Thursday, 21 September 2017

Pageviews by Countries

Graph of most popular countries among blog viewers
United States
South Korea
United Kingdom
Hong Kong
Saudi Arabia

Sunday, 17 September 2017

Confusing Metafunctions (inter alia)

Martin & Rose (2007: 40-1):
If we take communal healing as one dimension of value [i.e. appreciation] analysis, then the Act can also be seen to be concerned with repairing social relations:
SINCE the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act No. 200 of 1993), provides a historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided society characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex …

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, the if…then relation here is logically invalid, because whether or not the Act can be seen to be concerned with repairing social relations is not conditioned by taking communal healing as one dimension of appreciation analysis.

[2] This confuses what can be appraised (communal healing) with a system of appraisal.

[3] This confuses ideational construal (what the Act is concerned with) with interpersonal enactment (appraising by the values of appreciation).  Interpersonal meaning is enacted, not construed.

Sunday, 10 September 2017

Misrepresenting Appraisal Analysis

Martin and Rose (2007: 40):
The key term for Tutu, judging from the title of his book, is forgiveness, which seems in this context to comprise aspects of both judgement and appreciation. Judgement in the sense that someone is generous enough to stop feeling angry and wanting to punish someone who has done something wrong to themappreciation in the sense that peace is restored. It also seems that for Tutu, forgiveness involves a spiritual dimension, underpinned by his Christianity; the concept transcends ethical considerations towards a plane of peace and spiritual harmonyIn appraisal terms what this means is that the politicised aesthetics of appreciation has recontextualised the moral passion plays of judgement.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This purports to be an appraisal analysis of a text, but instead, is a reverie on the meaning of the word forgivenesss on the basis of the book title No Future With Forgiveness.

[2] No such judgement by Tutu is cited.  The only excerpt from the text that is cited is the title No Future With Forgiveness.  This might be analysed by treating it as an elliptical rendering of we have no future without forgiveness, which can be interpreted as metaphorical for something like we must forgive.  If so, this is a proposal, not a proposition — Tutu is telling his readers what they must do, rather than judging 'someone'.

[3] No such appreciation by Tutu is cited.  This is merely an unsupported inference made by Martin & Rose.

[4] No such considerations, expressed by Tutu, are cited.  Martin & Rose here use the fact that the author is a Christian clergyman to imagine what he might have in mind.

[5] This is a vacuous obfuscation.  This can be demonstrated by the following grammatical analysis of the clause.

in appraisal terms
what this means
that the politicised aesthetics of appreciation has recontextualised the moral passion plays of judgement
Identified Value
Identifier Token

The analysis shows that the clause is identifying, but marked in terms of voice and the direction of coding, being:
  • receptive, rather operative, and
  • encoding, rather decoding.
The clause construes an identity that encodes what this means by reference to an embedded fact: that the politicised aesthetics of appreciation has recontextualised the moral passion plays of judgement.

The embedded fact is itself another identifying clause, but one which is the opposite of the ranking clause in terms of voice and coding: it is operative and decoding.  It also differs from the ranking clause in being circumstantial rather an intensive.

the politicised aesthetics of appreciation
has recontextualised
the moral passion plays of judgement
Identified Token
Process: identifying: circumstantial: spatio-temporal
Identifier Value

The embedded clause construes an identity that decodes the politicised aesthetics of appreciation by reference to the moral passion plays of judgement.  However, because Martin & Rose have not explained what they mean by either nominal group, this identity decodes an unknown by reference to an unknown.

Consequently, the identity construed by the ranking clause encodes what this means by reference to an identity that decodes an unknown by reference to an unknown.  This is the experiential grammar of obfuscation.

(Since the concern here is not with appraisal analysis, the Matter circumstance in appraisal terms is unwarranted.)

Sunday, 3 September 2017

Misunderstanding 'Capacity' And Confusing Prosodic Structure With Logogenesis

Martin and Rose (2007: 40):
Even more borderline perhaps are the generalisations of these positive capacities when Vaughan is referred to as a torchbearer of the 1980s-1990s blues revival and a rockin’ blues purist:
torchbearer, rockin' blues purist
In the prosodic domain of this positive appreciation of the CD, these can arguably be included as positive appreciations; but just as strong a case might be made for reading items such as these as positive judgements of Vaughan’s capacity as an artist, especially in contexts where character rather than performance is being evaluated. The context sensitivity of these borderline items underlines the importance of analysing appraisal in prosodic terms. So it is important to take co-text into account, rather than analysing simply item by item.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if appreciation is interpreted as assessment by reference to æsthetic values, and judgement is interpreted as assessment by reference to ethical values, then torchbearer and rockin' blues purist are not borderline cases; both are simply tokens of appreciation, as would be expected in a music review.

[2] Neither torchbearer nor rockin' blues purist is an assessment of capacity:
  • torchbearer is not an assessment of what Vaughan can do, but an assessment of what he is
  • rockin' blues purist is not an assessment of what Vaughan can do, but an assessment of what he is.

[3]  This confuses 'prosodic', a type of structure, with the unfolding of the text, logogenesis.

Sunday, 27 August 2017

Confusing The Type Of Appraised With The Type Of Appraisal

Martin and Rose (2007: 39-40):
The borderline of character and value
There are several instances of attitude in our texts that could perhaps be analysed as either judgement of character or appreciation of things. For example, closely related to the positive appreciation of Vaughan’s album and its tracks are the evaluations of his performance:
raw soul and passion, artistry, inspired six-string diction
These bring us to the border of character and value (of judgement and appreciation). Because they directly value Vaughan’s guitar playing rather than the man, we’ll take them here as concerned with value rather than character. But they can also additionally be coded as tokens of Vaughan’s enormous guitar playing abilities — as betokening one positive dimension of his character (as opposed to the negative dimension of drug addiction, also noted in the review).

Blogger Comments:

[A] There are three interwoven confusions here.
  1. The distinction of 'character' vs 'value' is a false dichotomy because the two are not mutually exclusive.  Consequently, it is not a distinction that is consistent with the notion of a systemic contrast, such as between judgement and appreciation.
  2. The distinction of 'character' vs 'value' confuses two distinct dimensions of appraisal.  That is to say, 'character' is what is assessed, whereas 'value' is the standard by which an assessment is made.
  3. The use of 'value' to distinguish appreciation from judgement is the logical error of using a superordinate term for a hyponym, since both judgement and appreciation are types of evaluation.
Moreover, if the attitudinal distinction between judgement and appreciation is taken to turn on the axiological distinction between ethical values and æsthetic values, there is no difficulty here.  The three attitudes expressed — raw soul and passion, artistry, inspired six-string diction— are all clearly (æsthetic) appreciation, not (ethical) judgement, and this is precisely what would be expected of a music review.

[B] Here the authors make the category error of using the type of appraised — 'guitar playing' vs 'the man' — as means of determining the type of appraisal, instead of using the type of values — ethical vs æsthetic — by which the appraisal is made.  Clearly, the appraised can be assessed in terms of appreciation ('dull'), judgement ('self-indulgent') or affect ('detest'), and, as such, do not determine the type of attitude enacted.

Sunday, 20 August 2017

Misunderstanding Prosodic Structure And The Notion Of Metafunction

Martin and Rose (2007: 39):
In order to illustrate a prosody of positive appreciations, we’ll switch fields for a moment and consider a review of the current CD edition of Stevie Ray Vaughan’s album Texas Flood (courtesy of
This legendary 1983 debut by the fallen torchbearer of the '80s-'90s blues revival sounds even more dramatic in its remixed and expanded edition. Stevie Ray Vaughan's guitar and vocals are a bit brighter and more present on this 14-track CD. And the newly included bonus numbers (an incendiary studio version of the slow blues "Tin Pan Alley" that was left off the original release, and live takes of "Testify," "Mary Had a Little Lamb," and the instrumental "Wham!" from a 1983 Hollywood concert) illuminate the raw soul and passion that propelled his artistry even when he was under the spell of drug addiction. Texas Flood captures Vaughan as rockin' blues purist, paying tribute in his inspired six-string diction to his influences Larry Davis (who wrote the title track). Buddy Guy, Albert King, and Jimi Hendrix. His own contemplative "Lenny," a tribute to his wife at the time, also suggests a jazz-fuelled complexity that would infuse his later work. (Drozdowski 2000)
This is a rave review from an in-house editor, designed to persuade Amazon’s customers to purchase Vaughan’s debut album. The album in general and certain tracks in particular are described in very positive terms:
legendary, even more dramatic, bit brighter, more present, incendiary, contemplative, jazz-fuelled complexity
To these appraisals we might add some arguably experiential meanings with a positive value in the context of this new edition of Texas Flood:
remixed, expanded, bonus

Blogger Comments:

[1]  This misunderstands the notion of prosody.  In SFL theory, prosody is a type of structure.  In order to illustrate "a prosody of positive appreciations" the structure in which these elements function would need to be identified.  Since Martin and Rose locate the appraisal system of attitude on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics, the structures would need to be discourse semantic structures of the interpersonal metafunction, namely: moves in exchanges.  Otherwise, the notion of 'prosody' can be applied to any meaning, interpersonal or otherwise.  For example, consider the "prosody" of processes in the rave review above:
sounds, are, was, illuminate, propelled, was, captures, paying, wrote, suggests, would infuse
[2] The wording 'arguably experiential meanings' betrays Martin's (1992: 390) misunderstanding of the metafunctions as 'interacting modules'; see, for example Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules.  In this context, meanings "with a positive value" are interpersonal meanings.

Sunday, 13 August 2017

Mistaking Judgement For Appreciation

Martin and Rose (2007: 38):
We can summarise the positive and negative appreciations we’ve examined so far in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Examples of appreciation
a beautiful relationship
a very serious issue
healing of breaches
redressing of imbalances
restoration of broken relationships
my unsuccessful marriage
a frivolous question
broken relationships
the community he or she has injured

Blogger Comments:

This discussion summarised here largely mistakes judgement for appreciation. According to the foundational work on the appraisal system of attitude:
APPRECIATION is concerned with the evaluation of objects and products (rather than human behaviour) by reference to aesthetic principles and other systems of social value. It encompasses values which fall under the general heading of aesthetics, as well as a non-aesthetic category of 'social valuation' which includes meanings such as significant and harmful.

Similarly, he or she has injured is a negative judgement ('immoral') of human behaviour, and as such, is not an instance of appreciation.

And to appraise a marriage as unsuccessful is to evaluate it as a failure of achievement, and as such, as a judgement of human behaviour, and not as an instance of appreciation.

Sunday, 6 August 2017

Mistaking Appreciation For Judgement

Martin & Rose (2007: 32-3):
We’ll start with personal judgements - positive (admiring) and negative (criticising). As we showed in Chapter 1, Helena’s story is an exemplum. Exemplums relate an incident in order to comment on the behaviour of the people involved. This means that alongside telling how people feel emotionally, Helena judges them, she evaluates their character. 
Helena’s first love is at first characterised admiringly as bubbly, vivacious, energetic, intelligent, popular and later, retrospectively, as beautiful, big and strong. And he is also admired implicitly as working in a top security structure, i.e. an admirable role. Helena’s second love is not quite so special, but described initially as exceptional, special, bubbly and charming. In both cases her lovers change, as a result of their security operations. Helena doesn’t explicitly re-assess her first love, rather she implies criticism by telling us how she felt when she saw what was left of him:
I can't explain the pain and bitterness in me when I saw what was left of that beautiful, big, strong person.
But she does directly criticise her second love as having something wrong with him, as maybe having gone mad, and as wasted. Their transformations from admiring judgements to critical ones are central to the impact of the two Incident stages of the story.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is presented as a gloss of the interpersonal system of affect: appraising by reference to emotion.  However, 'telling how people feel emotionally' takes the perspective of construing experience as meaning, which is ideational in terms of metafunction.  That is, it misinterprets affect in terms of metafunction.

[2] This discussion largely mistakes appreciation for judgement. According to the foundational work on the system of attitude:
JUDGEMENT is concerned with the evaluation of human behaviour with respect to social norms. Thus, under JUDGEMENT we may assess behaviour as moral or immoral, as legal or illegal, as socially acceptable or unacceptable, as laudable or deplorable, as normal or abnormal and so on…
APPRECIATION is concerned with the evaluation of objects and products (rather than human behaviour) by reference to aesthetic principles and other systems of social value. It encompasses values which fall under the general heading of aesthetics, as well as a non-aesthetic category of 'social valuation' which includes meanings such as significant and harmful.
[3] This is misleading because it is untrue.  The criticism here is not made of Helena's first love, but of the experiences that had diminished the qualities in him that she appreciated.

Sunday, 30 July 2017

Misrepresenting Judgement — And A False Dichotomy

Martin & Rose (2007: 32):
Judging people's character 
As with affect, judgements of people’s character can be positive or negative, and they may be judged explicitly or implicitly. But unlike affect, we find that judgements differ between personal judgements of admiration or criticism and moral judgements of praise or condemnation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents the appraisal system of judgement by reducing its scope, since judgement is not simply limited to assessments of people's character, as explained here:
The attitudinal sub-system of JUDGEMENT encompasses meanings which serve to evaluate human behaviour positively and negatively by reference to a set of institutionalised norms. Thus JUDGEMENT is involved when the speaker provides an assessment of some human participant with reference to that participant's acts or dispositions … The social norms at risk with these JUDGEMENT assessments take the form of rules and regulations or of less precisely defined social expectations and systems of value. Thus, under JUDGEMENT we may assess behaviour as moral or immoral, as legal or illegal, as socially acceptable or unacceptable, as laudable or deplorable, as normal or abnormal and so on.

[2] The opposition of 'personal' vs 'moral' is a false dichotomy, since the alternatives are not mutually exclusive.  A judgement that is not 'personal' is not necessarily 'moral', and a judgement that is not 'moral' is not necessarily 'personal'.  This is very poor theorising.

Sunday, 23 July 2017

Confusing Metafunctions And Misunderstanding 'Prosodic'

Martin & Rose (2007: 31):
As we can see, Helena uses a range of resources to build up a picture of her second love’s living hell, including direct expressions of emotional states and physical behaviour, and implicit expressions of emotion through extraordinary behaviour and metaphor. 
In Helena’s story these resources work together, reinforcing for example the desperation of her second love’s emotional devastation, his spiritual murder as she describes it. This accumulative effect over a phase of text reflects the ‘prosodic’ nature of attitude, and of interpersonal meaning in general. Interpersonal meanings are often realised not just locally, but tend to sprawl out and colour a passage of discourse, forming a ‘prosody’ of attitude. By looking at phases of attitude, we can explore how readers are being aligned rhetorically as a text unfolds; we’ll return to this issue of aligning the reader below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose confuse the ideational metafunction with the interpersonal metafunction.  "Building up a picture" of someone's emotional states takes the perspective of construing experience, not the perspective of appraising by affect.  Genuine examples of appraising by affect would be of the type I loved everything about him, he hated what was happening etc.

[2] Since the perspective on meaning adopted here by Martin & Rose is ideational, not interpersonal, the instance does not demonstrate the "prosodic nature of attitude".  More importantly, 'prosodic' refers to a type of structure.  Here it is confused with the selective attention to elements in different structures.  By this misunderstanding, all meaning could be regarded as having "prosodic structure".

[3] The notion of 'phase' is inconsistent with the notion of 'prosodic' structure.  The term 'phase' refers to one of a series of stages of some process, and so represents a dynamic perspective on the structure types that are continuous, not prosodic: experiential, logical and textual.

Sunday, 16 July 2017

Misunderstanding Affect As "Constructing Emotion"

Martin & Rose (2007: 29-31):
First let’s look at positive and negative affect. More perhaps than any other family of genres, stories involve us in people’s feelings. We empathise and sympathise with characters as they take part in extraordinary events. …
This contrast between good and bad vibes is a basic one as far as emotions and attitudes in general are concerned.  Next well look at direct and implicit expressions of feelings. …
Taken out of context, from this unusual behaviour we know something is wrong but we can’t be quite so sure about the exact emotion being expressed; we need to use a bit of psychology perhaps. …
We can also note here the role that metaphor plays in constructing emotion.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This again misunderstands affect. Affect is not simply a matter of 'expressing feelings' or "constructing emotion". Affect is 'the characterisation of phenomena by reference to emotion' (as explained here).

[2] This again misunderstands affect. Affect is not a matter of experiencing the emotions of participants in texts.  Affect is a system of appraisal, a resource of the interpersonal metafunction.

[3] There is no "need to use a bit of psychology".  There is, however, a need to understand that affect is an interpersonal system, not an experiential one, and as such, is a resource whereby speakers (and writers) enact intersubjective relations. 

Sunday, 9 July 2017

Misrepresenting The Three Kinds Of Attitude

Martin & Rose (2007: 26-9):
Attitudes have to do with evaluating things, people’s character and their feelings. … 
So these evaluations can be divided into three basic kinds according to what is being appraised: (i) the value of things, (ii) people’s character and (iii) people’s feelings. … 
And there are three main types of attitude: expressing emotion, judging character and valuing the worth of things. Technically we’ll refer to resources for expressing feelings as affect, resources for judging character as judgement and resources for valuing the worth of things as appreciation. …

In this section we look more closely at the three kinds of attitude we have identified: affect (people’s feelings), judgement (people’s character) and appreciation (the value of things).
Expressing our feelings: affect 
As we explore how people express their feelings in discourse, we find that they vary in two general ways. Firstly, we can have good feelings or bad feelings, so affect can be positive or negative. Secondly people can express their feelings directly, or we can infer how people are feeling indirectly from their behaviour, so affect can be expressed directly or implied.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The interpretation of affect as "evaluating people's feelings" confuses the kind of evaluation with what is evaluated. This is, in turn, inconsistent with the notion of affect as "expressing feelings"; see [4] below.

[2] This is inconsistent with the body of work on appreciation. Appreciation is not limited to 'valuing the worth of things'. Appreciation is 'the evaluation of objects and products (rather than human behaviour) by reference to æsthetic principles and other systems of social value' (as explained here).  For example, the very important professor is an instance of appreciation, despite appraising a person.

[3] This is inconsistent with the body of work on judgement. Judgement is not limited to 'appraising people's character'. Judgement is 'the evaluation of human behaviour with respect to social norms' (as explained here).

[4] This is misleading in that it misrepresents affect. Affect is not simply a matter of 'expressing feelings'. Affect is 'the characterisation of phenomena by reference to emotion' (as explained here).

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Misrepresenting Functional Varieties Of Language As The Cultural Context Of Language

Martin & Rose (2007: 22):
Finally in Chapter 9 we outline connections between the discourse analysis tools we have discussed and other modes of analysis. These connections include firstly the model of social context we introduced briefly above, and assume throughout the following chapters. This model of register and genre is crucial for interpreting the roles of interpersonal, ideational and textual meanings in social discourse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This follows Martin (1992) in misrepresenting functional varieties of language, register and genre, as the cultural context of language.  In SFL theory, register and genre (text type) are two ways of looking at the same thing: register is text type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation, whereas text type is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline.  The relation between context and language is realisation — they are different levels of symbolic abstraction.  Viewed from the system pole, registers are sub-potentials of language that realise sub-potentials of context; viewed from the instance pole, genres are types of text that realise situation types — a situation being an instance of context.

[2] The use of the word 'social' to characterise the cultural context invites a confusion between two distinct orders of experience: the first-order experience of the interlocutors who create a text, and the second-order experience that is the text they produce which realises the instance of semiotic context (situation).

Sunday, 25 June 2017

Rebranding Speech Function As Negotiation

Martin & Rose (2007: 21):
The key resources here are for exchanging roles as an interaction unfolds, for example by asking a question and answering it, or demanding a service and complying with the command. Here one speaker demands information with a question, and the other responds with a statement:
Sannie: Are you leaving?
Coetzee: - Of course I'm leaving.
Next a father demands a service with a command, and his son complies:
Hendrik: Ernest, get those snœk [a kind of fish],
Ernest: - (Ernest proceeds to do so.)

Blogger Comments:

Martin's discourse semantic system of negotiation is a rebranding of Halliday's semantic system of speech function.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 135):
These two variables [speech rôle and commodity], when taken together, define the four primary speech functions of offer, command, statement and question. These, in turn, are matched by a set of desired responses: accepting an offer, carrying out a command, acknowledging a statement and answering a question.

Sunday, 18 June 2017

Misrepresenting Writing Pedagogy As Linguistic Theory

Martin & Rose (2007: 20-1):
Periodicity (the rhythm of discourse)
Here we’re concerned with information flow: the way in which meanings are organised so that readers can process phases of meaning. Helena for example doesn’t launch straight into her story by telling us she met a young man. To begin, she lets us know that she’s going to tell a story about a teenage farm girl in Eastern Free State:
My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl in the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State.
And Tutu himself provided us with some more background to this story as he introduces it:
The South Africa Broadcasting Corporation's radio team covering the Truth and Reconciliation Commission received a letter from a woman calling herself Helena (she wanted to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals) who lived in the eastern province of Mpumalanga. They broadcast substantial extracts.
This means that by the time Helena begins we know what to expect — which genre (a story), and something about where and when it took place and who was involved. This kind of predictability is absolutely critical for digesting information, and we need to look carefully at the ways in which texts tell us what’s coming, alongside reminding us where we’ve been. Helena for example is just as clear about where her story ends:
I end with a few lines that my wasted vulture said to me one night
Here she lets us know that the predictions that helped us through the story are closing down, and that a transition to something different is coming, in this case a big hop back to Tutu’s argument. We use the term periodicity for these resources because they organise texts as waves of information; we surf the waves, taking a look back and forward on crests of informational prominence, so that we can glide smoothly through the troughs on the flow of meanings we expect.

Blogger Comments:

The system of periodicity — based on Martin (1992) but inconsistent with it, as previously explained here — is writing pedagogy misrepresented as linguistic theory.  Its concern is that of the
  • introductory paragraph, rebranded as macro-Theme,
  • topic sentence, rebranded as hyper-Theme,
  • paragraph summary, rebranded as hyper-New, and
  • text summary, rebranded as macro-New.

Sunday, 11 June 2017

Rebranding A Misunderstanding Of Grammatical Reference As Discourse Identification

Martin & Rose (2007: 20):
Identification (concerned with tracking people and things)
Helena’s narrative focuses on the two loves of her life and the way their violation of human rights destroyed their humanity. Her first love is introduced as a young man, and his identity is then kept track of using the pronouns his and he:
As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties. He was working in a top security structure.
Years later Helena meets him once again, and he is reintroduced as my first love, to distinguish him from the other men in her life:
More than a year ago, I met my first love again through a good friend.
The key English resources here are indefinite reference (a) to introduce the young man, pronouns to maintain his identity (his, he, my) and comparison (first) to distinguish him from Helena’s second love:

discourse functions
A young man
presenting a participant
indefinite reference
his twenties
tracking a participant
tracking a participant
my first love
comparing participants
pronoun, ordinal number

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin's system of identification is presented as 'reference as semantic choice' (Martin 1992: 93).  However, as demonstrated here, it confuses the system of reference (the means of referring) with the instantial referents ("the people and things tracked" in a text).  This confusion of grammatical cohesion is then rebranded as discourse semantics, without demonstrating how it constitutes a higher level of symbolic abstraction (a higher stratum) than lexicogrammar.

[2] Trivially, his is here a possessive adjective, not a pronoun.  An example of his as a possessive pronoun is the mistake was his, where it stands for a noun.

[3] The indefinite article, as the name suggests, serves no referential function.

[4] From the perspective of SFL theory, the inclusion of young man and love here confuses cohesive reference (textual metafunction) with the referents — participants (experiential metafunction).

[5] In SFL theory, ordinatives do not function as comparative reference items.  Their function is structural, rather than cohesive.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 374, 375):
The Numerative element indicates some numerical feature of the particular subset of the Thing: either quantity or order, either exact or inexact. … The ordering Numeratives (or ‘ordinatives’) specify either an exact place in order (ordinal numerals, e.g. the second train) or an inexact place (e.g. a subsequent train);
[6] This is inconsistent with Martin (1992), where the most general options are [presenting] vs [presuming].  Here 'tracking' is used both, as a replacement for the general feature [presuming], and as the general function of the system, as in the title above.  That is, it is used, inconsistently, as both superordinate and hyponym.

[7] This confusion of grammatical function (reference) and classes of grammatical form (pronoun, ordinal number) underplays the grammatical contribution to semogenesis here, thereby giving the false impression that the 'discourse functions' proposed here are not just rebrandings of (misunderstood) grammatical cohesion.