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.

Misanalysing Textual Reference And Confusing It With Ideational Denotation

Martin & Rose (2007: 305-6):

Where cultural difference comes into play, contracted realisation can be particularly excluding. We can take a moment to resolve the exophoric reference in Lingiari’s speech:

But this simply introduces a pulse of homophoric reference that many (but not all) Australians and few others can resolve.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, using SFL Theory, the exophoric reference items in this extract are the demonstratives:

• the (important white men)
• this (land)
• here (Wattle Creek)

and the endophoric reference items are:

• they (anaphoric to the important white men)
• it (anaphoric to this land)
• it (anaphoric to this land)
• the (anaphoric to the important white men)
• it (anaphoric to this land)
• the (cataphoric to us Aboriginals all around here)

That is, neither important white men nor us nor land nor today are textual references.

[2] To be clear, the concern with these glosses is 'reference' in the sense of ideational denotation, not reference in the textual sense. As previously demonstrated, this basic confusion permeates and undermines Martin's IDENTIFICATION, his textual system of his discourse semantic stratum.

Acronyms As Incisive Membership Signals

Martin & Rose (2007: 305):

Contraction refers to the amount of work it takes to exchange meanings, and the idea that the better you know someone the less explicitness it takes. Poynton exemplifies this in part through naming, pointing out that knowing someone very well involves short names, knowing them less well longer ones. For outsiders, Stevie might be introduced as Texas bluesman Stevie Ray Vaughan for example, whereas for hardcore fans just his initials will do:

Texas bluesman Stevie Ray Vaughan

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Stevie Ray

Stevie

SRV

Technically speaking, the less information a homophoric reference contains, the tighter the community it constructs and the more people it excludes. Acronyms in general are incisive [sic] membership signals in this respect, as are all of the resources noted in Martin 2000a under the heading of involvement (e.g. swearing, slang, antilanguage, specialised and technical lexis).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is "reference" in the sense of ideational denotation, which Martin & Rose confuse with textual reference — homophoric or otherwise — in their model of textual discourse semantics, IDENTIFICATION, as explained in the examination of that system (Chapter 5).

[2] To be clear, acronyms do not contain less information, they express the same amount of information in reduced form. In any case, this bare assertion is invalidated by all the acronyms that are not inclusive membership signals, such as:

• ASAP
• AWOL
• ATM
• PIN
• SCUBA
• LASER
• RADAR
• NASA
• NATO
• UN
• UNESCO
• CIA
• FBI

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.

Martin & Rose "Attempting To Construe A Sliver Of Equality" With Their Readers

Martin & Rose (2007: 303):

This is a huge research area; but one point we can make is that writing is not an option available to everyone in South African or Australian society since it depends on some form of institutionalised learning, and illiteracy is found in both societies. 

Beyond this, the modes of writing Tutu and Mandela control depend on a tertiary education and apprenticeship into one or more professions. And only a minority of South Africans or Australians can read discourse of this kind, let alone compose it as eloquently as we have witnessed here. So we have dealt mainly with discourses of power in our analyses. 

There are lesser voices too, of course. But Helena speaks courtesy [sic] of those more powerful than her (the SABC and Bishop Tutu) and Lingiari’s Indigenous Australian voice has always been projected to the wider world through the transcriptions of non-Indigenous academic scribes and political activists. 

If you have read this far in our book then you are reciprocating in ways to which certainly Lingiari, and probably Helena did not have access — whether you actually ever get around to responding directly to David and Jim or not. And note that by first-naming ourselves we are attempting to construe a sliver of equality that might make responding possible.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue. A significant majority of Australians, at least, have literacy skills far beyond those required to read the writings of Tutu and Mandela.

[2] This is manifestly untrue. As her text demonstrates, the woman identified as 'Helena' is a literate South African from a relatively privileged background.

[3] As a reader, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be offered a "sliver of equality" by authors as far up the power hierarchies as 'David' and 'Jim'.

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.

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

Martin & Rose (2007: 297-8):

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confusing Context With Register (And Mode With Genre)

Martin & Rose (2007: 296-7):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin's Register, Genre And Ideology

Martin & Rose (2007: 256):

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

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

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

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

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

 

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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