Theoretical Inconsistencies Created By The Three Systems Of Ideation

Martin & Rose (2007: 76):

These three systems of ideation are summarised in Figure 3.2.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, these three systems of ideation are presented as systems of the experiential metafunction on the stratum of discourse semantics. Close inspection reveals otherwise.

The system of taxonomic relations is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a system of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar. The theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal.

The system of nuclear relations is a rebranding of Halliday's (1985) nuclear interpretation of the ergative model of the clause. The theoretical inconsistency created is thus stratal. Note that the meanings realised are all within the clause, not "beyond the clause" (the subtitle of this work).

The system of activity sequences is concerned with logical relations between clauses. The theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal. 

Moreover, this is also inconsistent with Martin (1992), in which activity sequences are located in context — misconstrued as register — and inconsistent with both that work and this, where logical (and textual) relations between clauses are modelled by the logical discourse semantic system of conjunction — itself a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction.

Activity Sequences: A Cornucopia Of Theoretical Inconsistencies

Martin & Rose (2007: 75-6):

We can identify three sets of lexical relations. … 

The third is the sequence of activities construed by clauses as a text unfolds. These are the relations from one process to the next that imply a series of steps, such as meeting - beginning relationship - marriage. As they construe the field of a text as unfolding in series of activities, these relations are known as activity sequences.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents lexicogrammar as discourse semantics.  To be clear, lexical relations are relations between lexical items, and lexical items are the synthetic realisations of feature combinations at the level of lexicogrammar (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 199).  The theoretical inconsistency is in terms of stratification.

[2] There are many inconsistencies here, five of which can be identified as follows.

Firstly, the notion of activity sequences as discourse semantic is inconsistent with the informing text, Martin (1992), where they are theorised as field, ideational context, where context is misunderstood as register.  For some of the problems with the theorising of activity sequences in Martin (1992), see here.

Secondly, the notion of activity sequences as experiential is inconsistent in terms of metafunction. As will be seen, relations between activities are not experiential relations, but a confusion of logical relations between clauses in complexes, on the one hand, and textual relations of cohesive conjunction, on the other.

Thirdly, the notion of activity sequences as lexical relations is inconsistent in terms of delicacy.  From the perspective of lexicogrammar, relations between activities are not lexical relations — relations between lexical items — but grammatical relations, whether structural or cohesive.

Fourthly, the relocation of activity sequences here to discourse semantics creates a further inconsistency, within the discourse semantic model, since relations between activities in sequences are also modelled in terms of the logical system of conjunction — itself a confusion of clause complexing and cohesive conjunction.  Martin & Rose (2007: 115):

Conjunction looks at interconnections between processes — adding, comparing, sequencing, or explaining them. These are logical meanings that link activities and messages in sequences.

Fifthly, as the previous four inconsistencies suggest, the modelling of activity sequences is also inconsistent with SFL theory, where the semantic counterparts of clauses, figures, are related logically in sequences; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 104-27).

[3] This confuses levels of symbolic abstraction, mistaking an instance of language (relations between processes) for an instance of the culture (field) that the language realises.

Rebranding Halliday's Clause Nuclearity As Their Own Nuclear Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 75-6):

We can identify three sets of lexical relations. …
The second is the configurations of elements within each clause. These include relations between people and things and the process they are involved in, and the places and qualities associated with the process, for example the configuration of two people and a process when Helena’s romance starts: Helena - meet - young man. As they are more or less central to the unfolding of the process, as in Figure 3.1, these are known as nuclear relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents lexicogrammar as discourse semantics.  To be clear, lexical relations are relations between lexical items, and lexical items are the synthetic realisations of feature combinations at the level of lexicogrammar (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 199).  The theoretical inconsistency is in terms of stratification.

[2] To be clear, 'the configuration of elements within each clause' involves grammatical relations, not lexical relations, which obtain at the level of lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.  The theoretical inconsistencies are thus twofold: in terms of delicacy and stratification.

[3] This is misleading.  These relations are those of clause nuclearity (Halliday 1985, 1994).  In not acknowledging the source of this work, Martin & Rose falsely present it as their own.

plagiarism (noun)

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. 

synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation;

See also Jim Martin "Honouring" The Late Ruqaiya Hasan where Martin falsely accused the late Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium organised to honour her.

Rebranding Halliday & Hasan's Lexical Cohesion As Their Own Taxonomic Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 75):

We can identify three sets of lexical relations. The first is the chains of relations between elements as a text unfolds, from one clause to the next. These include relations such as repetition, synonymy and contrast, that build up a picture of people and things as the text progresses. For example, early in her story Helena begins to construct a picture of herself as a teenage girl: late teenage years - farm girl - eighteen-year-old. As they progressively construct taxonomies of people, things, places and their qualities, these are known as taxonomic relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misconstrues lexicogrammar as discourse semantics.  To be clear, lexical relations are relations between lexical items, and lexical items are the synthetic realisations of feature combinations at the level of lexicogrammar (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 199).  The theoretical inconsistency is in terms of stratification.

[2] This is misleading.  These relations are those of lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976).  In not acknowledging the source of this work, Martin & Rose falsely present it as their own.

plagiarism (noun)

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. 

synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation;

See also Jim Martin "Honouring" The Late Ruqaiya Hasan where Martin falsely accused the late Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium organised to honour her.

[3] This misrepresents a lexicogrammatical system of the textual metafunction (lexical cohesion) as  a discourse semantic system of the experiential metafunction.  It is the logogenetic patterns of instantiation of systems of the ideational metafunction, such as clause transitivity, that "build up a picture of people and things as the text progresses".  The theoretical inconsistencies are thus twofold: stratal and metafunctional.

[4] Here Martin & Rose rebrand Halliday & Hasan's lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) as their own taxonomic relations (experiential discourse semantics).

Misrepresenting Misunderstandings Of Lexicogrammar As Discourse Semantics

Martin & Rose (2007: 75):

So fields of experience consist of sequences of activities involving people, things, places and qualities. These activities are realised by clauses and their elements. We are concerned in this chapter with lexical relations between these elements, within and beyond the clause. Our goal is to outline the patterns of lexical relations that can combine to construe a field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the relation between field and (activity) sequences as one of composition ('consist of') — logically, a relation of extension.  

Firstly, in SFL theory, field is the ideational dimension of context, and a sequence is a phenomenon in the ideational dimension of semantics.  The relation between them is realisation — intensive identification — logically, a relation of elaboration between two different levels of symbolic abstraction.

Secondly, in terms of the misunderstandings of SFL theory in English Text (Martin (1992), where field is a dimension of register, misunderstood as context, and where activity sequences are misunderstood as structures of field (pp293-4), this misrepresents the relation between the metafunction and one of its structures as one of composition.

Thirdly, in its own terms, where, inconsistent with Martin (1992), it locates activity sequences in discourse semantics, rather than context, misunderstood as register, it misunderstands the stratal relation between field and activity sequence as one of composition (extension) instead of realisation (elaboration between different levels of symbolic abstraction).

[2] This again reduces all processes to activities, reduces all participants to people and things — neither of which is defined in terms of a relation with a process — and reduces all circumstances to places and qualities.

[3] To be clear, this confuses two distinct dimensions of realisation:

• stratal: activity (figure) realised by clause
• axial: system realised by (elements) of structure.

[4] This confuses strata.  In purporting to provide a model of discourse semantics, the concern of the chapter is with lexical relations (lexicogrammar) between elements within and beyond the clause (lexicogrammar).

[5] It will be seen, in the course of this chapter review, these 'lexical relations' that 'construe a field' are a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) and logical relations between grammatical functions and forms.  It will also be seen that (instantiation) patterns are confused with syntagmatic relations.