Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Martin (1992: 491):

NOTES

1. …
2. The conjunction so that has been selected here since it codes the meaning of inclination; see Chapter 4.
3. …
4. The topical Theme clear in r is metaphorical (experiential) realisation of an interpersonal Theme (congruently clearly).
5. …
6. The modalised conjunctions whether, whether and if have been treated as interpersonal Themes in this analysis.
7. Fries (1981/1983: 135) complements his notion of development with that of point, which he sees as realised through Rheme; his point is interpreted as "pattern of news" here. …

Blogger Comments:

[1] The conjunction group so that realises logical meaning, a relation of expansion: enhancement: cause: purpose or result, between two clauses in a nexus.  It does not realise inclination, which is interpersonal meaning: modality: modulation; see Chapter 4 critiques.

[2] The topical Theme in clause [r] (It is clear that future generations…) is it, not clear.  Both it and clear function both experientially (Carrier and Attribute) and interpersonally (Subject and Complement).  In interpersonal terms, clearly functions as a comment Adjunct, whereas it is clear enacts a comment (modal assessment) on a proposition as an objectively oriented proposition in its own right.  If the comment Adjunct clearly had been used, then the topical Theme would have been future generations, but this is not acknowledged as a Theme in the analysis of the text.

[3] The conjunctions whether and if function as structural Themes, because they realise a logico-semantic relation between clauses in a clause nexus.  They do not function as interpersonal Themes because they do not realise values of modality.

[4] This endnote — 42 pages after the discussion — is the only acknowledgement that Martin's 'point' derives from Fries (1981).  Since Martin interprets New as the last element of clause structure, his point, like Fries', is also "realised through Rheme".

A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6

Martin (1992: 488):

The basic strategy adopted to explore this question [how do modules of the semiotic model interface?] was to look closely at the interaction of reference chains and lexical strings with specific lexicogrammatical and phonological variables — specifically TRANSITIVITY rôles, Theme, New and Subject.  The texture deriving from these four types of interaction was discussed under the headings of cohesive harmony, method of development, point and modal responsibility.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the content plane (New information) with the expression plane (phonology).

[2] The term and concept of 'texture' come from Halliday & Hasan (1976).  Texture is the property of being a text, and is created by the textual metafunction.  Here it is misapplied to the experiential metafunction (TRANSITIVITY rôles) and the interpersonal metafunction (Subject).

[3] The term and concept of 'cohesive harmony' come from Hasan (1984, 1985).  Martin misunderstands and misrepresents Hasan's model and critiques these as if they were her model.  See the evidence in previous posts here, here, here, and here.

[4] The term and concept of 'method of development' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'method of development' is writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands 'topic sentence' as 'hyper-Theme' — a term taken from Daneš (1974) but redefined — and 'introductory paragraph' as 'macro-Theme'.

[5] The term and concept of 'point' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'point' is, again, writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands  'paragraph summary' as 'hyper-New', and 'text summary' as 'macro-New'.

[6] The term and concept of 'modal responsibility' come from Halliday (1985), where it is the meaning of 'Subject': that on which the validity of a proposition or proposal rests.  Martin first misunderstands 'modal responsibility', in proposals, as 'the constituent responsible for seeing that goods are exchanged or a service performed' (p461).  He then misinterprets the meaning of Subject from a discourse perspective, in terms of exchange resolution (p462), as 'what is at stake' (p464) and as 'participant at risk' (p477).

Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal

Martin (1992: 392):

As far as lexical strings and reference chains are concerned, this interaction across strata is better understood than that among discourse systems themselves.  Fries (1981), Hasan (1984), Halliday (1985) and Plum (1988) have all done pioneering work in this area (see also Martin 1991).

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, in SFL theory, the cohesive relations effected by lexical cohesion and reference are located at the level of lexicogrammar and within the textual metafunction.  Studies that examine how the non-structural systems of the lexicogrammar pattern with the structural systems of the lexicogrammar are thus not concerned with "interaction across strata".

To be clear, in discourse semantic theory, lexical strings are construed as experiential structures at the level of discourse semantics, and reference chains are construed as textual structures at the level of discourse semantics.

Accordingly, the work of Fries (1981), Hasan (1984) and Halliday (1985) does not support the relocation of non-structural textual systems at the level of lexicogrammar to structural experiential and textual systems at the level of discourse semantics.