Seriously Misunderstanding Projection

Martin & Rose (2007: 319-20):

In Chapters 2 and 3 we described how processes of saying and sensing can project locutions (what is said) or ideas (what is sensed), and also attribute the source of saying or sensing, as well as locating it in time. So if we say Bakhtin argued that creativity depends on mastery of the genre, then the projecting clause Bakhtin argued:

• projects the locution that creativity depends on mastery of the genre, through the process argue
• places the saying in the past (argued) with respect to if we say
• sources the locution to Bakhtin.

The projecting clause in other words provides a frame for interpreting its projection. By analogy, we can argue that genesis projects language, register and genre by conditioning the semantic oppositions that hold sway at one or another point of time, with respect to the unfolding of a text, with respect to interlocutors’ subjectivities and with respect to the meanings at risk in the relevant discourse formations. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, the logico-semantic relation of projection does not feature in the authors' model of logical discourse semantics: conjunction. This is because Martin's model derives from Halliday & Hasan (1976), where conjunction is a non-structural (cohesive) relation, and projection is not a cohesive relation.

[2] To be clear, this misunderstanding seriously misrepresents projection. The projecting clause construes the first-order symbolic processing that brings the second-order projected clause into symbolic existence; see, e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 110, 129). Importantly, only mental and verbal processes project, and projection is a relation between two different orders of experience.

[3] To be clear, this analogy seriously misunderstands semogenesis and projection. Logogenesis, ontogenesis and phylogenesis do not project language — and register and genre are (varieties) of language, not distinct from it. Instead, mental and verbal processes project the content plane of language. In contrast, logogenesis is the instantiation of the linguistic system in text, ontogenesis is the development of the linguistic system — not just "interlocutors' social subjectivities" — in the individual, and phylogenesis is the evolution of the linguistic system — not just "discourse formations" — in the species.

Seriously Misunderstanding Instantiation, Stratification, Ontogenesis & Phylogenesis

Martin & Rose (2007: 317-8, 333n):

The play of genres and their recontextualisations around issues draws attention to the crucial role of change in ideological analysis. For the distribution of power in a culture is never more than metastable; in order for power relations to remain stable over time, they must continually adapt to change: there has to be both inertia and change for life to carry on. Halliday and Matthiessen (Halliday 1992, 1993; Halliday and Matthiessen 1999) have developed a comprehensive outline of social semiotic change which is highly relevant here. For relatively short time frames such as that involved in the unfolding of a text, they suggest the term ‘logogenesis’ (the perspective we've been foregrounding in this book); for the longer time frame of the development of language in the individual, they use the term ‘ontogenesis' (Painter 1984, 1998); and for maximum time depth, ‘phylogenesis’ (as in Halliday’s reading of the history of scientific English in Halliday and Martin (1993)). A good example is Mandela’s Meaning of Freedom recount, which unfolds in a spiral texture that maps out his development as a political leader (ontogenesis) in the context of major cultural shifts in post-colonial history (phylogenesis). This trinocular framework is summarised as follows.

⁶ The term ‘instantiation’ refers to texts as instances of the semiotic system of a culture, i.e. the language system is instantiated in texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the authors' model, genres cannot be recontextualised, because genre is the highest level of context. That is, genre is a context without a context.

[2] To be clear, here the authors continue their previous confusion of power with ideology — the latter being neither defined nor exemplified.

[3] To be clear, Halliday's model is concerned with socio-semiotic systems; that is, semiotic systems that are social, as opposed to, for example, somatic. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999: 18):

These are the three major processes of semohistory, by which meanings at continually created, transmitted, recreated, extended and changed. Each one provides the environment within which the 'next' takes place, in the order in which we have presented them; and, conversely, each one provides the material out of which the previous one is constructed: see Figure 1-6.

[4] To be clear, logogenesis, ontogenesis and phylogenesis refer specifically to semogenic processes, not to other processes whose duration coincides with these three time frames.

[5] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands the three semogenic processes, confusing them with the ideational content of a text. In this particular case, logogenesis describes the unfolding of Mandela's text; ontogenesis would describe the development of the languages, Xhosa and English, in Mandela himself; and phylogenesis would describe the evolution of Mandela's languages, Xhosa and English, in the human species.

[6] To be clear, this is potentially misleading. Ontogenesis is the development of a semiotic system in the individual, and phylogenesis is the evolution of a semiotic system in the species.

[7] To be clear, this misunderstands instantiation and stratification. Texts are instances of language, not culture. In SFL Theory, culture is modelled as a semiotic system that is realised by language. That is, culture and language are different levels of symbolic abstraction. An instance of the culture is a situation; that is, culture is instantiated as situations, not texts. The confusion of culture with language pervades Martin's model, as demonstrated by his modelling varieties of language, register/genre, as culture instead of language.

Confusing Context And Language In Misunderstanding The Cline Of Instantiation

Martin & Rose (2007: 312-3):

To make all this a little more concrete, at the level of instance we’ve read the mix of spoken and written discourse in Mandela’s Meaning of Freedom recount as a novel pattern, a kind of fusion of written discourse like Tutu’s exposition, with spoken discourse like Lingiari's hand-over speech. This fusion was designed especially by Mandela in his autobiography to drive his message home. 

At the level of text type we'd be looking for this kind of pattern to recur across a set of recounts (or other genres) and it might be worth exploring spoken texts as well as written ones, especially those written to be spoken aloud on public occasions. 

At the level of register, after a lot more analysis of a lot more discourse, we might be tempted to propose a new mode, blending features we’ve traditionally associated with either spoken and written text (cf. Halliday 1985). This may be something that’s been evolving all along in the rhetoric of certain kinds of religious and political discourse. 

Eventually, along this imaginary evolutionary journey, we might discover that the system itself had changed, that the systemic probabilities associated with negation, concession and elaboration for example just weren’t the same anymore. We’d be living in a different world, where speaking and writing weren’t just complementary fashions of meaning, where there was something in the seam, engendered through expanding electronic modalities of communication perhaps. Who knows? 

Our point here is only to illustrate a range of vantage points on data, the way in which instances can impact on systemic change and the monumental cost of doing as much discourse analysis as we’d like.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this extract is meant to explain points on the cline of instantiation, from instance to system. But see below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, instantiation is the process of selecting features and activating realisation statements in systems. An instance of language, a text, thus comprises the selected features and activated realisation statements from the systems of content: semantics and lexicogrammar. This is clearly not understood by Martin & Rose, who instead discuss the mode of a text. Mode is a system of context, not language, both in the authors' stratified model and in SFL Theory. From the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin & Rose are here actually concerned with an instance of context: a situation.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, text type is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. Here again Martin & Rose misunderstand "patterns" of mode, context, as linguistic features shared by texts of a text type. From the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin & Rose are here actually concerned with situation type.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, register is text type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation. On the one hand, here again Martin & Rose misunderstand features of mode, context, as linguistic features shared by texts of a register. From the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin & Rose are here actually concerned with subculture.

On the other hand, any proposed new mode is modelled by the networking of features at the system pole of the cline of instantiation, culture, not subculture (the authors' register). Since a subculture (or register) is a sub-potential of the overall system, it is nonsensical to claim that features are networked in the sub-potential but not the overall potential (of which it is a variety).

[5] To be clear, here Martin & Rose are concerned with the phylogenesis of the language system, rather than instantiation (or mode).

∞

Cf Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):

Misleading The Reader On Discourse Analysis And 'Meaning Beyond The Clause'

 Martin & Rose (2007: 312):

That being said, of course we want to know things about text types, registers and systems as well. … The main thing we’d like to argue for here is not to mistake a lot of clause analysis for discourse analysis. It doesn’t matter how many clauses we analyse, it’s only once we analyse meaning beyond the clause that we’ll be analysing discourse. And we need to analyse discourse right along the instantiation cline if we want to make sense of the semiotic weather we experience in the ecosocial climate of our times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, text type and register are the same point of variation on the cline of instantiation, but viewed from different poles of the cline. Martin incongruously models these as both 

• different points of variation on the cline of instantiation of language, and
• systems of context, not language, with text type (genre) realised by register.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is not possible to analyse texts without a model of the system of which the texts are an instance. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 731):

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

[3] This is misleading, because clause analysis is discourse (text) analysis — at one rank, on the stratum of lexicogrammar. To be clear, the central importance of the clause — and of lexicogrammar, in general — for text analysis is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 10, 22):

The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. … Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created …

Moreover, as Halliday (1985: xvi-xvii) explained:

The current preoccupation is with discourse analysis, or 'text linguistics'; and it has sometimes been assumed that this can be carried on without grammar — or even that it is somehow an alternative to grammar.  But this is an illusion.  A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an analysis at all, but simply a running commentary on a text … the exercise remains a private one in which one explanation is as good or as bad as another.

A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one.  But meanings are realised through wordings; and without a theory of wordings — that is, a grammar — there is no way of making explicit one's interpretation of the meaning of a text. Thus the present interest in discourse analysis is in fact providing a context within which grammar has a central place.

[4] On the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument. On the other hand, it is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, "meaning beyond the clause" is realised by the lexicogrammatical systems of textual cohesion. Text analysis that merely examines the instances of cohesion fails to account for all the meanings that are realised structurally: interpersonal, experiential, logical and textual.

For Martin & Rose, however, "meaning beyond the clause" specifically refers to Martin's discourse semantic systems, so this bare assertion is actually an attempt to bully the reader into using Martin's systems. But, as demonstrated in great detail here, here, and on this blog, Martin's discourse semantics is largely a confusion of Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION (rebranded as Martin's NEGOTIATION), and Halliday & Hasan's lexicogrammatical systems of COHESION (rebranded as Martin's IDENTIFICATION, IDEATION, and CONNEXION/CONJUNCTION), as well as a rebranding of writing pedagogy (the authors' PERIODICITY) misrepresented as linguistic theory.

[5] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands the cline of instantiation. Discourse can only be analysed at the instance pole of the cline, because discourse analysis is the analysis of instances (texts). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 660):

A text is thus a unit of meaning – more accurately, a unit in the flow of meaning that is always taking place at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Moving up the cline is a move away from analysing data to theorising language. 

[6] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands the cline of instantiation. The cline of instantiation of which text ("semiotic weather") is an instance is a scale of perspectives on language. The "ecosocial climate of our times", on the other hand, is not language, but culture (context as system), at the current state of its phylogenesis.

Inadvertently Arguing Against Their Own Model

 Martin & Rose (2007: 312):

What this all means is that we have to be very clear how we position ourselves on the instantiation cline when collecting data and analysing it. 

In contrast to some views on analysing discourse, we do believe it is important to analyse instances in individual texts. 

What is unique about a specific text may be just what matters; we don’t want to lose what’s special by only valuing generalisations across a text corpus. 

Beyond this, as discourse analysts generalise, the tendency at this stage of our work is to lose sight of how texture is construed as a text unfolds, through its particular logogenetic contingencies. 

We can tend to lose sight in other words of the very kinds of analysis we’ve been promoting in this book. 

So the text and reading end of the instantiation cline is an important one, however reluctant journal editors may be about publishing analyses of a single text, as if they believe climate is all that matters and weather doesn’t count.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is language (and other semiotic systems) that is on the cline of instantiation, and data is at the instance pole of the cline.

[2] To be clear, analysing discourse — individual texts — is analysing instances.

[3] This is an instance of the logical fallacy known as attacking a straw man, the 'straw man' here being the unattributed claim that only generalisations across a text corpus are valued. To be clear, a specific text (the instance pole) and "generalisations across a a text corpus" (above the instance pole) are not in competition but are complementary perspectives on language.

But here, also, Martin & Rose are confusing two different perspectives on the instance, text vs discourse, which Halliday (2008: 78) explains as follows:

I do make a distinction between these two; but it is a difference in point of view, between different angles of vision on the phenomena, not in the phenomena themselves. So we can use either to define the other: “discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

That is, Martin & Rose are interested in text in its socio-cultural context (discourse), and the view they are arguing against is simply the complementary perspective of discourse as a process of language (text).

Moreover, since the authors' model of genre is itself an example of generalising across a text corpus, in this instance they are actually arguing against the approach they themselves have taken.

[4] Again, this misconstrues complementary perspectives as competing alternatives; see [3]. Amusingly, the authors' claim can applied to their own model through the following paraphrase:

as we generalise texts into genres, the tendency at this stage of our work is to lose sight of how texture is construed as a text unfolds, through its particular logogenetic contingencies.

[5] To be clear, this confuses the totality of metafunctional systems on Martin's discourse semantic stratum with texture, which is created through the textual systems on the lexicogrammatical stratum, namely: those of theme, information and cohesion.

[6] As previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of reading as a pole of the cline of instantiation is invalidated by their misunderstanding of both instantiation and reading, the latter being confused with attitudinal stances towards texts, and with textual responses to texts.

[7] To be clear, relating a specific text to the systems it instantiates is viewing language as both weather (instance) and climate (system). But, in any case, Halliday cautions against restricting our angle of vision to one pole on the cline of instantiation. Halliday (2008: 85, 126, 192):

… whichever of these rôles [grammarian or discourse analyst] we are adopting, we need to observe from both ends. The grammarian, however system-oriented he may be, has to monitor instances of discourse; the discourse analyst, however text-oriented, has to keep an eye on the overall potential. The complementarity means that, unless you shift your angle, you will distort the picture: you cannot know all that is going on if you keep to just one observational perspective.  …

To revisit my earlier analogy of climate and weather: the power of weather to influence our daily lives, through storms and floods and droughts and all the rest, derives from the fact that it is the instantiation of something we call “climate” — because it is climate that has shaped our evolution and so determines the effect on us, and indeed on all of nature, of all the fluctuating processes and forces that we call “weather”. In the same way the power of the text resides in the system, because it is the system that determines the meaning and the significance of the ongoing choices made by writers and speakers. It is a mistake to restrict our angle of vision to just one perspective or the other, or to treat the discourse analyst and grammarian as if they inhabited two different realms of intellectual being. …

The system and the text are not two different phenomena: what we call the “system” of a language is equivalent to its “text potential”. Analysing discourse means, first and foremost, relating the text to the potential that lies behind it. There are perhaps three areas of discourse analysis that have figured prominently in systemic-functional research: literary-æsthetic, technical-scientific, and sociopolitical. In the first of these, the text carries value in its own right; when you analyse texts of this kind, you are aiming to explain not only why and how the text means what it does but also why it carries the value that it does. […] In analysing scientific and technical texts, the linguist is likely to be foregrounding the special properties that distinguish these texts from other varieties of written and spoken language, such that they are able to play a central part in the creation and transmission of knowledge. Scientific theories evolve from the conjunction of material and semiotic processes, and the advancement of science is powered by linguistic as well as technical resources. […] On the socio-political side, the researcher is investigating how discourse creates, maintains and transmits the social order (and hence may also be used to subvert it).

Seriously Misunderstanding The Cline Of Instantiation

Martin & Rose (2007: 310, 333n):

Halliday’s … cline of instantiation includes system (the generalised meaning potential of a language), register (sub-potentials of meaning characterised as registers and genres), text type⁴ (generalised instances, a set of texts that actualise the potential of the system), and finally text (the meanings actually afforded by an instance). And we could add at the end of the cline reading (the meaning taken from a text according to the subjectivity of the reader):

⁴ Halliday and Matthiessen in fact discuss registers as sub-potentials in relation to system, and text types as super-potentials in relation to text, at the same level of generality along the cline; we’ve taken the liberty of adding a rung here by making text type more specific than register.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the cline of instantiation does not just apply to language, but to context as well. The poles of the cline and its intermediate point of variation is given by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20) as

potential ~ subpotential/ instance type ~ instance

Applying the cline of instantiation to the SFL stratification hierarchy yields the following matrix: 

Applying the cline of instantiation to Martin's stratification hierarchy exposes its inconsistency with SFL Theory:

In Martin's model, sub-systems and instance types of language, registers and genres (text types) are misconstrued as systems of context. Moreover, Martin regards instances of his context as texts, despite the fact that texts are instances of language, not context. And of course, what would constitute sub-systems/instances types of genre and register is not explored in this work or in Martin (1992).

[2] This misrepresents Halliday's model. To be clear, genres are not sub-potentials of meaning, but instance types of meaning and wording. That is, genres are registers viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a text type (genre) is not "generalised instances" but a type of which some instances are members on the basis of shared patterns of instantiation.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, texts are not "the meanings actually afforded by an instance", but the meanings and wordings of the system that are instantiated (selected) during logogenesis.

[5] This is a serious misunderstanding of the cline of instantiation. A reading of a text is an interpretation of an instance, not an instantiation of it.

[6] This misrepresents Halliday & Matthiessen. Text type is the view of of register from the instance pole, but in characterising text type in terms of potential, the authors have instead viewed it from the system pole. That is, Martin & Rose do not understand the difference between viewing from the system and instance poles.

[7] To be clear, Martin & Rose misunderstand the cline of instantiation as a scale from general to specific, as if it were a scale of delicacy. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 14):

Note that it is important to keep delicacy and instantiation distinct. In early work on semantic networks, they were sometimes neutralised. The difference is essentially that between being a type of x (delicacy) and being a token of x (instantiation). Both may be construed by intensive ascription.

[8] To be clear, this "liberty" has not been supported by argument. Moreover, it is a misunderstanding that derives from not understanding the different polar perspectives on the cline of instantiation, as demonstrated in [6] above.

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.

The Relation Between Levels

  Martin & Rose (2007: 308-9):

Note however that the relation between levels is realisational, not a hierarchy of control; genre does not determine register variables, any more than register determines linguistic choices. Rather a genre is construed, enacted, presented as a dynamic configuration of field, tenor and mode; which are in turn construed, enacted, presented as unfolding discourse semantic patterns. Relations among genre, register, discourse and grammar are to some extent predictable for members of a culture, but at the same time they are independently variable; these complementary characteristics give language and culture the capacity for both stability and change.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This requires a minor qualification. In SFL Theory, some features on a higher stratum may 'preselect' features on a lower stratum in the sense that the selection of the former also entails the selection of the latter. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 375):

More specifically, inter-stratal realisation is specified by means of inter-stratal preselection: contextual features are realised by preselection within the semantic system, semantic features are realised by preselection within the lexicogrammatical system, and lexicogrammatical features are realised by preselection within the phonological/ graphological system. This type of preselection may take different forms between different strata! boundaries, but the principle is quite general.

[2] To be clear, on the authors' model, genre is realised by register, and register by discourse semantics. On this model, it is register that construes genre, not the reverse, and discourse semantics that construes register, not the reverse. The terms 'enacted' and 'presented' are not synonyms for 'realised', since neither term expresses a relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction.

In terms of SFL Theory, on the other hand, field, tenor and mode are the metafunctional dimensions of the culture as a semiotic system, and genre (text type) and register are two perspectives on functional variants of language — rather than systems of context — and modelled as a point of variation on the cline of instantiation. Different configurations of field, tenor and mode system features are realised by different registers/text types, which means different selection probabilities/frequencies on the strata of semantics and lexicogrammar.

[3] To be clear, on the authors' model, the relation between adjacent pairs of these four strata is invariably one of realisation. However, from the perspective of SFL Theory, what Martin & Rose might be trying to articulate here, without understanding instantiation, is that selections across strata are probabilistically linked, and that members of a culture — in their model: members of genre and register (!) — are implicitly aware of those probabilities, but that probabilities in the system can nevertheless be altered by changing selection frequencies in instances, thereby providing both system stability and change. If this is the intended meaning, then such change is merely changes in the probabilities of feature selection in existing systems, not the expansion of the systems themselves.

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).

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.

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.

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.

The Self-Contradiction In Martin's Model Of Genre

Martin & Rose (2007: 296):

Throughout this book the main theoretical construct we have used to get a handle on context is genre. And for the most part we spent time on just five of these – exemplum, exposition, act, recount and report. That’s a very small window on culture, even if as linguists we try to model culture as a system of genres. But it’s a start, and one that suits functional linguistics and has served it well in its negotiations with social theory over the past twenty years.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'genre' (Hasan) is synonymous with 'text type' (Halliday), and 'text type' is the view of 'register' from the perspective of the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, in contradistinction to 'culture', which refers to the context that language realises, at the system pole of the cline of instantiation:

That is, in locating genre at the level of context, Martin's model is inconsistent with SFL Theory in terms of two dimensions: stratification and instantiation. Moreover, in modelling a variety of language (genre) as context— instead of language — Martin's model is self-contradictory even in its own terms.

Cf Martin & Rose (2007: 8):

We use the term genre in this book to refer to different types of texts that enact various types of social contexts.

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).

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.