Confusing Modal Responsibility With Moral Responsibility

Martin & Rose (2007: 234-5):

Technically speaking, what we are saying is that a move is a ranking clause, including any clauses embedded in it, and in addition any clauses dependent on it. So we can tag the main clauses in the examples below; they are negotiable. Coetzee makes others responsible for the torture facility, not his role in it:

And Sannie makes the village gossipmongers responsible, not her family:

The underlined clauses are not directly negotiable; to make them so would require an additional initiating move in which they are promoted from a subordinate to an arguable position.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Once again, Martin & Rose are misrepresenting Halliday's model of speech function as their own theoretical creation.

[2] To be clear, this confuses moral responsibility (for the torture facility) with modal responsibility (whether or not it is valid to state they had a facility outside Capetown…). 

[3] To be clear, the modal responsibility here is for the validity of the claim they'll say we're selling the house.

[4] To be clear, the projected clause we're selling the house can be challenged in a response move, as exemplified by But we're not (selling the house). Moreover, not only is this possible, it is more likely than a challenge to the projecting clause: But they won't say that.

In short, on the authors' model, the move But we're not (selling the house) would not be analysed as a responding move to they'll say we're selling the house, but would instead be analysed as a new initiating move.

The Authors' Definition Of A Response

Martin & Rose (2007: 232-3):

We can thus define a response as a move which:

(1) takes as given the experiential content of its initiating pair part

and

(2) accepts the general terms of its argument established by its Subject-Finite structure (i.e. its polarity/modality/temporality). …

But a response does not allow for changes to the nub of the argument (its Subject),  or to the content of what is being argued about in the rest of the clause. By definition, any move making changes of this kind would not be considered a response but a new initiating move.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, speech function is concerned with interpersonal meaning, not with experiential meaning. In the case of propositions, what is accepted or rejected in a response is the validity of what is predicated of the Subject (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 148, 151-2).

[2] To be clear, a responding move may accept or reject the validity of a proposition or proposal. 

[3] Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 148):

From above, [the Subject] is that which carries the modal responsibility: that is, responsibility for the validity of what is being predicated (stated, questioned, commanded or offered) in the clause. … The notion of validity relates to the arguing of the case, if it is a proposition, or to the putting into effect if it is a proposal. The Subject is that element in which the particular kind of validity (according to the mood) is being invested.

Misrepresenting Halliday's Speech Function As The Authors' Creation

Martin & Rose (2007: 227):

In the previous section we proposed an inventory of 13 basic speech acts; we now need to think about how to distinguish them from one another when analysing conversation. One useful set of markers includes please, kindly, ta, thanks, thankyou, OK, alright, no worries, you're welcome, not a problem, which normally indicate moves concerning goods-and-services. Here Ernest pleads with Coetzee to stay and talk to his parents (until the comrades can get there to kill him):

And Hendrick orders wine for dinner with Coetzee and his family:

Where such markers are not present, we can check to see if they could have been (adding for example please to Hendrik’s command and alright to verbalise Sannie’s response to her father below):

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Once again Martin & Rose are misrepresenting Halliday's major and minor speech functions (minus 'alarms') as their own creation.

[2] To be clear, the SFL way to identify speech functions in a text is to take the view 'from above' (the meaning being realised). This means using the semantic system of which they are instances. For example, in the case of major speech functions (realised by major clauses):

• if information is given, then it is a statement;
• if information is demanded, then it is a question;
• if goods-&-services are given, then it is an offer;
• if goods-&-services are demanded, then it is a command.

[3] To be clear, contrary to SFL Theory, here Martin & Rose advocate taking the view 'from below' (how meaning is realised) instead of the view 'from above' (the meaning being realised).

Misunderstanding Halliday's Moodtags And Misrepresenting Them As The Authors' Work

Martin & Rose (2007: 226):

Moves may also end with tag 'questions' (don’t you?, isn't he?, etc.) oriented to the addressee. These tags do not function as separate moves, but are better treated as explicit invitations to a listener to respond. Both of Sannie’s speech acts below would thus be treated as tagged statements (not as statements followed by questions). There is after all only one proposition being negotiated, not two:

 

 Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Yet again, Martin & Rose here present Halliday's work as if it were their own. Importantly, the tag doesn't just invite a response; it signals the type of response expected. Halliday (1985:69):

[2] This is misleading. While the first instance is a tagged declarative clause realising a statement, the second instance does not feature a Moodtag, and realises two speech functions, not one. To explain:

Firstly, a Moodtag reprises the Finite and Subject of a clause, so the (unmarked) Moodtag for you could have killed the man is couldn't you? not you know.

Secondly, there are two propositions

• the projected statement: you could have killed the man, and
• the projecting question: you know (realised metaphorically as a declarative clause),

each of which could be challenged in response.

Moreover, the projecting clause you know can itself be tagged by don't you?, further demonstrating that it is not a Moodtag but a proposition in its own right.

Vocatives

Martin & Rose (2007: 225-6):

Moves may contain names which specify who is expected to respond (vocatives). For analysis purposes we recommend not treating vocatives as distinct moves when they simply accompany a speech act, addressing its receiver. This would mean treating Ernest’s move addressing Coetzee below as a statement including the vocative you white piece of shit, and his father’s move as a command including the vocative Ernest:

So vocatives are only taken as separate speech acts when they function as a move on their own, in greeting or calling sequences, as illustrated above… .

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because this is simply the analysis that is consistent with SFL Theory, and yet Martin & Rose present it as their recommendation.

[2] To be clear, unknown to Martin & Rose, this an instance of interpersonal metaphor: a command realised by a declarative clause with Mood ellipsis:

[3] Trivially, these are moves in exchanges, not sequences. Sequences (of figures) are ideational, not interpersonal.

Problems With The Authors' Speech Function System

 Martin & Rose (2007: 225, 226):

This account gives us a speech function system comprising the basic options displayed in Figure 7.1.

Blogger Comments:

The most obvious problems with the authors' network are as follows:

1. There is no entry condition;
2. The minor speech functions are split ('express self' vs 'attending'), with the latter grouped with major speech functions ('negotiating');
3. The minor speech function 'alarm' is not accounted for;
4. The INITIATING ROLE system ('giving' vs 'demanding') is not named;
5. The COMMODITY system ('information' vs 'goods-&-services') is not named; but most importantly,
6. The INITIATING ROLE system ('giving' vs 'demanding') appears six times instead of once.

A competently organised network is provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

Misrepresenting Halliday's Minor Speech Functions As The Authors' Ideas

Martin & Rose (2007: 224, 225):

Minimally, we need five more speech acts to complete the picture. Two are concerned with greeting and leave-taking (the hellos and good-byes framing conversations as people come and go, phone up and sign off). We can refer to these as greeting and response to greeting moves. …

Then there is the question of getting people’s attention once they are there - call and response to call. …

Finally we need to consider outbursts of appraisal, such as Helena’s Dammit! in the interpretation stage of her exemplum. … As explosions of personal affect, exclamations are not really negotiable — so we very seldom need to recognise a responding move.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because here Martin & Rose misrepresent Halliday's minor speech functions as their own theorising. Halliday (1994: 95-6):

As can be seen from the above, Martin & Rose fail to include Halliday's minor speech function 'alarm' and its two sub-types: 'warning' and 'appeal'.

Misrepresenting Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION As The Authors' System

Martin & Rose (2007: 224):

These three oppositions are summarised and exemplified in Table 7.2. They give rise to eight speech acts, which form the heart of the discourse semantic system we’ll refer to as SPEECH FUNCTION.

Blogger Comments:

Here Martin & Rose go beyond not acknowledging Halliday as the source of "their" ideas to actually presenting Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION as their idea. Cf Halliday (1985: 69):

Misrepresenting Halliday's 'Role In Exchange' As The Authors' Ideas

Martin & Rose (2007: 223-4):

The third parameter to consider is that of giving vs demanding. This opposes statements to questions as far as information is concerned, and offers to commands for goods-and-services:

 

Blogger Comments:

Here again there is no acknowledgement that this is Halliday's theorising, and the trusting reader is left with the impression that this is the work of Martin & Rose. Cf Halliday (1985: 69):

Misrepresenting Halliday's Ideas As The Authors' Ideas

Martin & Rose (2007: 223):

Based on the examples introduced above we can extract three basic parameters of negotiation — what it is we are negotiating, whether we are giving or demanding it, and whether a move initiates the exchange or responds. First, there is the question of what we are negotiating — information or goods-and-services. Note, as illustrated below, that when negotiating information we expect a verbal response (or gesture), whereas when negotiating goods-and-services we expect action.

These examples also illustrate a second parameter — the complementarity of initiating and responding moves in dialogue. Compliant responding moves may be quite elliptical, since the content being negotiated is easily recovered from the initiating move; and with goods-and-services transactions, language is in any case an optional accompaniment to behaviour (unless we are promising future action).

Blogger Comments:

Here Martin & Rose continue to present Halliday's ideas as if they were their own. Cf Halliday (1985: 68-9):

Misrepresenting Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION As The Authors' Model

Martin & Rose (2007: 222-3):

We’ll begin with our model of kinds of moves, focusing initially on statements, questions, offers and commands and compliant responses to them, as set out in Table 7.1.

Blogger Comments:

This is very misleading indeed. As well as failing to acknowledge Halliday as the intellectual source of the system of SPEECH FUNCTION, Martin & Rose here explicitly misrepresent it as their own model. Cf Halliday (1985: 69):

The Intellectual Source Of Martin's NEGOTIATION

Martin & Rose (2007: 221-2):

NEGOTIATION provides resources for taking up speech roles in conversation — making statements, asking questions, offering services and demanding goods. … 

As we can see, each statement, question, offer and command positions people to respond — by acknowledging, answering, accepting and complying. So the moves in conversation tend to come in pairs — ‘adjacency pairs’ as conversation analysts have called them. … 

So responses may be compliant or they may not. Summing up, there are three dimensions we need to consider in dialogue — the kind of moves that speakers make, how they are sequenced, and what happens when things don’t work out as smoothly as planned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION is Martin's (1992) rebranding of Halliday's (1985: 69) semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION. There is no acknowledgement, anywhere in this chapter, that the source of these ideas is Halliday. Cf Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

[2] To be clear, this confuses speech functions (statement, question, offer) with the systemic features that specify them (goods, services and demand). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

[3] Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

Negotiating Feelings And Ideational Meanings

Martin & Rose (2007: 220):

The three principal texts we have used in the book up to now were essentially monologues. At certain points however both Helena and Tutu became more conversational. Helena, for example, talks to God, asking a series of questions about her husband’s disintegration and exclaiming about how she feels:

'God, what's happening? What's wrong with him? Could he have changed so much? Is he going mad? I can't handle the man anymore! But I can't get out. He's going to haunt me for the rest of my life if I leave him. Why, God?'

And Tutu addresses his readers with questions about the integrity of the Truth Commission:

Can it ever be right for someone who had committed the most gruesome atrocities to be allowed to get off scot-free, simply by confessing what he or she has done? Are the critics right; was the Truth and Reconciliation process immoral?... So is amnesty being given at the cost of justice being done?

Helena doesn’t get an answer from God, and Tutu has to answer his own questions in the argument that follows. So a conversation never really develops. But in spoken discourse, both the feelings we discussed in Chapter 2 and the ideational meanings we presented in Chapter 3 are indeed negotiated between speakers. The system of resources that enables this to-and-fro of dialogue is called NEGOTIATION.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a dialogue involves a conversation between two or more speakers. This can occur at different orders of experience. For example, the dialogue may be first-order experience: people talking to each other, or second-order experience: people in a text talking to each other. 

(Tutu's questions are, of course, rhetorical questions.)

[2] To be clear, what people negotiate are interpersonal meanings: propositions and proposals. The mistaken notion that ideational meanings are negotiated derives, in part, from Martin's (1992: 391, 488) misunderstanding of metafunctions as interacting modules.

Discourse Phases (Semantics) Within Generic Stages (Context)

Martin & Rose (2007: 218):

The key point here is that co-patterning of this kind is all we need to recognise a distinct discourse phase. The generic stages of an exemplum (Orientation, Incident, Interpretation) are recurrent enough in the culture to be highly predictable. They are predicted by the genre itself. But phases within such generic stages, such as the ‘repercussions’ phase here, are much more variable. It is the co-patterning of discourse features that enables us to recognise a distinct phase.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in Martin's model, genre is two levels of symbolic abstraction (strata) above discourse semantics, and yet here discourse phases are presented as components of generic stages; that is, the two are presented as being on the same level of symbolic abstraction. This theoretical inconsistency arises from Martin's (1992: 391, 488) misunderstanding of strata as modules, all of which — including phonology and cultural context — are misunderstood as levels of linguistic meaning.

Moreover, Martin models genre (text type) as context, instead of language, despite the fact that it is concerned with varieties of language and variation in language structure, and despite the fact he models instances of genre as instances of language (texts), instead of instances of context (situations).

Packaging Discourse Through Explicit And Implicit "Scaffolding" And "Grammaticalising" Periodicity As Clause Complexing

Martin & Rose (2007: 215):

As we’ve seen, discourse gets packaged in various ways. Explicit scaffolding involves the erection of a hierarchy of periodicity beyond the clause, with layers of Theme and News telling us where we’re coming from and where we’re going to. With serial expansion there’s a change of gears from one discourse phase to the next, without any explicit scaffolding of the change. In some kinds of discourse, such as legislation, explicitness is in a sense pushed to its limits by (i) grammaticalising as much hierarchy as possible within very complex sentences and/or (ii) naming sections of the text numerically and/or alphabetically, and/or providing them with headings. Many texts involve some combination of all these resources for phasing information into digestible chunks.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As we've seen, the authors' 'hierarchy of periodicity' is writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory; it does not apply to any texts that don't conform these proposals for how to write, or to any texts that are spoken or signed. Moreover, the model falsely assumes that New information is never thematic, and confuses textual status (Theme, New) with textual transitions made through (implicit) appositive and summative elaboration ("predicting" and "distilling").

[2] As we've seen, in terms of SFL Theory, the authors' 'serial expansion' is concerned with textual transitions made through (implicit) relations other than elaboration (extension or enhancement).

[3] As we've seen, Martin & Rose misrepresent grammaticalisation — a shift in function from lexical to grammatical — as a shift in function from the discourse semantic stratum to the grammatical stratum. To be clear, whatever has a discourse semantic function also has a grammatical function, since strata are levels of symbolic abstraction, so the notion of a function shifting from one stratum to another is nonsensical. Moreover, the authors' claim is that their 'hierarchy of periodicity' (textual semantics) and clause complexing (logical grammar) perform the same function (since the latter is said to replace the former in some texts).

The "Grammaticalisation" Of Periodicity

Martin & Rose (2007: 214):

In summary then, where hierarchy of periodicity is used across many registers to orchestrate information flow, in the Act this packaging is as far as possible grammaticalised. The Act uses complex sentences where other registers would use introductions, topic sentences and paragraphs.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the only registers in which the authors' hierarchy of periodicity might be said to be used are those of written mode where writers conform to principles of writing pedagogy such as introductory paragraph (rebranded "macroTheme"), topic sentence (rebranded "hyperTheme"), paragraph summary (rebranded "hyperNew") and text summary (rebranded "macroNew"). Writing pedagogy is not linguistic theory, and spoken language does not conform to its principles.

[2] This misunderstands both grammaticalisation and stratification. To be clear, grammaticalisation is a shift in function from the lexical zone of lexicogrammar to the grammatical zone — just as lexicalisation is a shift in function from the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar to the lexical zone. Grammaticalisation cannot refer to a shift in function from semantics to grammar because semantics and grammar are different levels of abstraction of the same phenomenon: the content plane of language. It is therefore nonsensical to claim that a function can shift from semantics (Value) to grammar (Token). Again, this reflects the authors' mistaken view that strata are modules.

[3] To be clear, the "complex sentences" in the Act are clause complexes, in terms of lexicogrammar, and sequences, in terms of semantics. But, because the text makes extensive use of ideational metaphor, its sequences are incongruently realised as clauses, rather than congruently as clause complexes.

"The Grammar Runs Out Of Steam And Discourse Semantics Takes Over"

Martin & Rose (2007: 210, 211, 212):

The basic strategy the Act uses to phase information is to make grammar do as much work as possible, that is to use the grammar within sentences to do work that would normally be done by discourse strategies in texts. …

In a sense what we are looking at here is an exploration of the limits of grammar: how far can we push grammar before it runs out of steam and discourse semantics takes over. A peculiar kind of grammarian’s dream, or legislative nightmare, depending on our attitude to discourse of this kind. …

Discourse semantics, hierarchy of periodicity to be precise, takes over from grammar as the packaging device for this bundle of information.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misunderstanding of strata as modules, expressed in Martin (1992: 391, 488). To be clear, in the architecture of SFL Theory, grammar (Token) and semantics (Value) are different levels of symbolic abstraction of the same phenomenon: the content plane of language. To say that 'the grammar runs out of steam and discourse semantics takes over' is analogous to saying 'an actress (Token) runs out of steam and the rôle she is playing (Value) takes over'.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the authors' hierarchy of periodicity is a confusion of writing pedagogy — misrepresented as linguistic theory — and implicit elaborating relations between so-called higher level Themes and the following text (unidentified 'higher level Rhemes'), and between so-called higher level News and the preceding text (unidentified 'higher level Givens').

"Catalysing Symbiosis"

Martin & Rose (2007: 209):

Perhaps what we can learn from discourse of this kind is the significance of interaction among discourse systems. Conjunction, identification, ideation and periodicity are all interfacing in various ways to scaffold the argument and grammatical metaphor is catalysing this symbiosis at every turn. For most of us, a little discourse analysis wouldn’t hurt, when first learning to access texture of this kind.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of interaction between metafunctional systems continues the misunderstanding of metafunctions (and strata) as interacting modules in Martin (1992: 391, 488). The architecture of SFL Theory is relational, not modular. See the critiques here, and the clarification here.

[2] To be clear, if discourse semantic systems are scaffolding the argument, the question arises as to which systems are making the argument that they are scaffolding.

[3] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not demonstrated how grammatical metaphor catalyses anything. The authors have not unpacked any ideational metaphors in order to explain the nature of metaphor and how it functions; they have merely identified nominalised words in a text.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is the grammar that is the resource for discourse analysis.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, texture is created by the resources of the textual metafunction; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 650ff).

Identifying Nominalised Words Instead Of Unpacking Ideational Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 207):

The text is also chock full of ideational metaphors alongside the occasional concrete participant (i.e. manuals, the priest, the penitent):

This internalisation of an exterior hierarchy consists of two interrelated procedures: the accounting of past events and the reproduction of the discourse of interrogation contained in the confession manuals.

First, the process of accounting. All confession manuals contain the unconditional demand that all sins be revealed

In terms of abstraction, discourse of this kind is probably the most metaphorical to have evolved in the history of writing in the world. Each sentence packs a lot of information into dense strings of abstract terms that derive from ideational metaphors, such as internal → internalise → internalisation.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here again the authors' view of ideational metaphor is limited to nominalisation: rewording the meanings of verbs and adjectives as nouns. Although nominalisation is 'the single most powerful resource for creating grammatical metaphor' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 729), its rôle in ideational metaphor just part of a larger picture wherein semantic phenomena are re-mapped onto grammatical units. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 712-3, 719):

… grammatical metaphor within the ideational metafunction involves a ‘re-mapping’ between sequences, figures and elements in the semantics and clause nexuses, clauses and groups in the grammar. In the congruent mode of realisation that we described in Chapters 5 and 7, a sequence is realised by a clause nexus and a figure is realised by a clause. In the metaphorical mode, the whole set of mappings seems to be shifted ‘downwards’: a sequence is realised by a clause, a figure is realised by a group, and an element is realised by a word. The two modes of realisation are contrasted diagrammatically in Figure 10-14 below.

Despite this section being concerned with ideational metaphor and periodicity, instead of unpacking any of the ideational metaphor, Martin & Rose have merely identified what they take to be nominalisations. One reason the authors cannot unpack ideational metaphor is their model does not provide an ideational semantics that distinguishes congruent from incongruent grammatical realisations. To begin to do so, they would need to draw on the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

Confusing Textual Highlighting With Logic-Semantic Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 201-3):

Here’s the whole text, analysed for its generic staging. This is a story genre known as a recount, with the typical recount stages:

orientation ^ record of events ^ reorientation

We can also show how recount is organised with layers of hyperThemes and hyperNews (in bold):

There are five hyperThemes here that organise Mandela’s recount of his growing desire for freedom (its ‘method of development’). We’ll use an '=' sign to indicate the way in which the higher level Themes and News paraphrase the information they predict or distil. Halliday 1994 refers to these kinds of relation as elaboration:

1 I was not born with a hunger to be free

= …

2 It was only when I began to learn that my boyhood freedom was an illusion... that I began to hunger for it.

= …

3 But then I slowly saw that not only was I not free, but my brothers and sisters were not free.

= …

4 It was during those long and lonely years that my hunger for the freedom of my own people became a hunger for the freedom of all people, white and black.

= …

5 When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both 

= …

And three hyperNews that distil his conclusions about the struggle for freedom (its ‘point’):

3 ... = Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.

4 ... = The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.

5 ... = The true test of our devotion to freedom is just beginning.

Beyond the hyperThemes and hyperNews in each phase, the Orientation functions as its macroTheme and its Reorientation as its macroNew. And with respect to Mandela’s book as a whole, this recount functions as a higher level macroNew, both summarising his journey and distilling the meaning of his life. The key point here is that texts expand, and that this expansion may or may not be explicitly scaffolded by layers of Themes and News. In most texts we find a mix of scaffolding through periodicity, and serial expansion that is not so clearly scaffolded, since these are simply two complementary strategies through which texts grow.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, it is the stage names that are in bold, not the hyperThemes and hyperNews.

[2] Non-trivially, here Martin & Rose acknowledge that what they have identified as the function of higher level Themes and News, prediction and distillation, are actually logico-semantic relations (elaboration) between portions of text. That is, their model confuses textual highlighting (Theme, New) with textual transitions (implicit conjunctive relations).

[3] To be clear, applying SFL Theory, it follows from this that the 'record of events' and 'reorientation' function as the macroRheme of the recount as macromessage, and that the 'orientation' and 'record of events' function as the macroGiven of the recount as macro-information unit.

[4] Again, applying SFL Theory, it follows from this that the rest of Mandela's book functions as a higher level macroGiven in the text as higher level macro-information unit.

[5] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, these "two complementary strategies", periodicity and serial expansion, are, in this aspect, complementary expansion relations — elaboration (periodicity) and extension or enhancement (serial expansion) — that obtain between portions of text. In terms of SFL Theory, they could be interpreted as resources of cohesive conjunction (textual lexicogrammar). In terms of Martin's model, to be theoretically consistent, they should have been interpreted as resources of conjunction (logical discourse semantics).

The Interplay Of Periodicity With Serial Expansion

Martin & Rose (2007: 201):

We can see the same combination of serial expansion and hierarchy of periodicity operating towards the end of Mandela’s autobiography. As an autobiographical recount, his story moves through time. And so there is a tremendous amount of serial expansion, from one setting in time to the next, and lots of sequential development within each of these. The final chapter of his book, for example, begins with a recount of Inauguration Day, May 10, 1994. Skipping a line in the paragraphing, Mandela then expands on this by reflecting on the unimaginable sacrifices of his people, and his own personal failures at the expense of his family. Then, skipping another line, Mandela moves on serially again to the recount that sums up his life, some of which we’ve already seen.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, the authors' discussion of a hierarchy of periodicity has confused textual status (Theme, New) with textual transitions (implicit elaborating conjunction) between textual prominences and what follows (in the case of higher level Themes) and what precedes (in the case of higher level News). The authors' notion of serial expansion then complements these elaborating conjunctive relations with other sub-types of expansion, though without distinguishing those of extension (e.g. additive) from those of enhancement (e.g. temporal).

In terms of SFL Theory, these expansion relations between messages are modelled as cohesive conjunction, a lexicogrammatical resource of the textual metafunction. In terms of the authors' own model, to be theoretically consistent, these conjunctive relations would have been modelled as a discourse semantic resource of the logical metafunction.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose are again inconsistent with their own model. Here they associate summative elaboration with serial expansion, despite having previously associated it with their hierarchy of periodicity: the "distilling" of previous information as a higher level New.

Serial Expansion Of Discourse

Martin & Rose (2007: 199-201):

Serial expansion is more of a chaining strategy than is periodicity, in the sense that discourse is added on to what went before without being predicted by a higher level Theme. Tutu, for example, begins his Chapter What about justice? with the issue he is arguing about…

But instead of tackling this right away as he does in the argument proper, he takes a moment to develop some background information about the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act which he feels he needs before he starts arguing. So before we get to the exposition, we have a report outlining the conditions for gaining amnesty…

Then, having built up this common ground, he restates the issue and moves into his exposition. Tutu’s transition from issue to report and from report to exposition is not scaffolded with higher level Themes, nor distilled in higher level News. He does not actually tell us before the report that he has to build some background first before discussing the issue; nor does he sum up at the end of the report what it is we needed to know. At both points he just moves on, expanding the issue with the report and then expanding the report with an exposition.

This is a serial movement from one moment in the discourse to another. We are simply expected to follow along, without the careful scaffolding of phases we get once his exposition is underway. And following his exposition the chapter expands along similar lines (some serial expansion, some hierarchy of periodicity), a kind of tandem act during which we’re sometimes warned where we’re going and reminded where we’ve been, and other times we just keep reading and find out as we go.

The important point here is that both serial expansion and hierarchy of periodicity are dynamic resources through which a text unfolds as a process. The meanings don’t emerge by crystallising. A text isn’t like an image downloading from the web, taking on detail and shape and focus here and there before our very eyes. Rather meanings flow, as texts unfold. The text materialises through time, however thing-like our written records of this dynamic misrepresent a text to be.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, what Martin & Rose regard as a higher level Theme predicting what follows is actually the latter elaborating the former — elaboration being one sub-type of expansion. This confusion of textual status (thematicity) with textual transition (conjunction) is here being expanded to include conjunctive relations other than elaboration, which the authors term serial expansion. This is also inconsistent with the authors' own model, where cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction) is rebranded as a logical discourse semantic system.

[2] To be clear, this is self-contradiction. On the authors' own model, if Tutu restates the issue and then presents its exposition, this is the same relation of elaboration (exposition) that the authors ascribe to a higher level Theme "predicting" what follows.

[3] To be clear, the expansion relations in serial expansion and periodicity are cohesive relations along the syntagmatic axis, whereas the choices of Theme and New form patterns of instantiation during logogenesis, the unfolding of text. In other words, here Martin & Rose confuse the unfolding of text (logogenesis through instantiation) with non-structural relations along the syntagmatic axis.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the unfolding of text is logogenesis, and the materialisation of text is instantiation: the process of instantiating potential as actual.

Serial Expansion

Martin & Rose (2007: 199):

The strategy of predicting phases of discourse with macroThemes and hyperThemes constructs a ‘hierarchy’ of periodicity of smaller units of discourse ‘scaffolded’ within larger units. But there are alternative ways of constructing unfolding discourse so it is sensible to the reader. One way to highlight this is to compare hierarchy with an alternative strategy for expanding text, which is the strategy Tutu uses to build up his argument. We can call this ‘serial expansion’. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, it is not possible to predict what follows introductory paragraphs (macroThemes) and topic sentences (hyperThemes), except with the benefit of hindsight. Instead, in writing that conforms with these pedagogical principles, these "Themes" are elaborated by what follows. That is, Martin & Rose have confused textual transitions (conjunctive relations) with textual statuses (thematic prominence).

[2] The unacknowledged source of the notion of a ‘hierarchy of periodicity' is Halliday (1981).

[3] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not identified the units of which these higher level Themes are elements, nor discussed their complementary elements: higher level Rhemes.

[4] To be clear, these 'alternative ways' are the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction: conjunction, reference, ellipsis-&-substitution, and lexical cohesion.

[5] As will be seen, this alternative strategy of 'serial expansion' is cohesive conjunction, the textual resource that Martin & Rose have already unwittingly drawn on in describing their higher level Themes and News (see [1] above).

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.

The Argument For MacroTheme And MacroNew [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 198):

To this description we have added the title of Tutu’s Chapter 4, What about justice?, as an even higher level macroTheme (beyond this of course are the Table of Contents for his chapters, his acknowledgments, the title of the book as a whole, and the comments on the jacket cover - all higher level Themes, and the Postscript and Index of the book as its culminating higher level News):

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, there is no supporting argument here. This is merely an exercise in rebranding parts of the layout of a book as higher level Themes (Chapter title, Table of Contents, acknowledgements, book title, jacket comments) and higher level News (Postscript, Index). Moreover, there is the false assumption throughout that News are always separate from Themes. But most importantly, rebranding the layout features of a book does not constitute a model of language. People do not structure their speech in terms of tables of content and indexes, for example.

The Argument For MacroTheme And MacroNew [1]

Martin & Rose (2007: 197):

In many written texts, waves of Theme and New extend well beyond clauses and paragraphs to much larger phases of discourse. We have already introduced the higher level Theme and New introducing and closing Helena’s narrative, and the still higher level Theme linking Tutu’s exposition to her story. Beyond this we know that Tutu’s exposition was itself introduced with an even higher level Theme: his question about the cost of justice. So Helena’s description of her husband’s anguish is just a wave of ripples in a more expansive hierarchy:

We can refer to higher level Themes predicting hyperThemes as macro-Themes, and higher level News distilling hyperNews as macroNews.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, Theme is the peak of textual prominence in a clause, and New is the peak of prominence in an information unit. These two waves thus extend through an entire text.

[2] As previously explained, these higher level Themes and New — hyperTheme (topic sentence) and hyperNew (paragraph summary) — are principles of writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory.

[3] As previously explained, Themes do not predict what follows, they provide a textually relevant point of departure for what follows. In the quoted text, it can be seen that the macro-Theme (the first instance of bolded text) does not predict any of the lower level Themes (bolded) that follow.

[4] As previously explained, News do not distil what precedes, they are the textually highlighting of information as new. In the quoted text, it can be seen that the macro-New — I end with a few lines… — does not distil anything that has preceded, let alone the preceding lower level News, none of which are identified in the text by Martin & Rose.

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.

Surfing Through Waves Of HyperTheme And HyperNew

Martin & Rose (2007: 195-6):

As a general rule, writing looks forward more often than it looks back. So hyperThemes are more common than hyperNews; there’s more ‘prospect’ than ‘retrospect’. But examples of higher level News are not hard to find. Here are two examples from Mandela’s summary of his life at the end of his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom (we’ll return to this text in Chapter 8). Both examples include a hyperTheme, complementing the consolidating hyperNew (in bold):

But then I slowly saw that not only was I not free, but my brothers and sisters were not free, I saw that it was not just my freedom that was curtailed, but the freedom of everyone who looked like I did.

That is when I joined the African National Congress, and that is when the hunger for my own freedom became the greater hunger for the freedom of my people. It was this desire for the freedom of my people to live their lives with dignity and self-respect that animated my life, that transformed a frightened young man into a bold one, that drove a law-abiding attorney to become a criminal, that turned a family-loving husband into a man without a home, that forced a life-loving man to live like a monk. I am no more virtuous or self-sacrificing than the next man, but I found that I could not even enjoy the poor and limited freedoms I was allowed when I knew my people were not free.

Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.

When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both. Some say that has now been achieved. But I know that this is not the case.

The truth is that we are not yet free; we have merely achieved the freedom to be free, the right not to be oppressed. We have not taken the final step of our journey but the first step on a longer and even more difficult road. For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

The true test of our devotion to freedom is just beginning.

In general terms, the hyperTheme is paraphrased by the body of the paragraph, which is in turn paraphrased by the hyperNew. But the hyperNew is never an exact paraphrase of the hyperTheme, nor is it simply a summary of the wave’s trough; it takes the text to a new point, which we could only get to by surfing through the waves.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if this bare assertion is true, it merely means that writers who conform to these pedagogical principles use topic sentences (hyperThemes) more than paragraph summaries (hyperNews).

[2] To be clear, paragraph summaries (hyperNews) are "hard to find" in spoken language. The reader is invited to falsify this claim.

[3] To be clear, if a topic sentence (hyperTheme) is paraphrased by the body of the paragraph and this is paraphrased the paragraph summary (hyperNew), then there is no meaningful distinction between the three in terms of thematicity or newness. But, in any case, an examination of the two texts demonstrates that the three segments in each case are not paraphrases of each other.

More importantly, this has less to do with textual prominence than textual transitions through logico-semantic relations. For example, on this description, the body of a paragraph elaborates the topic sentence (hyperTheme) through (appositive) exemplification, while the paragraph summary (hyperNew) elaborates the body of the paragraph through (clarifying) summation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-6). 

[4] To be clear, anyone trying to surf through waves has misunderstood the notion of surfing, also.

HyperNew: Writing Pedagogy Misrepresented As Linguistic Theory

Martin & Rose (2007: 195):

While hyperThemes predict what each phase of discourse will be about, new information accumulates in each clause as the phase unfolds. In written texts in particular, this accumulation of new information is often distilled in a final sentence, that thus functions as a hyperNew to the phase. HyperThemes tell us where we’re going in a phase; hyperNews tell us where we’ve been.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it misrepresents writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. To be clear, 'hyperNew' is Martin's (1992) rebranding of 'paragraph summary'. The only texts that include a paragraph summary are written texts where the writer conforms to this writing principle.

Misrepresenting HyperTheme And Misunderstanding Field

Martin & Rose (2007: 194):

In many registers, hyperThemes tend to involve evaluation, so that the following text justifies the appraisal, at the same time as it gives us more detail about the field of the hyperTheme (its ‘topic’).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, in almost all registers of language, hyperThemes do not feature at all. The only texts that feature hyperThemes are those that conform to 'topic sentence' principle of writing pedagogy.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the culture as semiotic system. When Martin & Rose use the term 'field', they are usually — as here — referring to the ideational dimension of semantics, even though they misunderstand field as a dimension of register (a sub-potential of language) which they, in turn, misunderstand as context, as documented in great detail here.