The Thoughts Of Russell On Hume Vs Systemic Functional Linguistics

Russell (1961: 676):

It is true that, like Locke, [Hume] admitted no simple idea without an antecedent impression, and no doubt he imagined an 'impression' as a state of mind directly caused by something external to the mind.  But he could not admit this as a definition of 'impression', since he questioned the notion of 'cause'.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, in the construal of experience as meaning, in terms of logico-semantic relations, the identifying relation between tokens of experience and semiotic values is not causal — cause being a subtype of enhancement — but elaborating (intensive).

However, when the direction of coding is encoding — that is, when semiotic values are encoded by reference to tokens of experience — the experiential tokens are the cause (agent) of the identifying relation.  On the other hand, when the direction of coding is decoding — that is, when experiential tokens are decoded by reference to semiotic values — there is no agency: the identifying process is self-engendered.

encoding meaning:

experience	becomes/turns into	meaning
Identifier Token	Process: relational: identifying: intensive	Identified Value
Agent		Medium

decoding experience:

experience	becomes/turns into	meaning
Identified Token	Process: relational: identifying: intensive	Identifier Value
Medium		Range