Metasemiotics Without Representation: A Relational Ontology of Semiosis: 5 Metasemiotic Systems in Context

Post 4 introduced the metasemiotic domain — the structured potential of language, systems, and categories.

Post 5 asks: How does this domain interface with context?

---

1. Context as Relational Field

In relational ontology:

• Context is not a container or backdrop; it is an emergent relational field.

• It comprises material, social, and semiotic relations that co-define construals.

• Context and construal are mutually constitutive: each construal both actualises and transforms aspects of context.

Metasemiotic systems live within this field:

• They constrain and enable possible construals.

• They interact with material and social conditions, giving shape to what can be expressed or realised.

---

2. Metasemiotic Systems as Context-Sensitive

Every systemic choice exists with respect to a relational horizon:

• Token–Value assignments, process types, participant roles — all are situationally informed potentials.

• They do not exist independently of the contexts in which they can be actualised.

• The “as” in “defining X as Y” exemplifies this: the relational assignment presumes an accessible, interpretable entity in context (the Token), and a readable, evaluable meaning (the Value).

Thus, metasemiosis is always ecological: it is both shaped by context and shapes context.

---

3. From Metasemiotic Potential to Construal

The process is recursive:

1. Metasemiotic system defines the space of potential construals.

2. Construals actualise specific instances within that space.

3. Actualised construals feedback into context, informing the evolution of systems and shaping future potential.

This is languaging as ecological activity, where grammar, meaning, and action co-evolve.

---

4. Contextualising Halliday

Traditional SFL views:

• Field, Tenor, Mode: aspects of context realised in meaning.

• Register: a functional variety of language realised in construals.

From a relational, metasemiotic perspective:

• These are emergent, not pre-given.

• Contextual constraints shape the activation of system potentials.

• Choices in language are always interpreted and actualised in situ, not just mechanically realised from a network.

---

5. Implications for Analysis

• Analyses must consider both the instantiated construal and the metasemiotic potentials it engages.

• Understanding context requires seeing the dynamic interplay between system and instance, potential and actualisation.

• The grammar is not just a tool; it is a living set of affordances, ecological and relational.

---

6. Towards Post 6

In the final post, we will:

• Explore the full cycle of semiosis: from metasemiosis → construal → contextual interaction → feedback on system.

• Consider how relational ontology reframes our understanding of meaning, communication, and the ecology of language itself.

• Provide a synthetic view of semiosis without representation.