01) Halliday and other linguistic theories

Try to find other segments in this section that also relate to the latter linguistic theory.

Note: It is not necessary that you all post. It'd be more profitable if you first read previous answers to precisely "interact" and see if you have anything else to contribute.

Halliday, MAK (page 141) "...we shall consider laguage in terms of its use." As we very well know, Valentin Voloshinov's theory is considered a post-structuralist one. Therefore, he was much more concerned on a dynamic study of language and on reality, that is, on parole.

Halliday, MAK (page 142) "The system of available options is the "grammar" of the language, and the speaker, or writer, selects within the system: noy in vacuo, but in the context of speech situations. Speech acts thus involve the creative and repetitive exercise of options in social and personal situations and settings." This statement is clearly related to what Voloshinov says (page 4) " Its real place in existance is in the special, social material of signs created by man. Its specificity consists precisely in its being located between organised individuals, in its medium of communication." This does also relate, in my opinion, to the definition of conciousness posited by Valentin Voloshinov "Conciousness takes shape and being in the material of the signs created by an organised group in the process of its social intercourse."

Halliday, MAK (page 142) "...when we examine the meaning potential of language itself, we find that the vast numbers of options embodied in it combine into a very few relatively independent networks; and these networks of options correspond to certain basic functions of language." Taking this into account, we could say that it relates to what Voloshinov stated about the "word" in his theory. He explains that the word is a neutral sign that functions as an essential ingredient which accompanies all ideological creativity.

I see your point Valeria, but I'm not that sure whether Halliday means "the word" when speaking of "options". That's at least a bit obscure in his statement, don't you think?

Halliday, MAK (page 143) "1. Language serves for the expression of "content": that is, of the speaker's experience of the real world, including the inner world of his own conciousness." "...language also gives structure to experience and helps to determine our way of looking at things..." This statement clearly relates to what Voloshinov described in his theory. First of all, that there exists ideological signs which posess semiotic value, that is to say that they reflect and refract reality. Secondly, Voloshinov states that ideology is a fact of cosciousness; the understanding of a sign is an act of reference between the sign apprehended and other, already known signs. Note also that Halliday says "it is required some itellectual effort to see this language structures in any other way than that our language suggests to us," in Voloshinov's words "refraction."

Halliday, MAK (page 143) The interpresonal and textual function are both related to Voloshinov's theory when he posited "Signs emerge, after all, only in the process of interaction between one individual consciousness and another."

Very good contribution!

I agree with Valeria and Ariana, and my contibutions to the task are the following:

(I will quote sets of statements that I think are related)

1) * Voloshinov: "A sign does not simply exist as a part of reality - it reflects and refracts another reality. Therefore, it may distort that reality or be true to it, or may perceive it from a special point of view."
* Halliday: - "Language serves for the expression of ´content´: that is, of the speaker´s experience of the real world..."
- " In serving this function (ideational), language also gives structure to experience and helps to determine our way of looking at things..."

2) * Voloshinov: " ...consciousness itself can arise and become a viable fact only in the material embodiment of signs."
* Halliday: "Language serves for the expression of content (...) including the inner world of his own consciousness."

3) * Halliday: "Through this function (interpesonal), social groups are delimited, and the individual is identified and reinforced, since by enabling him to interact with others language also serves in the expression and development of his own personality."
* Voloshinov: - "Consciousness becomes consciousness only once it has been filled with ideological content only in the process of social interaction."
- "Consciousness takes shape and being in the material of the signs created by an organized group in the process of social intercourse."

4) * Voloshinov: "The ideological (...) its real place in existence is in the special, social material of signs created by man. Its specificity consists precisely in its being located between organized individuals, in its being the medium of their communication."
* Halliday: "Language serves to establish and maintain social relations, for the expression of social roles..."

Good job!

As Halliday puts it "... we are concerned not with deliberate acts of choice but symbolic behaviour, in which the options may express our meanings only very indirectly." This statement reminds us of the semiotic value of signs in that they can either represent the same reality or modify our perception of it through the user's rather subjective intervention (Voloshinov's view).

Well done!

Halliday: "The demands of language are specific to a culture"
Voloshinov: " Signs arise only on interindividual territory (...) It is esential that the two individuals get organized socially"
Halliday coincides with Voloshinov in the sense that it is necessary for a community to be socially organized as well as sharing a culture. It's in that context when language develops and individuals give meaning to signs.

I'm afraid I don't see the connection in these two quotes. Revise it.

Halliday: "When we examine the meaning potential of language itself, we find that the vast numbers of options embodied in it combine in to a very few relatively independent "networks" and these networks of options correspond to certain basic functions of language"
Voloshinov: "This chains of ideological creativity and understanding, moving from sign to sign and then to a new sign, is perfectly consistent and continuous: from one link of a semiotic nature, we proceed uninterrumptedly to another ling of exactly the same nature (...) This ideological chain stretches from individual consciousness to individual consciousness, connecting them together".

Both Halliday and Voloshinov make a point as regards the "networks" formed by connecting signs to sings.

I see a connection in their using the idea of networks. However, I'm not sure they refer to one and the same thing.

Halliday: "Language serves to establish and maintain social relations: for the expression of social roles, which include the communication roles created by language itself".

Voloshinov: "The specificity of ideology consists precisely in its being located between organized individuals, in its being the medium of their communication".

Halliday and Voloshinov agree that language is essential not only for communication between the members of a group, but also for expressing social roles and maintaining the channels of interaction among them open.
But do they both refer to ideology?