Misrepresenting Commentary As Analysis

Martin & Rose (2007: 108-9):

Relations between activities are as follows. First meeting, beginning to relate and marrying are parts of a ‘romance’ field that expect one another in a sequence. In the description phase, each of the young man’s qualities is expected by the romantic field, and intensified by the girlfriends’ envying. A problem is signalled by then one day he said, and then going and won’t see are parts of ‘leaving’. Helena’s reactions include feelings (torn to pieces) and action (married to forget).  The ‘consequences’ phase again begins with a setting, of which learning for the first time is expected by meeting. Then as parts of the Truth and Reconciliation field, operating overseas expects not being punished. This time Helena’s reactions include saying (can’t explain), feeling hurt and bitter, and seeing what was left. Finally saw what was left expects a description, in which we have unpacked desire as ‘wanting’, must be told as ‘wanting to tell’, didn’t matter as ‘didn’t care’, and only a means to the truth as ‘only wanted to tell truth’. These are analysed as various processes of desire, which elaborate each other in this phase.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this misrepresents mere commentary as analysis.  As Halliday (1985: xvii) pointed out:

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.

Moreover, Martin & Rose use the metaphor of 'expecting' to make (sometimes ludicrous) bare assertions masquerading as theoretical analysis:

1. meeting, beginning to relate and marrying expect one another in a sequence;
2. the romantic field expects each of the young man’s qualities;
3. the girlfriends’ envying intensifies the young man’s qualities;
4. meeting expects learning for the first time;
5. operating overseas expects not being punished;
6. saw what was left expects a description.

See a previous post for the authors' misunderstanding of the text in their unpacking of what they regard as metaphor.

Original Text:

My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl in the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State. As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties. He was working in a top security structure. It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship. We even spoke about marriage. A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy. Sharply intelligent. Even if he was an Englishman, he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners. And all my girlfriends envied me. Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'. 'We won't see each other again...maybe never ever again.’ I was torn to pieces. So was he. An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. More than a year ago, I met my first love again through a good friend. I was to learn for the first time that he had been operating overseas and that he was going to ask for amnesty. I can’t explain the pain and bitterness in me when I saw what was left of that beautiful, big, strong person. He had only one desire - that the truth must come out. Amnesty didn't matter. It was only a means to the truth.

When A Sequence Of Activities Is Neither An Activity Sequence Nor A Series Of Events

Martin & Rose (2007: 106):

 

In this text, activities are taxonomically related by part or class; goannas are first classified as hunters, and the activities run, climb, swim are implicitly construed as components of hunting. But there is no implied series of events, rather the sequence is expected by the field of animal behaviours, and the descriptive report genre, so that feeding behaviours are expected by hunting behaviours, followed by breeding behaviours.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

[1] As noted in the preceding post, the taxonomic relations between Processes that Martin & Rose propose in this analysis do not withstand close scrutiny.

[2] To be clear, Martin & Rose claim that this text involves 'activities' and a 'sequence', but not an 'activity sequence' on the grounds that there is no implied 'series of events'.

[3] To be clear, goannas are classified as 'daytime hunters', and this class membership is construed by the attributive clause.

[4] To be clear, this misunderstands the text.  The processes run, climb and swim are not construed as parts of 'hunting' any more than they are construed as parts of 'escaping predators'.  The point made in the text is that they do such things well.

[5] To be clear, fields and genres do not expect anything, because they are not conscious beings.  If this misleading metaphor is unpacked, then the claim is that people who are familiar with the field of animal behaviours and people who are familiar with report genres expect the sequence of activities — as opposed to an activity sequence or series of events — in the text.

While it may be true that people who are familiar with the field may have such expectations, it is less likely to be true of people who are merely familiar with report genres; but, more importantly, the expectations of readers are irrelevant to what the author of the text actually wrote.  Text analysis is the analysis of text.

[6] To be clear, the authors' claim here is that 'hunting behaviours' expect 'feeding behaviours' followed by 'breeding behaviours'.  A sympathetic unpacking of this incongruous metaphor might be that people who are familiar with the field of animal behaviour and people who are familiar with report genres expect the sequence — but not 'activity sequence' or 'series of events' — 'hunting, feeding, breeding'.

However, people who are actually familiar with animal behaviour know that most hunts are unsuccessful and are thus not followed by feeding, and that feeding is a frequent activity that is only rarely followed by breeding (during the mating season).

Adjusting A Taxonomic Relations Analysis To Fit Theoretical Claims

Martin & Rose (2007: 104-5):

 

The analysis displays the following patterns:

• Taxonomic relations between processes organise the activity sequence into distinct phases. … Such taxonomic relations are the basis for expectancy between processes. 

• Boundaries between phases are realised lexically, by a break in taxonomic relations between processes, or by a lexical contrast between processes, such as the converse relation between (Leonard) started fighting back and (policemen) knocked down viciously.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here again, as throughout, Martin & Rose confuse grammar (processes) with lexis, and present the lexicogrammatical confusion as discourse semantics.

[2] As can be seen from the analysis below, this is not true.  On the one hand, processes that don't fit the claim are ignored (sit) or omitted from the analysis (arriving, carried on).  On the other hand, relations between processes within phases are misinterpreted in order to fit the claim.  For example:

• in the 'problem 1' phase, behavioural (screamed at), verbal (abused) and material Processes (was slapped around, was punched) are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate;
• in the 'reaction' phase, the material Processes jumped (up) and started fighting back are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate;
• in the 'effect' phase, the material Processes knocked (down), put (back), handcuffed and could not get up are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate.

Processes	Taxonomic Relation	Phase
arriving	<not analysed>
changed		setting
was screamed at	co-class	problem 1
abused
was slapped around
was punched
was told	co-class	problem 2
to shut up
sit
was questioned	co-class
answered
was told
was lying
was smacked		problem 3
carried on	<not analysed>
jumped	co-class	reaction
started fighting back
knocked (down)	converse	effect
put (back)	co-class
handcuffed
could not get up
was smacked and punched		unnamed

[3] As previously noted, any 'expectancy' is a mental process of listeners or readers of a text, not a relation in a text projected by a verbal process of its author.  Collocation and logogenetic patterns of instantiation are another matter.

Making False Claims About Taxonomic Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 103):

taxonomic relations show how processes expect each other in an activity sequence, and how expectancy shifts from one phase to the next.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this was not demonstrated in the discussion of taxonomic relations (pp76-90).

[2] To be clear, taxonomic relations are presented as relations between lexical items, whereas processes are grammatical functions.  That is, Martin & Rose confuse lexis with grammar and present the confusion as discourse semantics.

[3] To be clear, processes don't "expect" each other, because they are not conscious beings.  If the metaphor is unpacked, then the claim is that someone expects one process to follow another, on the basis of a relation between the lexical items serving as the processes.  This person is clearly not the speaker, but the addressee(s) or a discourse analyst.  That is, the metaphor conceals the fact that this is not a model of language, but a model of listening to, reading or analysing language.

[4] To be clear, even ignoring the fact that this expectancy is a mental process of the addressee or linguist, and the fact that taxonomic relations confuse lexical items with grammatical functions, this claim of expectancy shift is falsified by any instances in which taxonomic relations between processes obtain between different phases of a text, or do not obtain within a phase of a text.

Making False Claims About Nuclear Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 103):

Earlier we showed how nuclear relations can inform an analysis of taxonomic relations in an entity focused text. Here we combine analysis of activity sequences with nuclear relations, together with taxonomic relations between processes. Nuclear relations can show us the roles of people and things in activity sequences;

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  See the previous posts:

• Misrepresenting The Analytical Utility Of Nuclear Relations
• Misunderstanding Their Own Model Of Nuclear Relations
• Sample Nuclear Relations Analysis
• A Combined Taxonomic And Nuclear Relations Analysis

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  Nuclear relations do not "show us the roles of people and things in activity sequences".  Nuclear relations in a clause, even when properly understood, only construe the degree of participation in a process.  The "roles of people and things" in an "activity" are construed by the clause transitivity, whose ergative functions the authors have relabelled as central, nuclear etc.  None of these labels identifies the rôle of a participant in a process.

A Combined Taxonomic And Nuclear Relations Analysis

Martin & Rose (2007: 100-1):

Including nuclear relations with the taxonomic relations analysis allows us to consistently track the relations of qualities and locations to each element in the lexical strings, despite their structural dispersal across various grammatical categories. A particularly complex example is the sentence They are the only lizards with forked tongues, like a snake, which simultaneously classifies goannas as lizards, implicitly includes both lizards and snakes in a higher class (i.e. reptiles), assigns forked tongues as a part of both goannas and snakes, and excludes other lizards from having forked tongues. This configuration of relations is brought out very simply in the combined taxonomic and nuclear relations analysis, highlighted in Figure 3.16.

 

Blogger Comments:

Text:

…Goannas have flattish bodies, long tails and strong jaws. They are the only lizards with forked tongues, like a snake. Their necks are long and may have loose folds of skin beneath them. Their legs are long and strong, with sharp claws on their feet. Many goannas have stripes, spots and other markings that help to camouflage them. The largest species can grow to more than two metres in length. …

[1] To be clear, this is the opposite of what is true.  The nuclearity of Qualities and Locations depends on their function within a grammatical unit, and so does not apply to their function in other grammatical environments ("their structural dispersal across various grammatical categories").

[2] To be clear, taxonomic relations are inherent in the organisation of lexis.  In Halliday's model — the source of the authors' ideas — taxonomic relations within lexis are used for the purposes of lexical cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction.  The authors' model of taxonomic relations misunderstands textual lexicogrammar as experiential (discourse) semantics.

[3] To be clear, this "complex example" does not construe class membership. Rather, it identifies goannas as the only lizards with forked tongues like a snake:

They (goannas)	are	the only lizards [with forked tongues [like a snake] ]
Identified Token	Process: relational	Identifier Value

[4] To be clear, this "complex example" does not construe lizards and snakes as members of the higher class 'reptile'. This assumption is supplied by Martin & Rose, and derives from their ignorance of species with forked tongues in other (non-reptilian) biological taxa, such as amphibians (frogs), birds (hummingbirds) and mammals (galagos).  The example merely makes a phenotypic comparison: between the forked tongues of goannas and the (more familiar) forked tongues of snakes.

[5] To be clear, this "assignment" is construed by the Qualifier of the nominal group the only lizards with forked tongues like a snake.

[6] To be clear, this "exclusion" is construed by the Numerative of the nominal group the only lizards with forked tongues like a snake.

[7] To be clear, even ignoring all of the above, the combined taxonomic and nuclear relations analysis in Figure 3.16 misconstrues the extension (part-whole) relation between snake and tongues as elaboration (=), and misconstrues the elaboration relation between tongues and forked as extension (+), due to the authors' misapplication of both expansion relations and nuclearity to grammatical functions, as explained in previous posts.

Mistaking (Partial) Grammatical Units For Lexical Items

Martin & Rose (2007: 100-1):

In the analysis in Figure 3.16, there is one lexical string for goannas and other reptiles, and another string for their parts.

 

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

Australia is home to 25 of the world's 30 monitor lizard species, In Australia, monitor lizards are called goannas. Goannas have flattish bodies, long tails and strong jaws. They are the only lizards with forked tongues, like a snake. Their necks are long and may have loose folds of skin beneath them. Their legs are long and strong, with sharp claws on their feet. Many goannas have stripes, spots and other markings that help to camouflage them. The largest species can grow to more than two metres in length. All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

To be clear, this is not a lexical string because it confuses lexical items with the following grammatical units:

1. the nominal group many goannas,
2. the partial nominal group complex stripes, spots and other markings
3. the partial nominal group largest species, and
4. the nominal group more than two metres in length.

This completely undermines the proposed taxonomic relations, the most ludicrous of which is the analysis of (more than two metres in) length as part of largest species.

Nuclear Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 90-1):

As we flagged in the introduction to this chapter, the clause construes experience in terms of a process involving people and things, places and qualities. We have explored taxonomic relations between these elements, from one clause to the next as a text unfolds. In this section we will examine lexical relations between these elements within clauses. As they are more or less centrally involved in the process, lexical relations within the clause are known as nuclear relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the SFL model of the clause. The clause construes experience as a process, participants in the process and circumstances attendant on the process. Importantly, the elements are defined relative to each other.

[2] Here Martin & Rose confuse grammatical elements with lexical items. Their model of taxonomic relations is claimed to be concerned with lexical items, not elements of grammatical structure.

[3] To be clear, this encapsulates a fundamental misunderstanding that invalidates Martin & Rose's model of nuclear relations: the mistaking of elements of grammatical structure for lexical items.

[4] This is very misleading indeed. Here Martin & Rose introduce Halliday's (1985: 147) model of ergativity without acknowledging its source, thereby once again inviting the reader to credit them with the work of others. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):

Moreover, the model is grammatical, not discourse semantic, and concerned with elements of grammatical structure, not lexical items and, as will be seen, Martin & Rose thoroughly misunderstand Halliday's model, and confuse it with Halliday's textual system of collocation, a type of lexical cohesion.

Importantly, for the semantics of clause nuclearity, see Halliday & Mathiessen (1999: 165-76) on degree of participation (of participants) and degree of involvement (of circumstances).

The Notion Of Lexical Relations "Building A Field"

Martin & Rose (2007: 90):

In contrast the discourse semantic perspective we are taking here foregrounds the ideational function of lexical relations in building a field, so our starting point is with class and part relations: a young man - my first love. Synonymy draws on common class membership to identify items with each other, with repetition as the limiting case. Contrasts then function to distinguish categories. This is a metafunctional view on discourse semantics, in which taxonomic relations complement reference relations to build the field and maintain cohesion as a text unfolds.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, to take a discourse semantic perspective on lexical relations is to take a discourse semantic perspective on lexicogrammar, since lexical items are the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical features.  And to take any perspective on lexicogrammar is to model lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.

Moreover, as previously demonstrated, Martin & Rose do not understand the notion of 'lexical item', having previously (p84) regarded instances like each of the following as single lexical items:

• punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator
• opportunity to be reintegrated into the community (the perpetrator) has injured by his or her offence

[2] There are multiple confusions here.  On the one hand, lexical relations do not "build a field", and on the other hand, Martin & Rose, like Martin (1992), do not understand the SFL notion of field, and unwittingly use the term for quite distinct theoretical dimensions.  These will be explained in turn.

Firstly, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643) point out, the relations between lexical items (synonymy, antonymy etc.) are inherent to the organisation of lexis itself, and so do not "build a field".  For example:

• how does the inherent lexical relation of synonymy between big and large "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of antonymy between good and bad "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of hyponymy between colour and purple "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of meronymy between toe and foot "build a field"?

Secondly, the notion of "building a field" (Martin 1992) is itself a tangle of multiple confusions. To take field first, in SFL theory, field is the ideational dimension of context; that is: the culture construed as a semiotic system. However, Martin misconstrues field as the ideational dimension of register, a functional variety of language, which, in turn, he misconstrues as context.

However, again, from the perspective of SFL theory, the notion of field in build a field does not correlate with context, but with the ideational semantics of a text. Martin's notion of "building a field" corresponds to the instantiation of ideational meaning during logogenesis.

[3] To be clear, these two instances are nominal groups, not single lexical items, and there are no hyponymic or meronymic relations between the lexical items young, man, first, love.

[4] This misunderstands synonymy and repetition.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644) point out, both relations involve identity, not class membership.  It is hyponymy that is based on class membership.

[5] To be clear, even ignoring the previously identified problems with Martin & Rose's notion of 'contrast' — e.g. here, here and here — this is nonsensical.  Contrast doesn't "function to distinguish categories" any more than meronymy or hyponymy do.  Contrast is proposed as a taxonomic relation between lexical items.

[6] To be clear, SFL theory is a "metafunctional view" on language.  In terms of metafunction, Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, including taxonomic relations, is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual system of lexical cohesion as a system of the experiential metafunction, misunderstood, and relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, despite being concerned with lexicogrammar — relations between (misunderstood) lexical items — rather than semantics.  For a thorough examination of Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, see the clarifying critiques here.