When A Sequence Of Activities Is Neither An Activity Sequence Nor A Series Of Events

Martin & Rose (2007: 106):

 

In this text, activities are taxonomically related by part or class; goannas are first classified as hunters, and the activities run, climb, swim are implicitly construed as components of hunting. But there is no implied series of events, rather the sequence is expected by the field of animal behaviours, and the descriptive report genre, so that feeding behaviours are expected by hunting behaviours, followed by breeding behaviours.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

[1] As noted in the preceding post, the taxonomic relations between Processes that Martin & Rose propose in this analysis do not withstand close scrutiny.

[2] To be clear, Martin & Rose claim that this text involves 'activities' and a 'sequence', but not an 'activity sequence' on the grounds that there is no implied 'series of events'.

[3] To be clear, goannas are classified as 'daytime hunters', and this class membership is construed by the attributive clause.

[4] To be clear, this misunderstands the text.  The processes run, climb and swim are not construed as parts of 'hunting' any more than they are construed as parts of 'escaping predators'.  The point made in the text is that they do such things well.

[5] To be clear, fields and genres do not expect anything, because they are not conscious beings.  If this misleading metaphor is unpacked, then the claim is that people who are familiar with the field of animal behaviours and people who are familiar with report genres expect the sequence of activities — as opposed to an activity sequence or series of events — in the text.

While it may be true that people who are familiar with the field may have such expectations, it is less likely to be true of people who are merely familiar with report genres; but, more importantly, the expectations of readers are irrelevant to what the author of the text actually wrote.  Text analysis is the analysis of text.

[6] To be clear, the authors' claim here is that 'hunting behaviours' expect 'feeding behaviours' followed by 'breeding behaviours'.  A sympathetic unpacking of this incongruous metaphor might be that people who are familiar with the field of animal behaviour and people who are familiar with report genres expect the sequence — but not 'activity sequence' or 'series of events' — 'hunting, feeding, breeding'.

However, people who are actually familiar with animal behaviour know that most hunts are unsuccessful and are thus not followed by feeding, and that feeding is a frequent activity that is only rarely followed by breeding (during the mating season).