Activity Sequences: Misapplied Logical Relations Rebranded As Experiential Discourse Semantics

Martin & Rose (2007: 73-4): 

Section 3.5 describes relations between activities as a text unfolds. As they construe experience as unfolding in series of activities, these relations are known as activity sequences. …

Section 3.5 concludes with a method for analysing activity sequences in a text that displays its phases of activities as well as its patterns of participation by people and things.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It will be seen that "relations between activities" are logical relations — addition and cause —between the semantic counterpart of clauses — in SFL: figures — rebranded as experiential discourse semantics.  In the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), figures are related logically in sequences.

As already explained, the inclusion of activity sequences in the experiential system of IDEATION is inconsistent with the informing work, Martin (1992), where activity sequences are modelled as field, the ideational dimension of context, itself misconstrued by Martin as register. Adding to the confusion, logical relations between the semantic counterpart of clauses are also modelled, here and in the informing work, by the logical discourse system of CONJUNCTION, itself a rebranding of misunderstandings of the textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction, confused with misunderstandings of the logical systems of clause complexing.

[2] It will be seen that this method for analysing activity sequences (in SFL: logical relations between figures) is actually a method for analysing nuclear relations (in SFL: logical relations between elements of figures).  The confusion here is in terms of order of phenomena (in SFL: sequence and figure), and given that the chapter is concerned with experiential meaning, the theoretical inconsistency is once again metafunctional.

Nuclear Relations: Misapplied Logical Relations Rebranded As Experiential Discourse Semantics

Martin & Rose (2007: 73-4): 

Section 3.4 describes lexical relations between processes, people, things, places and qualities within each clause. As they are more or less central in the clause, these are known as nuclear relations. … 

Section 3.4 includes methods for analysing nuclear relations in a text, that display how people and things participate in activities, and how lexical elements are related across different parts of grammar. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the relations here are logical, not lexical, and they obtain between grammatical functions in clause structure, not lexical items.  Moreover, the logical relations between grammatical elements within the clause are misunderstood and rebranded as experiential discourse semantics — a model purportedly concerned with meaning beyond the clause.

[2] To be clear, logical relations between experiential functions do not display how — the manner in which — participants participate in processes, as will be demonstrated in future posts.

[3] To be clear, logical relations between experiential grammatical functions do not display how lexical elements are related across different parts of grammar.  Moreover, any relations between lexical elements across the grammar are a feature of lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.  The confusions here thus involve two theoretical dimensions: metafunction and stratification.

Taxonomic Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 73):

Section 3.2 describes chains of relations between lexical elements in a text, such as repetition, synonymy and contrast. As they build up a picture of people and things as a text unfolds, these are known as taxonomic relations. … 

In section 3.2 a method is introduced for analysing taxonomic relations in a text, that allows us to see relations between lexical elements as a text unfolds, as well as the overall pictures of people and things that a text construes.

Blogger Comments:

As the terms 'lexical', 'repetition' and 'synonymy' disclose, this constitutes Martin's rebranding of lexical cohesion, textual lexicogrammar, misconstrued as experiential discourse semantics. The theoretical inconsistencies are in terms of metafunction and stratification.

Some Fundamental Problems With The Experiential System Termed 'Ideation'

Martin & Rose (2007: 73):

IDEATION: construing experience 

Ideation is concerned with how our experience is construed in discourse. It focuses on sequences of activities, the people and things involved in them, and their associated places and qualities, and on how these elements are built up and related to each other as a text unfolds.

Blogger Comments:

The critiques of this chapter will attempt to identify its inconsistencies with the informing work, Martin (1992), as well as the inconsistencies both with SFL theory and with itself.  Problems with the theorising in Martin (1992) are identified in great detail here.

[1] To be clear, the characterisation of IDEATION as 'construing experience' is inconsistent with the characterisation of IDEATION in Martin (1992: 271) as 'the company words keep'.  The original characterisation derives from the fact that Martin's experiential discourse system is largely a rebranding of lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976, Halliday 1985), a grammatical system of the textual metafunction.  The revised characterisation here derives from the title of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), Construing Experience Through Meaning, which presents a model of ideational semantics, experiential and logical, that is consistent with the principles and architecture of SFL theory.

[2] To be clear, the inclusion of activity sequences in the experiential system of IDEATION is inconsistent with the informing work, Martin (1992), where activity sequences are modelled as field, the ideational dimension of context, itself misconstrued by Martin as register.  The notion of sequence as a semantic unit derives from the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

Moreover, the inclusion of activity sequences in the experiential system of IDEATION is inconsistent in terms of metafunction to the extent that activity sequences involve logical relations between the semantic counterpart of clauses.

Adding to the confusion, logical relations between the semantic counterpart of clauses are also modelled, here and in the informing work, by the logical discourse system of CONJUNCTION, itself a rebranding of misunderstandings of the textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction, confused with misunderstandings of the logical systems of clause complexing.

[3] It will be seen in the critiques that follow that these nuclear relations between elements constitute misunderstandings of clause nuclearity and logical relations, rebranded as an experiential discourse semantic system.

[4] It will be seen in the critiques that follow that the relations between elements constitute a rebranding of lexical cohesion, textual lexicogrammar, misconstrued as experiential discourse semantics.

On The Implicit Coupling Of Field With Appreciation

Martin & Rose (2007: 70-1):

Further complicating this issue is the implicit coupling of field with appreciation (the evocation variable noted above). As with affect and judgement, ideational meanings can be used to appraise, even though explicitly evaluative lexis is avoided. It perhaps should be stressed again here that appraisal analysts do need to declare their reading position, in particular since the evaluation one makes of evocations depends on the institutional position one is reading from. For example, according to reading position, formal and functional linguists will evaluate terms in the following sets of oppositions in complementary ways with firm convictions about what the good guys and the bad guys should celebrate:

rule/resource :: cognitive/social :: acquisition/development :: syntagmatic/paradigmatic :: form/function :: language/parole :: system/process :: psychology&philosophy/socioiogy&anthropology :: cognitive/social :: theory/description :: intuition/corpus :: knowledge/meaning :: syntax/discourse :: pragmatics/context :: parsimony/extravagance :: cognitive/critical :: technicist/humanist :: truth/social action :: performance/instantiation :: categorical/probabilistic :: contradictory/complementary :: proof/exemplification :: reductive/comprehensive :: arbitrary/natural :: modular/fractal :: syntax&lexicon/lexicogrammar...

Blogger Comments:

[1] As pointed out in the previous post, the notion of "coupling" of field with appreciation betrays the authors' misunderstanding of strata and metafunctions as interacting modules of meaning (Martin 1992: 390); see, for example Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules. 

[2] The notion that 'ideational meanings can be used to appraise' continues the misunderstanding of metafunctions as modules.  The implication here is that the terms that enact explicit appraisals, such as 'disorganised', do not also serve an ideational function.

To be clear, the ideational metafunction is language in its function of construing experience as meaning, whereas the interpersonal metafunction is language in its function of enacting intersubjective relations as meaning.  As an interpersonal system, appraisal is the enactment of intersubjective relations as meaning, not the use of "ideational" meanings to appraise. 

[3] This confuses the reading position of the discourse analyst with the appraisals enacted in a text — the latter being either those of the author, or those reported by the author to be those of instantial participants.

[4] These proportionalities actually disclose the reading position of Martin & Rose.  The following table sets out what the authors believe are appraised as positive by "the good guys and the bad guys":

What Formal Linguists Should Celebrate	What Functional Linguists Should Celebrate
rule	resource
cognitive	social
acquisition	development
syntagmatic	paradigmatic
form	function
language	parole
system	process
psychology & philosophy	socioiogy & anthropology
cognitive	social
theory	description
intuition	corpus
knowledge	meaning
syntax	discourse
pragmatics	context
parsimony	extravagance
cognitive	critical
technicist	humanist
truth	social action
performance	instantiation
categorical	probabilistic
contradictory	complementary
proof	exemplification
reductive	comprehensive
arbitrary	natural
modular	fractal
syntax & lexicon	lexicogrammar