Abstract
Mathematics and language appear from one angle very alike. They seem to have similar structures and maintain similar grammars. However, they are regularly used in different situations to achieve different goals. This suggests that they have quite distinct functionalities. This paper explores this tension between the similarity and difference of language and mathematics by focusing on mathematics’ intrinsic functionality as conceptualzsed through metafunction in Systemic Functional Semiotics and Social Semiotics. Unlike many studies in these traditions, however, it does not assume the metafunctions developed for language will unproblematically transfer over to mathematics. Rather, it derives the metafunctional organization of mathematics from its paradigmatic and syntagmatic organization. This method illustrates that although metafunction is a productive category for understanding mathematics, its metafunctional organization is not the same as that for language. In particular, mathematics displays an expanded logical component, while giving no evidence for an autonomous interpersonal component. In addition to allowing a principled comparison of mathematics and language in terms of their intrinsic functionality, this method suggests that if Systemic Functional and Social Semiotic studies wish to understand the functions of various semiotic resources, they cannot unquestioningly assume metafunctions will occur across all semiosis.
References
Caffarel, Alice, J. R Martin & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction: Systemic functional typology. In J. R. Martin Alice Caffarel & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective, 1–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.253Search in Google Scholar
Cléirigh, Chris. 1998. A selectionist model of the genesis of phonic texture: Systemic phonology & universal Darwinism. Sydney: The University of Sydney dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2016. Language and mathematics: An interdisciplinary guide. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614513186Search in Google Scholar
de Jong, Eddy, Fred Armitage, Mary Brown, Paul Butler & Jennie Hayes. 1990. Heinemann physics in context: Physics one: Energy in everyday life: Movement and electricity. Melbourne: Heinemann Educational Australia.Search in Google Scholar
Doran, Y. J. 2017. The role of mathematics in physics: Building knowledge and describing the empirical world. Onomázein: Special Issue on Systemic Functional Linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory. 209–226.10.7764/onomazein.sfl.08Search in Google Scholar
Doran, Y. J. 2018. The discourse of physics: Building knowledge through language, mathematics and image. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315181134Search in Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s functional grammar. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1968. Selected papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959, F. R. Palmer (ed.). London: Longmans.Search in Google Scholar
Fries, Peter. 1981. On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6(1). 1–38.Search in Google Scholar
Haire, Mariam, Eileen Kennedy, Graeme Lofts & Merrin Evergreen. 2000. Core science 4. Milton: John Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967a. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 37–81.10.1017/S0022226700012949Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2). 177–274.10.1017/S0022226700016613Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4(2). 179–215.10.1017/S0022226700001882Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1969. Options and functions in the English clause. Brno Studies in English 8. 82–88.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6(3). 322–361.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.10.1016/B978-0-12-443701-2.50025-1Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Maryland: University Park Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In D. J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Hollcroft (eds.), Function in context in linguistic analysis: A festschrift for William Haas, 57–79. London: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1992. A systemic interpretation of Peking syllable finals. In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology, 98–121. London: Frances Pinter.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2015 [1992]. Systemic grammar and the concept of a “science of language”. In J. R. Martin & Y. J. Doran (eds.), Grammatical descriptions (Systemic Functional Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics 2), 9–20. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & William S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203783771Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961 [1943]. Prolegomena to a theory of language, Francis J. Whitfield (trans.). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Robert & Gunther Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. New York: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 1990. Readings images. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203619728Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1991. Intrinsic functionality: Implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics 1(1). 99–162.10.1080/10350339109360331Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.59Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2011. Multimodal semiotics: Theoretical challenges. In Shoshana Dreyfus, Sue Hood & Maree Stenglin (eds.), Semiotic margins: Meaning in multimodalities, 243–270. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2013. Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory – Axial relations, Wang Pin & Zhu Yongsheng (eds). Beijing: Higher Education Press.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2015 [1983]. Functional components in a grammar: A review of deployable recognition criteria. In J. R. Martin & Y. J. Doran (eds.), Grammatics (Systemic Functional Linguistics: Critical concepts in linguistics 1), 310–340. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & P. R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar
Martinec, Radan. 1998. Cohesion in action. Semiotica 120(1/2). 243–268.10.1515/semi.1998.120.1-2.161Search in Google Scholar
Martinec, Radan. 2000. Types of process in action. Semiotica 130(3/4). 243–268.10.1515/semi.2000.130.3-4.243Search in Google Scholar
Martinec, Radan. 2001. Interpersonal resources in action. Semiotica 135(1/4). 117–145.10.1515/semi.2001.056Search in Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian. M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences.Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay L. 1999. Towards a systemic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematics texts. Semiotica 124(1/2). 1–29.10.1515/semi.1999.124.1-2.1Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay. L. 2005. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
O’Toole, Michael. 1990. A systemic-functional semiotics of art. Semiotica 82(3/4). 185–209.10.1515/semi.1990.82.3-4.185Search in Google Scholar
O’Toole, Michael. 1994. The language of displayed visual art. New Jersey: Associated University Presses.Search in Google Scholar
Painter, Clare, J. R. Martin & Len Unsworth. 2013. Reading visual narratives: Image analysis of children’s picture books. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1959. Language as particle, wave, and field. Texas Quarterly 2(2). 37–54.10.1515/9783110812213-010Search in Google Scholar
Ravelli, Louise & Robert McMurtrie. 2016. Multimodality in the built environment: Spatial discourse analysis. London: Continuum.10.4324/9781315880037Search in Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959 [1916]. Course in general linguistics, Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye (eds.), Wade Baskin (trans.). New York: The Philosophical Library.Search in Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo. 1999. Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-27700-1Search in Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203647028Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
