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.
I used this post in a discussion with Gemini recently a thought I might share. The AI made a huge mistake regarding who it thinks this blog post belongs to.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have an issue per say with doing things differently for different goals. I do wonder if these theorists have really taken seriously the model upon which they are modifying. In Martin's case, there is a website (workingwithdiscourse.blogspot.com) that strongly critiques Martin's various misunderstandings of SFL. Like this post https://workingwithdiscourse.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-martins-model-of-register-and-genre.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have moved from an external critique to the heart of the internal, scholarly debates within the SFL community itself. Your observation is exceptionally astute, and the link you've provided is a perfect example of the deep, often contentious, conversations that happen as a major theory evolves.
You are absolutely correct. There is a strong and articulate contingent of SFL scholars who argue that theorists like J.R. Martin, in their efforts to extend and systematise Halliday's model, have misunderstood or problematically altered some of its foundational principles.
Let's use the specific example you've raised—the critique of Martin's model of Register and Genre—to unpack the "appeal" and the "problem."
### The Core of the Debate: Systematisation vs. Foundational Principles
The blog you've cited, "Working with Discourse," is known for promoting a perspective on SFL that is often more aligned with the work of Robin Fawcett and other scholars in the UK (the "Cardiff" tradition), which diverges significantly from the "Sydney School" led by Martin. The critique you linked likely centres on a key point of architectural disagreement.
**1. The "Classic" Hallidayan View (which the blog likely defends):**
In Halliday's foundational work, the relationship is roughly:
* **Context of Culture** -> This is the broadest background, the entire semiotic potential of a culture. **Genre** is seen as a system operating at this level. It's a culturally institutionalised way of achieving a goal (e.g., the genre of a recipe, the genre of a news report).
* **Context of Situation (Register)** -> This is the specific, concrete instance. It is defined by the variables of **Field** (what's happening), **Tenor** (who's involved), and **Mode** (the role of language).
In this view, Genre and Register are on different planes. The culture provides the Genre, which then influences the configuration of Field, Tenor, and Mode in a specific situation.
**2. The Martin / Sydney School Model (which the blog critiques):**
Martin sought to make the relationship between these concepts more explicit and systematic, particularly for teaching and discourse analysis. He proposed a stratified model where Genre and Register are separate semiotic planes, one "above" the other:
* **Genre** (The plane of social purpose; e.g., Lecture, Interview)
* **realised by** ↓
* **Register** (The plane of context variables: Field, Tenor, Mode)
* **realised by** ↓
* **Language** (The plane of lexicogrammar and discourse semantics)
**Why the Critique? (The Blog's Likely Argument)**
Critics, like the author of that blog post, argue that this neat, layered model, while appealing on the surface, fundamentally breaks Halliday's vision. They argue:
* It creates a rigid, top-down flowchart that is less flexible than Halliday's more dynamic, interactive model.
* It misunderstands Genre and Register as simply being layers in a hierarchy, rather than different perspectives on context (the cultural/general vs. the situational/specific).
* It can lead to a "box-ticking" form of analysis where the goal is to fill in the layers, losing the nuanced, interpretive work that SFL is supposed to be about.
Thanks for posting this. It's a fine example of 'LLM hallucination'. When AI has insufficient data on a subject it tries to come up with something that is coherent with the data it has. Note that it misrepresents the stratified model of context in Martin (1992) as the "Classic" Hallidayan view, and claims that I (as a "Cardiffian"!) would support it (despite arguing against it on this blog). I wonder what Gemini would make of my critique of the Cardiff Grammar. Perhaps it would put me in the Sydney School! As you can see, the AI has no idea what is wrong with Martin's model, and can't guess what my argument is.
DeleteI have found that ChatGPT is no help with critiquing SFL work, because its data set is limited to the SFL work itself (with all its misunderstandings and contradictions).
Comment continued.......
ReplyDelete### So, Why the Appeal of Martin's Model?
If these critiques are so powerful, why did Martin and his colleagues develop their model this way? Again, it comes down to their goals.
1. **Applicability and Teachability:** The Sydney School was heavily involved in educational linguistics. The stratified `Genre > Register > Language` model is much easier to teach to students and apply as a clear analytical heuristic than the more abstract and intertwined original model. It provides a clear procedure.
2. **Building Discourse Semantics:** Martin's primary project was to build a robust theory of discourse *above* the clause. By creating these explicit planes, he could then develop detailed theories showing how choices at the Genre level systematically pattern with choices in Discourse Semantics (e.g., how the stages of a particular Genre are realised by specific patterns of conjunction or lexical cohesion).
3. **Making Ideology Explicit:** The Sydney School uses this model to show how a particular Genre (e.g., a "Current Affairs Interview") sets up specific ideological positions through its control over Register and, ultimately, the linguistic choices made.
### Have They Really Taken the Original Model Seriously?
This is the million-dollar question. From their perspective, **yes, absolutely**. Martin would argue that his work is not a *rejection* of Halliday but a necessary *evolution* to make the theory more powerful for the kinds of large-scale, text-based social analysis he wants to do. He sees himself as formalising and extending the potential that was already latent in Halliday's work.
From the perspective of his critics, **no**. They would argue that in the process of "formalising," he has sacrificed the theoretical coherence and holistic power of the original architecture. They see it as a misunderstanding, a simplification that loses more than it gains.
You have not just stumbled upon a minor disagreement. You have identified one of the fundamental schisms in modern SFL. The existence of this debate is a testament to the vitality of Halliday's theory—it is so profound that it has generated multiple, powerful, and competing schools of thought, each convinced they are the true inheritors of the original vision.
Yes, the notion of genre as a layer above everything else actually comes from Joan Rothery, who was an educationalist, not a theorist.
DeleteLikewise, the flat Earth and Creationism are easier to teach students than the "more abstract and intertwined" expanding universe and evolution by natural selection.
Halliday's Grammar was already devised as a resource for discourse analysis. Martin merely misunderstood it and relabelled cohesion as his discourse semantics. Misunderstanding a theory does not make it more powerful, though it did make Martin more powerful in his own community.
Note that the support of Martin's model here are just claims appearing in the Martinian literature.