Using Writing Pedagogy To Imply Theory Validation

Martin (1992: 129):

Notes ii, iii, iv, v, vi and viii index the text as that of a young writer.  The problems referred to in ii and viii are almost certainly graphological in origin; but the others point to immature use of the IDENTIFICATION system, given the genre (recount of personal experience…) and mode (written — see Chapter 7 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the problem cited in ii is the lack of deixis in I saw Rhinocerous.  As the capitalisation suggests, the writer was unsure as to whether this was a proper name.  On this basis, the problem is thus not "graphological in origin".  On the other hand, the problem cited in viii is the misspelling of 'it' as I.  As the word 'it' is correctly spelt elsewhere, this was clearly a momentary error, rather than an instance of deficient graphological potential.

[2] To be clear, of these four "problems", the only instance that could be regarded as "immature" use of textual reference is the problem cited in vi , wherein the anaphoric reference of it is to feeding instead of 'food'.

Of the remaining three "problems", two are shortcomings in Martin's analysis.  The "problem" cited in iii, and I saw the tiger, is Martin's failure to recognise the anaphoric reference of the to the title at the zoo, and the "problem" cited in iv, and this man was feeding him is the same failure to recognise the anaphoric reference of this to the title at the zoo.

On the other hand, the "problem" cited in v is the switch from he to it in referring to the tiger.  This switch may just reflect the realisation of the female writer that her previous assumption that the tiger is male may be mistaken.  On this basis, the second reference can be seen as self-correction.

∞

In other words, the "problems" cited by Martin cannot be seen as either graphological in origin, or (in all but one case) as 'immature' use of reference (misconstrued as IDENTIFICATION); moreover, two of the "problems" arise only because of Martin's inability to recognise reference relations.

It might also be observed that the focus here on writing pedagogy distracts attention away from the question of the theoretical utility of Martin's IDENTIFICATION system.

Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [9]

Martin (1992: 127, 128):

The nominal groups in [3:1] are listed below. Each is coded for the IDENTIFICATION choices made and the type of reference to the context where these choices are phoric. The analysis will be annotated for purposes of discussion, rather than presented in detail.

NOMINAL GROUP	REFERENCE (terminal features)	RETRIEVAL (where phoric)
I	presuming…interlocutor	anaphoric
a watch	presenting…unmarked	—
it*	—	—

xi. It does not realise a participant; see 3.4.1 below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This again mistakes interpersonal deixis for textual reference. To be clear, only non-interactant (3rd person) pronouns and determiners function as personal reference items, since these alone mark identifiability. The identities of the interactants (1st & 2nd person) are given by their rôles in the speech event (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 606). The confusion is one of metafunction.

[2] As previously explained, Martin's 'presenting' reference is neither reference nor textual; instead, it labels the first instantiation of an experiential participant in a text. The confusion is one of metafunction.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, it does realise a participant, Carrier. 

[4] See the critique of this discussion, 'Participants and nominal groups' (pp129-34), for the misunderstandings on which the preceding claim is made.

Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [8]

Martin (1992: 127, 128):

The nominal groups in [3:1] are listed below. Each is coded for the IDENTIFICATION choices made and the type of reference to the context where these choices are phoric. The analysis will be annotated for purposes of discussion, rather than presented in detail.

NOMINAL GROUP	REFERENCE (terminal features)	RETRIEVAL (where phoric)
a baby gorilla	presenting…unmarked	—
my (mum)*	presuming…interlocutor	anaphoric

viii. My mum, like other nominal groups with a possessive Deictic, realises two participants (see discussion in 3.4.1 below); however the possessive functions as the deixis for the participant it modifies, and so reference and retrieval are coded only once, for my.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, Martin's 'presenting' reference is neither reference nor textual; instead, it labels the first instantiation of an experiential participant in a text. The confusion is one of metafunction.

[2] This again mistakes interpersonal deixis for textual reference. To be clear, only non-interactant (3rd person) pronouns and determiners function as personal reference items, since these alone mark identifiability. The identities of the interactants (1st & 2nd person) are given by their rôles in the speech event (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 606). The confusion is one of metafunction.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, my mum realises one participant, Sayer.  The interpersonal possessive Deictic my indicates the subset of the Thing of the nominal group realising the participant.

[4] See the critique of this discussion, 'Participants and nominal groups' (pp129-34), for the misunderstandings on which the preceding claim is made.

[5] This demonstrates the confusion between interpersonal deixis and textual reference that runs through this entire chapter.  The confusion is one of metafunction.

Text [3:1] — Problems With Martin's 'Semantics Of Reference' Analysis [7]

Martin (1992: 127, 128):

The nominal groups in [3:1] are listed below. Each is coded for the IDENTIFICATION choices made and the type of reference to the context where these choices are phoric. The analysis will be annotated for purposes of discussion, rather than presented in detail.

NOMINAL GROUP	REFERENCE (terminal features)	RETRIEVAL (where phoric)
me	presuming…interlocutor	anaphoric
a gorilla	presenting…unmarked	—
I(t)*	presuming…noninterlocutor	anaphoric

vii. The writer's I is being interpreted as It; few children have baby gorillas, but gorillas commonly do (note the importance of going beyond the experiential meaning of a particular group to reconstruct the reference relation here)!

 Blogger Comments:

[1] This again mistakes interpersonal deixis for textual reference. To be clear, only non-interactant (3rd person) pronouns and determiners function as personal reference items, since these alone mark identifiability. The identities of the interactants (1st & 2nd person) are given by their rôles in the speech event (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 606). The confusion is one of metafunction.

[2] As previously explained, Martin's 'presenting' reference is neither reference nor textual; instead, it labels the first instantiation of an experiential participant in a text. The confusion is one of metafunction.

[3] As previously explained, this is merely Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976: 43-57) personal reference, misunderstood, and relocated from lexicogrammar to his discourse semantic stratum.

[4] Here Martin provides the reasoning he used to discover a (typo)graphical error.