Confusing Linguistic Variabilty With Contextual Tension

Martin (1992: 581-2):

As noted with respect to text [7:5] above, variable realisation implies in a sense that all texts are multi-voiced. There is in other words a certain tension in the system, which manifests itself in semiotic processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This involves two dimensions of confusion, as previously identified here.  Martin claimed that, because one mother's coding orientation was variably realised linguistically, she had 'more than one voice' in the conversation, and this was falsely equated with being dialogic in the Bakhtinian sense.

[2] There are two additional dimensions of confusion here — variability with tension, and language with context — since variability in the language realising context (one coding orientation) is misconstrued as tension in the context itself (misconstrued as ideology).

Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin

Martin (1992: 580):

[7.5]	Mother:	Don’t do that…Now look, you’ll get it all over me
	Peter:	(Laughs)
	Mother:	It’s not funny.  What’s funny about that? You do it again and I’ll whack you.

As Cloran points out this example nicely illustrates the variable nature of semantic styles as tendencies, not rules; the mother in 7:5 appeals to both an inherent consequence (You'll get it all over me) and a threat (I'll whack you) to control her son (the text is in Bakhtin's terms, dialogic — it realises more than one voice; his dialogism can thus be seen as a natural implication of any text based on semantic variation).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses variability in the linguistic realisation (semantic style) of one coding orientation with the different linguistic realisations (semantic variation) of different coding orientations.  The notion of a text as "based on" semantic variation derives from this misunderstanding.

[2] Martin's claim here is that because the mother uses two different linguistic realisations of her coding orientation to control her son's behaviour, the text realises more than one voice, and that this makes it dialogic in Bakhtin's terms.  This misunderstands the terms 'voice' and 'dialogic', as formulated by Bakhtin. The glossary provided in Bakhtin (1981: 434, 428, 426) clarifies the distinction between them, and how they differ from heteroglossia:

VOICE
This is the speaking personality, the speaking consciousness. A voice always has a will or desire behind it, its own timbre and overtones. Single-voiced discourse is the dream of poets; double-voiced discourse the realm of the novel. At several points Bakhtin illustrates the difference between these categories by moving language-units from one plane to the other — for example, shifting a trope from the plane of poetry to the plane of prose: both poetic and prose tropes are ambiguous [literally "double-meaninged"] but a poetic trope, while meaning more than one thing, is always only single-voiced. Prose tropes by contrast always contain more than one voice, and are therefore dialogised.

HETEROGLOSSIA
The base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance. It is that which insures the primacy of context over text. At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions — social, historical, meteorological, physiological — that will insure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions; all utterances are heteroglot in that they are functions of a matrix of forces practically impossible to recoup, and therefore impossible to resolve. Heteroglossia is as close a conceptualisation as is possible of that locus where centripetal and centrifugal forces collide; as such, it is that which a systematic linguistics must always suppress.

DIALOGISM
Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole — there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of heteroglossia, and thus dialogism.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre

Martin (1992: 575):

The register and genre theory reviewed and developed above represents systemic theory's attempts to model heteroglossia and dialogism; it does this by formulating register and genre as social semiotic systems realised through text, thereby providing an account not simply of how one text relates to another (cohesion across products) but in addition of how one text relates to all the texts that might have been (product in relation to system). …

The interpretation does however need to be qualified in two important respects — namely heterogeneity and semogensis [sic] (i.e. semiotic change). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading.  Firstly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not represent systemic theory's attempts.  On the contrary, it is inconsistent with SFL theory, and represents Martin's attempts only.  Secondly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not model heteroglossia and dialogism.  On the contrary, what is claimed bears little or no relation to heteroglossia and dialogism; see further below.

[2] This is inconsistent, both with Martin's model and with SFL theory.

In terms of Martin's stratification model, register and genre systems are realised by the systems of language, not by text.  In this, Martin confuses the system and instance poles of the cline of instantiation.

In terms of SFL theory, it involves two confusions.  Firstly, the notion of register and genre systems confuses a midway point of variation on the cline of instantiation (register/genre/text type) with the system pole of the cline.  Secondly, it misconstrues the relation between system and text as realisation instead of instantiation.  (This in addition to the inconsistencies entailed by modelling varieties of language as context rather than language.)

[3] This is misleading in terms of both register and genre.  In terms of register, any chance of providing an account how one text relates to another is undermined by Martin's numerous misinterpretations of field, tenor and mode systems, as demonstrated in many previous posts.  In terms of genre, Martin merely provides two simple taxonomies of factual and story genres (text types).  Martin nowhere presents any account of how his formulation of register and genre relates one individual text to another.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesion is not a relation between 'products' (texts).

[5] This is the opposite of what is true.  This is precisely what Martin's model does not do.  In SFL theory, the relation of texts to text potential — of instances to system — is modelled as the cline of instantiation.  Martin's model is inconsistent with the cline of instantiation, due to the fact that it misconstrues the midway point on the cline (register/genre), not as language, but as systems of context, and as such, as higher levels of symbolic abstraction than language.  This follows from not understanding either stratification or instantiation, as demonstrated many times in previous posts.

[6] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 18) identify three types of semogenic 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.

Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process

Martin (1992: 574-5):

Like Firth, Bakhtin was interested in the heterogeneous nature of speech communities (for which he developed the notion of heteroglossia); and like Firth he saw this heterogeneity manifested in all texts (for which he developed the notion of dialogism*, using the metaphor of dialogue to capture the sense in which different voices converse as texture).

* Endnote #30 (p590):

The distinction between heteroglossia and dialogism in Bakhtin's writing is unclear; here heteroglossia is associated with system and dialogism with process.  Bakhtin himself however did not work with the Hjelmslevian notion of system and process, and was unlikely to have developed an opposition of this kind in light of his objections to Saussure's opposition of langue and parole.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Bakhtin and misunderstands his notion of heteroglossia.  According to the glossary in Bakhtin (1981: 428), 'heteroglossia' is the notion that the same wording has different meanings according to context:

The base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance. It is that which insures the primacy of context over text. At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions — social, historical, meteorological, physiological — that will insure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions; all utterances are heteroglot in that they are functions of a matrix of forces practically impossible to recoup, and therefore impossible to resolve. Heteroglossia is as close a conceptualisation as is possible of that locus where centripetal and centrifugal forces collide; as such, it is that which a systematic linguistics must always suppress.

[2] This misrepresents Bakhtin and misunderstands his notion of dialogism.  According to the glossary in Bakhtin (1981: 426), 'dialogism' is the notion that all utterances are made in the context of other utterances, with which they interact:

Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole — there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of heteroglossia, and thus dialogism.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, texture is the property of being a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 2).

[4] The distinction between heteroglossia and dialogism in Bakhtin's writing is made clear by an appended glossary (Bakhtin (1981: 423-34).

[5] Here Martin maps his misunderstanding of heteroglossia onto the SFL notion of system, and his misunderstanding of dialogism onto the SFL notion of process.  Further complexity is added to these misunderstandings and inconsistencies when it is remembered that Martin has throughout misinterpreted the SFL notion of process — the instantiation of the system in the instance — as the axial realisation of system in structure, as demonstrated in previous posts.

[6] Bakhtin would not have associated heteroglossia with system and dialogism with process because such a mapping is wildly inconsistent with each pair of oppositions.

Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'

Martin (1992: 513):

This dialogic* perspective on writing is outlined in Fig. 7.7.

*Endnote #13 (p589):

Dialogic is used here in opposition to monologic referring to the extent to which the text involves turn-taking.  This is not to be confused with Bakhtin's use of the term to refer to texts as heteroglossic, weaving together several discourses.

Blogger Comment:

This misunderstands Bakhtin's terms 'dialogic' and 'heteroglossic'.  The glossary provided in Bakhtin (1981: 428, 426) clarifies each term and the distinction between them:

HETEROGLOSSIA
The base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance. It is that which insures the primacy of context over text. At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions — social, historical, meteorological, physiological — that will insure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions; all utterances are heteroglot in that they are functions of a matrix of forces practically impossible to recoup, and therefore impossible to resolve. Heteroglossia is as close a conceptualisation as is possible of that locus where centripetal and centrifugal forces collide; as such, it is that which a systematic linguistics must always suppress.

DIALOGISM
Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole — there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of heteroglossia, and thus dialogism.

Confusing Context With Text Type

Martin (1992: 501):

Overall it would appear that "rhetorical purpose" is the wild card in contextual description, being variously categorised under field (Halliday 1965), tenor (Gregory 1967), mode (Halliday 1978, 1985/1989) and as a separate contextual variable in its own right (Firth 1950 — effects, Ure & Ellis 1977 — rôle, Fawcett 1980 — pragmatic purpose). The main reason for this is that purpose is difficult to associate with any one metafunctional component of the lexicogrammar or discourse semantics.  The effect of a text is the result of all components of its meaning.  This makes associating the notion of rhetorical purpose with Bakhtin's more global notion of speech genres an attractive one (cf. Gregory 1982).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The introduction of the word 'purpose' here is misleading.  It is falsely presented as a common feature of the various models of context, despite it being restricted to just one (Fawcett 1980).  This unwarranted fudge invalidates Martin's argument.

[2] Here purpose is not distinguished from effect.  This confuses two types of cause: purpose and result.  The meaning of purpose is 'because intention Q, so action P', whereas the meaning of result is 'because P so result Q'.  This confusion also invalidates Martin's argument.

[3] Martin's main confusion here is between mode, the rôle played by language, and genre a type of text.  This is a confusion of stratification (mode is a dimension of the context stratum) with instantiation (a genre is a subpotential of language).  The confusion arises from not distinguishing text types from the contextual features — such as mode: narrative — by which they are identified.

Why The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology Is Invalid

Martin (1992: 495-6):

Any configuration of this kind then needs to be qualified with respect to cultural diversity (cf. dialogism and heteroglossia in Bakhtin 1981).  Clearly, meaning potential is not evenly distributed across a culture (any more than material resources are).  Access to genre, register and language as semiotic resources is mediated through discourses of ethnicity, class, gender and generation, which discourses are in a continual process of negotiation with each other.  Not only is this process of negotiation manifest in all text, but it functions as well as the source of semogenesis, both contextual and linguistic.  It is for this reason that a fourth communicative plane, ideology, will be articulated here, with genre, and hence register and language as its expression form.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, genres/registers are types of language, not distinct semiotic modes.

[2] This is manifestly untrue.  The negotiation between "discourses of ethnicity, class, gender and generation" that "mediates access" to semiotic resources is a feature of only some registers of language.  Consider, for example, texts like the following:

There once was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light
She set out one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.

[3] The claim here is that the negotiation between "discourses of ethnicity, class, gender and generation" that "mediates access" to semiotic resources is a source of semogenesis.  This misunderstands semogenesis.  In SFL theory, the logogenesis of all texts 'provides material for' ontogenesis, which 'provides material for' phylogenesis (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 18).

[4] The claim here is that, because the negotiation between "discourses of ethnicity, class, gender and generation" that "mediates access" to semiotic resources is a source of semogenesis, it motivates a more abstract level of context, above genre, termed ideology.  That is:

• because logogenesis 'provides material for' ontogenesis (and ontogenesis for phylogenesis),
• ideology can be modelled as a level of symbolic abstraction within context.

In logic, this is known as a non sequitur.  Semogenetic relations are distinct from — and so do not motivate — higher levels of symbolic abstraction.  This continues the confusion of semogenesis with stratification and the misconstrual of strata as modules.

In SFL theory, the ideologies of a culture are simply modelled within context, whereas the language that realises ideologies is, in the first instance, the concern of semantics.

Why The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata Is Invalid

Martin (1992: 494-5):

Halliday's intrinsic theory of language function is thus projected onto context as an extrinsic theory of language use.  The realisation relationship between context and language is treated as a symbolic one, with language a metaphor for social reality at the same time as social reality is a metaphor for language. … 

Seen from the perspective of culture on the other hand, context can be alternatively interpreted as a system of social processes.  This for example is the perspective that underlies much of Bakhtin's writing on genre.  While acknowledging metafunctional diversity in terms strikingly similar to those developed by Halliday, Bakhtin places emphasis as well on the integration of these meanings as speech genres which evolve and differentiate themselves in different spheres of human activity.  This more "wholistic" perspective on text-type Bakhtin (1986 [1953]: 60) constructs as follows …

All the diverse areas of human activity involve the use of language.  Quite understandably, the nature of forms of this use are just as diverse as are the areas of human activity…Language is realised in the form of individual concrete utterances (oral and written) by participants in various areas of human activity.  The utterances reflect the specific conditions and goals of each such area not only through their content (thematic) and linguistic style, that is the selection of the lexical, phraseological, and grammatical resources of the language, but above all through their compositional structure.  All three of these aspects — thematic content, style, and compositional structure — are inseparably linked to the whole of the utterance and are equally determined by the specific nature of the particular sphere of communication.  Each separate utterance is individual, of course, but each sphere in which language is used develops its own relatively stable types of these utterances.  These may well be called speech genres.

The tension between these two perspectives will be resolved in this chapter by including in the interpretation of context two communication planes, genre (context of culture) and register (context of situation), with register functioning as the expression form of genre, at the same time as language functions as the expression form of register.  Register can then itself be organised with respect to field, tenor and mode, reflecting metafunctional diversity in its expression form, leaving genre to concentrate on the integration of meanings engendered by field, tenor and mode as systemically related social processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] See previous post for a critique of this misunderstanding.

[2] This is misleading. Bakhtin's 'conditions and goals of areas of human activity' corresponds to Halliday's contextual dimensions of field and rhetorical mode.

[3] Like Bakhtin, Halliday also "places emphasis as well on the integration of these meanings as speech genres which evolve and differentiate themselves in different spheres of human activity".  The difference is one of terminology: Halliday calls speech genres text types (instance pole perspective), or registers (system pole perspective).

[4] Given the above, this claim is as valid as the use of the word "wholistic" for 'holistic'.

[5] Given the above, no tension between "these two perspectives" has been demonstrated.

[6] No explanation is provided as to how these proposals will resolve the undemonstrated tensions between "these two perspectives".

Conclusion

This constitutes Martin's argument for modelling register and genre as contextual strata. The argument is as follows:

1. There is a tension between Halliday's and Bakhtin's perspectives on context;
2. The tension will be resolved by modelling genre and register as two contextual strata.

The problems with argument are are as follows:

1. There is no tension demonstrated between Halliday's and Bakhtin's perspectives on context;
2. There is no argument as to how the proposed model will resolve the undemonstrated tension, it is merely asserted that it will;
3. The proposed model is inconsistent with the meanings of stratification, context, genre and register.

The following post will deal with the theoretical inconsistencies created by the proposed model.