PLENARISTAS

The logogenesis of knowledge: teaching history
JAMES MARTIN
University of Sydney

Recently, as part of an ongoing dialogue between SFL and next generation Bernstein sociology of education, Muller has suggested verticality and grammaticality as key principles for understanding how disciplines evolve over time (phylogenesis). Verticality has to do with the extent to which an expanding data base is subsumed under ever more general principles; grammaticality has to do with the extent to which knowledge is put at risk in relation to data analysis. In this paper I'll explore these principles in the ontogenetic and logogenetic context of secondary school history teaching, focusing on classroom action to see how in this humanities discipline abstract concepts and ways of reasoning are scaffolded (verticality) and their relation to primary sources is explored (grammaticality) - for students by teachers.

F. Christie & J R Martin [Eds.] Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. (London: Continuum. 2007.

Martin, J R 2007 Genre and field: social processes and knowledge structures in systemic functional semiotics.. L Barbara & T Berber Sardinha [Eds.] Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress.  São Paulo: PUCSP. Online publication available at www.pucsp.br/isfc. ISBN 85-283-0342-X. 1-35.

Análise de elementos sinalizadores da recontextualização do discurso da ciência na mídia eletrônica
DÉSIRÉE MOTTA ROTH
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria

A linguagem é sistêmica (se apoia em uma rede de escolhas de variáveis de macro e microestruturas) e funcional (constitui a atividade social em andamento num dado contexto). Relacionamos práticas sociais a textos, em função de princípios de coerência, subjacentes à sociedade, expressos por meio de padrões de ação e usos da linguagem, definidores da seleção e organização dos significados relevantes em uma comunidade. Como um sistema de significações que medeia a existência humana, a linguagem sofre influência das relações sociais enquanto estas influenciam os padrões de seleção do que é dito, quando é dito e como é dito (Bernstein, 1996). Essa relação entre os significados considerados relevantes, as formas lingüísticas que realizam esses significados e os contextos que os evocam dão origem ao que chamamos de gênero discursivo. Nesta palestra, exploro o conceito de recontextualização de Basil Bernstein e as metafunções da linguagem de M. A. K. Halliday para falar de um processo social e discursivo de um gênero:  a  notícia de popularização da ciência. São identificadas marcas do processo de popularização do discurso científico em elementos variados da rede de significação de exemplares desse gênero, tais como estruturas interpelativas (para sinalizar relações simétricas entre jornalista e leitor), estruturas apositivas multimodais (uso de texto, hiperlinks e figuras para explicar princípios e conceitos), recursos léxico-gramaticais de coesão e coerência (uso de conetivos temporais para indicar coerência e inovação entre conhecimento prévio e recente), ou intercalação de discurso direto e indireto (para sinalizar pontos de vista alternativos sobre o tópico da notícia). A análise aponta para indicadores das características do gênero como instâncias de esclarecimento sobre princípios da ciência e indicação de sua relevância social.


Polysystemic potential: modelling multilingual and multimodal systems
CHRISTIAN M.I.M. MATTHIESSEN  
Department of English, PolySystemic Research Group, Faculty of Humanities, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Language is inherently polysystemic — a principle emphasized in Systemic Functional Linguistics since Firth first articulated it in his pre-systemic work. There are, of course, a number of ways in which we can identify manifestations of the polysystemic principle. For example, we can foreground the interpretation of language as a system of systems — a system of stratal subsystems, a system of metafunctional subsystems, and so on. We can also foreground this polysystemic interpretation of language as a way of dealing with linguistic variation — dialectal variation, codal variation and registerial (diatypic) variation. Thus when we describe a given language such as English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic, Akan, Quechua or Guaraní, we need to take such variation into account, even if this means narrowing the focus to a single variety. We can also extend the notion of dialectal variation to take multilingual variation into account, as in the case of a multilingual speech community or of a multilingual speaker. At the same time, if we take a step back, we can also recognize that in a community or a speaker, the polysystemic principle also applies across semiotic systems. The semiotic system of a semiotic community, or of an individual meaner, is also a system of systems — a system of language, gesture, facial expression and of other semiotic systems.
Here I will be concerned specifically with multilingual and multisemiotic systems (although my remarks also apply to other polysystemic manifestations; for registerial polysystemicity, see Matthiessen, 1993). I will draw on work that a number of us started on in the early 1990s to extend the representational power of system networks, originally to enable them to represent the polysystemic potential of a computational system operating with two or more languages (see Bateman et al., 1999; Bateman, Matthiessen & Zeng, 1999). In these multilingual system networks, the multilingual meaning potential of a multilingual community or meaner can be represented as a combination of the potential that is common to the languages involved and the potentials that are specific to particular languages.

These latter potentials are represented as “partitions” within the overall system networks. Such multilingual system networks can be used not only to model multilinguality in natural language systems (as in Bateman’s KPML system), but also to model and investigate multilinguality in the context of human multilingual processes such as code switching, code mixing, translation and interpreting and in the context of comparative and typological studies. For instance, Teruya et al. (2007) present a multilingual mood network covering around seven different languages (cf. also Ellis’, 1987, earlier discussion of system networks in comparative studies). 

I will explore such multilingual systemic descriptions here, referring to work by research groups involving members in Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, Thailand and Australia concerned with the description of particular systems in a range of languages, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Thai and Japanese — systems of verbal processes, of projection, and of motion. This will include a report on a study carried out by a group of us investigating texts in different languages involving the representation of motion through space. 
At the same time, I will also explore the modelling and description of multisemiotic systems by means of polysystemic system networks of the kind mentioned above.

One central question is how the resources of different semiotic systems can be represented so that it is possible for meaners to use multiple semiotic systems, to switch between them, to mix them and to translate between them (cf. Mohan, 1986). This is essentially the same question as for multilingual systems: can commonality or congruence between systems be handled lexicogrammatically or semantically, or do we need to push further up into context to show how the systems are coordinated in the making of meaning (the question of the cline of integration: see Matthiessen, in press).

These two concerns — the multilingual and the multisemiotic — come together in different areas, as in the representation of multisemiotic and multilingual resources for construing our experience of motion through space (cf. Matthiessen, in press). Thus the complementarity of language and gesture as resources for narrating sequences of motional events is different in e.g. English and Spanish (see e.g. Slobin, 2004a,b).

References
Bateman, John, Christian Matthiessen, Keizo Nanri & Licheng Zeng. 1991. The rapid prototyping of natural language generation components: an application of functional typology. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence, Sydney, 24-30 August 1991. Sydney. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.  966-971.

Bateman, John A., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Zeng Licheng. 1999. “Multilingual language generation for multilingual software: a functional linguistic approach.” Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal. Volume 13.6: 607-639.

Ellis, Jeffrey. 1987. “Some “dia-categories”.” In Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Volume II.  Amsterdam: Benjamins. 81-94.

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. “Register in the round: diversity in a unified theory of register analysis.” In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: theory and practice. London: Pinter. 221-292.

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. in press. “Multisemiotic and context-based register typology: registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems.” Ventola, Eija & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro (eds.). in press. The world shown and the world told. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Mohan, Bernhard A. 1986. Language and content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 
Slobin, Dan I. 2004a. “The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events.” In Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 219-257.

Slobin, Dan I. 2004b. “Relating narrative events in translation.” In D. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Crítica del uso del lenguaje o crítica de algunos usos
ALEJANDRO RAITER
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Es evidente que contar con una gramática funcionalista permite la crítica. Efectivamente, si entendemos que el lenguaje tiene funciones y que las funciones están realizadas por formas, podemos criticar de qué maneras se cumplen esas funciones y – por lo tanto – criticar las formas, en tanto éstas constituyen un sistema. Debemos tener en claro que lo que se critica son las funciones y no otra cosa. Al menos este es, desde nuestro punto de vista, el programa de investigación de la Lingüística Crítica, tal como lo presentan Fowler, Trew (1978) en Lenguaje y Control y sistematizaran Hodge y Kress (1979/1993) en El lenguaje como ideología. Las formas lingüísticas que delimitan las maneras de clasificar el mundo, de representar el movimiento, de modalizar, de construir las cláusulas, son analizadas para demostrar, ante todo, que las opciones no son equivalentes y que, sobre todo, tienen consecuencias al ser usadas. Este programa parece - al menos parcialmente – abandonado.

La vinculación entre la crítica, la lingüística y el análisis del discurso parece estar en manos del ACD. Muchos de los investigadores que se identifican con esta corriente (van Dijk, 1998; Wodak, 2001); Martín Rojo, 1998) no parten de gramáticas funcionalistas. Como consecuencia, sus trabajos críticos se refieren a discursos concretos en contextos particulares; en otros términos son críticas del contexto o críticas de usos particulares  del lenguaje y no del lenguaje en uso. La crítica decae y pierde legitimidad al parcializar el contexto, presentar análisis sociales e históricos incompletos y sesgados; decae al confundir funciones del lenguaje con el lugar concreto que algunas interacciones lingüísticas tienen dentro de una comunidad.
Mostraremos algunas de las afirmaciones e interpretaciones de análisis del ACD para discutir si la teoría o “actitud” podría eventualmente universalizarse o si deberá conformarse con la elaboración de una nueva normativa de usos lingüísticos.

Mesas redondas plenarias:

1. LINGÜÍSTICA SISTÉMICO-FUNCIONAL Y ANÁLISIS CRÍTICO DEL DISCURSO.
   
   

   María Laura Pardo (UBA, CONICET) (coordinadora), Denize Elena García da Silva (Universidad de Brasilia), Nuria Lorenzo-Dus (University of (Universidad de Swansea, País de Gales, Reino Unido).

2. LINGÜÍSTICA SISTÉMICO-FUNCIONAL Y MULTIMODALIDAD 
   
   Salvio Martín Menéndez (UNMdP, UBA, CONICET) (Coordinador) Ann Borsinger-Montemayor (Instituto Balseiro Universidad Nacional de Cuyo), Celia Magalahes (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), Eija Ventola (University of Helsinski).
   
   
3. LINGÜÍSTICA SISTÉMICO FUNCIONAL Y EDUCACIÓN
   
   Estela Moyano (UNGS) (coordinadora) Claire Acevedo, international freelance Education Consultant, UK Orlando Vian Jr., Univerisdade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil

Programa
Descargar versión preliminar del programa.