Mistaking Textual Meaning For Ideational Meaning

Martin & Rose (2007: 323-4):

In ideational terms developed in Chapter 3 above, the primary focus of a visual image is either on entities or on activities. Entity-focused images either classify them or compose their parts; activity-focused images construe either a single activity (simple) or an activity sequence (complex). As we discussed for genres in Chapter 8, images may also have secondary foci realised by their elements.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose mistake textual meaning for ideational meaning. To be clear, it is the textual metafunction, not the ideational metafunction, that is concerned with the focus of information, the highlighting of ideational (or interpersonal) meaning.

[2] To be clear, these are all bare assertions, unsupported by argument, and their validity will be assessed in the text analyses that follow. For the moment it can be noted that the authors make no acknowledgement of the distinction between content and expression, nor of how the textual focus on one type of ideational meaning, rather than another, is expressed.

[3] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, this misconstrues the relation between textual meaning ('foci') and ideational meaning ('elements') as realisation, despite the fact that both are of the same level of symbolic abstraction (meaning). (Realisation is the relation between different levels of symbolic abstraction.)

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.

Misunderstanding Metaredundancy And Confusing It With Instantiation

 Martin & Rose (2007: 308-9):

Following Lemke (1995), the relationship between levels in diagrams of this kind can be thought of as ‘metaredundancy’, the idea of patterns at one level redounding with patterns at the next level. Thus genre is a pattern of register patterns, just as register variables are a pattern of linguistic ones.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not following Lemke — it is misunderstanding Lemke. As Halliday (1992: 23-5) explains, realisation is itself a redundancy relation, and metaredundancy is the redundancy in a series of redundancies:

But realisation is not a causal relation; it is a redundancy relation, so that x redounds with the redundancy of y with z. To put it in more familiar terms, it is not that (i) meaning is realised by wording and wording is realised by sound, but that (ii) meaning is realised by the realisation of wording in sound.  We can of course reverse the direction, and say that sounding realises the realisation of meaning in wording.

[2] To be clear, in addition to all the theoretical inconsistencies in this stratified model that were identified in the previous post, this confuses stratification ("metaredundancy") with instantiation ("patterns"). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 593, 659):

System and text form a cline rather than a dichotomy, because between these two poles there is a semiotic region of intermediate patterns (conceived of as instance types – as text types, or as subsystems – as registers). 

… in the course of unfolding of text, lexicogrammatical selections create logogenetic patterns at all ranks. This is patterning in the text that has nothing to do with composition or size: instead of composition (the relationship between a whole and its parts), the patterning is based on instantiation (the relationship between an instance and a generalised instance type). The patterning represents a slight move up this cline from the single instance to a pattern of instances, as in a news report where one projecting verbal clause after another is selected until this emerges as a favourite clause type. The logogenetic patterns that emerge as a text unfolds form a transient system that is specific to that text; but from repeated patterns over many such transient systems may, in turn, emerge a generalised system characteristic of a certain type of text or register…

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).

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.

Misunderstanding Ideational Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 299-300):

Once this step into ideational metaphor is taken then the entire world of uncommon sense discourse is opened up including all of humanities, social science and science and their applications as bureaucracy and technology. The power of this discourse is not simply to generalise across experience, but to organise it and reflect on it at a high level of abstraction which can be instantiated in variable ways, sometimes with a view to enabling behaviours:

ACT — To provide for the investigation and the establishment of as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights committed during the period from 1 March 1960 to the cut-off date contemplated in the Constitution, within or outside the Republic, emanating from the conflicts of the past, and the fate or whereabouts of the victims of such violations

Blogger Comments:

Reminder: the authors' discussion of ideational metaphor has been limited to elemental metaphor, largely processes realised as things. Moreover, their model of discourse semantics undermines the study of metaphor, since it does not provide the means — e.g. semantic units: sequence, figure, element — of contrasting congruent vs metaphorical grammatical realisations, which is itself necessary for unpacking metaphor.

[1] To be clear, one of the unacknowledged sources here is Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 646):

As we have seen, grammatical metaphor of the ideational kind is primarily a strategy enabling us to transform our experience of the world: the model of experience construed in the congruent mode is reconstrued in the metaphorical mode, creating a model that is further removed from our everyday experience – but which has made modern science possible. At the same time, there are also textual and interpersonal consequences of this metaphorical realignment in the grammar: ideational metaphor can be a powerful textual resource for managing the creation of text, creating new mappings between the ideational and textual quanta of information; and it can also be a powerful interpersonal resource for organising the ongoing negotiation of meaning, creating new mappings between the ideational and interpersonal propositions/proposals.

[2] This misunderstands ideational metaphor. To be clear, ideational metaphor does not "generalise across experience". Ideational metaphor is the reconstrual of the meanings of congruent mode, with the result that lexicogrammatical choices construe two meanings at once: that of both the metaphorical and congruent realisations.

[3] This misunderstands ideational metaphor. To be clear, ideational metaphor does not organise experience; it "reorganises" the meanings construed of experience in congruent mode.

[4]  This misunderstands ideational metaphor. To be clear, semantically, metaphorical meanings are of a lower level of symbolic abstraction (Token) than their congruent counterparts (Value). Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 289):

[5]  This misunderstands ideational metaphor. To be clear, ideational metaphor does not involve a "higher level of abstraction which can be instantiated in variable ways". As potential, ideational metaphor is an incongruent relation between semantic and grammatical choices. Variable instantiations of ideational metaphor are instances of different incongruent relations between semantic and grammatical choices.

[6] The notion of ideational metaphor "enabling behaviours" is a puzzling one, given that

• Martin & Rose are concerned with processes realised as things,
• none of their highlighted words realise behavioural processes, and
• 9 of the 14 highlighted words — nature, causes, extent, rights, period, constitution, Republic, fate, whereabouts — do not even realise processes.

Problems With The Authors' Notion That Grammatical Metaphor Unties Texts From Situations

Martin & Rose (2007: 299, 332n):

Taking this a step further, the key resource which unties texts from situations is grammatical metaphor because of its power to reconstrue activities as things and thus break the iconic connections between linguistic and material activity.¹ This transforms social action into another realm of discourse in which abstractions enter into relations of various kinds with one another.

¹ By iconic we mean matching relations between the world as we perceive it and ideation, i.e. between people and things as nouns, actions as verbs and so on.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder: This is purportedly a discussion of mode, the textual dimension of context — 'culture' in SFL Theory, but misunderstood as 'register' by Martin ± Rose. In SFL Theory, 'situation' is the term for an instance of culture, but since Martin & Rose have replaced culture (field, tenor, mode) with register, and regard 'text' as an instance of their context, the term 'situation' can not mean an instance of context. In the preceding posts, Martin & Rose have used 'situation' to mean, on the one hand, the material environment of the speech/writing event, and on the other hand, the ideational meaning of the text, which they usually confuse with field instead. It is against this background of complicated theoretical misunderstandings — along the dimensions of stratification, instantiation and orders of experience — that the untangling of the confusions in the excerpt above is attempted below.

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the notion that a text can be "untied" from a situation is nonsensical, because it is the text that construes the situation.

[2] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor is not a "non-iconic" relation between "linguistic and material activity", but an incongruent relation — within language — between semantics and grammar. Moreover, this characterisation reduces grammatical metaphor to ideational metaphor, and reduces ideational metaphor to elemental metaphor (processes incongruently realised as things). Importantly, grammatical metaphor is semantically junctional. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 243):

When this happens, it is a signal that a phenomenon of this other kind — quality, or process — is being treated as if it was a thing. The grammar has constructed an imaginary or fictitious object, called shakiness, by transcategorising the quality shaky; similarly by transcategorising the process develop it has created a pseudo-thing called development. What is the status of such fictitious objects or pseudo-things? Unlike the other elements, which lose their original status in being transcategorised (for example, shaker is no longer a process, even though it derives from shake), these elements do not; shakiness is still a quality, development is still a process — only they have been construed into things. They are thus a fusion, or 'junction', of two semantic elemental categories: shakiness is a 'quality thing', development is a 'process thing'. All such junctional elements involve grammatical metaphor.

[3] To be clear, as explained above, this is a nonsensical claim. Elemental ideational grammatical metaphor does not "transform social action" into anything. Instead, it reconstrues the congruent model of experience into a metaphorical model which is further removed from everyday experience. Cf Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 646):

As we have seen, grammatical metaphor of the ideational kind is primarily a strategy enabling us to transform our experience of the world: the model of experience construed in the congruent mode is reconstrued in the metaphorical mode, creating a model that is further removed from our everyday experience – but which has made modern science possible.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, "the world as we perceive it" is the construal of experience as ideational meaning. In these terms, the authors' nonsensical claim becomes:

• By iconic we mean matching relations between ideational meaning and ideation

where 'ideation' is Martin's discourse semantic system, which, as demonstrated here, is his misunderstanding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) rebranded as his experiential semantics.

[5] To be clear, the relation here is the stratal relation within language between meaning (people, things, actions) and grammatical form (nouns, verbs). As such, it does not exemplify a relation between "the world as we perceive it" and Martin's experiential discourse semantic system of ideation.

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.

Tracking Systems

Martin & Rose (2007: 183-4):

As for tracking, presumed information can be recovered either on the basis of communal understandings (the Truth Commission, Mandela) or situational presence, as shown in Figure 5.4. Within a situation, information can be presumed from either verbal (endophora) or non-verbal modalities (exophoric). Reference to the co-text can point forward or back: if back, then direct reference can be distinguished from inference; if forward, then reference from a nominal group to something following that group can be distinguished from reference that’s resolved within the same nominal group. Terminologically, we can refer to bridging as a type of anaphora; but forward reference within (esphora) is so much more common than forward reference beyond the nominal group that it’s probably best to reserve the term cataphora for reference beyond.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, the misunderstanding of reference as tracking leads to absurdities such as speakers using I, me, my, mine to keep track of themselves.

[2] As previously noted, homophoric reference — as in the Truth Commission —is 'self-specifying; there is only one – or at least only one that makes sense in the context' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 631). Homophoric reference is not textually cohesive.

[3] As previously explained, the use of names, such as Mandela, is reference in the sense of ideational denotation, not textual reference in which a reference item presumes an identity to be resolved elsewhere.

[4] As previously explained, in SFL Theory, a 'situation' is an instance of context, the culture as semiotic system, which is realised in language. Inconsistent with theory, Martin & Rose here use it to refer to both the perceptual field of the interlocutors (phenomena) and their projected text (metaphenomena) that realises a situation.

[5] To be clear, this is the first use of 'modalities' in the chapter. Endophoric reference is reference to within the text, exophoric reference is reference to outside text. Both verbal and non-verbal modalities (eg. pictures) can be referred to either endophorically or exophorically. For example, endophoric reference to a 'non-verbal modality' is to a diagram within the same text; exophoric  reference to a 'verbal modality' is reference to a different text.

[6] As previously demonstrated here, bridging (inference/indirect reference) is a confusion of reference with lexical cohesion.

[7] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this is the distinction between non-structural cataphora, which is cohesive, and structural cataphora ("esphora") which is not.

Misrepresenting Elemental Ideational Metaphor As Logical Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 115-6):

Finally section 4.6 discusses what happens when conjunctions are realised by other kinds of grammatical classes, such as verbs and nouns; this kind of grammatical metaphor is known as logical metaphor. A method is presented for unpacking logical metaphors to analyse activity sequences.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand grammatical metaphor as a realisation relation between word classes and present this intra-grammatical relation as discourse semantics.  There are three obvious problems with this:

1. Conjunction is a class of word, and in SFL theory, word is a unit on the lexicogrammatical rank scale, not a semantic phenomenon. 
2. Word classes are all at the same level of symbolic abstraction, whereas realisation is the relation between different levels of symbolic abstraction, as for example, between strata. 
3. Grammatical metaphor is a relation between strata, semantics and lexicogrammar, not a relation between word classes within the lexicogrammatical stratum.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand elemental ideational metaphor as logical metaphor.  The reason that such metaphor cannot be restricted to the logical metafunction is that the metaphor involves realising a logico-semantic relation as experiential elements: circumstance, process, quality or thing.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 245):

Confusing Composition With Realisation

Martin & Rose (2007: 96):

Nuclear relations below the clause
Below the clause, processes, participants and circumstances are themselves made up of groups of words, including lexical items. In Halliday’s 1994/2004 model, clause, group and word are different ranks in the grammar; a clause is realised by a configuration of word groups, each of which is realised by a configuration of words. As with the clause, nuclear relations also pertain between lexical words in groups. To describe these relations, we need to distinguish two kinds of word groups — nominal groups that realise things and people, and verbal groups that realise processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose confuse composition (the rank scale) with realisation (the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction).  In terms of composition, the rank unit, clause, is made up of units of the lower rank, groups and phrases.  In terms of realisation, clause functions, such as Process, are realised by forms, in this case, the verbal group.

In terms of expansion relations, composition is a type of extension, whereas realisation is a type of elaboration.  In terms of symbolic abstraction, the composition of the rank scale is of one level of abstraction, form, whereas realisation relates two distinct levels of abstraction, in this case, function and form.

[2] Here, as throughout this chapter, Martin & Rose confuse two distinct notions of 'word': 'word' as grammatical rank unit and 'word' as lexical item.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568):

The folk notion of the “word” is really a conflation of two different abstractions, one lexical and one grammatical.

[3] Here again Martin & Rose confuse composition (the rank scale) with realisation (the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction).  In SFL theory, a clause is composed of groups (± phrases), each of which is composed of words.  Moreover, each is composed of syntagms of lower rank forms, not configurations, since it is functions, not forms, that are configured.

[4] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not identified what it is that is scaled from nuclear to peripheral in groups, nor the basis on which it is nuclear or peripheral.  Without a clear statement of the underlying principles involved, this is merely an empty exercise in relabelling.

[5] It will be seen, in the discussion of verbal groups, that Martin & Rose mistake elements of clause structure, circumstantial Adjuncts, for elements of verbal group structure.

Confusing Context With Language

Martin & Rose (2007: 93):

We said earlier that a field consists of sequences of activities. The granting of amnesty is one activity within the Truth and Reconciliation field, that includes activities such as applying for, giving and refusing. This hierarchy of activities can be represented by a tree diagram, as in Figure 3.11. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, even Martin & Rose model field as context — even if they misconstrue context as register — and here they locate activity sequences as discourse semantics, contradicting Martin (1992) where activity sequences are located in context.  That is, even in their own terms, Martin & Rose misconstrue the realisation relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction, context and discourse semantics, as one of composition at the same level.

[2] To be clear, the claims here are that:

• granting includes applying for
• granting includes giving
• granting includes refusing.

The logical inconsistencies here are therefore as follows:

• inclusion is a relation of extension: composition (meronymy), but
• the relation of granting to applying for is enhancement: time or cause-condition (collocation),
• the relation of granting to giving is elaboration (synonymy),
• the relation of granting to refusing is elaboration (antonymy).

Misunderstanding The Basis Of Nuclearity

Martin & Rose (2007: 92):

The Medium may be affected by the process, but the Agent is left implicit, as in I’m going to be haunted, amnesty was refused. As Agent and Beneficiary may be left out of the clause, they are relatively marginal in terms of nuclear relations. 

How do these grammatical functions interact with the lexical elements that instantiate them in particular texts?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the ergative model, the Medium is participant through which the Process is actualised; on the transitive model, in contrast, the Goal is the participant that is impacted by the Process.

[2] To be clear, the clause amnesty was refused is middle (medio-receptive), not effective.  That is, the clause lacks the feature [agency], so it does not feature an Agent, implicit or otherwise.

amnesty	was refused	by the Commission
Range	Process	Medium

[3] This seriously misunderstands nuclearity.  Agent and Beneficiary, as participants, are "marginal" in the sense of their participation in the Process, not because they can be left out.  The problems with 'omittability' as a criterion include:

• the omission of a participant serves a textual function, not an experiential function; and
• even the most nuclear participant, the Medium, can be omitted, as demonstrated by the medio-receptive clauses such as amnesty was refused, you were seen!  What was said?

It will be seen later that Martin & Rose contradict their own principle by interpreting 'Range: process' — e.g. a song in he sang (a song) — as central, despite the fact that it can be omitted.

[4] The notion of grammatical functions interacting with lexical items betrays the Martin's (1992) misunderstanding of the dimensions of SFL theory as the interaction of modules; see the clarifying critiques here.

To be clear, the relation between grammatical functions and lexical items involves both delicacy and realisation, since each lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate features of lexicogrammatical systems.

[5] The notion of lexical items instantiating grammatical function confuses instantiation — the relation between potential and instance — with delicacy (and realisation), as explained above in [4].

∞

Importantly, none of this is

1. discourse semantic,
2. beyond the clause, or 
3. the authors' original theorising.

Confusing Ideational Grammar With Textual Cohesion And Rebranding The Misunderstanding Experiential Discourse Semantics (Taxonomic Relations)

Martin & Rose (2007: 83):

Now let’s turn to find how Tutu construes the field of Truth and Reconciliation through taxonomic relations. Institutional fields such as the law, government, education and so on consist largely of abstract things like amnesty, justice, truth, reconciliation. These abstractions often denote a large set of activities, which the reader is expected to recognise. Sometimes, however, the subordinate activities may be specified, particularly for pedagogic or legal purposes. For example, Tutu quotes the Act’s definition of one type of offence as a set of more specific activities:

The Act required that where the offence is a gross violation of human rights — defined as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment

This sentence explicitly instantiates a classifying taxonomy, as in Figure 3.8.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the ideational metafunction (cultural field) with the textual metafunction (lexical cohesion rebranded as 'taxonomic relations'); see further below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the term 'institution' refers to a sub-potential of cultural context; that is, it is situation type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  'Institutional field' thus refers to the ideational dimension of a cultural sub-potential.  Accordingly, institutional fields do not consist of abstract things, because abstract things are linguistic construals of experience.  That is, the relation between culture and language is not one of constituency, since culture and language are different levels of symbolic abstraction.  The relation between them is thus one of realisation.

[3] To be clear, this denotation is a relation between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar) on the content plane of language.

[4] To be clear, this specification in the definition is construed in the grammar as an encoding identifying clause, wherein a superordinate Value a gross violation of human rights is encoded by reference to a more delicate Token as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment, realised as a prepositional phrase whose Range is realised by a nominal group complex of extension: alternation.

(a gross violation of human rights)	(is) defined	as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment
Identified Value	Process: relational	Identifier Token

as	an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment
minor Process	Range

an abduction	killing	torture	or severe ill-treatment
1	+ 2	+ 3	+ 4

That is, here Martin & Rose confuse hyponymic lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) with clause transitivity (experiential grammar) and nominal group complexing (logical grammar), and rebrand the confusion as taxonomic relations (experiential discourse semantics).