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.