A Study Of Token-Value Configuration Of Identifying Clause

The contrast of Token and Value is used by Halliday (1985, 1994) to highlight the difference in the abstraction level of the two entities of identifying clause. The Token—Value configuration has the structural significance of indicating voice. When Token and Value are combined with Identified and Identifier, Token—Value configuration produces two coding equatives (decoding and encoding). Toolan (1992) studies the functional implication of relative abstractness of Token and Value for their configuration. He postulates that Token-Value configuration has the cognitive function in the text formation and processing of indicating the speaker's intention, either explanatory or identificational. Then Davidse (1992) studies the Token-Value relation from a semiotic approach. She (1992) maintains that Token-Value relation is obtained from different symbolic orders of a sign system, and encoding and decoding are of quite distinctive nature both grammatically and semantically. She (1996) also points out that the eight-cell paradigm of Token-Value configuration is more holistic than the four-cell paradigm, because the former grammaticalizes the symbolic correlativeness of language strata. However, in my opinion, Davidse's interpretation of the eight-cell paradigm is problematic and questionable.The questions I address myself to in the paper are the following: what is the nature of Token-Value relation, or how does this relation acquire its cognitive quality? Then where lies Davidse's misunderstanding of the relation and configuration? Are there any other configuration possibilities that are left unexplored, but are no less important for the language system?After a discussion on the ontogenetic development of Token-Value relation, based on the data of Halliday's (1975) observation on child's language development, this thesis suggests that the Token-Value contrast originates from the two modes of primary experience: the material and the conscious. Token-Value configuration grammaticalizes the coding process, or redundancy progression in the multi-dimensional semiotic space of adult language. It is not the case that the Tokenand Value alone are the coding function variables, as is postulated by Davidse. But the symbolic correlativeness is rather grammaticalizes by both Token-Value and Identified-Identifier. In order to bear out Davidse's mistake more clearly, a logogenetic study of Token-Value configuration (Configuration I) is conducted in two supposed situation (Situation I and Situation II) and two pairs of possible dialogues (Dialogue 1, Dialogue 2 and Dialogue 3, Dialogue 4). Furthermore, by extending Dialogue 1 and Dialogue 2, other configuration possibilities are discussed. The finding is that the metaphorical Token Token configuration is the work of two redundancy progressions in both language production and understanding. It provides an access for the language to express the ineffable meaning, and manifests the metastableness of the language system. In this sense, the metaphorical configuration still stays in the functional grammar system, and does not have to turn to pragmatic principle for explanation. It is a new type of Token-Value configuration (Configuration II).Consequently, this thesis achieves a more holistic description of Token-Value configuration in the light of the Halliday's latest notion of 'metaredundancy'.