Language and the Differentiation of Possibility: 2 Grammar and the Architecture of Possibility

If language is a technology for differentiating possibility, grammar is the architecture of that technology. It is the map that structures what can be said, done, and coordinated, without appealing to inner meaning or representation.

Grammar as Relational Scaffold

Grammar does not encode pre-existing ideas. It defines the patterns through which possibilities can emerge:

• Clause types indicate kinds of actions: statements, questions, commands, offers.

• Transitivity choices allocate agency, responsibility, and effect.

• Theme and rheme foreground distinctions, guiding what is treated as current or given.

These structures shape the field of action. They tell participants what moves are intelligible, expected, or effective — not by prescription, but by systemic affordance.

Systemic Choice as Possibility Switch

Systemic Functional Linguistics treats grammar as a network of choices. Each choice is a switch in the field of possibility:

• Selecting a declarative vs interrogative clause opens different relational trajectories.

• Choosing material vs relational processes constrains what kinds of actions or evaluations are intelligible.

• Opting for a particular mood or modality foregrounds different obligations, potentials, and risks.

Grammar, in this view, is not a static rulebook. It is dynamic, action-guiding, and relational.

Grammar Across Strata

Grammar operates across multiple strata, each shaping possibility in a different way:

1. Lexicogrammar: organises systemic choices; structures what distinctions are operationally available.

2. Semantics: links choices to the differentiation of relevant phenomena; constrains what is legible within a given context.

3. Phonology/graphology: stabilises distinctions across medium and time; ensures repeatability and recognisability.

Together, the strata form a relational scaffold, guiding the emergence of meaning, knowledge, and coordination — without relying on interiors.

Grammar and Register

Register further modulates the field of possibility:

• Scientific grammar foregrounds explanation, evaluation, and projection.

• Legal grammar structures obligations, responsibility, and admissible evidence.

• Conversational or narrative grammar enables intimacy, persuasion, or storytelling.

Register does not merely style meaning. It channels possibilities appropriate to a domain, shaping what can happen and how it can be coordinated.

Implications for Analysis

For SFL analysts, this perspective reframes grammar from description to relational technology:

• Clause-level analysis shows what actions are possible in a context.

• System network analysis shows where participants can intervene or redirect possibility.

• Register analysis reveals how semiotic configurations open or constrain trajectories of action.

Grammar is not a reflection of thought. It is the functional infrastructure through which possibility is differentiated, stabilised, and enacted.

Moving Forward

Understanding grammar as the architecture of possibility prepares us for the next post in the miniseries:

Post 2c: Registers, Genres, and Domain-Specific Possibility, which will show how broader semiotic configurations shape what can be realised and coordinated in specific social domains.