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 Structure With Instantiation

Martin & Rose (2007: 199):

As analysts, we tend to treat texts as objects, and reify the structure that in fact unfolds as spoken or written discourse is produced. So it is important to keep in mind that the periodicity we are discussing here is an unfolding process, not a rigid structure linking parts to wholes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this follows Martin (1992) in confusing structure with instantiation; evidence here. In SFL Theory, structure is the relation between elements on the syntagmatic axis, whereas the unfolding of discourse is the logogenesis of text through the instantiation of potential. But see [2] below.

[2] To be clear, as far as (lowest level) Theme and New is concerned, this is accidentally true. This is because, unknown to Martin & Rose, the process of selecting Themes and News forms not structures, but patterns of instantiation in the logogenesis of text.

[3] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not presented any structures; they have merely presented single elements — (macro- & micro-) Theme and New — as if they were structures. There has been no account of the complementary elements — (macro- & micro-) Rheme and Given — with which they would form structures.

[4] To be clear, this confuses constituency (part-whole relations) with structure (part-part relations). In SFL Theory, constituency is modelled as a rank scale: a clause consists of groups ± phrases, which consist of words, which consist of morphemes, whereas structure is modelled as the relations between functional elements at each of these ranks: Theme to Rheme, Senser to Process to Phenomenon, etc.

A Summary Of The Layered Wave Patterns Of Periodicity

Martin & Rose (2007: 198-9):

Figure 6.1 summarises the wave patterns we’ve been reviewing here. The diagram suggests that layers of Theme construct the method of development of a text, and that this development is particularly sensitive to the staging of the genre in question. Layers of New on the other hand develop the point of a text, focusing in particular on expanding the ideational meanings around a text’s field.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, no arguments have been provided in support of this model; it has merely been asserted. As previously demonstrated, the model makes several false claims:

• that New never conflates with Theme,
• that Themes predict what follows (as New!), and
• that News distil/accumulate what precedes.

As previously explained, the model confuses textual highlighting (Theme and New) with textual transitions involving elaboration. That is, in the texts that were examined, what follows a "higher level Theme" elaborates it through exemplification or exposition, and a "higher level New" elaborates what precedes through summation. This last point is hardly surprising, given that Martin's hyperNew is his rebranding of paragraph summary, and his macroNew is his rebranding of text summary.

[2] To be clear, it is the selection of Theme that constitutes the method of development of a text (Fries 1981). The higher level Themes of Martin & Rose do not model language, but are a confusion of writing pedagogy (introductory paragraph, topic sentence) and book layout (title, table of contents etc.). In SFL Theory, method of development is understood as a pattern of instantiation in the logogenesis of a text.

[3] To be clear, this confuses textual highlighting (Theme) with the meaning (e.g. experiential) that is highlighted. If texts really did conform with this model, the textual highlighting would be common to the texts of all text types (genres); what would be "sensitive to genre" would be what is highlighted as thematic.

[4] To be clear, it is the selection of New that constitutes the point of a text (Fries 1981). The higher level News of Martin & Rose do not model language, but are a confusion of writing pedagogy (paragraph summary, text summary) and book layout (e.g. index). In SFL Theory, point is understood as a pattern of instantiation in the logogenesis of a text.

[5] To be clear, this confuses textual highlighting (New) with the meaning (ideational) that is highlighted. If texts really did conform with this model, the textual highlighting would be common to texts realising all fields (ideational context); what would vary with field would be the ideational meaning that is highlighted as New.

Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Elaboration As Textual 'Prediction' And 'Distillation'

Martin & Rose (2007: 196-7):

The following examples of history writing display a similar kind of sandwich structure, with hyperThemes predicting what’s to come, and hyperNews distilling what’s been said (the ‘you tell them what you’re going to say, say it, and tell them what you’ve said’ rhetoric noted above). For both of these texts note just how precisely the hyperTheme predicts the pattern of Themes which follow (underlined), and the hyperNew consolidates the pattern of News which precede it:

The Second World War further encouraged the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis.

Between 1937 and 1945 the value of industrial production almost doubled. This increase was faster than otherwise would have occurred. The momentum was maintained in the post-war years and by 1954-5 the value of manufacturing output was three times that of 1944-5. The enlargement of Australia's steel-makinq capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all owed something to the demands of war.

The war had acted as something of a hot-house for technological progress and economic change.

For one thousand years, whales have been of commercial interest for meat, oil, meal and whalebone.

About 1000 A.D., whaling started with the Basques using sailing vessels and row boats. They concentrated on the slow-moving Right whales. As whaling spread to other countries, whaling shifted to Humpbacks, Greys, Sperms and Bowheads. By 1500, they were whaling off Greenland; by the 1700s, off Atlantic America; and by the 1800s, in the south Pacific, Antarctic and Bering Sea. Early in this century, the Norwegians introduced explosive harpoons, fired from guns on catcher boats, and whaling shifted to the larger and faster baleen whales. The introduction of factory ships by Japan and the USSR intensified whaling still further.

The global picture, then, was a mining operation moving progressively with increasing efficiency to new species and new areas. Whaling reached a peak during the present century.

Both hyperNews include evaluative metaphors, a not untypical feature of higher level News in writing of this kind. Patterns of clause Themes have been described as constructing a text’s ‘method of development’; patterns of News establish its ‘point’ (Fries 1981).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the topic sentences (hyperThemes) in these two texts do not predict 'what's to come'. The reader is invited to predict 'what's to come' only on the basis of the topic sentences, without the benefit of hindsight. What is true is that the bodies of these two texts elaborate the meaning of their respective topic sentences, the first through exemplification, the second through exposition. Martin & Rose here mistake logico-semantic relations in textual transitions for textual statuses.

[2] To be clear, the relation of the paragraph summaries (hyperNews) to the bodies of their respective texts is elaboration through summation. Martin & Rose here again mistake logico-semantic relations in textual transitions for textual status.

[3] To be clear, misanalyses of Theme are marked in red. Those that are underlined are Subjects that have been displaced from Theme by Adjuncts (marked Themes), and so feature in the Rheme, not Theme. Those that are not underlined are Themes that Martin & Rose missed in their analysis.

[4] To be clear, the pattern of New information is not indicated. As previously demonstrated, Martin & Rose mistake Rheme for New information. New information can occur in both Theme or Rheme, or neither.

[5] This is true. It was Fries (1981), not Martin (1992), who first theorised 'method of development' and 'point'. In SFL Theory, these are now seen as logogenetic patterns of instantiation.

Misconstruing Logogenetic Patterns Of Instantiation As Prosodic Structure

Martin & Rose (2007: 59-60):

Appraisal resources are used to establish the tone or mood of a passage of discourse, as choices resonate with one another from one moment to another as a text unfolds. The pattern of choices is thus ‘prosodic’. They form a prosody of attitude running through the text that swells and diminishes, in the manner of a musical prosody. The prosodic pattern of appraisal choices constructs the ‘stance’ or ‘voice’ of the appraiser, and this stance or voice defines the kind of community that is being set up around shared values.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading.  To be clear, the use of the terms 'tone' and 'mood' by Martin & Rose here is quite distinct from the technical terms 'tone' and 'mood' in SFL theory.  Theoretically, tone is an interpersonal system at the rank of tone group on the stratum of phonology, and mood is an interpersonal system at the rank of clause on the stratum of lexicogrammar.  Choices in the system of mood are realised in choices in the system of tone.  Martin & Rose have not theorised how choices in the system of appraisal (semantics) are realised in the realisation of mood (grammar) in tone (phonology).

[2] Here Martin & Rose confuse logogenetic patterns of instantiation ('patterns of choices') with a type of structure ('prosodic').  The confusion is primarily one of axis: paradigmatic choices are confused with syntagmatic structure.

[3] Here Martin & Rose confuse the prosodic structure type favoured by the interpersonal metafunction with the culminative structure type ('swells and diminishes') favoured by the textual metafunction; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 84-5).  The confusion of structure type is thus one of metafunction.

[4] Here Martin & Rose employ the logical fallacy known as false analogy, as demonstrated by the meaning of the term 'musical prosody':

In music, prosody is the way the composer sets the text of a vocal composition in the assignment of syllables to notes in the melody to which the text is sung, or to set the music with regard to the ambiance of the lyrics. For example, a songwriter might align downbeats or accents with stressed syllables or important words, or create musical accompaniment to the metre of the lyrics. Also, prosody can mean how the music supports the connotation, or emotive nature, of a song.