Chapter 5 introduced us to SFL and its social-semiotic theory of language. In this very brief overview we saw how language can be organized metafunctionally to construe reality (experiential function), link realities together (logical function), enact personal and social relationships (interpersonal function), and map these meanings onto one another and onto the context in which language is being used (textual function). We also saw how language can be explored in terms of stratification (layers of language) and units of analysis (rank scale). We subsequently used these theoretical underpinnings in Chapter 7, where we explored revision activity in terms of language functions, ranks, and systemic choices (a mostly synoptic affair). The underlying motif for this chapter is 'product-process relationships'. Consequently, it is here that we will explore if a possible relationship can be discerned between a product and its process of creation in light of RQ 3: Is there a relationship between how a person writes and the perceived quality of their text(s)? This effectively means we will be moving between synoptic (product) and dynamic (process) descriptions.
We have already seen in Chapter 6 that how a person writes does not necessarily equate to the quality of a finished product; JD and BB went about essay writing in fundamentally different ways, yet they both received high grades. Consequently, in this chapter, I will be arguing for a change in perspective by suggesting that it may be better to examine product-process relationships in terms of semogenesis. More specifically, if we can examine how language choices representing societal expectations (Chapters 3 and 4) unfold in the logogenetic time frame1 (a decidedly dynamic affair), we may be in a better position to understand what it is that 'good' writers 'create'.
In simpler terms, by exploring revisions in terms of logogenesis (the instantiation of the language system in text), we can examine not how writers create text, but how writers create meaning (semogenesis). Consequently, whilst this chapter is included in pursuit of answering a RQ, it is also used as a prologue to the final chapter, and its notes on further research into product-process relationships.
The chapter begins with §8.1, which explores the logogenesis (unfolding) of revision functions.
This first section examines how revisions unfolded in terms of the four functional strands of language that we were introduced to in previous chapters. This section illustrates how experiential and interpersonal revisions are more likely to increase/decrease the number of meanings/features in a text, whilst textual and logical revisions are less likely to increase the
1 cf. Chapter 3, §3.1, figure 3.1.
172 overall number of features/meanings in a text.
The second section (§8.2) explores unfolding rank choice, and looks at how revisions contributed to, or subtracted from, the frequency of lexicogrammatical constituents within each text in terms of nominal groups (NGrps), clause complexes, etc. In this section, we will see how NGrp elements were the key constituents involved in unfolding choice in revision activity across the four texts.
However, we will also see how the relative contribution of these elements (their end counts) varied, with JD3 and BB showing increased numbers through revision activity, whilst JD1 and JD2 remained relatively stable in terms of overall counts.
Finally, §8.3 moves away from lexicogrammatical choice (the primary focus of the thesis so far), and shunts us into semantics. More specifically, this section dips into the realm of ideational semantics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999), and explores how a change in (analytical) perspective can give us similar, yet differing views on the same phenomenon. By focusing on logicosemantic type, this section illustrates how a common thread of increased experiential meanings, as shown in Chapter 7, can be broken down into a more delicate analysis; this analysis subsequently reveals much greater variation between the types of revisions made than was initially revealed by looking at lexicogrammatical choice alone.
8.1 The unfolding of revision functions
This first section explores how revision activity affected the number of functional meanings/features in each text by considering how each revision contributed to, or subtracted from, the realization of one or more of the four functions of language outlined elsewhere (e.g.
Chapters 5 and 6). More specifically, rather than look at revision as a finished product, here we will examine revision as it unfolded (as a process). As per the previous chapters, each dataset will be introduced separately, starting with JD1.
8.1.1 JD1
Figure 8.1 is a line chart illustrating how revisions in JD1 contributed to, or subtracted from, the final text in terms of experiential, logical, interpersonal, and textual meanings. The X-axis shows the sequential ordering of revisions, from the first revision made through to the last revision made2. The Y-axis displays a relative frequency count, showing how each revision either contributed to (added) or subtracted from (deleted) the text's overall number of language functions. For example, if a revision added a Classifier this would equate to an experiential increase within the text and be counted as experiential +13.
2 Writing sessions are demarcated via gaps in the lines and marked accordingly as Session 1, Session 2, etc.
3CLASSIFICATION being an experientially based nominal system.
173 Figure 8.1: The unfolding of language functions in revision activity (JD1) Figure 8.1 shows a steady increase in all four language functions during the first two session as one would expect, because this is where the majority of composition took place (cf. Chapter 6).
During session 3, however, the number of interpersonal and logical meanings/features level off somewhat, whilst experiential and textual meanings/features continue to rise. At approximately the start of session 5 (revision 170), experiential and textual meanings fall slightly, before remaining fairly stable until the text's completion. At the end of the writing process, revision activity has resulted in the addition of 13 textual meanings/features, 16 interpersonal meanings/features, 27 experiential meanings/features, and just 2 logical meanings/features. Let us now consider the trajectories of each of these functional revision profiles.
In §7.1.3, our exploration of systemic choice in JD1 revealed 137 revisions involved textual systems (e.g. DETERMINATION, CONJUNCTION, etc.). These findings were based on a synoptic approach that simply counted the number of textual revisions. Figure 8.1 above, however, is based on a dynamic approach, and it tells us that the relative contribution of revisions to textual meanings/features in this text is +13; i.e. despite JD making 137 textual revisions, the overall number of textual meanings/features in the text increased by just 13. Consequently, if we were to look only at the figures from the synoptic description, we may think that augmenting textual meanings/features was particularly important when JD revised this text; conversely, if we were to look only at the relative frequency count of +13, we may think that revising for textual meanings was not so important when it came to editing this text. However, by combining synoptic and dynamic descriptions, we can see that JD, for the most part, played out a delicate balancing act of substituting one textually based choice for another (cf. §7.2.3 for an example of this re.
DETERMINATION).
Let us now consider interpersonal revisions, which are represented by the grey line in figure 8.1.
Here, we see that revision activity made a steady contribution to the text's overall level of
174 interpersonal meanings/features, peaking at +20 (revision 153) before coming to rest at n=+16.
However, from our findings in Chapter 7, we see that only 48 revisions (+33, -15) involved choices in interpersonal systems (e.g. MOOD, COMMENT). Here, then, we have a direct contrast in how JD used revisions to augment meanings/features (interpersonal revisions), as opposed to using revision to modify existing meanings/features (textual revisions). Essentially, 48 interpersonal revisions resulted in a final count of +16, which means that for every 3 revisions made involving interpersonal choices, one additional interpersonal meaning/feature was added to the text's final count. This gives an 'uptake ratio' of 3:14. Textual revisions, however, have an uptake ratio of 10.5:1. To explain why the uptake of interpersonal meanings/features is higher than textual meanings/features, we can examine a few examples:
T-unit Content
3 I am also interested in looking at the people who have had major influences in this field of work, namely Geoffery Leech, Erving Goffman and
22{the highly influential}
INSBPenelope Brown and Stephen Levinson.
Example 8.1: Fine tuning appraisal through COMMENT and ASSESSMENT (JD1) In example 8.1, revision 22 pre-modifies 'Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson' via DETERMINATION: 'the' = +[Deictic (definite article): specific], COMMENT ('highly'): +[comment Adjunct (adverb): intensity: degree: high], and ASSESSMENT ('influential'): +[Attitudinal Epithet (adjective)] (cf. IFG4, p.376). This revision, then, adds two interpersonal meanings/features that make it into the final draft (a comment Adjunct and an attitudinal Epithet), and one textual meaning/feature.
Overall, there were 20 insertions in JD1 similar to example 8.1 above, in that they all involved interpersonal systems at, or above, the group level (cf. Appendix 16: Interpersonal additions in JD1). However, there were also 16 deletions at, or above, the group level that involved interpersonal meanings/features. It would seem, then, that the increased uptake ratio of interpersonal meanings/features that we see in figure 8.1 above stems from revisions below the group level (i.e. at the word or morpheme level), and this is indeed the case. Specifically, in JD1 there are 12 revisions involving CONNOTATION; these are word level changes involving the formality of lexis, as illustrated in example 8.2: