Why Martin's Model Of Register And Genre Is Theoretically Invalid

Martin & Rose (2007: 308, 309):

Register analysis then gives us another way of thinking about context, alongside genre. The main difference is that register analysis is metafunctionally organised into field, tenor and mode perspectives whereas genre analysis is not. For us the relationship between the register and genre perspectives is treated as an interstratal one, with register realising genre (as in Figure 9.2). The relationship between register and genre in other words is treated as similar to that between language and context, and among levels of language (as outlined in Chapter 1).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin & Rose model culture as varieties of language, genre and register, and do not model these varieties of language as language. This latter is analogous to not construing types of fruit as fruit.

Moreover, modelling varieties as stratal systems sets up a theoretical inconsistency with other strata, including their own discourse semantics, because other strata are not varieties, but full systems.

In SFL Theory, these varieties of language, text type (genre) and register, are the same phenomenon viewed from opposite poles of the cline of instantiation: text type (genre) is the view of register from the instance pole, whereas register is the view of text type (genre) from the system pole.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field, tenor and mode are the metafunctional system of context, which the authors' have misconstrued as register, a functional variety of language. In SFL Theory, different configurations of these contextual features are realised by different registers of language.

[3] To be clear, the fact that the authors' model of genre is not 'metafunctionally' organised is yet another dimension of theoretical inconsistency, since, not only are all other strata 'metafunctionally organised', but the metafunctions are a central tenet of SFL Theory.

As previous posts have demonstrated, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the authors' notion of genre is a confusion of different dimensions of the theory. For example,

• their 'genre' is text type, which is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation;
• their 'generic purpose' is a culture stratum system, language rôle, within  the textual system of mode;
• their 'generic stages' are semantic stratum units, oriented to mode.

On this basis, it might be said that the authors' genre is at least partially 'metafunctionally organised', if inadvertently, though on strata other than genre.

[4] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin & Rose misconstrue two perspectives on the same point of variation on the cline of instantiation of language, register and genre (text type), as two different levels of symbolic abstraction, strata, that are more abstract than language.

Moreover, as previously demonstrated, because Martin & Rose confuse their register system of tenor with social structure, they model genre (e.g. narrative) as realised by social structure.

The Authors' Self-Contradictory Claim That Register Is Realised In Genre

Martin & Rose (2007: 307):

By working along these parameters of activities and participants, and their realisation across the range of relevant genres, we can explore different domains of life, particularly the differences between everyday, technical and institutional domains, and the kinds of apprenticeship required for participation in them. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here Martin & Rose propose that their discourse semantics (activities and participants), which they misunderstand as their higher stratum, register, is realised by their highest stratum, genre. That is, the authors invert their own model, proposing that register is realised by genre, instead of genre by register.

From the perspective of SFL Theory, what can be said is that processes and participants of the semantic stratum are instantiated in texts that vary in type (genre).

Misconstruing Ideational Semantics As Ideational Context (Field)

Martin & Rose (2007: 307):

Distinctive sequences implicate distinctive events, linked by expectations derived from participation in a field:

They posed for pictures together

signed autographs

compared callouses on their fingertips

Vincent Lingiari, a Gurindji elder, led his people off the cattle station

They subsequently sent a petition to the Governor-General

And events implicate distinct participants, arranged in relation to one another according to the classifications and compositions of a given field, for example, blues guitarists and their songs ...

blues guitarists

Eric Clapton, Robert Cray, Buddy Guy, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmie Vaughan

SRV set list (partial)

Texas Flood, Pride and Joy, Riviera Paradise, Crossfire, Couldn't Stand the Weather, Goin' Down, Voodoo Chile, Sweet Home Chicago

... vs prospective mates bearing gifts:

mates

the prime minister Gough Whitlam/Vincent Lingiari

important White men/us Aboriginals

White men, White/Aboriginals, Black

gifts

land, country; cattle, horses, bores, axes, wire

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, here Martin & Rose misconstrue the stratum of semantics as the stratum of context, mistaking ideational meaning (sequence and figures) of a text for its cultural field.

In terms of the authors' own model, Martin & Rose misconstrue their stratum of discourse semantics as their stratum of register, mistaking experiential language (activity sequences) for ideational context (field).

[2] And again, in terms of SFL Theory, here Martin & Rose misconstrue the stratum of semantics as the stratum of context, mistaking ideational meaning (participants) of a text for its cultural field.

And again, in terms of the authors' own model, Martin & Rose misconstrue their stratum of discourse semantics as their stratum of register, mistaking experiential language (participant taxonomies) for ideational context (field).

Misunderstanding Field

Martin & Rose (2007: 306-7):

This brings us to the final register variable, field, which is concerned with generalising across genres according to the domestic or institutional activity that is going on. By definition a field is a set of activity sequences that are oriented to some global purpose within the institutions of family, local community or society as a whole. The activity sequences, the figures in each step of a sequence, and their taxonomies of participants create expectations for the unfolding field of a discourse. On this basis, when identifying fields we need to consider expectations about what is going on … 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'field' is the ideational dimension of culture, whereas register is a functional variety of language, modelled as a point of variation on the cline of instantiation.

Martin & Rose, on the other hand, misunderstand cultural context as register, while simultaneously claiming that their context is instantiated as text, which is an instance of language, not of context. In discussing field, the authors most often misconstrue it as the ideational semantics of a text, as demonstrated below, and previously on this blog, and in the critique of Martin (1992) here.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field is not concerned with generalising across text types (genres) according to the "institutional activity that is going on". On the contrary, field is a means of differentiating text types (genres) according to the situation types they realise.

In the stratification model of Martin & Rose, on the other hand, where register realises genre, field is the ideational realisation of genre. That is, even on their own model, field cannot be said to "generalise across genres", because a metafunctional system of a lower stratum (e.g. phonology) does not generalise across a higher stratum (e.g. lexicogrammar).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field is not "by definition" a set of activity sequences, no matter how they are "oriented". This is because, for Martin & Rose, activity sequences — along with figures and participant taxonomies — are located in the discourse semantic stratum of language: the experiential system of IDEATION. That is, by defining their register (context) system of field in terms of a discourse semantic (language) system, Martin & Rose are not only inconsistent with SFL Theory, they are also inconsistent in terms of their own model.

[4] To be clear, if activity sequences, figures and participant taxonomies are located on the discourse semantic stratum, as in the authors' model, then what unfolds (in logogenesis) is the experiential meaning of a text, not the field of its context. Incidentally, it might be asked why logical meaning, Martin's system of conjunction, is excluded from this misunderstanding of field.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, identifying the field of a text is identifying the ideational dimension of the culture that the text construes.

[6] To be clear, the expectations of a listener are not criterial in identifying the field of a speaker's text, since field classifies the cultural situation, not the mental states of a listener.

Misanalysing Textual Reference And Confusing It With Ideational Denotation

Martin & Rose (2007: 305-6):

Where cultural difference comes into play, contracted realisation can be particularly excluding. We can take a moment to resolve the exophoric reference in Lingiari’s speech:

But this simply introduces a pulse of homophoric reference that many (but not all) Australians and few others can resolve.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, using SFL Theory, the exophoric reference items in this extract are the demonstratives:

• the (important white men)
• this (land)
• here (Wattle Creek)

and the endophoric reference items are:

• they (anaphoric to the important white men)
• it (anaphoric to this land)
• it (anaphoric to this land)
• the (anaphoric to the important white men)
• it (anaphoric to this land)
• the (cataphoric to us Aboriginals all around here)

That is, neither important white men nor us nor land nor today are textual references.

[2] To be clear, the concern with these glosses is 'reference' in the sense of ideational denotation, not reference in the textual sense. As previously demonstrated, this basic confusion permeates and undermines Martin's IDENTIFICATION, his textual system of his discourse semantic stratum.

Acronyms As Incisive Membership Signals

Martin & Rose (2007: 305):

Contraction refers to the amount of work it takes to exchange meanings, and the idea that the better you know someone the less explicitness it takes. Poynton exemplifies this in part through naming, pointing out that knowing someone very well involves short names, knowing them less well longer ones. For outsiders, Stevie might be introduced as Texas bluesman Stevie Ray Vaughan for example, whereas for hardcore fans just his initials will do:

Texas bluesman Stevie Ray Vaughan

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Stevie Ray

Stevie

SRV

Technically speaking, the less information a homophoric reference contains, the tighter the community it constructs and the more people it excludes. Acronyms in general are incisive [sic] membership signals in this respect, as are all of the resources noted in Martin 2000a under the heading of involvement (e.g. swearing, slang, antilanguage, specialised and technical lexis).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is "reference" in the sense of ideational denotation, which Martin & Rose confuse with textual reference — homophoric or otherwise — in their model of textual discourse semantics, IDENTIFICATION, as explained in the examination of that system (Chapter 5).

[2] To be clear, acronyms do not contain less information, they express the same amount of information in reduced form. In any case, this bare assertion is invalidated by all the acronyms that are not inclusive membership signals, such as:

• ASAP
• AWOL
• ATM
• PIN
• SCUBA
• LASER
• RADAR
• NASA
• NATO
• UN
• UNESCO
• CIA
• FBI

The Authors' Notion That Genre Is Realised By Social Structure

Martin & Rose (2007: 303-4):

The horizontal dimension of tenor, solidarity, is used to generalise across genres with respect to the alignment of social subjects into communities of all orders: networks of kith and kin, and collegial relations associated with more and less institutionalised activity (leisure and recreation, religion, citizenship and work).

There are degrees of integration into these communities related to the range and frequency of activities undertaken together and also to shared feelings about the value of what is going on. For example, a hardcore fan of Stevie Ray Vaughan will listen to more of his recordings more often and with more pleasure than ‘softcore' SRV fans, and will have more books and memorabilia, will spend more time on his websites, may even have made a pilgrimage to his grave and so on. The rave reviews of his recordings and videos on Amazon’s website suggest a finely tuned sense of membership which, quoting from his fans, we might scale from nucleus to periphery along the following lines:

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the contextual dimension of tenor is concerned with the enactment of speaker–addressee relations through language.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misconstrue social structure (their tenor) as their register (a functional variety of language) and propose, on their stratified model, that their genre (a type of text) is realised by social structure.

Martin & Rose "Attempting To Construe A Sliver Of Equality" With Their Readers

Martin & Rose (2007: 303):

This is a huge research area; but one point we can make is that writing is not an option available to everyone in South African or Australian society since it depends on some form of institutionalised learning, and illiteracy is found in both societies. 

Beyond this, the modes of writing Tutu and Mandela control depend on a tertiary education and apprenticeship into one or more professions. And only a minority of South Africans or Australians can read discourse of this kind, let alone compose it as eloquently as we have witnessed here. So we have dealt mainly with discourses of power in our analyses. 

There are lesser voices too, of course. But Helena speaks courtesy [sic] of those more powerful than her (the SABC and Bishop Tutu) and Lingiari’s Indigenous Australian voice has always been projected to the wider world through the transcriptions of non-Indigenous academic scribes and political activists. 

If you have read this far in our book then you are reciprocating in ways to which certainly Lingiari, and probably Helena did not have access — whether you actually ever get around to responding directly to David and Jim or not. And note that by first-naming ourselves we are attempting to construe a sliver of equality that might make responding possible.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue. A significant majority of Australians, at least, have literacy skills far beyond those required to read the writings of Tutu and Mandela.

[2] This is manifestly untrue. As her text demonstrates, the woman identified as 'Helena' is a literate South African from a relatively privileged background.

[3] As a reader, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be offered a "sliver of equality" by authors as far up the power hierarchies as 'David' and 'Jim'.

Misunderstanding Bernstein

 Martin & Rose (2007: 302):

There are five main dimensions of inequality in post-colonial societies, by which we are all positioned, very early in life in the home: generation, gender, ethnicity, incapacity and class. By generation we refer to inequalities associated with maturation; gender covers sex and sexuality-based difference; ethnicity is concerned with racial, religious and other ‘cultural’ divisions; incapacity refers to disabilities of various kinds; class is based on the distribution of material resources and arguably the most fundamental dimension since it is the inequality on which our post-colonial economic order ultimately depends. 

We should stress that we understand all of these as social semiotic coding orientations, which are thus materialised through both physical embodiments and semantic styles. The ways in which they operate is of course culturally specific, and far beyond the scope of this book to consider further here. 

The main influence on our thinking in this area is the sociologist Bernstein, as has perhaps become apparent to readers familiar with his work. For some of our dialogue with him, see Christie (1999). All five dimensions condition access to the hierarchies we encounter outside the home in education, religion, recreation and the workplace and so for most texts we have to consider power carefully in relation to field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in Bernstein's model, such social variables are factors that orient different language users to different language codes. Halliday (1978: 106):

What Bernstein’s work suggests is that there may be differences in the relative orientation of different social groups towards the various functions of language in given contexts, and towards different areas of meaning that may be explored within a given function.

[2] To be clear, the orientations of social groups to different language codes are not materialised through semantic styles, not least because semantic styles are not material but semiotic. Instead, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the codes themselves are actualised in language through register. Halliday (1978: 68):

The code is actualised in language through register, the clustering of semantic features according to situation type. 

[3] To be clear, these five social dimensions do not "condition access to the hierarchies we encounter". Instead, we are necessarily already located within these hierarchies (social dimensions).

[4] To be clear, Bernstein's codes affect all contextual systems: field, tenor and mode. Halliday (1978: 67):

In terms of our general picture, the codes act as determinants of register, operating on the selection of meanings within situation types: when the systemics of language — the ordered sets of options that constitute the linguistic system — are activated by the situational determinants of text (the field, tenor and mode […]), this process is regulated by the codes.

That is, the authors' locating of coding orientation within tenor misunderstands the relation of Bernstein's model to SFL Theory.

Reducing Tenor To Power And Solidarity

Martin & Rose (2007: 302):

The key variables in tenor are power and solidarity, the vertical and horizontal dimensions of interpersonal relations. The power variable is used to generalise across genres as far as equalities and inequalities of status are concerned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'tenor' refers to the interpersonal dimension of the cultural context that language construes. Martin & Rose misunderstand it as the interpersonal dimension of register, which they misunderstand as context.

Importantly, 'tenor' refers to the relations between speaker/writer and listener/reader. Halliday (1994: 390):

Tenor refers to the statuses and role relationships: who is taking part in the interaction.

Importantly, the common feature of tenor variables is not power and solidarity, but degree of social distance. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 631):

the contextual variables of tenor … are status, formality and politeness. What they have in common is a very general sense of the social distance between the speaker and the addressee.

Importantly, tenor is particularly concerned with the roles created by language. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 320):

the tenor of the relationship between the interactants, between speaker and listener, in terms of social roles in general and those created through language in particular ('who are taking part?').

Importantly, not all types of social relation are necessarily relevant to the tenor of a given situation. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 22):

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, different tenor variables distinguish the different text types (genres) that realise them. In the authors' stratified model, however, it is not genres that realise tenor, but tenor that realises genre.

Mode: Misconstruing Culture As The Authors' Register Instead Of The Authors' Genre

Martin & Rose (2007: 302):

So cutting across genres then, we have the question of the role language is playing, i.e. mode. And we can explore the effect of technologies of communication on texture with respect to two clines: degrees of abstraction (action/reflection) and degrees of interactivity (monologue/dialogue). This is an area that needs a lot more research, but there are hints of progress in Halliday and Martin (1993), Martin and Veel (1998), Martin (2001a) and Christie (2002).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode is a system of the cultural context. However, Martin & Rose misunderstand context as register, and so misconstrue mode as a system of register.

Adding to the confusion, as previously explained, the SFL notion of mode, the rôle language is playing, corresponds to the authors' notion of the purpose of a genre. So by construing mode as a system of register, instead of genre, Martin & Rose are inconsistent even in terms of their own modelling.

To be clear, in SFL Theory, register is a sub-potential of language, not a system of context, and 'genre', in the sense of text type, is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

[2] To be clear, once again, the unacknowledged sources of these ideas are Hasan (1989 [1985]: 58-9) and Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 354).

[3] To be clear, 'language in action' and 'language in reflection' do not differ in terms of abstraction. Both are construed as the same level of abstraction, but are opposite poles on a cline representing the degree to which discourse contributes to the total activity.

The Effect Of Mode On Bakhtinian Dialogism

Martin & Rose (2007: 302):

It is tempting to move at this point from a consideration of turn taking resources to engagement, and consider the effect of mode on dialogism in something closer to the Bakhtinian sense of the term. We won’t pursue this here (see Martin and White 2005 for discussion), preferring to treat engagement at this stage as a resource for construing tenor, solidarity in particular. But in doing so we don’t wish to foreclose exploration of engagement in relation to mode.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in terms of mode, 'dialogue' just means that a text is created by more than one speaker. Bakhtinian 'dialogism', on the other hand, is the view that all texts — regardless of mode — are 'in dialogue' with the texts that precede and follow them. From the glossary of The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin:

Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole — there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of heteroglossia, and thus dialogism.