Most Pageviews by Country

Post Titles For Chapter 1 — Discourse Semantics: A Proposal For Triple Articulation

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 1 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. The Aim Of Martin (1992)
2. Confusing Strata
3. Misunderstanding The Natural Relation Of Grammar And Semantics
4. Confusing Realisation And Instantiation
5. Misconstruing Realisation And Instantiation
6. Blurring The Distinction Between Function (Structure) And Form (Rank Scale)
7. Preparing To Argue 'From Below' And Misunderstanding 'Cumulative'
8. Misrepresenting Information Distribution
9. Misrepresenting Agency As A Recursive System
10. Misunderstanding Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
11. Confusing Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
12. Falsely Claiming That The Content Plane Was Not Stratified Before Martin (1992)
13. The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification
14. Grammatical Metaphor As Martin's Second Motivation For Stratifying Content
15. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
16. Self-Contradiction On Modelling Grammatical Metaphor
17. Misrepresenting Cohesion
18. Misrepresenting The Domain Of Cohesion
19. Misconstruing 'Cohesion Within The Sentence'
20. Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion
21. Martin's Claim That Cohesion Is Only "Measured" Between Clause Complexes
22. Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid
23. Martin's Stratification Of The Content Plane
24. Misconstruing Stratification
25. Metafunctional Structure Types In Discourse Semantics
26. Confusing Formal Constituency With Function Structure
27. Misrepresenting Multivariate Structure
28. Misconstruing The Level Of Symbolic Abstraction Of Cohesion
29. Conflating Realisation With Instantiation
30. Inconsistency In Reconstruing Reference As Identification
31. Problems In Construing Cohesive Ties As Identification Structure
32. Problems In Construing Cohesive Ties As Ideation Structure
33. Blurring The Distinction Between Paradigmatic And Syntagmatic Lexical Relations
34. Inconsistencies In The Notion Of 'Discourse Semantic Structure'
35. Discourse Semantic Systems: Metafunctional Inconsistencies
36. Misrepresenting Texture
37. Confusing Stratification With Instantiation: Register And Genre
38. "The Purpose Of These Descriptions Is To Enhance, Not Supplant, Those Offered In Cohesion In English"
39. Martin's Interpersonal Discourse Semantic System Of NEGOTIATION
40. Martin's Textual Discourse Semantic System Of IDENTIFICATION
41. Martin's Logical Discourse Semantic System Of CONJUNCTION
42. Martin's Experiential Discourse Semantic System Of IDEATION
43. Martin On Cohesion, Coherence, Cohesive Harmony And Texture
44. Misconstruing Register As Context

Post Titles For Chapter 2 — Negotiation: Shaping Meaning Through Dialogue

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 2 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Negotiation As The Semantics Of Mood
2. Misrepresenting Halliday On Mood And Misunderstanding Ineffability And Stratification
3. Misrepresenting Stratification
4. Misrepresenting Stratal Relations
5. Confusing Context With Co-Text And Material Setting
6. Using A Textual Grammatical System To Argue For An Interpersonal Semantic System
7. Strategically Misrepresenting The Relation Between Speech Function And Mood
8. Serious Problems With Martin's Mood System
9. Misrepresenting The Realisation Of Speech Function In Mood
10. Trying To Classify Speech Function 'From Below'
11. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Speech Function
12. Using Modality To "Determine" Speech Function
13. Misunderstanding Modality In Responses To WH- Interrogatives
14. Blurring Context And Material Setting 
15. Confusing Semogenesis And Stratification 
16. Misrepresenting Speech Function And Mood
17. Martin's MOOD Network For Clauses Realising SPEECH FUNCTION
18. Misrepresenting The Interpersonal Function Of Independent, Dependent And Embedded Clauses
19. Dependent Clauses, Speech Function And Negotiability
20. Misrepresenting Nonfinite Clauses
21. Greetings and Calls
22. The Line Between Exclamations and Statements
23. Misrepresenting The Potential Of Ellipsis To Negotiate Attitude
24. Misrepresenting Stratification
25. Misrepresenting Speech Function
26. Misunderstanding Stratification And Incongruence
27. Underestimating The Mood Grammar
28. The Inconsistency In Treating Genre As A Connotative Semiotic
29. Confusing Paradigmatic Features With Syntagmatic Structure
30. Misconstruing Metafunctions As Modules
31. Misconstruing Stratification 
32. Misrepresenting Structure, Metafunction And Stratum 
33. Confusing Unmarkedness And Congruence 
34. Martin's Reason Why Discourse Semantic Units Cannot Be Defined As Categorically As Grammatical Units
35. Conflating Content And Expression
36. Martin On Modularity, Realisation And Reddy's Conduit Metaphor
37. Misunderstanding Stratification
38. Martin's Problems With Explicitness

Post Titles For Chapter 3 — Identification: Reference As Semantic Choice

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 3 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Misunderstanding Grammatical Intricacy
2. On Context "Independency"
3. Misunderstanding The Use Of Reference In A Child's Text
4. Confusing Semogenesis With Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
5. Confusing Tracking With Identifying And Misrepresenting English Grammar
6. Confusing Nominal Group Deixis With Cohesive Reference
7. Confusing Nominal Group Deixis With Reference And A Self-Contradiction
8. Confusing Identifiability With Newsworthiness, Deixis And Reader Knowledge
9. Confusing Nominal Groups With Reference Items
10. Confusing Frege's Reference (Bedeutung) With Halliday's Reference
11. Rebranding Co-Reference As Reminding Phoricity
12. Rebranding Comparative Reference As 'Relevance Phoricity'
13. Misconstruing Ellipsis–&–Substitution As Reference And Rebranding It As "Redundancy Phoricity"
14. Rebranding Co-Reference, Comparative Reference And Substitution As Reminding, Relevance And Redundancy Phoricity
15. Misconstruing A Textual Relation (Reference) As A Logical Relation (Dependency)
16. Confusing Semantic Relations (Reference) With Grammatical Relations (Ellipsis–&–Substitution)
17. Misidentifying Both The Reference Item And The Referent
18. Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Cause As Comparative Reference
19. Misconstruing Phonology As Grammatical Ellipsis–&–Substitution Misunderstood As Semantic Reference
20. Misconstruing The Absence Of Reference As "Presenting" Reference
21. Confusing The Referent With The Reference System And Reference With Lexical Cohesion (Hyponymy)
22. Misidentifying Instances Of Reference In A Text
23. Self-Contradiction And Circular Reasoning
24. On Knowledge Of Language As Context
25. Using Pronouns Generically Without Presuming Generic Participants
26. On Adjectives In "Generic Groups" And "Relevance Phoricity"
27. Confusing Nominal Group Deixis With Reference
28. Confusing Reference With Ellipsis And Deixis
29. A Manifestly False Claim
30. Confusing Reference With Misunderstood Deixis
31. Misrepresenting A Misunderstanding Of Deixis As Reference
32. Confusing Experiential Content With Textual Reference
33. Using A Report Of Unseen Data To Support An Unlikely Claim
34. An Invalid Conclusion From An Unlikely Claim
35. Confusing Non-Specific Deixis With Demonstrative Reference
36. Non-Phoric Reference
37. Deploying A Logical Fallacy To Deceive The Reader
38. Confusing Deixis, Reference, New And Theme
39. Misconstruing Non-Specific Deixis As Reference
40. Confusing Deixis With Reference
41. Confusing Identifiability With Identity
42. Mistaking Experiential Identity For Textual Reference
43. Confusing Textual Reference With 'Transcendent' Reference
44. Mistaking Proper Nouns For Common Nouns
45. Misunderstanding The Function Of Personal Reference Items
46. Mistaking The Experiential Construal Of Participants For Textual Reference
47. Misconstruing Experiential Naming And Interpersonal Deixis As Textual Reference
48. Confusing Construing Participants With Reference
49. Misunderstanding And Rebranding Demonstrative And Comparative Reference
50. Mistaking Deixis For Reference
51. Mistaking Numeratives And Epithets For Reference Items
52. Mistaking Experiential Construal For Textual Reference
53. The Oxymoron Of "Undirected" Reference
54. Mistaking The Deictic Function Of Determiners For Their Referential Function
55. Mistaking An Ordinal Numeral For A Superlative Adjective
56. A Misunderstanding Of A Nominal Group And A Misleading Inference
57. Confusing Nominal Group Structure With Non-Structural Reference
58. Deliberately Omitting Falsifying Evidence
59. Rebranding A Misunderstanding Of A Grammatical Opposition As Discourse Semantic
60. Mistaking Experiential For Textual, Grammar For Semantics, And Nominal Groups For Reference Items
61. Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [1]
62. Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [2]
63. Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [3]
64. Misconstruing Nominal Group Modality As Comparative Reference
65. Misconstruing Comparative Reference
66. Some Of The Problems With Martin's Comparison Systems
67. Misconstruing Homophoric Reference As Not Phoric
68. Strategically Confusing Delicacy And Realisation
69. Fig. 3.9 The System Of Identification
70. Strategically Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan (1976: 145)
71. Confusing Ideational Denotation With Textual Reference
72. Confusing Material Setting And Context Of Situation
73. Misunderstanding Homophoric Reference And Context Of Culture
74. Misconstruing Context As Language And Material Setting Instead Of Culture
75. Reasoning 'From Below' Instead Of 'From Above' And A Self-Contradiction
76. Misunderstanding Homophoric Reference As Its Opposite
77. The Inconsistencies Created By Rebranding Structural Cataphora As Esphora
78. Misunderstanding The Interpersonal Function Of Embedding
79. Confusing Immanent Textual Reference With Transcendent Ideational Denotation
80. Confusing Grammatical Reference And Lexical Cohesion
81. Mistaking Ideational Denotation For Textual Reference
82. Reference Without Referents
83. Confusing Ideational Denotation With Textual Reference
84. Confusing Instantiation With The Syntagmatic Axis
85. Text [3.1] — A Reference Analysis
86. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [1]
87. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [2]
88. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [3]
89. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [4]
90. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [5]
91. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [6]
92. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [7]
93. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [8]
94. Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [9]
95. Using Writing Pedagogy To Imply Theory Validation
96. Foreshadowing A Misconstrual Of Stratal Relations
97. Participant–Nominal Group "Incongruence"
98. On 'Structural It' Not Realising A Participant
99. On Nominal Groups In Idioms Not Realising A Participant
100. On Indefinite Nominal Groups Under The Scope Of Negation Not Realising A Participant
101. On Nominal Groups Realising Attributes But Not Realising Participants
102. On Nominal Groups Realising Range (Process) But Not Realising Participants
103. On Nominal Groups Realising Range (Entity) But Not Realising Participants
104. On Nominal Groups In Location Circumstances Not Realising Participants
105. On Nominal Groups In Extent Circumstances Not Realising Participants
106. On Nominal Groups In Role Circumstances Not Realising Participants
107. On "The Problem Of Realising More Than One Participant In A Nominal Group"
108. On Possessive "Pronouns" In Deictic Position
109. On "Whether Possessive Deictics Are The Deixis Of The Participant They Possess"
110. Misconstruing Embedded Things (And An Epithet) As Participants
111. Misconstruing Nominal Group Heads As Participants
112. Confusing Textual Reference With Interpersonal Deixis
113. Strategically Misapplying The Term 'Incongruence'
114. Misunderstanding Grammaticalisation
115. Misinterpreting Substitution-&-Ellipsis As Reference
116. Relating Phoricity Types To Nominal Group Structure
117. Giving Priority To Structure And Form Instead Of System And Function
118. Martin's Argument For Stratifying Identification And Nominal Group Options
119. Confusing Identity With Identifiability
120. Confusing Participant Identity With The Systemic Means Of Referring To Referents
121. Confusing Semogenesis With Stratification
122. A Reference Chain Of Non-Participant And Participant
123. Another Reference Chain Of Non-Participant And Participant
124. Oversimplifying Nominalisation
125. Two Bare Assertions Based On A Logical Confusion
126. "Villified"
127. Misunderstanding Nominalisation And Reference
128. Confusing Ideational Construal With Textual Reference
129. Confusing Metafunctions And Confusing Types Of Cohesion
130. The Notion Of "Grammatical Metaphor Functioning As A Kind Of Discourse Process"
131. Metafunctional Inconsistency
132. Two Theoretical Problems With Reference Chains
133. Mistaking Nominal Groups For Reference Items
134. A Fatal Theoretical Flaw And Misrepresenting Du Bois (1980)
135. Identifying 'The Cat' With 'Her Dinner'
136. Participant Chains Of Non-Participants
137. Reminding Phoricity, Relevance Phoricity And Bridging Clarified
138. Redundancy Phoricity: A System With No Structural Realisation
139. A Misleading Analysis Of "Instantial Reference"
140. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan On Reference
141. The Re-Initiation Of Generic Reference Chains
142. The Analysis Of Text [3:88]: An Attempt To Hide A Theoretical Inconsistency
143. Eight Problems With Martin's Six Notes To His Analysis Of Text [3:88]
144. Eight Problems With Martin's Nine Notes To His Analysis Of Text [3:89]
145. Confusing Circumstances Of Location With Reference Items
146. Mistaking Manner For Extent And Confusing Circumstances With Comparative Reference Items
147. Metafunctional Inconsistencies
148. Some Of The Theoretical Problems With Participant As The Entry Condition To The System Of Identification
149. Misconstruing 'Multivariate' & Metafunctional Inconsistencies
150. Martin's Insight That Interruptions Depend On There Being Something To Interrupt
151. The Commonality Of Reference Structures And Negotiation Structures
152. The Major Limitation On The Account Of Participant Identification

Post Titles For Chapter 4 — Conjunction & Continuity: The Logic Of English Text

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 4 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Why The Argument For A Discourse Semantics Of Logical Relations Is Invalid
2. Underplaying The Scope Of Logical Relations
3. Conflating Systems Of The Logical And Textual Metafunctions
4. Misconstruing Different Systems As Divergent Classifications
5. Misrepresenting Different Manifestations Of Expansion As Indeterminacy
6. Misconstruing Extension As Enhancement
7. Misconstruing the Theoretical Status Of Expansion
8. Presenting Subtypes Of Expansion As The Principal Types
9. Misidentifying A Metafunction
10. Misinterpreting Internal And External Conjunctive Relations
11. Confusing Conjunctive Relations With Conjuncted Messages
12. Confusing Textual Relations With Construals Of Experience
13. Confusing The Logical And Textual Metafunctions And Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement
14. Misconstruing Internal And External Relations
15. Confusing The Logical And Experiential Metafunctions
16. Rebranding Grammar As Discourse Semantics
17. Seeing Metafunctions As Alternatives Rather Than Complementary
18. Confusing Ideational Cause And Interpersonal Modulation
19. Using 'Condition' To Unite 'Cause' And 'Manner' As 'Consequential'
20. Misconstruing Manner As Cause
21. Misconstruing Condition And Purpose As Cause–Effect
22. Misconstruing The Distinction Between Condition And Purpose
23. Misrepresenting Reason As Purpose
24. Misconstruing Negative Vs Positive Condition
25. Misconstruing Negative Vs Positive Purpose
26. Misconstruing Condition And Purpose
27. Confusing Condition With Probability
28. Misconstruing Reason And Result As Purpose
29. Misconstruing Manner As A Cause-Effect Relation
30. Misconstruing A Dependent Clause As A Postmodifier In An Adverbial Group
31. Misconstruing Concession As Manner
32. Misconstruing Adversative Extension As 'Concessive Purpose'
33. Misconstruing Positive Condition As Concessive
34. Confusing Enhancement (Manner: Comparison) With Extension (Adversative Addition)
35. Confusing Dissimilar (Enhancement) With Adversative (Extension)
36. The Argument For Comparison As A Major Logical Category
37. Misconstruing Adversative Addition (Extension) As Manner: Comparison (Enhancement)
38. Misconstruing Subtractive And Replacive Variation (Extension) As Subtypes Of Comparison (Enhancement)
39. Using Clause Simplexes To Theorise Conjunctive Relations
40. Confusing Negative Addition With Negative Polarity
41. Confusing Internal With Cohesive, Similar With Elaboration, Different With Adversative
42. Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Apposition' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'
43. Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Clarification' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'
44. Misconstruing Cohesive As Internal
45. Misconstruing Types Of Elaboration As Types Of Enhancement
46. Confusing (Elaborating) Conjunctive Relations With (Elaborating) Relational Processes
47. Misconstruing Apposition (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)
48. Misconstruing A Modal Adjunct As A Conjunctive Adjunct
49. Misconstruing Summative Clarification (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)
50. Confusing Textual Clarification With The Enactment Of Meaning
51. Misconstruing Textual Clarification As Text Emendation
52. Misconstruing Internal Conjunction
53. Misconstruing Resumptive Clarification As Interrupted Comparison
54. Misconstruing Different Metafunctional Manifestations Of Extension As Subtypes Of Enhancement
55. Misconstruing Elaboration Vs Extension As Internal Enhancement
56. Misconstruing Mixed Types Of Elaboration & Extension As Degrees Of Enhancement
57. Rebranding Grammatical Relations As Discourse Semantic Relations
58. Misconstruing Continuity As Addition
59. Misconstruing Continuity And Clarifying Elaboration As Additive Extension
60. Rebranding Extending Vs Elaborating As Developing Vs Staging
61. Misconstruing Extension As A 'Continuity' Of Additive And Comparative Relations
62. Reconstruing A False Dichotomy As Hyponymy
63. Misconstruing An Interpersonal Concession As A Non-Concessive Logical Relation
64. Mistaking Comment Adjuncts For Conjunctions
65. Confusing Metafunctions — And Expansion Types
66. Misconstruing Types Of Comment Adjuncts As Marking Modality Values Of A Logical Relation
67. Misconstruing Clarification (Elaborating) As Concession (Enhancing)
68. Not Recognising A Genuine Concessive Relation
69. Mistaking A Thematised Mood Adjunct Of Temporality For Internal Temporal Conjunction
70. Misrepresenting Internal Vs External Relations
71. Misconstruing Structural Vs Cohesive As External Vs Internal
72. Misconstruing The Meaning Of Internal Conjunctive Relations
73. Misrepresenting Continuity
74. Conjunction, "Continuity" And Thematicity
75. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [1]
76. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [2]
77. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [3]
78. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [1]
79. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [2]
80. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [3]
81. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [4]
82. Misconstruing The Difference Between Conjunction And Continuity
83. Misconstruing Types Of Adjunct As Types Of Continuity Item
84. Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Continuity Items Of Counterexpectation
85. Misconstruing Interpersonal Counterexpectancy As Logical Continuity
86. Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Aspectual Continuity Markers
87. Misconstruing the Function Of A Mood Adjunct (Misconstrued As A Continuity Item)
88. Misconstruing Substitution As Continuity
89. Misconstruing Residue Substitution As Continuity
90. Misconstruing A Circumstantial Adjunct As A Continuity Item
91. The Omission Of Projection And Hypotactic Elaboration From The Logic Of Discourse Semantics
92. Misconstruing Parataxis As Addition (Extension)
93. Misconstruing An Implicit Conjunctive Relation As Internal
94. Misapplying Logical Nesting To Textual Relations
95. Misapplying Textual Reference To Logical Dependency
96. Misconstruing Circumstantial Comparison As Conjunctive Comparison
97. Criticising Others For Not Making The Same Mistakes
98. Confusing Textual Relations With Logogenesis
99. Maintaining That Clause Simplexes "Cause Problems For The Clause Complex Analysis"
100. Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis
101. Confusing Textual Conjunction With Logical Relations
102. Misrepresenting The Discourse Systems Of Conjunction & Identification
103. Confusing Cohesive Relations With Logogenesis

Post Titles For Chapter 5 — Ideation: The Company Words Keep

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 5 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Misrepresenting The Chapter 4 Model Of Conjunction
2. Misconstruing Context As Register
3. Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Dictionary Definitions
4. Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Thesaurus
5. Misrepresenting The Model Of Transitivity
6. Misconstruing Unassigned vs Assigned As Single vs Double Agency
7. Misrepresenting 'Semiotic'
8. Misrepresenting The Directions Of Coding And Mistaking A Verbal Projection Nexus For An Identifying Clause
9. Falsely Claiming To Have Uniquely Classified Two Lexical Items
10. Misconstruing The Agency Of Identifying Clauses
11. Lexical Cohesion Update
12. Confusing Textual Cohesion With Experiential Delicacy
13. Relocating Lexis Outside Language
14. Misconstruing Semantics As Context
15. Inconsistencies Of Structure And Metafunction
16. Misconstruing The Difference Between Lexical Item And Grammatical Word
17. Confusing Register (Language) With Context (Culture)
18. Confusing Context With Semantics
19. Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]
20. Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [2]
21. Misconstruing Experiential As Constituent Of Logical
22. Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics
23. Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent
24. Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar
25. Misrepresenting Superordination (Hyponymy)
26. Misconstruing Field As Language
27. Misconstruing Meronymy As Hyponymy
28. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Hyp(er)onymy
29. Misconstruing Synonymy
30. Confusing Lexis With Grammar
31. Misconstruing Antonymy
32. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [1]
33. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [2]
34. Misconstruing Location (Enhancement) As Possession (Extension)
35. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [3]
36. Misconstruing Synonymy + Collocation As Relational Meronymy
37. Confusing Lexical Cohesion And Reference
38. Misrepresenting Hyponymy As Bridging Hyponymy
39. Misrepresenting Meronymy As Bridging Meronymy
40. An Unwarranted Claim About the System Of Identification
41. Misconstruing Ranges As Mediums
42. Confusing Collocation With Transitivity
43. Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [1]
44. Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [2]
45. Misconstruing Expansion Relations Realised In The Nominal Group
46. Misrepresenting Ranges As Mediums
47. Misconstruing Enhancing Circumstances As Elaborating Ranges
48. Misconstruing Enhancement (Cause) As Elaboration
49. Misconstruing Extension (Composition) As Elaboration
50. Misconstruing Extension (Possession) As Elaboration
51. Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement
52. Misrepresenting Elaboration
53. Misconstruing Enhancement & Projection As Extension
54. Misconstruing Elaboration As Extension
55. Reducing All Verbal Group Complex Relations To Extension
56. Relocating A Subset Of Manner Circumstances To The Verbal Group
57. Reclassifying Function According To Form
58. Misconstruing Projection As Enhancement
59. Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Elaboration As Extension
60. Classifying Expansion Type On The Basis Of Form
61. Presenting Theoretical Misunderstandings As An 'Alternative Perspective'
62. Misconstruing Experiential Nuclearity As Logical Expansion Type
63. Misunderstanding 'Instantiate'
64. Misconstruing Elaboration As Extension And Extension As Elaboration
65. Misconstruing Logical Relations As Interpersonal Enactments
66. Confusing Metafunctions And Confusing Context With Semantics
67. Misconstruing Extension As Enhancement
68. Confusing Implication, Cause And Modulation
69. Misconstruing Ideational Semantics As Field
70. Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions
71. Self-Contradiction And Misunderstanding Stratification
72. No Identifiable Discourse Semantic Unit Realised By Clause Complexes
73. The Avoidance Of Experiential Meaning In Discourse Semantics
74. Using Ideational Labels For Textual Units And Vice Versa
75. Misconstruing Incongruent Realisations And Expansion Types
76. Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration And General As Instantial
77. Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
78. Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions
79. Claiming The Verb 'Stand' Is A Repetition Of The Verb 'Tabled'
80. Claiming That Analysing A Text Can Alter The Mode Of The Text
81. Structural & Metafunctional Inconsistencies
82. Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration
83. Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
84. Misconstruing Mode As Genre
85. Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause
86. Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension
87. Misconstruing Mode As Genre
88. Misconstruing Context As Register
89. Misidentifying The Main Differences Between Martin And Hasan
90. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor & Neglecting Interstratal Accountability
91. Misidentifying Transitivity Rôles And Expansion Types
92. A Summary Of Discourse Systems Inconsistencies
93. Misconstruing Instantial Probabilities As Structural Relations
94. Construing A Scale From Hyponym To Ellipsis (Via Word Classes)
95. A Convoluted Non-Sequitur
96. Misconstruing Instantiation Probability As The Opposite Of Anaphoric Reference
97. Three Minor Clarifications
98. Confusing Three Distinct Notions Of "Predicting" Discourse
99. Claiming That Conjunctive Relations Are Realised By Nouns
100. Multiplying A Misunderstanding Of The External Vs Internal Distinction
101. Misrepresenting Field And Misconstruing Interstratal Realisation
102. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Material'
103. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Come To Be'
104. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Reconstitutes B'
105. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Is A Metaphor For B'
106. Self-Contradiction
107. Misrepresenting Interstratal Relations

Post Titles For Chapter 6 — Texture: Interleaving Discourse Semantics, Lexicogrammar And Phonology

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 6 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
2. Misrepresenting Inconsistency As Consistency
3. Misconstruing Collocation And Interstratal Relations
4. Misconstruing Substitution–&–Ellipsis
5. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan
6. Misconstruing Stratification And Grammatical Metaphor
7. Resorting To A Misconstrual of Stratification
8. Misconstruing Cataphoric Reference
9. Misconstruing Stratification
10. Misconstruing Textual Grammar As "Redounding With" Interpersonal And Experiential Semantics
11. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan And Confusing Metafunctions
12. Misrepresenting Interstratal Realisation, Grammatical Metaphor & Register
13. Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules
14. Misrepresenting Realisation And Preselection
15. Misunderstanding Stratification
16. Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation And Instantiation
17. Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal
18. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
19. Misrepresenting Halliday On The Stratification Of Content
20. Misunderstanding The Principles Of Metafunction And Stratification
21. Misunderstanding The Textual Metafunction And Misrepresenting Context As Register
22. Misrepresenting Tenor As A 'Register Variable'
23. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Ideation
24. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Identification
25. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Conjunction
26. Ideational Metaphor And Mode
27. Misconstruing Non-Structural Cohesion As Discourse Structure
28. Misconstruing Types Of Language As More Abstract Than Language
29. Misconstruing Contextual Systems And 'Text Forming Resources'
30. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
31. Taking A Monostratal Approach To Grammatical Metaphor
32. Mistaking Ideational Metaphor For Metaphor
33. Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor
34. Claiming That Location Circumstances Realise Relations Between Clauses
35. Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor As An Interaction Of Logical & Experiential Metaphors
36. Reducing Expansion To Conjunctive Relations
37. Misconstruing Ideational Metaphor
38. Misrepresenting Internal Conjunctive Relations
39. Misconstruing Experiential Manifestations Of Expansion As Logical Metaphor
40. Under-Representing The Scope Of Ideational Metaphor
41. Misconstruing Technical Terms As Grammatical Metaphors
42. Reducing Ideational Metaphor To The Transcategorisation Of Elements
43. Confusing Logogenesis With Text Analysis & Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
44. Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
45. Misconstruing Modal Adjuncts As Interpersonal Metaphor
46. Misconstruing Congruent Obligation As Metaphorical Inclination
47. Misconstruing Metaphors Of Mood
48. Misrepresenting Metaphors Of Mood
49. On The Ineffability Of Interpersonal Texturing
50. Misrepresenting (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
51. Confusing Metalanguage And Language
52. Misunderstanding (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
53. Problems With The Argument For "Textual" Metaphor
54. The Confused Notion Of "Logically Oriented Textual Metaphor"
55. The Confused Notion Of "Interpersonally Oriented Textual Metaphor"
56. Misunderstanding The Trinocular Perspective And Misconstruing Context As Register
57. Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony
58. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion
59. “One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique”
60. Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Misidentifying Metaphor
61. The Problem Of Overlapping Lexical Strings And Reference Chains
62. Misrepresenting Hasan's Cohesive Harmony
63. Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
64. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
65. Misrepresenting Information Structure
66. The Origin Of 'Method Of Development': Peter Fries
67. Misconstruing Marked Topical Theme
68. Adjusting The Data To Fit The Theory
69. Misunderstanding Internal Conjunction
70. Problems With The Argument For Hyper-Theme
71. Misconstruing A Graphological Unit As Semantic
72. Intuiting Others' Assessments of Coherence
73. Falsifying Data: Misrepresenting An Interview Transcript As A Writing Exercise
74. Questions “Predicting” Answers
75. Locating Graphological Units 'Above' A Grammatical Unit
76. Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
77. Misrepresenting Halliday On 'Theme'
78. Assigning A Text To The Wrong “Genre” (Register)
79. A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises
80. Misconstruing Theme Selection As An Interpersonal Resource
81. Misconstruing Stratification, Metafunction And Metaphor
82. Confusing The Textual And Interpersonal Metafunctions
83. Misrepresenting Phonology
84. Misrepresenting Textual Analysis
85. Misinterpreting Theme And New
86. Failing To Model (Or Notice) The Interplay Of New And (Marked) Theme
87. Not Accounting For A Distinctive Mode Of Development
88. Misrepresenting New Information
89. Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New
90. Misidentifying New Information
91. When New Information Isn't — But Repeated Information Is
92. Confusing Textual Phase With Textual Status
93. Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
94. Presenting Prescription As Theoretical Description
95. When An Abstract Is A Summary And A Summary Is An Introduction
96. Misconstruing A Grammatical Reference Item As An Accumulation Of New Information
97. Not Understanding Interstratal Realisation
98. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility (Semiotic Order) As Social Responsibility (Material Order)
99. Misconstruing Subject And Theme
100. Confusing Metafunctions And Axes
101. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility In Terms Of Exchange Resolution
102. Confusing Subject With Validity
103. Misunderstanding The Metafunctions
104. Blurring Metafunctions
105. Misconstruing Semiotic Validity As Social Success
106. Confusing Metafunctions, Misunderstanding Modal Responsibility And Misinterpreting Data
107. The Argument That "Verbal Processes Are Fundamentally Metaphorical In Nature"
108. Using Embedding To Argue About Hypotaxis
109. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility As Speaker At Risk
110. Using A Middle Clause To Illustrate Agency
111. Misconstruing Strata As Modules
112. A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6
113. Misrepresenting Cohesive Harmony
114. Rhapsodising On Method Of Development
115. Rhapsodising On Point
116. Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point
117. Rhapsodising On Modal Responsibility
118. Using Allegory To Misrepresent The Rôle Of Mood And Residue In Modal Responsibility
119. Rhapsodising On Grammatical Metaphor
120. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
121. Using Metaphor To Misrepresent Grammatical Metaphor
122. Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Post Titles For Chapter 7 — Context: Register, Genre And Ideology

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 7 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Misunderstanding Metafunctions
2. Confusing Orders Of Experience
3. The Invalidity Of The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata
4. Theoretical Inconsistencies In Modelling Genre And Register As Context Strata
5. The Invalidity Of The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology
6. Inconsistent Claims About Discourse Semantics, Register, Genre And Ideology
7. Misrepresenting Firth On Context
8. Misrepresenting Halliday On Formal And Contextual Meaning
9. Misunderstanding Stratification And Context
10. Purpose, Genre And Register
11. Confusing Context With Semantics
12. Confusing Context With Text Type
13. Self-Contradiction
14. Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context
15. Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context
16. Assigning Purpose To Theoretical Dimensions
17. Misrepresenting Purpose And Intention
18. Confusing Text Type (Genre) With Text Structure (Semantics)
19. Misrepresenting Previous Work On Text Structure And Context
20. Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure
21. Inverting The Stratification Hierarchy
22. Misunderstanding Stratification And Realisation
23. Confusing Context (And Semantics) With Text Type
24. Problems With 'Genre As A Pattern Of Register Patterns'
25. Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum
26. Two Problems With The Second Justification For A Genre Stratum
27. Eight Problems With The Third Justification For A Genre Stratum
28. Two Problems With The Fourth Justification For A Genre Stratum
29. Two Problems With The Fifth Justification For A Genre Stratum
30. Misidentifying Metafunctions
31. Misrepresenting Mode
32. Misconstruing A Dialogic Response As Monologue
33. Misunderstanding Mode
34. Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source
35. Blurring Distinctions
36. Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'
37. Misunderstanding Orders Of Experience
38. Confusing Material Order Phenomena With Textual Semiosis
39. Confusing Context Potential (Mode) With Language Sub-Potentials (Registers)
40. Multiple Violations Of Theoretical Dimensions
41. Redefining Genre As Field
42. Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source
43. Confusing Contextual Potential With Semantic Sub-potentials
44. Miscategorising Texts By Mode
45. Miscategorising Text Types
46. Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Hortatory And Analytical Exposition
47. Misconstruing Degrees Of Abstraction
48. Confusing Mode (Context) With The Ideational Semantics Of Registers
49. Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
50. Misrepresenting Abstraction
51. Confusing Mode Potential (Context) With Text Types (Register)
52. Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
53. Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
54. Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction
55. Confusing Different Strata, Metafunctions & Orders Of Experience
56. Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive
57. Misconstruing Lower And Higher Orders Of Experience As Higher & Lower Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
58. Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
59. Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
60. Misconstruing Field As Mode
61. Misconstruing The Notion Of Projection
62. Misconstruing Mode
63. Misconstruing Dialogue As Unprojected
64. The Non-Argument For 'Experiential Distance'
65. Misunderstanding Tenor
66. Misconstruing Context Potential (Tenor) As Language Sub-Potential (Register)
67. Blurring The Distinction Between Tenor (Context) And Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
68. Misattributing A Source
69. Three Minor Clarifications
70. Confusing Context Potential With The Semantics Of Registers
71. Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"
72. Misconstruing Status As Control
73. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Phonology
74. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammar
75. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Lexis
76. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Discourse Semantics
77. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammatical Metaphor
78. Misconstruing The Realisation Of Tenor
79. Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field
80. Metafunctional Confusion And A Non-Sequitur
81. Confusing Instantiation With Axial And Stratal Realisation
82. Misrepresenting Field As Discourse Semantics
83. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tone
84. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonality
85. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonicity
86. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & “Phonology”
87. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammar
88. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Lexis
89. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics
90. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor
91. Unsupported Claims About Affect
92. Misconstruing Relations Between Speakers As Individual Predisposition
93. Confusing Affect With Affection
94. Mental vs Relational vs Material Affection
95. Misconstruing Affect With Unsupported Claims
96. Misconstruing A Tenor Relation As The Behaviours And Predispositions Of Individuals
97. Blurring The Distinction Between Context And Semantics
98. Inconsistent Unsupported Claims About The Realisation Of Misconstrued Affect
99. Invoking Clinical And Social Psychology
100. Confusing Field With The Language That Realises It
101. Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation, Logogenesis And Instantiation
102. Misrepresenting Data & Confusing Strata
103. Confusing Context With Extra-Linguistic Knowledge, Register And Semantics
104. Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Fabula And Syuzhet
105. Misconstruing Barthes' 'Sequence' As Field
106. Not Acknowledging Barthes As Intellectual Source
107. Misrepresenting Barthes
108. Misrepresenting Barthes And Confusing Material & Semiotic Orders Of Experience
109. Confusing Composition And Superordination
110. Why Chomskyan Linguistics Has Power
111. Misconstruing Mode As Field
112. Misconstruing Behaviour As A Register Of Language
113. A False Dichotomy
114. Confusing Field And Language
115. Confusing Orders Of Experience
116. Misconstruing Field Taxonomies As Classifications Of Personnel & Semiotic Objects
117. Confusing Experience With Construals Of Experience
118. Metafunctional Inconsistency
119. Internal Inconsistency
120. Some Of The Problems With Register and Genre As Semiotic Planes
121. Misconstruing Activity Sequence (Semantics) As Field And Schematic Structure (Semantics) As Genre
122. Confusing First And Second Orders Of Experience
123. Inferring Invalidly From Misconstruals Of Semantic Structure As Field And Genre
124. The Reason For Separating Field And Genre
125. Misinterpreting Pike
126. Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies
127. The Question Of Whether Systematising Generic Structure Potentials Leads Directly To A Two Plane Model Of Register And Genre
128. Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential
129. Prioritising Structure Over System
130. Misrepresenting The Prosodic Mode Of Realisation
131. Distinguishing Interpersonal Meaning From Evaluation
132. Misconstruing Prosody
133. Confusing Text Type With Text Structure
134. Misrepresenting Halliday
135. A Transparently False Claim
136. Misunderstanding Stratal Relations And Confusing Text Type (Genre) With System (Potential)
137. Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)
138. Misrepresenting Longacre
139. Martin's Reason Why Field, Tenor & Mode Are Insufficient To Classify Genres
140. Misconstruing Semantics As Context And Misidentifying Metafunctions
141. Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions
142. Misconstruing Semantics (Activity Sequence) As Context (Field)
143. Not Classifying Text Types From Above
144. Classifying Text Types From Semantics Instead Of Context
145. Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials As Constituting Context Potential
146. Weaving An Illogical Argument Around A Misinterpretation Of Halliday
147. Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems
148. Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's
149. Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre
150. Misconstruing A Higher Order Of Experience As A Lower Level Of Symbolic Abstraction
151. Misconstruing One Mode System As Register And Another As Genre
152. Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field
153. Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
154. Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Hasan's
155. Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True
156. Misunderstanding Realisation
157. Misrepresenting Martin (1992)
158. Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process
159. Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre
160. Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level
161. Ignoring Halliday's Caution Against Premature Articulation
162. Preparing To Misconstrue Bernstein's Codes As Ideology
163. Misrepresenting Hasan
164. Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin
165. Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Ideology Systems
166. Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology
167. Discursive Power And The Evolutionarily Necessary Resolution Of Semiotic Tension Through Dynamic Openness
168. Confusing Linguistic Variabilty With Contextual Tension
169. Misunderstanding System Architecture And Dynamics
170. Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems
171. Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
172. Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy
173. Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Martin (1992: 587):

So — texts are coherent, cultures are not.  Where does this leave linguistics which is articulated as a form of social action?

Clearly one important job, which has already begun […] lies in deconstructing the naturalisation process.  Systemic functional linguistics has always adressed [sic] this concern, and English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory was undertaken with this goal explicitly in mind.  What seems crucial here is a model which displays the way in which language inflects and is inflected by contextual systems; one model of this kind has been provided.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated by the reasoned arguments in the 550+ analyses on this website, English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory proceeds from multiple misunderstandings of SFL theory — misunderstandings so fundamental and pervasive that they undermine the validity of the work as theory.  In an intelligent, informed academic community that values reason and intellectual integrity, this would be a serious problem.

[2] The relation between language and context is precisely defined in SFL theory as realisation.  This is the relation of intensive identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] The contextual model that has been provided confuses context (the culture that is realised by language) with sub-potentials of language itself (registers/genres).  The confusion is along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy

Martin (1992: 586):

Beyond this studies are needed on the inter-relationships between affect and morality (between ATTITUDE and MODULATION to put this grammatically): I like/dislike clearly conditions you should/shouldn't in ways that have been barely broached (see Martin 1992a).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that

• the relation between affect (a neutral or charged tenor relation between interlocutors) and morality (principles of right and wrong) 
• can be described as 
• the grammatical relation between attitude (positive or negative evaluation) and modulation (obligation and inclination).

[2] The claim here is that the giving of information conditions the demanding of goods-&-services:

• propositions that are realised by declaratives of the form I like/dislike
• condition
• proposals that are realised by declaratives of the form you should/shouldn't.

In philosophy, the claim that an "ought" (prescription) can be derived from an "is" (description) is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy (G.E. Moore); see also Hume's Law/Guillotine.

In SFL theory, the mental processes that relate to modulation are not those of emotion (I like), but those of desideration (I would like).  This is because desiderative processes project proposals and can serve as interpersonal metaphors of modulation, as in I would like you to finish this by tomorrow.

Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)

Martin  (1992: 586):

… it demonstrates that […] the coding orientations associated with class, gender, ethnicity and generation focus attitudes in systematic ways.  Affect is in other words ideologically addressed (see Martin 1986 on the orientation of attitude in ecological debates) and exploring this projection of interpersonal meaning is an important dimension of semiotic space.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of Bernstein's coding orientation as ideology.

[2] This continues the confusion of affect, as a dimension of tenor (context stratum), with affect as interpersonal meaning (semantics stratum). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33) refer to the contextual system as 'sociometric rôles'.

[3] This stratal confusion is aided by the blurring of two distinct meanings of 'projection':

• tenor as the theoretical "projection" of the interpersonal metafunction onto the context stratum;
• interpersonal meaning as the verbal projection of speakers.

[4] Trivially, 'exploring' is not a dimension.

exploring this projection of interpersonal meaning	is	an important dimension of semiotic space
Identified / Token	Process	Identifier / Value

Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems

Martin (1992: 585):

Martin 1986 introduces the term contratextuality for texts which directly oppose each other from different positions and this idea has been extended in delicacy by Lemke (1988: 48).  Contratextuality is critically related to semogenesis in ways that are only beginning to be investigated (for a revealing study of the semiotic subversion of genre fiction by feminist writers see Cranny-Francis 1990) and it is probable that work in this area will be among the first to shed light on the vexing question of how text renovates system as dynamic open systems evolve, thereby affirming their metastability.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the semogenesis to which contratextuality is related involves three related processes:

• logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text;
• ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual; and
• phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.

[2]  To be clear, on the SFL model, the relation between text and system is instantiation.  In this view, language is a probabilistic system and it is differences in probabilities that define register variation (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 552-6).  Probabilities in the system are manifested as frequencies in the text, and the frequencies in each text minutely nudge the probabilities in the system up or down.