Why Martin's 'Macro-Genre' Is Inconsistent With Both His Own Model And SFL Theory

 Martin & Rose (2007: 261, 262):

Technically then Chapter 115 is a macro-genre, comprising three genres — a recount extended by a report, extended in turn by another recount. Within this overall structure, the first recount projects a pledge by quoting Mandela’s inauguration speech, which is marked in the formatting by indenting. So within macro-genres (such as books and chapters), genres are interdependent — extending, elaborating or projecting each other, as illustrated in Figure 8.1.

Blogger Comment:

[1] To be clear, the authors' claim here is that a text (Chapter 115) comprises three genres (text types). This is inconsistent with both Martin's model and SFL Theory.

With regard to Martin's model, it is inconsistent in terms of strata, since it proposes that a unit of the stratum of discourse semantics (text) is composed of categories of a stratum that is two levels of symbolic abstraction above discourse semantics and outside language (genre). This is analogous to proposing that a tone group (phonology) is composed of discourse semantic categories, since discourse semantics is two levels of symbolic abstraction above phonology.

With regard to SFL Theory, the inconsistency lies in misconstruing a type of text (genre) as a constituent of a text. A text type is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, whereas a constituent of a text is a unit on the stratum of semantics.

[2] To be clear, the general logico-semantic relations of elaboration, extension (and enhancement) and projection do not feature in Martin's logical system of discourse semantics, conjunction, because his model is his rebranding of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976), in which projection does not feature as a conjunctive relation, and the general types of expansion had not yet been formulated.