Once the distinction between dependency and realisation is stabilised, a familiar pressure reappears from two directions.
On one side, accounts of emergence attempt to explain semiotic phenomena in terms of lower-level processes. On the other, accounts of embodiment attempt to ground meaning in biological organisation and bodily states.
These are often treated as distinct theoretical strategies.
In fact, they share a single structural tendency:
both attempt to convert conditions of possibility into constitutive mechanisms
This is not a claim about SFL strata being extended across domains. It is a claim about a recurrent explanatory move that borrows the intuition of hierarchy without respecting the technical boundaries of realisation.
1. The target distinction
The previous post established a strict separation:
- Within semiosis: organisation is stratal (context ↔ semantics ↔ lexicogrammar ↔ phonology), related by realisation
- Across system types: relations are not stratal, but conditional (enablement, constraint, stabilisation)
This yields a non-reductive dependency relation:
semiotic systems depend on biological and social systems, but are not realised by them
The current pressure points—emergence and embodiment—do not operate within this stratal architecture. They operate across system types, where realisation (in the SFL sense) does not apply.
2. Emergence: hierarchical explanation without stratal relation
Emergence discourse typically proceeds as follows:
- local interactions within a system generate global patterns
- higher-order properties arise from lower-order interactions
- complex behaviour is explained in terms of component dynamics
This introduces a hierarchical explanatory structure.
However, this hierarchy is not a stratal relation of the SFL kind.
SFL realisation:
- is a relation between symbolic strata within semiosis
- governs how meaning is organised as meaning
Emergence:
- is a cross-level description within a physical or social system
- relates different scales of description, not strata of a semiotic system
- does not specify a formal relation equivalent to realisation
What emergence does, structurally, is:
re-describe cross-level dependence in hierarchical terms
This can resemble stratification in shape, but it is not stratification in the technical sense.
It is an explanatory compression of multi-level processes, not a stratal model of semiosis.
3. Embodiment: grounding without semiotic constitution
Embodiment approaches move in the opposite direction.
They typically argue:
- meaning is grounded in bodily experience
- cognition is shaped by sensorimotor organisation
- semantic structure reflects biological embodiment
Here again, a hierarchy appears:
- biological organisation → semantic organisation
But this is not a stratal relation either.
Rather, it is a claim about:
- correlation between biological conditions and semiotic activity
- constraint relations between systems of different kinds
- dependency re-described as grounding
Embodiment does not operate within semiosis. It operates across the boundary between biological and semiotic systems.
Its structural move is:
to treat enabling conditions as if they were constitutive of semantic organisation
4. The shared operation
Despite moving in opposite directions, emergence and embodiment perform a shared operation:
- Emergence: upward explanatory projection
- Embodiment: downward grounding projection
Both rely on the same underlying tendency:
to impose a hierarchical explanatory form on relations between distinct system types
This is the crucial point:
they are not misapplications of SFL realisation.
They are uses of hierarchical intuition where realisation does not apply at all.
The result is a conceptual confusion between:
- explanation across levels of description
- and stratal organisation within semiosis
5. The structural error
The error is not that emergence or embodiment are simply “wrong.”
The error is more specific:
they convert dependency relations across system types into constitutive relations framed as hierarchical explanation
This produces two symmetrical distortions:
(1) Emergence
- cross-level description is treated as if it constitutes semiotic organisation
- semiosis becomes an effect of lower-level processes
(2) Embodiment
- biological conditions are treated as if they constitute semantic structure
- semiosis becomes an expression of bodily organisation
In both cases:
dependency is reformulated as constitution through hierarchical narrative form
6. What is being refused
The point is not to eliminate hierarchy as a descriptive tool.
The point is to prevent a category error:
- Realisation applies only within semiosis (strata of meaning)
- Emergence and embodiment operate across system types, where no such stratal relation exists
Therefore:
- not all hierarchical descriptions are stratal
- not all dependency relations are realisational
- not all cross-level explanations are structural constitutions
These distinctions must remain separate if semiosis is to retain internal autonomy.
7. Dependency without collapse
Once this is held clearly, the architecture stabilises:
- Biological systems:enable and constrain semiosis (material-organic conditions)
- Social systems:stabilise and select patterns of semiosis (environmental conditions)
- Semiotic systems:organise meaning internally through stratal realisation relations
Across these domains:
- there is dependency
- but no cross-domain realisation
- and no shared stratal hierarchy
Emergence and embodiment attempt to unify these domains under a single explanatory logic. That move must be resisted.
8. Closing shift
Emergence and embodiment are not failed theories of semiosis.
They are successful descriptions of something else:
- emergence: patterns across levels of physical/social organisation
- embodiment: constraints linking biological and semiotic activity
The problem arises only when these descriptions are treated as if they were accounts of how semiosis is constituted internally.
Once that step is removed, the picture becomes cleaner:
- semiosis has its own internal stratal organisation
- other systems provide conditions for its existence
- and hierarchical explanation does not automatically imply realisation
What remains is not a unified explanatory ladder—
but a carefully separated set of relations, each valid within its own domain, and none authorised to replace the others.
No comments:
Post a Comment