Applying a Relational Ontology to SFL: 7 Logogenesis, Without Misinterpretation: Ontology of Meaning in Time

The aim of this post is to recover Halliday’s account of logogenesis while avoiding temporal or representational misreadings, situating it firmly within relational ontology.

---

1. Halliday on Logogenesis

Halliday distinguishes three “time frames” for meaning:

1. Phylogenesis – evolution of potential across human history

2. Ontogenesis – development of potential in individuals

3. Logogenesis – creation of meaning in specific texts

Common misinterpretations:

• Treating logogenesis as literal temporal unfolding of systems

• Assuming that semantic potential changes deterministically over time

• Collapsing phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and logogenetic processes

We will correct these using relational ontology.

---

2. Instantial Potential: The Local Cut

Relationally:

• Instantial potential = the potential of a system at the moment it is actualised in a situation

• It is perspectival, not temporal

• It does not imply that the system itself changes physically over time

Logogenesis, then, is:

• The creation of meaning in a specific construal

• A perspectival instantiation of context and semantics

• Constrained by F/T/M and register

---

3. Distinguishing Time Frames

(a) Phylogenesis

• Evolution of semiotic potential at the cultural level

• Not an observable event; it is metaphenomenal

• Construes potential over historical scales

(b) Ontogenesis

• Development of potential within an individual

• Perspectival: how a person construes context and semantics

• Still non-temporal in the metaphysical sense

(c) Logogenesis

• Actual creation of meaning in a text or situation

• Local, perspectival, and instantial

• Fully consistent with instantiation and realisation cuts

---

4. Why Relational Ontology Matters

By framing logogenesis relationally:

• We avoid conflating time with process

• Semantic selection is understood as perspectival construal, not temporal operation

• Logogenesis is a cut across strata, not a sequence of events

• Ontogenetic, logogenetic, and phylogenetic phenomena remain distinct but unified in metaphysical framing

---

5. What This Post Secures

• Canonical Hallidayan logogenesis restored

• Instantial potential clarified as perspectival, non-temporal

• Semantic selections understood as construals, not events

• Future work on semogenesis (Post 8) can integrate all three time frames without collapsing them or introducing representational errors

---

Next Post

Post 8 will address The Ontology of Semogenesis:

• Recut Halliday’s three time frames relationally

• Situate phylogenesis, ontogenesis, and logogenesis as perspectival metametaphenomena

• Provide a unified metaphysical frame connecting all three, fully consistent with relational ontology

Applying a Relational Ontology to SFL: 6 The Metaphysics of Realisation: A Relational Interpretation

This post clarifies realisation across the strata of SFL, showing how it operates perspectivally rather than temporally, and preserves both Halliday’s architecture and the relational ontology.

---

1. Realisation vs Instantiation

Canonical distinctions:

• Instantiation: token–type relation within a stratum

  • Situation → context potential

  • Text → semantic potential

• Realisation: relation between strata

  • Semantics realises context

  • Lexicogrammar realises semantics

  • Phonology realises lexicogrammar

Key points:

• Realisation is not instantiation

• Realisation is not actualisation

• Realisation is a relation of semiotic dependency, not a temporal process

---

2. The Relational-Ontological Perspective

In relational ontology:

• System = structured potential (theory of the instance)

• Instance = perspectival actualisation

• Construal is constitutive: no unconstrued instance exists

Realisation is therefore understood as a perspectival descent:

• Higher-stratal potential → lower-stratal construal

• Meaning at a higher stratum is read through its realisation at the next lower stratum

• This is solidary, not serial: strata are relationally linked, not sequentially processed

---

3. Semantic Construal → Lexicogrammar → Phonology

Canonical SFL:

1. Semantics: meaning potential, construed relative to context

2. Lexicogrammar: wording potential, realising semantic construal

3. Phonology: expression potential, realising lexicogrammar

Relational ontology emphasises:

• Realisation is perspectival, not temporal

• Each lower stratum specifies and makes explicit the higher-stratal meaning

• The meaning at each stratum is solidary: cohesive, relational, and constrained by the potential at the higher stratum

---

4. Key Insights

1. Realisation is a relation of dependency, not production

2. Realisation is perspectival, not sequential

3. Realisation does not violate stratification

4. Lexicogrammar and phonology never instantiate context directly; they realise the semantic construal of context

5. This preserves the canonical Hallidayan architecture while clarifying its metaphysics

---

5. What This Post Secures

• The architecture of strata is maintained

• Cross-stratal relations are cleanly defined

• Perspectival cuts clarify how meaning flows without implying temporal or causal processes

• Semantic construal → wording → expression is rigorously relational

• Future posts can now safely address temporal issues (logogenesis, semogenesis) without confusing realisation with instantiation

---

Next Post

Post 7 will tackle Logogenesis, Without Misinterpretation:

• Recover Halliday’s logogenesis while avoiding representational or deterministic readings

• Clarify instantial potential as perspectival, not literal temporal change

• Distinguish ontogenetic, logogenetic, and phylogenetic processes clearly within relational ontology