Misrepresenting Social Context As A Stratum Of Language

Martin & Rose (2007: 3-4):

SFL has been described as an ‘extravagant’ theory; its extravagance has evolved to manage the complexity of the phenomenon it describes. But despite the complexity of language in social contexts, the basic principles developed in SFL for managing it are relatively simple. To begin with we will briefly introduce two general perspectives for looking at the phenomena of discourse. These two perspectives are:

• [relevant] levels of language: as grammar, as discourse, and as social context (known as the strata of language)
• three general functions of language in social contexts: to enact our relationships, to represent our experience, and to organise discourse as meaningful text (known as metafunctions).

Blogger Comment:

[1] In SFL, as elsewhere, social context is not a stratum of language.  In the first instance, the strata of language are semantics (meaning), lexicogrammar (wording) and phonology (sounding). Context is distinct from language, and constitutes the culture modelled as a semiotic system whose expression plane includes language.  Language realises context.

Significantly, this inclusion of context within language is also inconsistent with the theoretical source of this workbook, English Text (Martin 1992), which nominally distinguishes context and language, despite re-interpreting context as diatypic varieties of language (register and genre); see explanatory critiques here.

[2] In SFL, the term 'discourse' does not refer to a stratum of language.  (For a thorough critique of Martin's model of 'discourse semantics' as a stratum, see here.)  For Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512), 'discourse' refers to:

… the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts.

And Halliday (2008: 78) further clarifies the distinction between 'discourse' and 'text':

I do make a distinction between these two; but it is a difference in point of view, between different angles of vision on the phenomena, not in the phenomena themselves. So we can use either to define the other: “discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

Misunderstanding And Misrepresenting Instantiation

Martin & Rose (2007: 2):

The relationship between these phenomena is schematised in Figure 1.1, illustrating the scaling in size and complexity from clause to text to culture. Figure 1.1 shows one clause as an instance of the story of ‘Helena’, whose life was caught up in the injustices of apartheid South Africa, as Helena’s story is one instance of the cultural changes that culminated with the release of Nelson Mandela and the overthrow of apartheid.

Blogger Comments:

This misunderstands and misrepresents the theoretical dimension of instantiation:

• a clause is not an instance of a text — a text is an instance! — and
• a story is not an instance of cultural change.

Instantiation is the relation between potential and instance:

• the clause in question is an instance of clause as potential (system),
• the story in question, as a text, is an instance of language as potential (system), and
• a situation is an instance of culture as potential (system).

The relation of the clause in question to the text in question is stratal — the two are units at different levels of symbolic abstraction.  Clause is the largest unit at the level of wording: the stratum of lexicogrammar, whereas text is the largest unit at the level of meaning: the stratum of semantics.  The relation between strata is realisation.  Wording realises meaning.

The relation of the text in question to cultural change involves three distinct theoretical dimensions: 

Firstly, the relation between text, as language, and culture, as context, is stratal — language and context are different levels of symbolic abstraction. The relation between them is thus realisation. Language realises context. 

Secondly, text and culture differ in terms of instantiation.  Text is language as instance, whereas culture is context as potential. 

Thirdly, text and cultural change differ in terms of semogenesis.  The instantiation of the system in the text is logogenesis, whereas the evolution of culture is phylogenesis. Importantly, the logogenesis of the story (language) is not an instance of the phylogenesis of the culture (context). Logogenesis provides the material for ontogenesis, which provides the material for phylogenesis, while phylogenesis provides the environment for ontogenesis, which provides the environment for logogenesis.

One reason for distinguishing the theoretical dimensions of stratification, instantiation and semogenesis is that it makes the complexity of language more manageable; doing so facilitates a systematic approach to further theorising, to text analysis, and to pedagogical practice.  Consequently, not distinguishing such dimensions is more likely to impair further theorising, text analysis and pedagogical practice.

Misunderstanding Semogenic Processes

Martin & Rose (2007: 1-2):

We should emphasise that although we can assign a name to each of these phenomena, a clause, a text or a culture are not ‘things’, but social processes that unfold at different time scales. Culture unfolds through uncountable series of situations, as our lives unfold through these situations as learners, speakers and actors, producing texts that unfold as sequences of meanings.

Blogger Comments:

[1] With regard to the claim that clause, text and culture are social, SFL construes language and culture as social semiotic systems, as opposed to, say, somatic semiotic systems, such as those of visual perception.

[2] With regard to the claim that clause, text and culture are processes, the actual processes that SFL distinguishes are the three semogenic processes of:

• logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text,
• ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual, and 
• phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.

[3] This confuses the relation between culture and situation, instantiation, with the semogenic process of phylogenesis, the evolution of the culture in the species.

[4] This confuses the 'unfolding of a life' with ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual.  The 'unfolding of a life' occurs at all three semogenic timescales.

[5] This confuses 'sequences of meanings' with logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text.

Blurring The Distinction Between Semantics And Context

Martin & Rose (2007: 1):

And it also means that we treat discourse as more than an incidental manifestation of social activity; we want to focus on the social as it is constructed through texts, on the constitutive role of meanings in social life. … and it is also an invitation to social theorists to reconsider social activity as meaning we negotiate in discourse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear:

• not all social activity is realised in language, and 
• there is more to culture (context) than just social activity.

[2] The notion of 'the social being constructed through texts' affords two distinct interpretations.  On the one hand, it could be said to be concerned with the theoretical claim embodied in the stratification hierarchy that language (text) and context (situation) are construed together during logogenesis.  On the other hand, it could be said to be concerned with the semantic construal of social activities within texts, as in the plot-lines of novels.

The reason this distinction is worth highlighting here is that, in the work that this publication 'takes as its point of departure', English Text (Martin 1992), events in texts and events in the environments of texts are largely not distinguished; see, for example, the evidence here.

[3] To be clear, the meaning we negotiate in discourse is the meaning of language: semantics.  Language and context are distinct levels of symbolic abstraction, such that language realises context.  In SFL, 'context' refers to the culture as a semiotic system that has language as its expression plane.

The reason this distinction is worth highlighting here is that, in the work that this publication 'takes as its point of departure', English Text (Martin 1992), 'meaning' is misattributed to all strata, as a direct result of mistaking a statement about semogenesis — 'all strata make meaning' — for the principle of stratification; see, for example, the evidence here.

Misrepresenting Grammarians

Martin & Rose (2007: 1):

In this book we are concerned with interpreting discourse by analysing it. For us this means treating discourse as more than words in clauses; we want to focus on meaning beyond the clause, on semantic resources that lead us from one clause to another as a text unfolds. … In a sense then this book is an invitation to grammarians to reconsider meaning in the clause from the perspective of meaning in texts;

Blogger Comments:

[1] The discourse of this Martin & Rose text begins with four claims about the 'social activities' of grammarians:

1. grammarians treat discourse as just words in clauses;
2. grammarians don't focus on meaning beyond the clause;
3. grammarians don't focus on semantic resources that lead from one clause to another as a text unfolds;
4. grammarians don't already consider meaning in the clause from the perspective of meaning in texts.

The validity of such claims depends on the meaning of the word 'grammarian' in this context: the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics.  In the view of the theorist who created SFL theory, a grammarian is a linguist who is concerned with both strata of the content plane: lexicogrammar and semantics.  Halliday (2008: 85):

…and I should say, by the way, that by “the grammarian” here I understand one who works in lexicogrammar and semantics: the systems thinker on the content plane…

As this quote also suggests, Halliday uses the term 'grammarian' for linguists who are primarily concerned with the system pole of the cline of instantiation — language as system — in contrast to the term 'text linguist' or 'discourse analyst', which he uses for linguists who are primarily concerned with the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — language as text.

Importantly, Halliday (2008: 85, 126) stresses that both of these complementary perspectives, of the grammarian and of the discourse analyst, are necessary:

… whichever of these rôles we are adopting [grammarian or discourse analyst], we need to observe from both ends. The grammarian, however system-oriented he may be, has to monitor instances of discourse; the discourse analyst, however text-oriented, has to keep an eye on the overall potential. The complementarity means that, unless you shift your angle, you will distort the picture: you cannot know all that is going on if you keep to just one observational perspective. …

It is a mistake to restrict our angle of vision to just one perspective or the other, or to treat the discourse analyst and grammarian as if they inhabited two different realms of intellectual being.

In stark contrast, Martin & Rose simply use the term 'grammarians' for linguists who prefer to use Halliday's theory of grammar (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014) instead of Martin's theory of discourse semantics (1992)* in the analysis of texts.  In doing so, they also, therefore, confuse (system-oriented) grammarians with (text-oriented) discourse analysts.

In short, Martin & Rose have used a type of 'straw man' argument to promote the use of Martin's model:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.  One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". … This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[2] By the same token, the discourse of this Martin & Rose text begins with four claims that set out what is to be achieved:

1. Martin & Rose will treat discourse as more than words in clauses;
2. Martin & Rose will focus on meaning beyond the clause;
3. Martin & Rose will focus on semantic resources that lead from one clause to another as a text unfolds;
4. Martin & Rose will consider meaning in the clause from the perspective of meaning in texts.

In making these claims, Martin & Rose have provided four criteria by which to judge the success or failure of their enterprise — in their own terms.


* For the theoretical inconsistencies in Martin's theory, see the 2,000+ arguments at the blog Martin's Discourse Semantics, Register & Genre here.