Thanks to all the Russophones who helped, but especially copious thanks to Ana for her little sketch.
For a moment I had a little trouble figuring out the "dog", "war" and "jazz" lines of longitude. The reason is that I'm incurably visual, and while it's very easy for me to understand what "dog" looks like at the North Pole (that is, the spontaneous concept end, where a concept is virtually indistinguishable from a concrete object) it's very hard for me to see what "jazz" and "war" look like, since neither one is a concrete object.
Similarly, it's easy to see what "war" as a purely abstract concept (free of time and place) looks like at the South Pole (where all wars must be identical in conceptual terms). But the idea of a specific, concrete form of "jazz" (unrelated to other forms of jazz) is hard to get my poor incurably visual head around.
But now I think I've got it. My solution is a pretty Hallidayan one, though, and it will probably not sit well with the non-semiotically minded. Here's how it works. Halliday has this kind of hierarchy of grammatical metaphor which runs from inter-mental discourse to intra-mental lexicogrammar. (Pardon my somewhat Cartesian example!)
A (entering a room): I think.
B: THERE you are!
We can formulate this as text:
"I think. Therefore, I am."
Here, the relationship is realized as a "relator" ("therefore") which connects two independent clause complexes, just the way the room in the previous example connected the two independent voices. But of course we can formulate it more closely, like this:
RELATOR as CLAUSE NEXUS: "I think, so I conclude that I exist."
And more closely still, as CIRCUMSTANCE:
"As a result of my thinking, I conclude that I exist."
And more closely still, as PROCESS:
"My thinking results in the conclusion that I exist."
And more closely, as QUALITY:
"The resultant conclusion of my thought is that I exist."
And most concretely of all, as ENTITY:
"The result of my thought is that I exist."
We can construe the North Pole as being something like the pole of concrete entities (preferably real objects like dogs and not abstractions like war or jazz, but almost anything can be reified these days).
We can think of the South Pole as the pole of abstract relators (or even purely implicit relationships). There is virtually no object to which the concept relates (and in the case of a dog it would have to be reduced to a single quality, such as number).
We can think of each latitudinal circle as being a circle of points that cover ideational meanings (that is, "experiential" meanings, with the caveat that language is not simply a theory of experience but also a theory of things that we have not, will not, and cannot experience).
At the PROCESS latitude, this will look rather like Halliday's ring:
MATERIAL PROCESSES (doing)-->VERBAL PROCESSES (saying)-->MENTAL PROCESSES (thinking and feeling)-->RELATIONAL PROCESSES (being)-->MATERIAL PROCESSES
At the north pole, though, there is a single point, because each concept is a unique concrete object (like "David" or "Ana"). At the south pole, there is a single point because each concept is a unique idea with an infinite number of names that all refer to the same thing (like a number).
What's the advantage of doing things this way? Well, first of all, it explains very well what we do when we define scientific concepts: we move to a SLIGHTLY more southerly latitude and then refine it by moving north:
"A dog is mammalian quadruped (SOUTHERLY) of the genus "canus" and the species "canus" (NORTHWARD HO!).
"War is a protracted form of organized violence (SOUTHERLY) by large social groups using weapons (NORTHERLY).
"Jazz is an improvised form of music (SOUTHERLY) developed by black people in the USA in the twentieth century (NORTHERLY).
There are other payoffs too though. One is the one I indicated earlier: it allows us to make sentences that look something like mathematical equations. For example:
“The orbital movement of the electron is what creates the electron shell”:
If we imagine for a moment that “f” means something like “generates”, or “creates”, we can see that, assuming a “Verb-Subject-Object” grammar, this sentence says something roughly equivalent to:
f (x) = y
By applying grammatical metaphor recursively, we get sentences like:
“The creation of an electron shell by the orbital movement of an electron is what creates the chemical properties of an element.”
f[f(x)] = z
Once we’ve established the equivalence of certain terms, it is possible to “ascend to the concrete” through substitution:
“The electron shell is what creates the chemical properties of an element.”
f (y) = z
We can now create complex entities within entities, perform processes on processes and discuss meta-relationships, that is, relationships between sets of relationships.
At this point, Mike is probably asking whether it really happens like this in real classrooms. Well, have a look at this. One of my grad students is introducing the idea of a food pyramid. She begins by eliciting examples in clause form, e.g.:
HS Hippo eats grass.
T Grass. Hippo eats grass. HJ?
HJ Giraffe eats grass.
T Giraffe eats grass. HC?
HC Rabbit eats carrot.
Using a nice, "NORTHERLY" grammatical metaphor, she uses the quality “green” to generalize the entities “carrot,” “grass,” and “rice”.
T Green eater, because most of grass are green.
T We can call grass eater green eater, ok?
Ss Yes.
T OK, can you make another name for meat eater?
The teacher and the children expand this into a slightly more SOUTHERLY scientific grammatical metaphor, using a process as a quality:
T Ok, now everyone, follow me.
T Here is grass, and then on the next step? Here is grass eating animal.
T And then the next step is meat eating animal.
T So let me summarize the words about animals and plants.
T Here is grass and then grass eater.
HC Grass eating animal.
The teacher then collapses this into a purely technical term, eliminating all traces of the process “eat.” The path she takes, however, is somewhat circuitous, very much like Ana's circumnavigation of the globe.
T Every meal, we eat rice.
T Rice is grass, right?
Ss Yeah~
T So human, I mean people eat both grass and meat.
T So we can call it what? color eater?
HC Colorful.
AS Colorful eater.
T Colorful.? what is colorful?
HC Anything eater.
T Anything eater. Like this, rainbow.
HC Rainbow?
T Just it makes you easy to understand, ok?
Ss Wae-o? (Why?)
T Because of green and red and some color. So rainbow.
T Rainbow has a lot of color, right?
Ss Yes.
T We can say that just grass-meat eater. Like this.
T But now I'll tell you some professional words, ok?
T Grass, the first consumer is a herbivore.
T Herbivore, herbivore. Ok, repeat after me, herbivore.
Ss Herbivore.
T Herbivore.
Ss Herbivore.
T Herbivore is 초식동물 in Korean, ok?
HC remarks that humans are “colorful” eaters, upon which AS deftly changes the quality “colorful” back to the entity “anything” (along the lines of the teacher’s transformation of “green” to “grass” and “red” to “meat”).
The teacher steps briefly back NORTH in the direction of “qualities” by offering “rainbow eater” to describe humans. The word is not taken up with much enthusiasm, but it serves spontaneously to illustrate spontaneously, that is, in spontaneous conceptual terms, the scientific concept “omnivore,” which is then translated into the native language.
When the teacher has to talk about meta-relationships, that is, the relationships between the different types of relationships to food, she takes a step back NORTH from the Latinate “omnivore” (but does not go all the way to the spontaneous illustrations using colors). The children, however, insist on the SOUTHERLY Latin.
T If grass eater is more than grass, what happen? What happen?
HS Uh~ every monkey died.
T Maybe on the earth, there is no grass.
T So maybe grass eater will die.
T And then meat eater also will die.
T And the last, people will die.
T Do you understand what I'm saying?
SP Oh~yeah.
T Ok, good. How about second?
T Second consumer is meat eater.
HC Keu daeum maen majimak-eun people. (“So next the very last one is gonna be ‘people’”)
T OK, the last consumer
Ss People, people...
HS Omnivore
T People, or lion, something like that.
Ss Omnivore. omnivore...
T Eagles here.
T Ok, meat eater is less than grass eater, ok?
T Grass eater is more than meat eater.
T Do you understand?
Ss Yes..
T So this kind of system, we can call this kind of system food pyramid, OK?
The children have clearly understood the Vygotskyan principle according to which more generalizeable concepts have interchangeable names, and they have clearly also grasped the Hallidayan mechanism of grammatical metaphor whereby these names can be generated.
Interestingly, however, they do not quite manage to get the concept the food pyramid, since they insist on placing omnivorous humans rather than carnivorous lions or eagles at the peak! Anthropocentrism, I suppose--abetted by the teacher, in her rather NORTHERLY sketch of what would happen if all the grass died!
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 10:36:50 PST