referential vs. systemic words
LEX: referential vs. systemic | James Hobbs | September 24th, 2002
Just working my way through Unit 7 of LEX here. It's suggested (Unit 7:6) that the lexicon can be broadly divided into two components;
1. Referential: "the lexis relating to the matters concerning which we wish to share views/ propositions/ intuitions, etc."
2. Systemic: "that class of words which provide the linguistic means that make the sharing possible..."
Is this just a case of using different terms to describe the lexical/grammatical distinction covered in FND, and discussed at regular intervals on this list, or am I missing something?
More generally, I'd really appreciate any reading tips from people who are done with, or doing, LEX. As there are no end-of-unit reading lists with LEX, and as I'm usually too impatient to take proper notes as I read, I'm having a lot of trouble trying to work out what to read beyond the units and the readings folder. And while there is no end of citations in the units, I haven't seen many of the familiar names of earlier modules. True, there are plenty of meaty books recommended, and several of them are sitting on my bookshelf, but I've got used to Units ending with a user-friendly list of lots of shortish journal articles that can be stripped to the bone in a short amount of time, and can be very, very helpful in guiding you towards that all important assignment focus.
James
Japan
Re: LEX: referential vs. systemic | Colin Graham | September 30th, 2002
Hi James,
Thanks for using the module code in your subject so I know what you're asking about!
I haven't started LEX yet, but since no one else seems to have responded, I'll give you my view from a GE stance.
Is this just a case of using different terms to describe the lexical/grammatical distinction covered in FND, and discussed at regular intervals on this list, or am I missing something?
I'd say "No" and "Yes, maybe."
As I see it, referential means that there is some description of a 'real' thing [noun] or event [verb] which can stand by itself and still have some kind of meaning. For example, "flies", "cabbage", "dork" and so on.
Something that is systemic requires the presence of a referential item before it has any meaning. For example, "the", "at", "on".
Lexis and grammar, however, are to do with the role that the individual word/token plays.
For example: "Time flies"
In my view both are referential words, however their lexicogrammatic role will vary depending on the context.
"Time" could be a noun (referential to a thing) modifying "flies". "Time" could be a verb (referential to an event) at the beginning of a command.
"Flies" could be the plural of a kind of insect, a trouser zip (in Britain) or the 3 rd person singular present simple of "fly" as a verb.
So, lexis and grammar, in my view, are different from reference and system (syntax?).
"Time flies?" - "No, they're too fast"
"Time flies?" - "Yes, it does"
"Time flies?" - "Yes, I can't take my trousers off until 9.00 pm"
Some words are kind of borderline, as the FND probably demonstrated. For example, "it" could be referential within the text: "It's obvious that Steve's a dork" = That Steve's a dork is obvious (cataphoric) or simply being a systemic subject "It's ironic, isn't it." (Just for Andy, that one!!)
Does this help?
As I haven't started LEX yet, and since Sue has gone off somewhere sunny to write a book for a few months and I am delaying starting, I can't recommend anything really pertinent. However, for general interest, and trying to get your head round the LEX stuff, you may want to try Sinclair's "Corpus, Concordance and Collocation", and Stubbs' "Text and Corpus Analysis" is quite readable , although I thought the paper of his in FND was utterly confus(ed)ing [=crap!]. I've read lots of other interesting stuff too. If you're interested drop me a message.
Good luck!
Colin
:-)
LEX: reply to Colin | James Hobbs | October 2nd, 2002
Hi Colin,
Thanks for the reply, and for the reading tips. Yes, it was nice to know that somebody out their has an opinion on this! Also brave of you to tackle this one without having done LEX yet.
As for your examples:
For example: "Time flies"
"Time" could be a noun (referential to a thing) modifying "flies". "Time" could be a verb (referential to an event) at the beginning of a command.
"Flies" could be the plural of a kind of insect, a trouser zip (in Britain) or the 3 rd person singular present simple of "fly" as a verb.
All true (especially like the last concept!), but in all these cases I'd say both words are 'lexical' from the lex/gram point of view, and 'referential' from the referential/systemic point of view. I can't think of an example in which there is not a direct correspondence between lexical/referential and grammatical/systemic, which suggests to me that they're just two sides of the same coin.
One of the threads running through LEX is two ways of viewing language- 'language as a system' and 'language as sharing'. I wonder if that might account for the different terms. The lex-gram/ref-systemic views seem to be approaching from slightly different angles, but I still get the feeling they end up in the same place.
Some words are kind of borderline- as the FND probably demonstrated.
Peter Roe also refers to a "fuzzy" boundary between his two categories, and says that often there is no way of determining which category to assign a word to if the word is viewed in isolation. It just sounds like FND U4 all over again to me.
I know it can't be easy to comment without the LEX module at hand, but does my take make sense, or would you still say I'm missing something?
James
Japan
Re: LEX: reply to Colin | Colin Graham | October 2nd, 2002
Hi James,
This is quite long, so unless your/you're interested you might want to skip to the next message!
All true (especially like the last concept!), but in all these cases I'd say both words are 'lexical' from the lex/gram point of view, and 'referential' from the referential/systemic point of view.
Agreed, on the contexts I provided, but I would also say that you cannot label words as only lexical from a lexicogrammatical point of view. If I can't open my trouser zip because of the "time flies", then the grammatical roles of 'time' and 'flies' are different from my making a comment about how quickly time is passing. There may be a lexical relationship between the two words, and they may remain 'lexical' within a Hallidayan environment, however their/there/they're grammatical or systemic function changes depending on the context (the context makes clear which is correct or appropriate too).
I would hazard a guess that, in general, referential words can be used stand-alone to share information whereas systemic words cannot. Lexical words also need a grammatical context before their meaning is clear, however.
"Record!" a referential word, a lexical word, but as a single utterance or speech act, what does it mean?
If it is a noun, then it could mean "Give me the record, now!" If is is a verb, then it could mean "No, push the record button, not the rewind!" That to me, is where the grammar comes in (along with pragmatics, discourse, blah, blah,...).
"Of" a systemic word. Has no independent meaning as a single utterance that can be plausibly constructed. Grammatically- see Sinclair!!
You can probably also make rules or generalizations about the usage of systemic words more easily than about referential ones. For example, "the" must always be followed by an adjective or a noun before it is followed by a verb. Why? - Because that is how it functions in the system that allows speakers/writers to tell you who did what to whom - viz. the lexical words.
One of the threads running through LEX is two ways of viewing language -'language a system' and 'language as sharing'. I wonder if that might account for the different terms.
"To sentence a difficult words in up mixed read is"
So you can label each of the words in that example as referential or systemic. However, I bet (almost 100% certainly) that you adjusted 'sentence' from being a verb to being a noun because the lexicogrammatical environment 'To sentence a difficult...' is a (more) plausible and predictable opening (if I want to share information). For example, "To sentence a difficult and habitual criminal to death..."
I didn't use the system of the language correctly in the earlier example- you can still label the words as referential or systemic, but I would argue that you cannot assign lexicogrammatical terms to the first example so easily (if at all) because there is more than one way to construct an acceptable version.
That is why there are different ways of looking a language, maybe.
The lex-gram/ref-systemic views seem to be approaching from slightly different angles, but I still get the feeling they end up in the same place.
Lex-gram maybe tests the validity of an expression, whereas ref-systemic should still work with non-acceptable utterances. So I disagree. AND how do you know where a word has "ended up"? Is that not part of the challenge in constructing lexical entries for a dictionary or in trying to explain the difference between 'big' and 'tall', for example, because when a word ends up in a certain place, you had to make decisions about where to put it?
Peter Roe also refers to a "fuzzy" boundary between his two categories, and says that often there is no way of determining which category to assign a word to if the word is viewed in isolation.
Which suggests that if you look at words in isolation, then you'd better be clear about the consequences of the decisions you make- the point of the LEX module?
It just sounds like FND U4 all over again to me.
Yes but more complex and incorporating another view of the world of language.
Thank God you don't have to try and accommodate Chomskian linguistics or psycholinguistics or pragmatics too. That's when the real fun begins...
I wonder if I want to do LEX after all.....
Enjoy! (Referential, lexical, imperative, base verb, mental process....)
\(^_^)/
Colin
:-)
LEX: 2nd reply to Colin | James Hobbs | October 3rd, 2002
Hi again Colin,
This is quite long
Yes, I noticed!
I'm sorry if my original question wasn't clear, but I actually don't think we really disagree here, I just think we're dealing with totally different questions. I'm well aware that the lexicogrammatical function of some words can vary according to context/cotext, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply asking if the distinction made in lexical density between a) lexical words, and b) grammatical words, is essentially the same as Peter Roe's distinction between a) referential words, and b) systemic words. That's all I want to know, but you seem to be answering a different question.
As you know, to calculate lexical density, you need only assign each word in a given text to one of those two categories; a) lexical (content) words, b) grammatical (function) words. Once you've identified a word as 'lexical', its particular lexicogrammatical function in a particular text ceases to be of any immediate significance. Whether the word 'table' appears as a noun (sit on the table) or a verb (let's table a motion) isn't going to change the fact that it's a lexical/referential word, and not a grammatical/systemic word. Likewise, "of" would seem to be always and everywhere a systemic/grammatical word, and never a referential/lexical word; whether or not you consider it a preposition makes no difference to this, so I don't see where Sinclair comes into it.
Agreed, on the contexts I provided, but I would also say that you cannot label words as only lexical from a lexicogrammatical point of view.
Why not? Isn't that what Stubbs does with his computer programme? He gives his computer a list of words to treat as grammatical (function) items, wherever and whenever they occur, and tells it to treat all other items as lexical (content) items, wherever and whenever they occur. Without co-text you can't know whether 'table' is a noun or a verb, but you can know that it's a lexical item, not a grammatical item.
The lex-gram/ref-systemic views seem to be approaching from slightly different angles, but I still get the feeling they end up in the same place.
lex-gram maybe tests the validity of an expression, whereas ref-systemic should still work with non-acceptable utterances. So I disagree. AND how do you know where a word has "ended up"?
Again, I don't think we disagree, I just think we're in completely different ballparks here. Firstly, as I said above I'm not talking about lexicogrammatical functions, I'm talking about the lexical/grammatical distinction in lexical density, which has nothing to do with testing the validity of a sentence. Secondly, I'm not talking about where words "end up" in text. I'm talking about which of the two categories you end up assigning a word to. In lexical density, you have a choice of "lexical", "grammatical", or "unclear". From the referential/systemic perspective, you have a choice of "referential", "systemic", or "unclear".
So back to my original question, put another way: does the statement
"'Table' is a lexical (content) word, but 'of' is a grammatical (function) word." amount to the same as saying, "'Table' is a referential word, but 'of' is a systemic word"?
i.e. lexical = referential, grammatical = systemic
If so, then I can confidently move on to the next section in the LEX folder. If not, then I'm still missing something.
Phew! This would be so much simpler if we could just sit face to face and talk about it!
Best,
James
Re: LEX: 2nd reply to Colin | Colin Graham | October 3rd, 2002
Hi James
I think our interactions might make an interesting TDA assignment for someone!
OK, Earwig O again....
I'm simply asking if the distinction made in lexical density between a) lexical words, and b) grammatical words, is essentially the same as Peter Roe's distinction between a) referential words, and b) systemic words.
My gut feeling is no (or maybe).... however
As you know, to calculate lexical density, you need only assign each word in a given text to one of those two categories; a) lexical (content) words, b) grammatical (function) words. Once you've identified a word as 'lexical'
Ah, therein lies the problem.... with the 'fuzzy' words. It's the process of identification that I feel uncertain about.
its particular lexicogrammatical function in a particular text ceases to be of any immediate significance.
For the purposes of lexical density calculation, yes.
Why not? Isn't that what Stubbs does with his computer programme?
Yes, but I have reservations about the validity of fixed lists in this kind of situation.
I'm talking about which of the two categories you end up assigning a word to. In lexical density, you have a choice of "lexical", "grammatical", or "unclear". From the referential/systemic perspective, you have a choice of "referential", "systemic", or "unclear".
Do you have a choice of "unclear"? Surely Stubbs's programme 'forces' you to choose one or the other.
Maybe in the end, if there is that third fuzzy category which can only be decided by context, then I would say yes, probably. And that's a definite maybe!
I think it's a matter of the level you look at. Whether you use a magnifying glass or an electron microscope, you're still looking at the same thing.
My feeling is that the terms lexical and grammatical are better reserved for things at the level of the clause [=magnifying glass], and that referential and systemic maybe ok for words [=electron microscope].
Perhaps we should just agree that Stubbs used the wrong words and confused everyone doing the FND!! It's those damned computers messing things up again.
Phew! This would be so much simpler if we could just sit face to face and talk about it!
Yes, but life wasn't made to be easy....
(^_^)/
Colin
:-)
Re: LEX: 2nd reply to Colin | James Hobbs | October 3rd, 2002
Hi Colin,
One last point:
Do you have a choice of "unclear"? Surely Stubbs's programme 'forces' you to choose one or the other.
You can easily instruct the computer to leave unclear items like 'can' (aux. verb or noun?) for manual analysis, so yes, I think you do have a choice of "unclear".
Maybe in the end, if there is that third fuzzy category which can only be decided by context, then I would say yes, probably. And that's a definite maybe!
And I think that's as close as we're going to get to agreement on this! Thanks for the sparring session, and now let's call a truce and move on.
New topic please, someone!
James
with 
and 
