Preguntas parciales SGI

How are related langue and parole to SFG?

- Explanation of langue and parole.
- Explanation of the systemic approach + meanings.

Answer → 1) Langue is related because both structuralism and SFG focus on the underlying
structures of language, and langue corresponds to the systemic aspect of the system (language
as a set of options for making meaning). The difference is that langue is more abstract and
focused on the structural rules while Halliday’s approach is more function-orientated and the
emphasis is on the choices that the speakers make to achieve specific functions.
2) Parole and SFG are similar because in both the emphasis is on how language is used, while
at the same time, they are different. Parole is a broad concept that encompasses all individual
utterances whereas SFG provides a detailed analysis of the utterances to analyse the functional
aspect of the system.

Does langue or parole predominate in SFG?

Answer → Parole predominates because of the emphasis on how language is used and the
functions that language serves in specific contexts. SFG is primarily interested in how linguistic
choices are made and realized to achieve communicative purposes.

Between the three theories, which is more receptive to a change of the linguistic sign?

Answer → SFG is the most receptive because of the following reasons:

● While structuralism acknowledges the arbitrariness and the potential for change, the
focus is on the stable underlying structure of language (langue). It is less receptive to
changes in the sign despite recognising them.
● Chomsky in P&P focused on the stable and universal aspects of language structure
(universal grammar), so it is less receptive to changes in the linguistic sign because of
the stability and invariances of the deep structures.
● SFG is the most receptive theory to the change of the linguistic sign because of
the emphasis on language as a set of resources for making meaning. That view of
language inherently considers language as dynamic and adaptable, so that flexibility
makes it more receptive to change. Language can change or evolve to serve the
different purposes of communication.

Where can we find the linguistic sign in P&P?

- Explanation of the sign.
- Explanation of the lexicon from P&P.

Answer → in P&P the linguistic sign is not explicitly used, but the concept can be inferred
through the structure and function of lexical forms within the lexicon. The entries link the
phonological forms (they would correspond to the signifiers) with their syntactic and semantic
features (they would correspond to the signifieds), which are subject to universal principles and
language-specific patterns. Basically, they can be found within the lexicon and the elements
present in the lexicon.

Could the meanings of SFG be considered the linguistic signs of structuralism?

- Explanation of the meanings.
- Explanation of the sign.

Answer → the meanings in SFG can be considered as instances where signifiers and
signifieds interact within specific contexts, similar to Saussure’s signs, but there are
differences in emphasis:
● In SFG, the meanings are highly dependent on the context and they are functional,
the focus is on the use of language in specific social situations.
● In structuralism, the signs are part of an abstract and systematic structure that is
less concerned with context and use.

Where are the metafunctions included in P&P?

- Explanation of metafunctions.
- Explanation of P&P.

Answer → the metafunctions are not directly included in P&P because of the different focus of
the theories: SFG focuses on the social context and generativism focuses on the universal
grammar, but some indirect parallels can be drawn:
● Ideational metafunction → aligns with content representation through deep and surface
structures.
● Interpersonal metafunction → there is no correspondence because Chomsky’s theory
doesn’t focus on the social aspects of language use.
● Textual metafunction → loosely corresponds to how Chomsky’s frameworks handle
sentence structure and coherence because P&P doesn’t address discourse-level
organization.

Preguntas difiles chat gpt

1. Langue and Systemic Functional Grammar: How does the concept of "langue" as an
underlying system of rules and conventions align or conflict with Halliday's view of
language as a resource for making meaning in context?
Langue, as an underlying system of rules and conventions, aligns with Halliday's systemic
perspective to some extent. However, while Saussure's langue focuses on the abstract system
of language, Halliday's SFG emphasizes language use (parole) and its functional aspects in
specific contexts. Halliday views language as a resource for making meaning, which inherently
involves context and social interaction, moving beyond the static system of langue.
 2. Diachronic vs. Synchronic Analysis: Given Saussure's emphasis on synchronic analysis,
how would you reconcile this approach with the historical development of language
systems in Halliday's framework?
Saussure's synchronic analysis focuses on the structure of language at a specific point in time,
while Halliday's framework can accommodate both synchronic and diachronic perspectives by
examining how language functions evolve. Reconciling these approaches involves recognizing
that synchronic analysis provides a snapshot of language use, while diachronic analysis traces
changes in those functional uses and structures over time.

3. Structuralist vs. Functionalist Views: How would a structuralist interpretation of

syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations inform or challenge the analysis of a text using
Halliday's metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal, textual)?
A structuralist interpretation focuses on the relationships between elements within the language
system (syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations). In contrast, Halliday's functionalist approach
looks at how these elements function in communication. Analyzing a text using Halliday's
metafunctions would focus on how the structure (syntagmatic relations) and choices
(paradigmatic relations) serve ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions.

4. Mutability of the Linguistic Sign: Considering the arbitrariness and mutability of the sign
in structuralism, how might a generativist or systemic functional linguist approach the
phenomenon of language change and evolution?
Structuralists emphasize the arbitrariness and mutability of signs, while generativists and
systemic functional linguists might approach language change by looking at underlying
grammatical rules or changes in functional use. Generativists would focus on how parameters
within the universal grammar shift, while systemic functional linguists would examine changes in
how language is used to achieve different social functions.

5. Chomsky's Principles and Parameters: How can we apply the structuralist idea of signs
being arbitrary and governed by paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations within the
generative framework of principles and parameters?
Within Chomsky's framework, structuralist ideas can be applied by examining how signs (words
and structures) are governed by syntactic rules and constraints (principles) and how these can
vary across languages (parameters). The arbitrary nature of signs is less emphasized, as
generative grammar focuses more on the innate structure and rules of language.

6. Signs and Metafunctions: In what ways could the meanings derived from Halliday's
metafunctions be considered similar to Saussure's concept of signs, and how might they
differ in terms of linguistic analysis?
Meanings derived from Halliday's metafunctions can be seen as similar to Saussure's signs in
that they both involve a relationship between form and meaning. However, Halliday's approach
differs in that it explicitly considers how these meanings function in communication.
Structuralism views signs as static units within a system, while SFG views them as dynamic
resources for making meaning.
 7. Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Relations: How would the structuralist idea of language
as a game of chains and slots be reflected in functionalist discourse analysis, particularly
in identifying the choices available to speakers and the constraints imposed by the
linguistic system?
In a functionalist discourse analysis, the structuralist idea of chains and slots would be reflected
in identifying how elements combine (syntagmatic) and what choices are available
(paradigmatic) to speakers. This involves looking at how different lexical and grammatical
choices serve the ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions within a discourse.

8. Chess Analogy and Language Rules: How does Saussure's chess analogy of
understanding language rules align with or differ from Chomsky's focus on underlying
grammatical structures in "Principles and Parameters"?
Saussure's chess analogy emphasizes understanding language rules by seeing how elements
function within a system. This aligns with Chomsky's focus on underlying grammatical structures
in "Principles and Parameters," as both involve understanding the rules that govern language
use. However, Chomsky's approach is more focused on the innate and universal aspects of
these rules.

9. Value of Signs: How might the value of a sign, as described by Saussure, be integrated
into a systemic functional analysis of a text, especially in terms of the text's coherence
and cohesion?
In a systemic functional analysis, the value of a sign (its meaning within a system) can be
integrated by examining how it contributes to the overall coherence and cohesion of a text. This
involves looking at how signs are used to achieve specific functions and how they relate to each
other within the discourse.

10. SFG and Linguistic Change: How would a systemic functional linguist address the
structuralist view of the immutability and mutability of linguistic signs when analyzing
language evolution and variation in different social contexts?
A systemic functional linguist would address the structuralist view of linguistic signs' immutability
and mutability by focusing on how language use changes in different social contexts. They
would examine how changes in the functions that language serves lead to changes in the
linguistic system itself, reflecting the dynamic nature of language use and social interaction.