcontent,interferingwith

termsusedfortheformality/substantialityaxis.

A3.Thestrataaremental(cognitive)realitiestheyarementallevelsofrepresentation (cf.deSaussures

1916cognitiveterms: imageacoustiquevs.concept,forthedistinctionexpressionvs.content).


3/14

A4.Theyare,moreprecisely,mentallevelsofrepresentationinthepsycheof eachindividualnatural

languageuseri.e.theyarepsychologicallyrealandtheyarehistoricalentities.Theyareoperativein

speechproductionandreception,whichareevidentlyindividualcommunicativeactivities.

A5.Thequestionabouttheneuralimplementationcannotbeansweredexhaustivelyyet.Note,though,thatthehumanisticmind(1st2ndpersonal)cannotbereducedtothe(3rdpersonal,orapersonal)brain

ofthenaturalsciences,andviceversa.Ibelievethatthemindandthebrainconstitutean integral

phenomenon:inAristotelianterms,thenaturalisticbrainismatterandthemindisformaswellas

causafinalis(function).However,IdonotsubscribetoanyCartesiandualism.Thus,Iconceiveofa unity

ofthenaturalisticbrainmatterandthehumanisticmindformintermsofanAristoteliansubstance,a

unificationorconcretum,orBrain/Mind.Perimplicationlanguagebeingamentalorgan,languagetoo

is,complementarily,neuralmatterandcognitiveform,aswellastheirunityasasubstance,asaneuro-

cognitivephenomenon.Forinstance,withrespecttoExpressionMatter,onepartofphysiologicalphonetics

willthenconcerni.a.thementalrepresentationoftheinstructionstotheorgansofspeech(articulatory

phonetics)aswellastheconstructionofthementalrepresentationsofwhatisheard(auditoryphonetics).

ThiswayExpressionMatterisamentalformphenomenonwithrespecttoimplementingneuralmatter

(tobedealtwithbyneurolinguistics).SeenfromtheunitysvantagepointtheBrain/Mind,onemay

choosetoinvestigatetheneuralmatter,orthementalform,butneithercandowithouttheother.Invon

Uexklliancognitive-semioticbiology,thebrainpartisour Innenwelt(e.g.CentralNervousSystem),

whereasthemindpartisourEigenweltoccupiedbyschemas(form).

A6.Thequestionabouttherelationoflanguageandspeech,asmentalphenomena,totheexternalworld,

includingthesocio-culturalworld,hasnotbeenanswereddefinitivelyyet.Note,though,thatIdonot

endorsethesociologicalconceptionthatlanguageandspeechexistmonolithicallyoutthere,between,

andpresupposedby,thenaturallanguageusersinathirdworldoftheirown( immanentism),asin

LuhmannianSystemsTheory.Rather,Ibelievethatlanguageisapsyche-internalphenomenonontheone

hand,itisontogeneticallyinternalizedasa resourceineachindividuallanguageuser(bybeingacquiredand

learnedfromthesurroundingmodelsintheMitwelt),butontheotherhand,itisaphylogenetically

inheritedcommunicativefacultyofthehumanspecies(universals).Speech,linguistic(inter-)activity

performedbyindividualnaturallanguageusers,isuser-boundandonly externalized(ontheexpression

side)ase.g.acoustic(andoptic)signals,i.e.producedandperceivedbyconcrete,historicalnatural

languageusers.Theexternalsignals(or,Sinsigns)arenaturalobjectsthatare(tobe)studiedusingthe

methodsofnaturalsciences.InvonUexklliancognitive-semioticbiologytheacousticsignalsasproduced

andperceivedwouldbelongtooursubjective Umwelt,showingtracesoftheirproductionrelevantfortheirperception.Thesignalsinthemselvesareonlypotentialsigns(or,Qualisigns,inPeircesterminology)inour

objectiveUmgebung.

Onthecontentside,languageandspeecharerelatedtoalanguage-externalreferentialsubjectmatter

(Stoictynchanonfact)bywayofreferentialintentionality;evensocialfactsarecreatedbyplaying

performative-declarationallanguagegames,likee.g.thecreationofanopenmeeting,or,morefatally,

thecreationofaconditionofwar.Thesubjectmatterreferredtoissemiosis-internal,or,anImmediate

ObjectinsideourUmwelt,butmediatelyitisasemiosis-externalDynamicalObject(inour Umgebung).

A7.Thequestionaboutthepurpose/functionofthestratificationoflanguageandspeech(evolutionarily)

canbeansweredfunctionalistically,e.g.intermsofefficiencyofprocessing.Illcomebacktothatlater.


4/14

1.MatterSubstanceForm,alinguistictri-unityofbothlanguageandspeech

Thestrata,orrepresentationallevels,oflanguageandspeech,shouldbeunderstoodinthesenseof

AristotleandPeirce:

1.Matter,qualitativeimmediacy,amorphouspurport(firstness)

2.Substance,concretepalpabilityorfunctioning(secondness)

3.Form,typicalityorgenerality,habituality,conventionality,constitutivity,order,

systematicity(thirdness)

Itshouldbenotedthat,accordingtoCoseriu(1954),form(3)iscorrelatedwiththelinguistic system,

substance(2)withthenormsofusage,andmatter(1)withusage(understoodasstylisticcompetence).

System(3)andNorms(2)areheldtogetherviathelinguistic type.Thiswaytheycometofunctionasa

coherentidiomaticcompetence.(InsidetheidiomaticcompetencetheNormswouldcorrespondtofirstness,theSystemtosecondness,andtheTypetothirdness.)FormandSubstanceareconnectedviaa

processofmanifestation,regulatedbyasystemofmanifestationrules(concerningnormalization).

Theidiomatic(secondness)andstylisticcompetences(firstness),intheirturn,areheldtogetherona

universallevelviamanselucutionalcompetence(thirdness;cf.Coseriu1985).SubstanceandMatterare

connectedviaaprocesswhichIshalltermrealization,regulatedbyasystemofrealizationrules

(concerningcontextualization).

Alloftheaboveamountstothearchitectureandinfrastructureofthehuman communicative

competence.

Thesides(orplanes)oflanguageandspeech plustheirinterconnection,understoodasaninterface-

stratum,are,accordingtolinguisticstructuralism(Saussure;Hjelmslev;Jakobson):

1.Expression(imageacoustique;form),thesign,orsignans(Representamen;firstness)

2.Content(concept;function),thesignatum(meaning/sense:Interpretant;thirdness)

3.,Semeiosis(thesemioticprocess),ormapping:thesignfunctionobtainingbetween

ContentandExpression;termed symbolizationwhenconnectingContentFormwith

ExpressionForm;itisdynamicandunidirectional,animplication(asymmetricaland

transitive).

Firstly,itshouldbeunderlinedthatExpressionMatterisindeedamentalrepresentation:intheproductive

modeitformsinputtoarticulationitisan articulatoryplan;inthereceptivemodeitformsoutputof

perceptioni.e.,itisarepresentationintermsof auditorypercepts.Similarly,ContentMatterisamental

representationintentionallyrelatedto,i.e.directedat,areferentialsubjectmatter(secondness)outside

languageandspeech.

Secondly,itshouldalsobeemphasizedthatlinguisticContent(Interpretant)isatwo-foldcategory:onthe

oneside,itisthesign-internal representationoftheextension(or,reference,ImmediateObject)ofthe

signitisaperceptualimage(Durst-Andersen1992,2011);ontheotherside,itiswhatistraditionally


5/14

termedtheintension(or,meaning)ofthesignitisaconceptualidea(inDurst-Andersens

terminology).InPeirceantermstheimagewouldoriginateinafirst-ordersign,orRepresentamen,ofan

originalexperientialsituation;theideawouldthenbeasecond-ordersign,orInterpretant,intheoriginal

situation(inAncientGreco-Romanlinguistics,theprimapositio):seeingatreeinthegardenmeanshaving

asenseimpression(Representamen)ofthetree(ImmediateObject)asatree(Interpretant);usingtheword

treedescribingthissituationmeansactivatingthe(linguisticcorrespondentof)thesenseimpression

(image)andthecategory(idea)ofthetreethetreeoutthereinitselfistheDynamicalObject.(This

expositionisrevisionofDurst-Andersens1992,2010,2011theory,thedifferencebeingthathehasthe

ImmediateObjectaspartoftheContent,equatingitwiththeimage.)Substantialevidenceisthatinthe

linguisticsituationthereisactivationinthe Innenwelt(CNS)ofthesamepartsthatareactivatedinthe

originalexperientialsituationinthepresenceoftheDynamicalObject(thechair)roughlyasitting

experienceisactivatedwhenhearingthewordchairandwhen seeingthecorrespondingphysicalobject

intheUmgebung,thusconstruinganoppositenumberImmediateObjectinthe Umwelt.

Figure:Stratification,Peirceansemiosis,andvonUexklliancognitive-semioticbiology(ethology)

Thirdly,itshouldbeunderscoredthat,contrarytoreceivedopinion,Iconceiveofthe semioticprocess,or

Semeiosis,asalevelofaspecifickind,notasaprocessperse.Thus,e.g.withrespecttothementallexicon,

IconceiveofSemeiosisasanaddressingsystem,a ruleorprocedure(thirdness)inadvertentlyconnecting

Content(secondness)withExpression(firstness):Content Expression.OnlyinprocessingisSemeiosis

actualizedasaprocess(secondness).ThislevelmaybeconceivedofastheCodeofthelanguage.


6/14

Semeiosisisacomplexmappingfunction:outoflanguagetranscendentallyitmaps,ontheexpression

route,ontothephysicalrealityofthesignRepresentamen(e.g.,theacousticsignal,asarticulatedand/or

perceivedinPeirceanterms,theSinsign;irrespectiveofprovenience,itisamereQualisign),and,onthe

contentroute,itmapsontothelanguage-external referentialsubjectmatter,PeircesImmediateObject

(withinthereachofthesign)andhisDynamicalObject(outsidethereachofthesign).Immanently,it

mapsbetweenContentandExpression.ExpressionisthePeirceanLegisign(e.g.alexeme-expressioninthe

mentallexicon;aphonemeinthementalphonologicon).Expressionistri-stratal:form,substance,

matter.ThismeansthattherearethreelevelsoftheLegisignthetypeperse(systematicform),a

normativetoken(substance),andcontextualizedtoken(matter/usage).

APeirceannoteontheContentplane:itseemstobethecasethattheContentFormwould,ontheone

hand,correspondtoPeircesImmediateInterpretant(firstness,themeaningofthesigninitself,asa

linguisticpotentiality).TheContentSubstanceandContentMatterwouldseembothtocorrespondtohis

DynamicalInterpretant(secondness,theactualintentionof,oreffecton,theinterpreterinlanguage,

productively,theSpeaker;receptively,theHearer).Alternatively,ContentSubstancewouldcorrespondto

theDynamicalInterpretantinthesenseofactualillocutionaryintentionsandeffects,whereasContent

Matter,inthesenseofultimateperlocutionaryintentionsandeffects,wouldcorrespondtoPeirces

Final/UltimateInterpretant.InanotheranalysisContentSubstance/MatterareEmotionalInterpretants

(feelings,firstness),EnergeticInterpretants(volition,secondness),andLogicalInterpretants(habits,

thirdness).

AfurtherPeirceannoteontheContentplane:takethesentenceCainkilledAbel.Theexternal,referential

subjectmatter(DynamicalObject)isconstitutedbythe realhistoricalpersonsCainandAbel,andthe

killingoftheonebytheotheritisafact( tynchanon)inthenebulouspast.TheImmediateObjectisthe

objectasitisconstruedwithinthebiblicaldomainoftheutterancesign(inthebiblicalsignificationsphere,

cf.Brier2008).NotethattheImmediateObjectiscorrelatedwiththemediateDynamicalObjectoutsideof

thepurviewoflanguageandspeech,asinthefigureabove.IntermsofMaturana&Varelascognitive

biology(andVarelasEnactionTheory),theDynamicalObjectisrelatedtothe Innenweltbywayof

perturbations,wherebythecognitivedomain( Umwelt)isconstruedbythestructureoftheInnenwelt

(CNS)andEigenwelt(mind).IfindthatthedistinctionbetweenDynamicalandImmediateObjectsiscrucial

if,forinstance,youthinkofthebiologicalspecieselephantandaconcretespecimenoutthere(Dynamical

Object),thiswouldcountasaholyanimal(Interpretant)inIndiaandbetreatedaccordingly(Immediate

Object).

OnlytheFormstrataconstitutethegrammar(System)ofanaturallanguageuserslanguage,whereasthe

strataofSubstance(Norms)andMatter(Usage)constitutehispragmatics.Inanothersense,eventhe

formalstrataarepragmatic(pragmalinguistic),i.e.relatedtolinguisticactivity,dialogicity,implyinga

speakerandahearerthereasonwhyItermmymodel Functional(Discourse)Pragmatics.Accordingly,

ContentFormmaybeviewedassystematicpragmatics(locutionarity),whereasexpressionformwouldbe

systematicphonetics(phono-pragmatics).

Then,articulatoryandauditivephoneticsarealsopragmaticdisciplines,inthis(inter)actionalsenseof

pragmatics.Acousticphonetics(andgesturaloptics)isthephysicspartoflinguistics.


7/14

Withrespecttosemantic-pragmaticcontent,Ishallcharacterizematterasperlocutionarity,substanceas

illocutionarity,andformaslocutionarity(introducedabove).ParallelwiththeExpressionside,

perlocutionarityandillocutionarityconstitutethe(socio-)pragmaticsofthelanguage,locutionarity

(pragmalinguistics)thegrammar.Notethattheillocutionaryacts(substance)thatcanbeperformedina

givenlanguageareconstrainedbythelocutionarypossibilitiesofitsgrammar(form),asforinstanceinthe

caseofperformativeswherethesocio-linguisticstateofaffairscreatedisdeterminedbythesignificationof

aperformativeverb(e.g.thedeclarationofameetingasopen).

ImentionedabovethatFormandSubstanceareconnectedviaasystemof manifestationrulesandthat

SubstanceandMatterviaasystemof realizationrules.Thecharacterandfunctionoftheserulesdiffer

accordingtowhichsideoflanguageandspeechweconsider:withrespecttoContent,themanifestation

andrealizationrulesareFormationrules(Andersen1984),reducingreferentialsubjectmattertosemantic

representations,e.g.delicatesubstantialitemsandrelationstolexemesplusgrammemesandsyntactic

relations,andreducingorcompressing/telescopinge.g.argumentalsigns(logicallyconnectedstatesof

affairs;thirdness)todicentsigns(propositions;secondness),anddicentsigntorhematicsigns(terms;

firstness);andvariouskindsofperlocutionaryandillocutionaryintentionsvialiteralizationtolocutions

(wording).WithrespecttoExpression,themanifestationandrealizationrulesare Implementationrules

(Andersen1984)whichaddphonicinformation,e.g.contextualizingfeatures,astheyconvertaphonemic

representation(phonemicoppositions)intoaphonetic(allophonic)representation(phoneticdifferences).

Whenproducingspeech,onereducescontentinformation(typification;categorization),butaugments

expressioninformation(tokenization);whenreceivingspeechitisviceversa:reducingexpression

information(typification;categorization)andaugmentingcontentinformation(tokenization).(Thismustbe

thelinguistickindofentropy/negentropy.Popularlyspeaking,theworldoutthereisachaoticmess,butto

copewithit,wehavetomaketheworldinhereacosmicorder!Uniformityincreaseswhengoingfromcontentmattertocontentform,butdecreaseswhengoingfromexpressionformtoexpressionmatter,in

producingspeech.)

Giventhattheactivitiesofspeaking,andofunderstandingspeech,aremental,orcognitive,processesand

thatlanguageisaprocedureforspeaking/understanding,thenthislanguagecouldonlybeanindividuals,

thoughsocial-collective (i.e.notprivate),phenomenon,aso-calledfunctionallanguage,notamonolithic

languageofagivenspeechcommunity(inthatIdonotrecognizesuchphenomenaasmacro-mindsand

masseparlante).Theunionsetofindividualfunctionallanguagesconstitutesan Idiom(or,community

language).

Figure.Thedistinctionbetweenanindividualsfunctionallanguageandthehistoricallanguageofaspeech

community(Idiom)

Functionallanguage( individual) Idiom(historicalcommunitylanguage)


8/14

Figure.Thethreemodesofbeingoflanguage(individualsfunctionallanguagevs.speechcommunitys

historicallanguage,orIdiom)

Elocutionalcompetence Universals

Idiomaticcompetence(individual) Type

System

Normsofusage

Idiom(speechcommunity,unionset)

ExpressiveCompetence Usage

Speaking/Understanding Discourseprocessing

Speech Text(discourse) Synchronouscorpusoftextsofaspeechcommunity

2.Semeiosisasanindependentinterface-leveltheseventhstratum

InSaussureanlinguisticsthesignfunctioniscommonlyseenasthetransparentboundarybetween

ContentandExpression.In FunctionalPragmatics,thisisnotso:semeiosis(symbolization)isan inter-level,

akindofmediatingsyntaxbetweenContentandExpression.Thislevelisi.a.obviousinthecaseofword

orderprocessing,wherethecontent-syntactic(andexpression-syntactic)structuresarequantified(e.g.the

measuringofthecomplexityofthesentencemembers)asinputtoperformance-basedlinearizationrules

(cf.Hawkins1994PerformanceTheoryofOrderandConstituency).Ontheuniversalleveloflanguage

(understoodasacompetence-to-perform)arefound:universalprinciplesofprocessing(e.g.thelawof

increasingcomplexityofconstituents;EarlyImmediateConstituents;principlesofproximity;economicvs.iconicmotivation),whichareoperativeinwordorderprocessing,i.e.determinantoftheactualorderinan

actuallyoccurringtextutterance,evenincaseswithnoconventionalregulation.

Theupshotoftheaboveconceptionisthatwehavethreelevelsofrepresentationonthecontentside,

threelevelsofrepresentationontheexpressionside,and oneorthogonallevelinbetweencontentform

andexpressionform,termedsymbolizationabove.Thispictureshouldberevised,though:notonlythe

twoformsoflanguageandspeech,i.e.ContentFormandExpressionForm,areconnected,ormediated,

viaSemeiosis,butalsothetwosubstancesandthetwomatters.Forinstance,perlocutionarymental

states(ContentMatter)areindicated(diagrammed)bye.g.voicequalityandfacialexpressions(Expression

Matter).

Theabovedescriptionmayberepresentedbythefollowingtable.

Table.Semeiosisasaseventh(macro-)stratum

Content Semeiosis Expression

Form Symbolization Form

Substance Substance

Matter Matter


9/14

3.StratificationinLanguage,DiscourseProcesses,andText

InHjelmslevianGlossematicslanguageisbasicallya paradigmaticresourcepresupposedbythelinguistic

text,whichisasyntagmaticsequence(termedprocess).InPeirceanphaneroscopicsemiotics,anatural

languageuserslanguagewouldbeatri-unity,i.e.occurringinthree modesofbeing:thus,itoccursnotonlyasaresourceortechnique(thirdness,3),butalsoasadiscourseprocess(secondness,2),andaproduct,the

text(firstness,1):

1.Product(Aristotelianergonopus):Text:finishedproduct(past;leftbehind)

2.Process(ing)(Aristotelianenergeiaactus):DiscourseProcesses :here-and-nowspeech

activity(present;progressive)

3.Patternofbehavior/procedure,aresource,competence,instrumentofcommunication

(Aristoteliandynamispotentia,Peirceanmediator):Language:(Lexico-)Grammarand

Semantics-Pragmatics,Phonology-Phonetics;generalapplicability(includingthefuture)

ThesemodesofbeingareinterrelatedsuchthatthePattern/Procedureisaconstraintuponthe(creativity

of)ongoingDiscourseProcessestheTextistheensuingincrementalProduct.InSystemic-Functional(and

Jakobsonian)terms,thePatternisapotential,theProcessisthechoosing(selection,combination,and

projection),theproductisthechoiceinstance.(OnecanseethePatternasanAristotelianformoperativein

theDiscourseProcessesasmatter,yieldingtheTextasa concretum,orsubstance,butinPeirceanterms

thePatternisahabitofthirdnessmediatingbetweenprocessualsecondnessand(yielding)textual

firstness.)NoticethattheTextisdirectlyrelatedtothestylistic-expressivecompetence(Usage,concerning

matter,thecontextualizinglevel),indirectlytothehigher-levelcompetences,inthatthecompetencesare

successivelynested:

UsageExpressiveCompetence


10/14

ProductivestratificationstartsoutwiththeinteriorizationfromreferentialsubjectmattertotheContent

stratum(whatthespeakerwantstosay);nextisformation(dematerialization)fromContentMatterto

ContentFormoverContentSubstance;thereaftersymbolization(encoding)fromContentFormto

ExpressionForm;nextmaterialization(deformation)fromExpressionFormtoExpressionMatterover

ExpressionSubstance;andlast,exteriorizationfromExpressionMattertoe.g.acousticandvisualsignal.

Receptivestratificationtakesitspointofdepartureinthelastmentionedacousticsignalwhichis

interiorizedintoExpressionMatter;thencomestheformation(dematerialization)ofExpressionMatter

intoExpressionFormoverExpressionSubstance;thereafterdecodingfromExpressionFormtoContent

Form;next,materialization(deformation)fromContentFormtoContentMatteroverContentSubstance;

andlast,exteriorizationfromContentMattertoreferentialsubjectmatter(correspondingto

intentionality).Thisdescriptionmayberepresentedasinthefollowingtable(fortherelationshipbetween

receptionandproduction,seeKeenan&MacWhinney1987):

Table.TheFunctionalDiscoursePragmaticsmodeloflanguageandspeech

Production Reception(Comprehension)

DynamicalObject DynamicalObject

Referentialsubjectmatter ImmediateObject ImmediateObject

I.Interiorization/Inventio I.Exteriorization/Reference

1.ContentMatter CommunicativeFunction CommunicativeFunction

II.Dematerialization II.Materialization

2.ContentSubstance

Formationrules III.Formation/Literalization III.Deformation/Indirection

3.ContentForm ProductiveFunction ReceptiveFunction

0.Symbolizationrules 0.Encoding 0.Decoding-3.ExpressionForm ProductiveForm(Legisign) ReceptiveForm(Legisign)

Implementationrules -III.Deformation -III.Formation

-2.ExpressionSubstance

-II.Materialization -II.Dematerialization

-1.ExpressionMatter Articulatoryrepresentation Perceptualrepresentation

-I.Exteriorization/Articulation -I.Interiorization/Perception

Medial/modalmatter Sinsign(output) Sinsign(input)

Qualisign(e.g.acoustics) Qualisign(e.g.acoustics)

Whatistermedreferentialsubjectmatterintheabovetableisthereferentialdomainofagiven

utterance,orwhatBhler(1934)termedZeigfeld,(i.e.indexicalfield).ItcontainsalltheImmediateObjects

ofagivenutterance,andiscorrelatedwiththe deicticcenteroftheutterance(Dik1989).

Anytextanditsdiscourseprocessingoccurina situationalcontext(i.a.containingcorrelatednon-linguistic

behavioralevents),andtheoperativefunctionallanguagethatgeneratesthetextfunctionswithrespectto

aculture(i.a.containingsocialhabitsandideologies).Thiswaylanguageandspeecharethetwin-partofa

sym-praxisoflanguage/speechandculture/situation(lifeforms).Wemaysaythat,asthetextisan

instanceofthelanguage,soisthesituationalcontextaninstanceoftheculture.AccordingtoUldall

(1967:29f),thespeechsituationunityandthelanguagecultureunityshareastratumof

contentsubstance(i.e.ContentMatterinourterms).Howeverthatmaybe,theinteractiverelation


11/14

betweenthinking(-for-speaking)andspeaking/communicatingaswellasbetweenthought(cognition)and

language/communicationisinvolved:thinkingasabehavioraleventmaybepartlyformed(construedor

structured)bythespeakinghabitsofoneslanguage(e.g.thinkingintermsofevidentialityinaspeaker-

orientedlanguagelikeTurkish;cf.theRelativityHypothesisofSapir-Whorf),partlyonlyregulatedbya

universalLanguageofThought.

Above,IproposedtoconsiderSemeiosisas(also)aseparatelevelofi.a.symbolizationrules,andalsothat

themanifestationandrealizationprocessesbeconsideredasgovernedbyformationandimplementation

rules.Thisamountstoanoppositionbetweenprocessasprocess(!)andprocessasapotential/resource/

techniqueseeminglyacontradictioinadjecto!However,Ibelievethatalanguage(communicative

competence)isbothacommunicativecompetence(toperform) perseandaperformance(system;thus,

Chomsky).TheactualrunningofthesystemistheDiscourseProcess.

4.CritiqueofHjelmslevianGlossematicsfromaCoserianIntegralLinguisticspointofview

Itshouldnotgounnoticedthatforminthismodelisnotpureform( schema)asinGlossematics

(Hjelmslev1954;Fischer-Jrgensen1966),i.e.neutralwithrespecttothe physicalmedium(modeof

materialization)used.Thatis,inmypointofview,linguisticsis multimodal/multimedial,andExpression

Formismodal/medial,e.g.phonic(vocallanguage)oroptical/manual-brachial-facial(signlanguage).Thus,

ratherthanoperatingwithaHjelmslevian,immanentamodal/amedialstratumofa schema,my

Functional(Discourse)PragmaticsoperateswithaCoserian IntegralLinguistics,transcendentallevelof

modal/medialform(e.g.Coseriu1954;alsofoundinJakobsonianfunctionalstructuralismandDanish

structuralfunctionalismDanishFunctionalLinguisticsincludingFunctionalPragmatics).Thus,language

andbodylanguageareintegratedintototal,orintegral,multimodal/multimedialcommunication.Natural

languageembodiesamoresymbolicformofthinking,whereasbodylanguageembodiesamoreiconic-indexicalformofthinking.Theyareunitedintoanintegralthinking-for-communication(McNeill1992).

GlossematicsviewstheContentsideasnon-psychic,implyinganontologywithan immanentsemiotic

worldofpurerelationsandstructures,whichisinhabitedbysemioticsystemsonly,whereas Functional

(Discourse)Pragmatics viewstheContentsidease.g.alsooperatingwith(formed)encyclopedic

knowledge.

5.Languageandspeechasbelongingtothesymbolicorder,the semiosphere

Thestudyoflanguageandspeechcruciallyinvolvesallfourmajorscientificdisciplines:physics(thephysics

ofspeech:acousticphonetics);biology(i.a.genetics;ethology;behavioralneuroscience;physiology:

articulatoryandauditoryphonetics;neuro-linguistics;biolinguistics;biosemiotics);individualandsocial

psychology(i.a.psycholinguistics;cognitivelinguistics);andsociology(i.a.sociolinguistics;communication

studies;ethnolinguistics;anthropologicallinguistics;ethno-methodology;culturalstudies),butcanbe

reducedtoneitheroneofthem(Cassirer1945).Wewillsaythatlanguageandspeechbelongwithinan

emergentorderofthings,the symbolic(semiotic)order,i.e.thesemiosphere.(Thisorderisthus,in

Hjelmslevstermstranscendentalandnotimmanent,ashewouldhavehadit.)


12/14

6.Stratificationoflanguageandspeechin Cybersemiotics

ThepresentmodelofFunctional(Discourse)Pragmatics isacontributiontothetransdisciplinarytheoryof

Cybersemiotics(Brier2008).

physical

biological

psychological

socio-cultural


13/14

References((notrevised,19.10.2011))

Andersen,Henning.1979.Phonologyassemiotic. ASemioticLandscape.ProceedingsoftheFirstCongress

oftheInternationalAssociationforSemioticStudies, ed.bySeymourChatman,377381.TheHague:

Mouton.

Andersen,Henning.1983.Iconicity.Amapoftheterritory(manuscript)

Andersen,Henning.1984[1975].Languagestructureandsemioticprocesses. APILKUArbejdspapirerfra

InstitutforLingvistikvedKbenhavnsUniversitet3.3354.(Orig.1975.)

Andersen,Henning.1985.Onprojectiveiconicity.APILKUArbejdspapirerfraInstitutforLingvistikved

KbenhavnsUniversitet5.4970.

Brier,Sren.2008.Cybersemiotics.WhyInformationIsNotEnough! .(TorontoStudiesinSemioticsand

Communication.)Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Cassirer,ErnstA.1945.Structuralisminmodernlinguistics.WordI.99-120.

Chafe,Wallace.1970.

Chomsky,NoamA.2000.Newhorizonsinthestudyoflanguageandmind.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Coseriu,Eugenio.1954."FormaySustanciaenlossonidosdellenguaje. RevistadelaFaculdadde

HumanidadesyCiencias,UniversidaddelaRepublican.o12,Montevideo,Uruguay1954.143-217.

Coseriu,Eugenio.1985.

Knowing

Biological

Psychological

soio-cultural

Physical


14/14

Dahl,sten.1998."'Substance'andDanishFunctionalGrammar:CommentsonContent,Expression,and

Structure:StudiesinDanishFunctionalGrammar".ActaLinguisticaHafniensia30.201-205.

Durst-Andersen,Per.2010.

Fawcett1983,2000

Fischer-Jrgensen,Eli.1966.FormandSubstanceinGlossematics. ActaLinguisticaHafniensia10.1.1-33.

Halliday,M.A.K.1961.

Halliday&Matthiessen1999;

Hawkins,JohnA.1994.

Hengeveld&Mackenzie2008

Hjelmslev,Louis1935.

Hjelmslev,Louis.1954.Lastratificationdulangage.WordX.163-188.

Hjelmslev,Louis.1943.Omkringsprogteoriensgrundlggelse.Copenhagen:Munksgaard.Translatedas:

Hjelmslev,Louis.1953.Prolegomenatoatheoryoflanguage.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics

Memoirno.7.Baltimore.

Jackendoff,Ray.2002

Keenan,JaniceM.&MacWhinney,Brian.1987.Understandingtherelationshipbetweencomprehension

andproduction.In:HansW.Dechert&ManfredRaupach,eds. Psycholinguisticmodelsofproduction .

Norwood,NJ:Ablex.149-155.

Lamb,SydneyM.1999.PathwaysofTheBrain.TheNeurocognitiveBasisofLanguage .Amsterdam/

Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

NedergaardThomsen,Ole.2006.

NedergaardThomsen,Ole.2009.

deSaussure,Ferdinand.1916.CoursdeLinguistiquegnrale.Lausanne&Paris:.

Stjernfelt,Frederik.1993.CategoricalPerceptionasageneralprerequisitetotheformationofsigns?On

thebiologicalrangeofadeepsemioticprobleminHjelmslevsaswellasPeircessemiotics. Travauxdu

CercleLinguistiquedeCopenhagueXXIV.131-150.

Uldall,H.J.1967.

Documents

Stratification and The