In systemic functional linguistics, instantiation is sometimes described via the token–type relation: a text can be treated as a token of a system, a register, or a language type. This device is useful, but it is perspectival. Seen from the instance pole, one can classify a text in this way. But the cline itself — from systemic potential to instance — remains the fundamental relation.
Viewed from the potential pole, instantiation is not about membership. It is a perspectival cut through structured potential, a narrowing of possibility from system to instance. Every text is an actualisation of systemic potential, a realisation of subpotentials along the cline. The token–type perspective does not oppose this view; it clarifies the relation of lower to higher points along the cline.
We can visualise this as a vertical cline of specification, where token–type classification is meaningful at the instance pole:
Systemic potential (maximally open) ↑ ← higher abstraction / potential
│
Subpotential (partially specified)
│
Instance (fully specified) ↓ ← fully actualised text
A text is a token in the sense that it represents a point on this cline, but it does not exhaust the system’s possibilities. Instantiation remains a dynamic process: each text actualises some subpotential of the system, contributing to the ongoing shaping of meaning.
By foregrounding the cline and situating token–type as a perspectival tool, we preserve the relational logic of systemic functional linguistics. This sets the stage for exploring individuation, development, and collective evolution in subsequent posts, where the focus shifts to how systemic potential is differently distributed and dynamically reconfigured across individuals and over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment