Misrepresenting Hasan's Model Of Generic Structure Potential

Martin & Rose (2007: 309):

Another perspective on the relationship between register and generic structure is proposed by Hasan and her colleagues, who model it on the ‘axial’ relationship between system and structure. In this model, obligatory elements of genre structure appear to be determined by field, and the presence of optional ones by tenor and mode. The question of relationships among genres is thus a question of the field, tenor and mode selections that genres do and do not share. 

This contrasts with the model developed by Martin (1992), where choices among genres form a system above and beyond field, tenor and mode networks at the level of register. 

Because field, tenor and mode remain relatively underspecified theoretical constructs in SFL, it is difficult to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of these modelling strategies (inter-stratal vs axial realisation) at this stage. 

Martin’s model has certainly been influenced by our work in educational linguistics where mapping relationships among genres across disciplines has been a central concern (Martin 2001a, 2002a, b; Martin and Plum 1997). For further discussion see Matth[ie]ssen (1993), Martin (1999c, 2001d), Hasan (1995, 1999), Martin and Rose (2005, 2007).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Hasan's model of Generic Structure Potential (1985/9) is an unacknowledged source of Martin's model (1992). Without Hasan's prior work, Martin would have no model.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Hasan. Hasan's model is concerned with the relation between cultural context and semantics. More specifically, it proposes that potential semantic structures vary according to the contextual configurations of field, tenor and mode features that a genre (text type) realises.

[3] This is misleading, because it repeats the misunderstanding previously expressed in Martin (1992). Hasan does not relate the obligatoriness of elements to the metafunctional dimensions of context. For Hasan (1985/9: 62), the obligatory elements of text structure are the elements that define the genre (text type):

So, by implication, the obligatory elements define the genre to which a text belongs;

[4] To be clear, this only presents a contextual perspective on how genres (text types) are related in SFL Theory. From the perspective of language, text types (genres) are related to each other by the relative frequencies of selected semantic and lexicogrammatical features.

[5] For a detailed examination of the model of genre in Martin (1992), see the posts here.

[6] To be clear, the authors' genre system, which is not provided anywhere in this publication or Martin (1992), is a simple taxonomy of genre classifications — narrative, anecdote etc. — rather than a system network of conjunct and disjunct features that specify different genres. Moreover, on this model, genre choices are realised by field, tenor and mode choices, where, as previously demonstrated, field is confused with ideational semantics, and tenor is confused with social structure.

[7] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field, tenor and mode are specified as the metafunctional dimensions of the culture as a semiotic system. However, the degree of specification of these terms is not criterial in assessing the relative strengths of Hasan's model — properly understood — and Martin's model. Hasan's model is (largely) consistent with SFL Theory, whereas Martin's model is neither consistent with SFL Theory nor consistent with itself, as demonstrated in previous posts. Internal consistencies include modelling varieties of language (genre, register) as context, as opposed to language, and yet claiming that instances of context are instances of language (texts).

[8] To be clear, the work that Martin & Rose have done in educational linguistics is not evidence of the theoretical validity of Martin's model.

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.

Problems With The Authors' Notion Of Context-Independency

Martin & Rose (2007: 298-9):

Mandela’s construction of his childhood on the other hand is not context dependent in this way. Everything presumed is provided for in the co-text. We know what’s going on simply by reading, not by being there:

I was born free — free in every way that I could know. Free to run in the fields near my mother's hut, free to swim in the clear stream that ran through my village, free to roast mealies under the stars and ride the broad backs of slow-moving bulls. As long as I obeyed my father and abided by the customs of my tribe, I was not troubled by the laws of man or God.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because Martin & Rose misconstrue context as register, the unwitting claim here is that Mandela's text is not dependent on register. The reason why this is nonsensical is that, on the authors' stratified model, register is construed by the language that realises it; but see [2].

[2] To be clear, as demonstrated in the previous post, what Martin & Rose actually mean by 'context dependent' is that the resolution of exophoric reference requires a reader's access to the material setting of the speech event. If this is applied consistently to Mandela's text, then 'context dependency' would mean that the resolution of exophoric reference requires a reader's access to the material setting in which Mandela wrote his text.

However, by 'context' in this instance, the authors do not mean the material setting in which the text was written, but the ideational meaning of the text: Mandela's construal of his own childhood, thereby adding yet another dimension of misunderstanding to their exposition of mode. This is the confusion that pervades the work of Martin & Rose: misconstruing the ideational meaning of language as the ideational dimension of context (field); see [3].

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, this nicely exemplifies the authors' confusion of field ('what's going on') — Mandela writing about his childhood — with the ideational meaning of his text (what we learn from reading it).

Problems With The Authors' Notion Of Context-Dependency

Martin & Rose (2007: 298):

Let’s start with the orientation to goings on. In Vincent Lingiari’s speech (Lingiari 1986), for example, there are several exophoric references to people, places and things which are materially present at the hand-over ceremony: chains initiated by the important white men (Whites), us (Aboriginals), this land, today and arguably here (if not taken as anaphoric to this land). Texts of this kind can be characterised as context dependent, since we can’t process the participant identification without information from the situation (things we see from being there or that we read through images later on):

The important White men are giving us this land ceremonially, ceremonially they are giving it to us. It belonged to the Whites, but today it is in the hands of us Aboriginals all around here. Let us live happily together as mates, let us not make it hard for each other.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Martin & Rose, 'orientation to goings on' (orientation to field) is a system of mode, which is the textual dimension of their register. In SFL Theory, however, mode is a system of culture not register, and 'orientation to field' corresponds to the authors' model of genre, not register; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 34):

(iii) rhetorical mode: the orientation of the text towards field (e.g. informative, didactic, explanatory, explicatory) or tenor (e.g. persuasive, exhortatory, hortatory, polemic);

[2] To be clear, exophoric references in a text relate second-order experience (the metaphenomenal domain of language) to first-order experience (the phenomenal domain within which speakers project language). 

Context, on the other hand, whether understood as culture (SFL Theory) or misunderstood as register (Martin & Rose), is second-order experience, since it is construed by language. 

That is, here Martin & Rose confuse two distinct orders of experience: the phenomenal domain of speakers, with the metaphenomenal domain (context) that is realised in language. This is a very serious misunderstanding indeed.

[3] To be clear, since Martin & Rose misconstrue context as register, their unwitting claim here is that such texts are register-dependent, despite the fact that they model language as the realisation of register.

[4] To be clear, the authors' reason for unwittingly claiming that such texts are register-dependent is that the resolution of exophoric reference depends on the first-order material setting of the text, which they misconstrue as the second-order semiotic situation, even though they have previously replaced this SFL model of context with their register.

In short, these complex multidimensional misunderstandings arise because Martin & Rose confuse three different meanings of context:

• context as register (their model),
• context as culture construed by language (SFL Theory), and
• context as material setting of the speech event.

Misunderstanding Mode (And Field)

Martin & Rose (2007: 298):

Let’s explore each of these variables a little here, beginning with mode. One important variable in mode is the amount of work language is doing in relation to what is going on, that is to what degree it simply accompanies a field of activity or constructs its own field. And a complementary dimension of mode is the cline of monologue through dialogue, its orientation to interaction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Cf Halliday & Hasan (1976: 22):

The MODE is the function of the text in the event, including therefore both the channel taken by the language — spoken or written, extempore or prepared — and its genre, or rhetorical mode, as narrative, didactic, persuasive, 'phatic communion', and so on.

To be clear, what Halliday & Hasan regard as the textual dimension of the cultural context, mode, Martin & Rose regard as the textual dimension of their register, despite the fact that the categories of rhetorical mode correspond to their genre. That is, the authors' model is not only inconsistent with SFL Theory, it is inconsistent in its own terms.

[2] To be clear, the unacknowledged source here is Hasan's distinction between constitutive and ancillary LANGUAGE RÔLE. Halliday & Hasan (1989 [1985]: 58):

The third variable, mode, can also be described under at least three different sub-headings. First, there is the question of the LANGUAGE RÔLE — whether it is constitutive or ancillary. These categories should not be seen as sharply distinct but rather as two end-points of a continuum.

[3] This is a serious misunderstanding of SFL Theory. Social action and language do not construct their own fields. Halliday, in Halliday & Hasan (1989 [1985]: 58):

The FIELD OF DISCOURSE refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action  that is taking place: what is it that the participants are engaged in, in which language figures as some essential component?

[4] To be clear, 'the cline of monologue through dialogue' is the continuum from one person speaking (or writing) the text to at least two people speaking (or writing) the text. A midpoint on this cline would be one and a half people speaking (or writing) the text.

The Authors' Notion Of Register As A Resource For Generalising Across Genres

Martin & Rose (2007: 297-8):

As far as genre is concerned we can think of field, tenor and mode as resources for generalising across genres from the differentiated perspectives of ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning. 

In other words, taking tenor as an example, we need to take account of recurrent patterns of domination and deference as we move from one genre to another; we don’t want to have to stop and describe the same thing over and over again each time. 

Similarly for mode, the move from more concrete to more abstract metaphorical discourse takes place in explanations, expositions, historical recounts and reports (as we have seen); register allows us to generalise these shifts in abstraction as a resource that can be deployed in many genres.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is neither warranted by, nor consistent with, the authors' own model. Martin & Rose model their register (field, tenor and mode) and their genre as two levels of symbolic abstraction (strata) related by realisation. To understand the absurdity of the claim that a lower stratum generalises across a higher stratum, it is only necessary to consider other strata, such as phonology and lexicogrammar, where the claim would be that phonology "generalises across lexicogrammars".

The theoretical inconsistencies of the claim become multidimensional when considered in terms of SFL Theory, where

• 'context' refers to the culture — not varieties of language — as a semiotic system,
• 'register' and 'genre' (text type) refer to varieties of language, not context, and to different perspectives on the same point on the cline of instantiation, with 'register' the view from the system pole, and 'text type' the view from the instance pole.

[2] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, this confuses the interpersonal dimension of context, tenor, with the interpersonal meanings of language ("recurrent patterns of domination and deference") that realise a given set of tenor features.

[3] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, any "recurrent patterns" of meaning across text types (genres) are modelled as a move up the cline of instantiation from text type towards the system pole, since these are patterns of instantiation that are common to different text types.

[4] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, this confuses the textual dimension of context, mode, with the language ("abstract metaphorical discourse") that realises a given set of mode features.

[5] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, "the move" that "takes place" — "shift in abstraction" — is a change in the pattern of instantiation during logogenesis, the unfolding of text.

[6] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, these are modelled in terms of mode, whereas for Martin & Rose, they are categories (purposes) of genre. Given that the authors treat mode as a dimension of register, treating them as genre creates a theoretical inconsistency within their own model.

[7] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, the potential ("resource") of moving from instantiating congruent wordings to instantiating metaphorical wordings during the logogenesis of text is a property of the language system itself.

On this basis, in terms of SFL Theory, the notion that register "allows us to generalise" this process "as a resource that can be deployed in many genres" is, at best, nonsensical.

Confusing Context With Register (And Mode With Genre)

Martin & Rose (2007: 296-7):

Alongside genre, the main construct used by functional linguists to model context is known as register. In SFL, register analysis is organised by metafunction into field, tenor and mode. The dimension concerned with relationships between interactants is known as tenor; that concerned with their social activity is known as field; and that concerned with the role of language is known as mode. Halliday has characterised these three dimensions of a situation as follows:

Field refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place: what it is that the participants are engaged in, in which language figures as some essential component.

Tenor refers to who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles: what kinds of role relationship obtain, including permanent and temporary relationships of one kind or another, both the types of speech roles they are taking on in the dialogue and the whole duster of socially significant relationships in which they are involved.

Mode refers to what part language is playing, what it is that the participants are expecting language to do for them in the situation: the symbolic organisation of the text, the status that it has, and its function in the context. (Halliday and Hasan 1985: 12)

As language realises its social contexts, so each dimension of a social context is realised by a particular metafunction of language, as follows:

Taken together the tenor, field and mode of a situation constitute the register of a text. As its register varies, so too do the kinds of meanings we find in a text. Because they vary systematically, we will refer to tenor, field and mode as register variables. This model of language in social context is illustrated in Figure 9.1.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. In SFL Theory, register is not a means of modelling context. Register is a functional variety of language, modelled as a point of sub-potential variation on the cline of instantiation from language system to language instance. 

Context, on the other hand, is the culture modelled as a semiotic system that is realised in language. Field, tenor and mode are the metafunctional dimensions of context, but not of register. Different configurations of field, tenor and mode features (Hasan) are realised by different registers of language.

This misunderstanding occurs in Martin (1992), and proliferates through the subsequent publications of Martin, his one-time students, and the less theoretically competent members of the SFL community.

[2] This is misleading, because, in the case of mode, Martin & Rose have selectively omitted the section of the quote that contradicts their model. Cf Halliday & Hasan (1985: 12):

The MODE of discourse refers to what part language is playing, what it is that the participants are expecting language to do for them in the situation: the symbolic organisation of the text, the status that it has, and its function in the context, including the channel (is it spoken or written or some combination of the two?) and also the rhetorical mode, what is being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as persuasive, expository, didactic, and the like.

That is, in SFL Theory, what Martin & Rose model as the purpose of a genre is modelled as a system of mode, the textual dimension of the culture as semiotic system.

[3] This is misleading, because it is not true. What is true is that SFL Theory maps the metafunctional dimensions of language — ideational, interpersonal and textual — onto the stratum of context as field, tenor and mode, respectively. What is not true is that each metafunctional dimension of context is simply realised by its metafunctional counterpart in language. For example, the cultural field of science is realised by interpersonal propositions as much as it is realised by ideational sequences of figures, and their structural elements are given various textual statuses in terms of theme and information.

[4] This is misleading, because it is not true. Moreover, it is a misunderstanding of Halliday & Hasan (1976: 22):

The linguistic features which are typically associated with a configuration of situational features — field, mode and tenor — constitute a REGISTER.

That is, it is not the contextual features of field, tenor and mode that constitute a register, but the features of language that are typically associated with a configuration of them.

In SFL Theory, the field, tenor and mode (features) of a situation characterise the instance of context (situation) that is realised by an instance of language: (text). Here again, Martin & Rose confuse different planes: context vs language, and different points on the cline of instantiation, in this case: register vs text.

To be clear, in SFL Theory, field, tenor and mode are not register variables; they are the dimensions of the culture, whereas registers are functional sub-potentials of language.

Cherry-Picking The Data

Martin & Rose (2007: 263):

As with larger segments in written texts discussed above, formatting can be a useful starting point, but now it is the paragraphing that can help to indicate the phases in which the field unfolds. As paragraphing tends to coincide with the hierarchy of periodicity, we can adjust and expand the information that paragraphing gives us by looking at what is presented as hyperThemes and hyperNews. For example, what is presented first in each paragraph of the Inauguration Day recount are times that scaffold the activity sequence of the day’s events and of Mandela’s speech:

The day’s activity sequence is concluded in the hyperNew of the second last paragraph, with Finally..., and is then reoriented in the last paragraph, beginning with The day…

The global scaffolding resource here is sequence in time, expressed as external conjunctions and temporal circumstances.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the culture modelled as a semiotic system. Here Martin & Rose unwittingly use it to refer to the ideational semantics of a text as it unfolds in logogenesis.

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's hyperTheme and hyperNew are his rebrandings of topic sentence (of a paragraph) and paragraph summary from the field of writing pedagogy. Writing pedagogy is concerned with proposals on how to write, whereas linguistic theory is concerned with propositions that model language.

[3] To be clear, what is actually presented first in each paragraph of the Inauguration Day recount are:

10 May
The ceremonies
On that lovely autumn day
Today
We who were outlaws not so long ago
We
Never, never, and never again
Let freedom
A few moments later
The day

That is, Martin & Rose have cherry-picked the six instances that support their analysis, and ignored the four instances that do not.

[4] See, for example, Activity Sequences: A Cornucopia Of Theoretical Inconsistencies.

[5] To be clear, this is inconsistent with both the source meaning of hyperNew as paragraph summary, and with the authors' notion of hyperNew distilling what had preceded it (p195-6), since this clause realises meaning that had not previously been mentioned:

Finally a chevron of impala jets left a smoke trail of the black, red, green, blue and gold of the new South African flag.

[6] Trivially, none of the six temporal Themes are conjunctions, and two — the first and last — are participants, not circumstances.

The Notion That Text Phases Are Sensitive To Genre And Field

Martin & Rose (2007: 262):

As we introduced in Chapter 1, text phases are sensitive to both genre and field: while the stages of a genre unfold in a highly predictable sequence, the phases within each stage are partly predictable from the genre, and partly from its construal of a particular field of activities and entities. Stories, for example, unfold through phases such as settings, problems, people’s reactions, descriptions, solutions to problems, author’s comments and participants’ reflections on the significance of the events. Orators and authors use such phases in highly variable combinations, as the basic building blocks of stories, as we saw for Helena’s story. The phases of recounts are often a series of episodes, and in biographical recounts these episodes correspond to the person’s life stages. In argument genres, phases may include grounds and conclusions, as we saw for Tutu’s exposition, as well as evidence, examples and so on. In the Act we found phases such as purposes, motivations, provisions and definitions. In reports, each phase will tend to describe an element or aspect of the phenomenon under focus. These may include phases such as appearance, behaviour, location, types, parts and so on, depending on the particular type of report and its particular field. We have not attempted an exhaustive study of phase types in this book, as genres are not our primary focus (but see Martin and Rose 20076, and Rose 20076 for discussion of phases in various genres). It is an area of considerable variation that is wide open to further research; the tools we present here will help the analyst to develop this research.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the authors' 'genre' — misunderstood as a stratum of context — refers to text types that vary in their ideational semantic structures (stages), while the authors' 'field' is ideational semantics, misunderstood as context, misunderstood as register. Phases, on this model, are ideational subcomponents of stages; see [2].

In claiming that text phases vary according to genre and field, what Martin & Rose are actually saying is that the ideational subcomponents of stages vary according to the ideational stages and the ideational meaning of the text type.

[2] As can be seen from this inventory of text phases, all are ideationally defined units, which locates them theoretically within ideational semantics.

[3] To be clear, as demonstrated above and previously, developing this research is not developing research that is consistent with SFL Theory, the theory in which it is purported to be located.

Problems With The Notion That Field Unfolds Through Genre

Martin & Rose (2007: 261-2):

Having established the genres we are working with, our next step in analysis is to interpret how the field unfolds through each genre. One reason we start with the field is that the steps in which it unfolds are readily accessible to conscious reflection. This can be illustrated by asking people to retell a text they have heard or read; they will rarely repeat its language features, but will typically summarise its sequence of phases. As analysts, the things we are interested in include the ideational language resources that construe the unfolding field, the interpersonal resources which evaluate it from phase to phase, and the textual resources that present each phase as a pulse of information. First identifying phases from the perspective of genre and field can provide a useful scaffold for us to identify other less obvious discourse patterns.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, there are two serious misunderstandings here.  Firstly, it is a text that unfolds, not a text type (genre). This is because the unfolding of text, logogenesis, occurs at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation (text), not at a point of variation halfway up the cline (text type/genre).

Secondly, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of context, the culture as semiotic system, not to the ideational dimension of language. It is the ideational dimension of language that unfolds through the instantiation of text, not the ideational dimension of context, since text is an instance of language, not context. In short, the authors here confuse ideational semantics with ideational culture (field). For evidence that Martin (1992) routinely misunderstands the SFL notion of field, see the clarifying critiques here.

In terms of the authors' own model, the claim is that the ideational dimension of register, field, unfolds at a level of symbolic abstraction (stratum) above register, genre. This is analogous to claiming that a metafunctional dimension of phonology unfolds through lexicogrammar. That is, Martin & Rose confuse a stratal relation (between genre and register) with logogenesis (unfolding of text).

[2] As this demonstrates, what Martin & Rose regard as 'field' is actually the ideational meaning of language itself.

[3] There are multiple confused misunderstandings here. Firstly, as a dimension of context, field is construed by all of language, not just by its ideational resources. This is because 'construal', in SFL Theory, means the assignment of an intensive identifying relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction — in this case: between the semantics and context — irrespective of metafunction. For example, the field of science is construed by propositions, interpersonal meaning, whose validity is contested by scientists.

Secondly, the interpersonal resources of language do not evaluate field, because language and field are different levels of symbolic abstraction (strata). An analogous claim would be that interpersonal phonology (lower stratum) evaluates ideational grammar (higher stratum).

[4] To be clear, the reason why Martin & Rose suggest identifying phases from the perspective of genre and field, is that, in terms of SFL Theory

• their phases are ideational semantic units,
• their genres are identified by ideational semantic units (stages),
• their field is ideational semantics misconstrued as field (their register).

Martin's Register, Genre And Ideology

Martin & Rose (2007: 256):

In theoretical terms what we are saying is that register, genre and ideology all matter. …

From the angle of field, we want to analyse texts whose subject matter interests us, or at least is relevant to the topic we are studying or researching; from tenor, we are interested in how speakers in oral interactions negotiate their relationships, and in how written texts engage their readers, or position us to accept their authors’ point of view; and from mode we are interested in the interplay between spoken and written ways of meaning, and in their relation to other modalities of communication (e.g. image, sound, activity).

The concept of genre then gives us the kind of handle on discourse that the clause gives us for grammar — a genre is a recurrent configuration of meaning that matters in the culture, just as a clause is the recurrent configuration of meaning that matters for discourse. 

And from an ideological perspective there’s no point in analysing something that isn’t compelling, because analysis is a considerable investment in time and mental labour, so it has to be worth our while. 

It’s for these reasons that we have based this book on a field that fascinates us and is surely one of the key topics of our time, the overthrow of the world’s last regime of constitutional racism.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, register, genre and ideology are interpreted by Martin (1992) as three strata of cultural context, despite the fact that registers and genres are two perspectives on functional varieties of language: language as subpotential variation vs language as instance type variation. Martin has since jettisoned his stratum ideology from his model of context. For clarifying critiques of Martin's model, see:

• the 82 posts here on register, 
• the 67 posts here on genre, 
• the 15 posts here on ideology, and
• the 172 posts here on context.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field, tenor and mode are the metafunctional dimensions of context, not language. Martin (1992) misunderstands these as metafunctional dimensions of register, a functional variety of language, which he misunderstands as a stratal system of context. Moreover, Martin routinely confuses contextual field with ideational semantics; see, for example:

• Confusing Field With The Language That Realises It or
• Misconstruing Semantics As Context. 

[3] To be clear, this is a false analogy, since a genre is a type of discourse (text), whereas a clause is not a type of grammar, but a constituent of grammar: a rank scale unit that serves as an entry condition to grammatical systems.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a text type (genre) is a pattern of instantiation that is shared across texts. The extent to which a genre (text type) "matters" in a culture might be gauged by the frequency of its instantiation.

[5] Trivially, the use of the word 'compelling' here might be seen as a Freudian slip, given that 'compel' means to force or oblige someone to do something, and that the language that realises ideology is the language of obligation and inclination — i.e. of desired proposals.

[6] To be clear, the effect of 'basing this book' on such texts is to have the reader associate the authors with the people who are actually involved in the struggle for social justice. This, in turn, has the effect of positioning a critic of their theorising as an enemy of social justice.

[7] This will come as a surprise to all the ethnic communities who are still systematically discriminated against by their national governments.

Misrepresenting HyperTheme And Misunderstanding Field

Martin & Rose (2007: 194):

In many registers, hyperThemes tend to involve evaluation, so that the following text justifies the appraisal, at the same time as it gives us more detail about the field of the hyperTheme (its ‘topic’).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, in almost all registers of language, hyperThemes do not feature at all. The only texts that feature hyperThemes are those that conform to 'topic sentence' principle of writing pedagogy.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the culture as semiotic system. When Martin & Rose use the term 'field', they are usually — as here — referring to the ideational dimension of semantics, even though they misunderstand field as a dimension of register (a sub-potential of language) which they, in turn, misunderstand as context, as documented in great detail here.

Misanalysing Theme

Martin & Rose (2007: 191):

All the Themes are highlighted, and the marked Themes are underlined below:

He became very quiet.
[He became] Withdrawn.
Sometimes he would just press his face into his hands
and [he would] shake uncontrollably.
I realised
he was drinking too much.
Instead of resting at night, he would wander from window to window.
He tried to hide his wild consuming fear,
but I saw it.
In the early hours of the morning between two and half-past-two, I jolt awake from his rushed breathing.
[He] Rolls this way, that side of the bed.
He's pale.
[He's] ice cold in a sweltering night
[He's] — sopping wet with sweat.
[His] Eyes [are] bewildered,
but [his eyes are] dull like the dead.
And [he had] the shakes.
[He had] The terrible convulsions and blood-curdling shrieks of fear and pain from the bottom of his soul.
Sometimes he sits motionless,
just staring in front of him.

The main recurrent choice for Subject/Theme in this phase is Helena's husband, realised as he. This identity gives us our basic orientation to the field for this phase of discourse; Helena's husband is the hook round which she spins the new information she gives us in each figure. As the Theme of each clause, he is our recurrent point of departure, our angle on the field in each figure. These kinds of Subject/Themes give continuity to a phase of discourse. Because they are the most frequent kind of Theme in discourse, listeners/readers perceive them as 'unmarked' Themes; they are mildly prominent in the flow of discourse, because they are the point of departure for each clause, but because they are typical they are not especially prominent.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin & Rose misrepresent the data by inserting Themes that the author chose not to instantiate. That is, Martin & Rose give higher textual status (Theme) to elements that the author ellipsed in order to give them lower textual status. Moreover, Martin & Rose mistake the Subjects of clauses with marked Themes for (unmarked) Themes, as previously explained. A thematic analysis that is consistent with SFL Theory is presented below for comparison.

Theme				Rheme
structural	interpersonal	topical
		marked	unmarked
			He	became very quiet, withdrawn
	Sometimes		he	would just press his face into his hands
and				shake uncontrollably
			I	realised
			he	was drinking too much
Instead of				resting at night
			he	would wander from window to window
			He	tried to hide his wild consuming fear
but			I	saw it
		In the early hours of the morning between two and half-past-two		I jolt awake from his rushed breathing
				Rolls this way, that side of the bed
			He	's pale, ice cold in a sweltering night — sopping wet with sweat
Eyes bewildered, but dull like the dead
And the shakes: The terrible convulsions and blood-curdling shrieks of fear and pain from the bottom of his soul
	Sometimes		he	sits motionless
	just			staring in front of him

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the culture as semiotic system; that is, 'field' refers to what is happening in terms of the culture. Martin's use of 'field' typically refers to the ideational semantics of a text, due to the fact that he misunderstands context as register, a sub-potential of language, such that field is the ideational dimension of register.

[3] To be clear, this confuses Rheme (the body of the clause as message) with New information. New information is not restricted to the Rheme of a clause, as demonstrated by every Theme realised by tonic prominence, the phonological realisation of the focus of New information. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 652):

… thematic status may be combined with either given or new, and the same is true of rhematic status.

[4] To be clear, the figure is a unit in the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999). Since the concern here is the textual metafunction, the relevant semantic unit is the message.

[5] To be clear, a Theme is not an "angle" on field (see [2]). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 88, 89):

We may assume that in all languages the clause has the character of a message, or quantum of information in the flow of discourse: it has some form of organisation whereby it fits in with, and contributes to, the flow of discourse. …

The Theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context. The speaker chooses the Theme as his or her point of departure to guide the addressee in developing an interpretation of the message; by making part of the message prominent as Theme, the speaker enables the addressee to process the message.

[6] To be clear, the author's use of ellipsis — which Martin & Rose have undone (see [1]) — gives continuity to this phase of discourse. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis marks the textual status of continuous information within a certain grammatical structure. At the same time, the non-ellipsed elements of that structure are given the status of being contrastive in the environment of continuous information. Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

[7] To be clear, this confuses markedness with prominence and attributes a knowledge of SFL theory — the perception of unmarked Themes — to listeners/readers. All Themes are textually prominent, but marked Themes typically carry an added feature of contrast. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 105):

When some other element comes first, it constitutes a ‘marked’ choice of Theme; such marked Themes usually either express some kind of setting for the clause or carry a feature of contrast.

Marked Themes can be 'doubly prominent' if the focus of New information falls with the Theme. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 328):

One way of giving prominence to a Theme is to construe it as if it was a circumstance of Matter; e.g. as for the ghost, it hasn’t been seen since. By being first introduced circumstantially, the ghost becomes a focused Theme.

However, as will be seen, such focused Themes are not possible in the periodicity model of Martin & Rose, since it is falsely assumed that New information always falls within the Rheme of a clause.