Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Ideology Systems

Martin (1992: 580-1):

What are the implications of Hasan and Bernstein's work for the interpretation of ideology as system?  This is a question which is in some respects premature.  Work on mapping out the fashions of meaning constituting a culture at the level of ideology has only just begun (most of Hasan's own work in this area remains unpublished as of 1989). …

All of this is compounded by the fact that fashions of meaning and the more abstract notion of coding orientation need always to be interpreted in context — that is, with respect to the genre and register through which they are manifested.  Given our present understanding of these planes, this is a challenging task; and certainly not one for which even a provisional network of oppositions can be provided at this time.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The work of Hasan and Bernstein has no implications for the interpretation of ideology as system.  The reason for this is that neither work is concerned with ideology.  One way to define 'ideology' is as a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.  In contrast, from the perspective of SFL theory, Bernstein's work on codes is concerned with how social structures affect the semantics of registers, and Hasan's work is concerned with that semantic variation.

[2] The implication here is that Martin cannot devise an ideology system until Hasan has provided one that he can alter.

[3] This is misleading.  It misrepresents the work of Hasan and colleagues on semantic variation as framed within Martin's model of ideology.

[4] Given that Martin locates fashions of meaning and coding orientations on a contextual plane of ideology, this misconstrues lower levels in the stratification hierarchy as the context of higher levels.  This is the opposite of what the hierarchy represents.

Misrepresenting Hasan

Martin (1992: 579):

Hasan's major innovation has been to base her study on semantic variables, essentially by conceptualising system networks as variable rules and coding her data on the basis of selections from delicately elaborated discourse semantic networks she devised.

Blogger Comment:

This is misleading.  The unwarranted intrusion of the word 'discourse' falsely implies that Hasan shares Martin's misconstrual of semantics as discourse semantics.  Hasan's networks are semantic networks.

Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Hasan's

Martin (1992: 572):

English Text's preferred position is to treat mode differences as simply difference in mode and to derive all text types from genre networks elaborated along the lines illustrated above.  These networks are in a sense systemic formulations of what Hasan's [sic] refers to as a culture's "array of existing conventions".  The model suggests however that these arrays are relevant for all genres, not just those constitutive in mode.  This avoids the problems inherent in Hasan's apparently materialist reading of context, which leads her to derive some texts from their context of situation and others with respect to their cultural heritage.  The ancillary/constitutive opposition is in any case a cline, which creates considerable uncertainty about how to model context for texts in 'middling' modes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] A preferred position is not a reasoned argument; it is merely a stance, an attitude, a pose.

[2] This is doubly misleading.  On the one hand, it falsely implies that Hasan does not "treat mode differences as simply difference in mode", and on the other hand, it falsely implies that Martin does.  As previously explained here, Martin allocates the mode system of medium to his register and the system of rhetorical mode to his genre.  In SFL theory, mode is a system of context, whereas register and genre are complementary perspectives on functional (diatypic) varieties of language.

[3] This is also doubly misleading.  

Firstly, the comparison here is with Hasan's model.  The discussion of Hasan's work focused on deriving text structures.  Here Martin offers his alternative "preferred position" but in doing so switches to deriving text types.  That is, it does not address the issue he raised about Hasan's model, and yet purports to be offering a better alternative.

Secondly, the reason Martin has switched from deriving text structures to deriving text types is to divert attention away from the fact that he has not devised any genre systems for deriving text structures — merely given excuses for not doing so; see here.  He has however provided small taxonomies of factual genres (Fig. 7.26) and story genres (Fig. 7.27), neither of which, of course, generates structures.

[4] This is a false claim.  Martin's taxonomy merely classifies types of story in terms of a few semantic features.  It provides no information about the conventions of text (semantic) structure associated with specific types.

[5] This is also doubly misleading.  On the one hand, it falsely implies that Hasan claimed these were relevant to constitutive mode, and on the other hand, it falsely implies that Hasan claimed these were relevant only to constitutive mode.  As Hasan (1984: 78) pointed out with regard to this "array of existing conventions":

But to say that the structure of a nursery tale is controlled by artistic conventions is to explain nothing …

[6] The claims here are that:

• Hasan's model of context is materialist;
• it is this materialist perspective that 'leads her to derive some texts from their context of situation and others with respect to their cultural heritage; and
• Martin's model avoids such problems inherent in Hasan's model.

All three claims are, of course, false.  This can be demonstrated as follows.

[a] Firstly, it is not true that Hasan's model of context is materialist.  Hasan uses Halliday's model of context, which conceives as context as the culture as a semiotic system.  In contrast, as previously demonstrated, Martin has used the term 'context' to refer to:

• material setting,
• co-text,
• register (diatypic variety of language viewed from the system pole),
• genre (diatypic variety of language viewed from the instance pole).

Materialism is clearly anathema to Martin, despite the fact that he doesn't understand what it is.  Here's one definition:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

By way of contrast with Martin, Halliday and Matthiessen (1999: 609) clarify the philosophical underpinning of SFL theory as materialist in this sense:

… we are prepared to acknowledge a broadly materialist position …

[b] Secondly, it is untrue that a materialist perspective of context leads Hasan 'to derive some texts from their context of situation and others with respect to their cultural heritage'.  There are three untruths here, in addition to the false claim about Hasan's perspective being materialist:

• a materialist perspective — since this is Martin's misrepresentation — is thus not the reason for Hasan's two methods of analysis;
• Hasan does not "derive" texts, but text structures — Martin's omission of 'structure' misleadingly invites the interpretation as 'text type', on the basis of the preceding co-text; and
• Hasan does not "derive" text structures "with respect to their cultural heritage" — but from the semantic features of such texts, as explained in the previous post.

[c] Thirdly, it is untrue that Martin's model avoids the problems inherent in Hasan's model.  This also doubly misleading.  On the one hand, the "problems" in Hasan's model are not problems, but misrepresentations and misunderstandings on Martin's part, as demonstrated above and in the previous post.  On the other hand, Martin's model lacks what Hasan's model provides, since, unlike Hasan's, it does not account for text structures; it is merely a taxonomy of text types (genres).

[7] The claim here is that because ancillary vs constitutive opposition is a matter of degree — modelled as a cline — it "creates considerable uncertainty about how to model context for texts in 'middling' modes" when using Hasan's model.  Martin's confusions here are threefold:

• the mode system cline is a way of modelling context;
• Hasan is concerned with modelling the structural potential (semantics) of text types — i.e. language — not context;
• uncertainty does not arise, because both of Hasan's methods can be used for determining the structural potential of text types that realise intermediate values on the mode cline.

Consequently, on this fourth tendered piece of evidence, Martin's claim that his model of register and genre avoids additional complications in Halliday's (and Hasan's) model is the exact opposite of what is true.

∞

The number of untruths here, so efficiently packed into such a small passage of text, amply justifies the type of assessment made by Peter Medawar (1961) of another author:

its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.

Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan

Martin (1992: 572):

Mode also impinges on Hasan's model of context and text structure, since for her only texts where the role of language is ancillary and whose environment is pragmatic can be derived from contextual configurations (in her discussion she is opposing text types such as service encounters to the nursery tale; Hasan 1984: 76).  Since for constitutive modes, context cannot predict text structure, Hasan suggests that for these texts what matters most is "the array of existing conventions" (1984: 78).  Hasan's model then is one which derives text structures in two fundamentally different ways, depending on mode (see Harris 1987: 36-7 for a related critique).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The reason mode "impinges" on Hasan's model of context and text structure is because Hasan understands that

• text structure is semantics, 
• semantic structure realises semantic systems, and
• semantics realises context (field, tenor and mode).

[2] This seriously misrepresents Hasan (1984: 78), who only raised this in order to point out that, by itself, it explains nothing:

The single most salient fact that appears most relevant is the overall adherence to an array of existing conventions.  But to say that the structure of a nursery tale is controlled by artistic conventions is to explain nothing, unless alongside this assertion we can also provide a convincing account of how artistic conventions themselves originate and how any change is successfully introduced into a body of pre-existing conventions.

In contrast, Hasan goes on to derive the structural potential of this text type from the semantics of the texts themselves.

[3] This is falsely presented as if it is a defect in the Hasan's theory, rather than a distinction that is motivated by the data.  In the passage immediately preceding the quote above, Hasan (1984: 78) explains :

I would suggest that the nature of the factors which motivate the elements of structure in such genres is relatively opaque.  This is because the environments in which such texts are either created or received bears only a tangential relationship to their inner unity.  It follows then that the elements of the structure of the nursery tale can neither be seen as fully governed by the author-audience interaction

To contextualise this and the previous misrepresentation, Hasan's (1984) paper was not easily accessible at the time that Martin was writing, being only published in a Nottingham Linguistic Circular.  However, the paper was eventually published in the 1996 collection Ways Of Saying: Ways Of Meaning.

[4] No indication is given as to how the critique in the following obscure paper relates to Martin's "critique" of Hasan.

Harris, S. 1987. "Court Discussion as Genre: some problems and issues".  Department of English, University of Nottingham.  Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 2. 35-74.

∞

This misrepresentation of Hasan's work is strategic because its function is to demonstrate that Martin's model is less complex, and thus preferable.  See the next post for an assessment of the truth of this proposition.

Misrepresenting Longacre

Martin (1992: 561-2):

It is important to compare Longacre's features [for cross-classifying text types] with those used by Hasan when classifying text structures with respect to contextual configurations. … Longacre's chronological dimension can be related to Hasan's field features, his prescription to her tenor and his dialogue/monologue opposition to her mode.  In effect Longacre has selected features from different aspects of Hasan's contextual construct (i.e. field, mode and tenor variables) and integrated them into a single matrix in order to classify genres.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Longacre's (1976) ± chronological framework classifies text types according ideational semantics whereas Hasan (1977, 1985/9) specifies the ideational dimensions of the culture (field) that identify a text type.  The difference between them is thus stratal. (semantics vs context).

[2] Longacre's ± prescription is concerned with the rôle played by language.  In SFL theory, this is mode, not tenor.  The difference between them is thus metafunctional (textual vs interpersonal).

[3] As Martin reports it, Longacre's monologic vs dialogic opposition distinguishes narrative from drama, respectively.  That is, it distinguishes text types according to whether the projection of the author contain a single voice (a narrator), or many voices (dramatis personæ).  On the other hand, Hasan's monologic vs dialogic opposition is concerned with the number of authors (speakers) of the text.  The difference between them is thus in terms of orders of experience (second-order vs first-order).

[4] As the three previous points clearly demonstrate, this is not true.  Longacre (1976) did not select features of Hasan's (1977, 1985/9) context and integrate them into a single matrix to classify genres.

Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)

Martin (1992: 560):

Linguists' concern with constituency at the level of genre has meant that questions of field, in Pike's sense of the term, have not been actively pursued.  Hasan's notion of generic structure potential does generalise across a range of text structures, determining their generic identity:

The property of structure is what allows us to distinguish between complete and incomplete texts on the one hand, and between different generic forms on the other.  With some oversimplification, the assumptions here can be stated as follows: associated with each genre of text — i.e. type of discourse — is a generalised structural formula, which permits an array of actual structures.  Each complete text must be a realisation of a structure from such an array.  The generic membership of the text is determined by reference to the structural formula to which the actual structure can be shown to belong.  (Hasan 1977: 229)

But Hasan has not attempted to develop these structure potentials in the direction of system/structure theory; and as noted above, the question of systemic relations among structure potentials does not really arise.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This invites the misinterpretation that such linguists also:

• misconstrue genre (language sub-potential) as a stratum of context (cultural potential), and
• misconstrue semantics (text structure) as genre (text type).

[2] To be clear, this is field, in Martin's misconstrual of Pike's sense of the term (as system rather than structure type).

[3] To be clear, as the quote makes plain, Hasan's generic structure potentials provide a generalised formula for a range of semantic structures of a given text type (genre).

[4] Hasan did not make systems of generic structural potentials because to do so would have been inconsistent with the rest of the architecture of SFL theory, since it would have confused the system pole of the cline of instantiation (semantic stratum potential) with the middle of the cline (genre/text type/register).

Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies

Martin (1992: 551):

For Hasan, text structures are derived from generic structure potentials conditioned by choices in field, tenor and mode — with most of the optionality apparently determined by tenor and mode.  This suggests that systemic relationships among different text structures are equivalent to relationships among field, mode and tenor options; and the question of systemic relationships among generic structure potentials does not arise.  Challenging the first of these suggestions, and redressing the second, Martin (1985) suggests reformulating generic structure potentials as system networks and realisation rules as with Ventola's (1987: 15) reformulation of Mitchell above, proposing a speculative network and realisation rules for service encounters by way of illustrating how this might be done (Martin 1985: 253-4; Fig. 7.21 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Hasan (1985/9: 64), a generic structure potential is the structural potential of a text — as the largest unit of the semantic stratum — of a given genre (text type/register).  For Hasan, genres that share the same contextual configuration of field, tenor and mode features share the same structural potential at the level of semantics.  In SFL theory, the relation between context and semantics is realisation: context is a higher level of symbolic abstraction than semantics.

[2] This false inference derives from Martin's earlier false claim (see here) that Hasan associates obligatory elements of text structure with field (p546). For Hasan (1985/9: 62), the obligatory elements of text structure are the elements that define the genre (text type).

[3] This is a false inference in that it blurs important distinctions between the theoretical dimensions of axis, stratification and instantiation:

• The relation between structure (syntagmatic axis) and system (paradigmatic axis) is realisation; semantic structure realises semantic system.
• The relation between semantic stratum systems and context stratum systems is realisation, not equivalence.
• Different text structures are a matter of registerial (text type/genre) variation at the level of semantics.

[4] Martin (1985) is thus challenging his own misinterpretation of Hasan.

[5] The proposal here is to model registerial (text type/generic) variation in semantic structure as a system network at the level of context.  The confusion here is thus along two dimensions simultaneously:

• the cline of instantiation: system (potential) vs register (subpotential);
• stratification: context vs semantics.

[6] Ventola's network models registerial variation (service encounters) as a system network with semantic structure specified by realisation rules activated by the selection of features.  That is, it models subpotentials (registers) as potential (system) and specifies semantic structure as its realisation.

The network is thus inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory in that it posits a midway point on the cline of instantiation (subpotential) as the systemic potential that specifies semantic structure.  According to the architecture of SFL theory, the systems that specify semantic structure are the systems of the semantic stratum (axially) and context (stratally).

Inferring Invalidly From Misconstruals Of Semantic Structure As Field And Genre

Martin (1992: 547):

More to the point is the fact that Hasan's elements of structure at times collapse several nuclei in Barthes's sequence: Identification for example in Hasan's appointment making covers Barthes's telephone ringing, picking up the receiver and speaking.  At the same time, Hasan's elements may expand one of Barthes's nuclei, as Identification ^ Application ^ Offer ^ Confirmation do for Barthes's speaking in potentially the same genre (although Barthes could of course have recognised a micro-sequence here).  The point of these differences is that Hasan is placing boundaries at just those points where they are linguistically manifested, implying that the same sequences might be involved in very different genres (cf. Barthes's opposition of histoire and discours).  A telephone call in a modern nursery tale for example might just be one of a number of acts comprising the Initiating Event (which for Hasan continues until the expectation set up by its main act is frustrated); in appointment making on the other hand the call itself needs to be broken down into the genre's structural formula.

This suggests that where language is constitutive of what is going on (mode) the relationship between activity sequence (field) and text structure may be quite divergent (genre); where language is ancillary on the other hand, there may be little difference between the two.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously pointed out, both Barthes and Hasan are modelling the semantic structure of texts, with Barthes taking the view 'from below' and Hasan taking the view 'from above'.

[2] All structural boundaries in texts are "linguistically manifested".

[3] This is a non-sequitur, since the placement of structural boundaries says nothing about the incidence of specific structures in other text types.  However, on the other hand, it is trivially true that the same sequence, in the sense of both Barthes and SFL, can occur across many text types.

[4] Martin previously misrepresented this distinction, which Barthes took from the Russian Formalists (see here).  Histoire (fabula) refers to the raw material of a story, whereas discours (syuzhet) refers to the way the story is organised.  The inclusion of this distinction here is thus irrelevant.

[5] The preceding discussion suggests nothing at all about the relationship between activity sequence and text structure varying according to mode, because the two are different perspectives on semantic structure (see [1]).  Moreover, it says less than nothing about field and genre, since activity sequence isn't field, and text structure isn't genre.

Confusing First And Second Orders Of Experience

Martin (1992: 546-7):

In this connection it is useful to compare three of Barthes's examples of sequences with three of Hasan's examples of text structure (only her obligatory elements will be considered here):

sequences (Barthes 1966/1977):

‘telephone call’:

telephone ringing ^ picking up the receiver ^ speaking ^ putting down the receiver (1966/1977: 101)

“having a drink”:

order a drink ^ obtain it ^ drink it ^ pay for it (1966/1977: 101)

“offering a cigarette”:

offering ^ accepting ^ smoking ^ lighting (1966/1977: 102)

text structures (Hasan 1977, 1984, 1985/9):

“medical appointment making”:

Identification ^ Application ^ Offer ^ Confirmation (1977: 233)

“service encounter”:

Sale request ^ Sale compliance ^ Sale ^ Purchase ^ Purchase closure (1985/1989: 60)

“nursery tale”:

Initiating event ^ Sequent event ^ Final event (1984: 80)

At a glance it might appear that Barthes is analysing action whereas Hasan is analysing text (cf. Barthes's telephone call and Hasan's appointment making).  But the opposition is by no means as simple as this.  Most of Barthes's nuclei involve interlocutors speaking, and those which do not are easy to render linguistically in narration (as they have been in Barthes's own account).  So a simple opposition between verbal and non-verbal action will not do.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Both Barthes and Hasan are analysing texts, instances of language, at the level of semantics.  The difference between them, in terms of SFL theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014), is that Barthes approach is more "bottom-up", staying close to the sequences of figures that are realised grammatically as clauses, whereas Hasan's approach is more "top-down", viewing from context.

[2] The interlocutors in Barthes' data are characters in narrative texts.  That is, they are verbal projections of the writer.  The confusion here is in terms of orders of experience: first-order (writers, speakers, readers, listeners etc.) vs second-order (characters in stories etc.).

Misconstruing Activity Sequence (Semantics) As Field And Schematic Structure (Semantics) As Genre

Martin (1992: 546):

Hasan's association of obligatory elements of text structure with field makes it critical to consider the relationship between activity sequence (field) and schematic structure (genre) here.

Blogger Comment:

[1] For Hasan (1985/9: 62), the obligatory elements of text structure are the elements that define the genre (text type):

So, by implication, the obligatory elements define the genre to which a text belongs;

[2] This is a non-sequitur; see [1] and [3].

[3] One problem here is that activity sequence is not field and schematic structure is not genre.

An activity sequence is a semantic construal of experience, whether a mental construal of visual experience or a verbal construal in a spoken or written text.  Field, on the other hand, is 'what is going on' and the subject matter when interlocutors are speaking to each other.  The confusion is along the stratal dimension: semantics (activity sequence) vs context (field).

Schematic structure is the structure of a text as a semantic unit.  Genre, on the other hand, is text type — that is, register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  The confusion is along the dimension of instantiation: potential (semantic) vs subpotential (genre).

In short, in purporting to consider the relationship between field and genre, Martin is actually considering the relation between two ways of construing semantic units.  This will be borne out in the following blog posts.

This, like so many other confusions identified here, demonstrates the serious pitfalls of misunderstanding 'all strata make meaning' (semogenesis) as all strata are levels of linguistic meaning.

Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field

Martin (1992: 528-9):

Whereas status addresses the concerns of social hierarchy, contact is concerned with the degree of involvement among interlocutors.  This is determined by the nature of the fields speaker/listeners are participating in — how much contact they involve, how regularly, whether work or leisure activities and so on.  Poynton's (1985/9: 77-78) field oriented contact distinctions have been reworked slightly here; the notion of contact appears to be equivalent to what Hasan (1977: 231-2, 1985/9: 57) refers to as social distance, which for her is determined by "the frequency and range of previous interaction" (1977: 231).

Blogger Comments:

Contact is not determined by field.  In logical terms, the relation between tenor and field systems is extension — they are conjunct systems — not enhancement (cause-condition).  Less abstractly, a given field may involve interlocutors who have had many previous interactions, some previous interactions, or no previous interactions at all.

Misconstruing Dialogue As Unprojected

Martin (1992: 523):

With film and theatre projection is naturalised as real; this does not however take away from the fact that the language spoken has been scripted and is very different from the unprojected dialogue of everyday life.  These projection systems are developed in Fig. 7.12 where they crossclassify [sic] the basic action/reflection mode options.

Blogger Comments:

[1] More accurately, and theoretically, scriptwriters/dramatists (first-order experience) verbally project written texts, scripts/dramas, in which characters (second-order experience) verbally project spoken texts (third-order experience).  In the acting of films and plays, the orders of experience are reduced to as if two, with the characters as if of first-order experience, and their projections as if of second-order experience.

[2] Whether the language of films and plays is "very different" from the language of everyday life depends very much on the script/drama and the scriptwriter/dramatist.  Compare the films of Ken Loach with the films of Peter Greenaway, for example.

[3] This provides further evidence that the SFL theoretical notion of projection is not understood.  All dialogue is projected — all texts are projected — by sayers engaged in verbal processes, at whatever order of experience.

[4] In addition to the misconceived notions of projected vs unprojected mode, and experientialised vs unexperientialised verbalisation, the system network in Fig. 7.12 (p524) introduces two new inconsistencies — an inconsistency with the accompanying text, and an internal (logical) inconsistency.

With regard to the first inconsistency, the network distinguishes 'projected' from 'unprojected' and includes speaking and writing within 'projected', despite referring to the language of everyday life (above) as "unprojected".

With regard to the second inconsistency, the network distinguishes 'projected' from 'unprojected' and, within 'unprojected': '–'.  The logical problem here is that –unprojected equals projected.

Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive

Martin (1992: 521):

Constructions can be broken down into fiction and generalisation.  Fictional texts are semiotically closely related to texts constructing unshared experience, but generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed.  Generalising texts neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here, in Martin's terms, is that all "field-structured" texts that constitute "social processes" — and which do not construct past events — are either fiction or generalisation.  Generalising texts were said (pp518-9) to be those where 'the language generalises about what goes on', and the examples that were provided were:

• recipes
• manual You do. (proposal)
• implication sequence It does. (proposition)
• procedure It does. (activity focus)
• report They're attractive. (thing focus)

However, in terms of Hasan's (1985/9: 58) mode opposition of constitutive vs ancillary — as well as the meanings of the terms — the language rôle of recipes, manuals and procedures is ancillary, not constitutive.

[2] The claim here is that fictional constructions "generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed" than vicarious reconstructions.  Reconstructions were exemplified (p519) by:

• projected instruction S/he told me to do. (proposal)
• recount I/we did. (proposition/activity focus)
• description It was pretty. (thing focus)

The claim, then, is that romantic novels, for example, "generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed" than, for example, a speaker's recount of an overseas trip to an addressee who has never travelled overseas.

[3] The claim here is that texts such as recipes, manuals, procedures and reports "neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations".  A grammatical analysis of this clause complex (see here) demonstrates that it is intended to merely bamboozle the reader.  This can be further demonstrated by applying this clause complex to recipes for chicken parmesan with basil; now the claim becomes:

recipes for chicken parmesan with basil neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations.

That is, it is claimed that the purpose of neutralising these grammatical features in recipes (for chicken parmesan with basil) is to reconstruct the act of cooking (chicken parmesan with basil) as cooking potential, and that the potential (for cooking chicken parmesan with basil) "underlies" and "cuts across" particular manifestations of cooking (chicken parmesan with basil).

Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction

Martin (1992: 520-1):

Texts constituting a social process can be divided into those reconstructing a social process which has taken place and those constructing one which has not (TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON all shift to distanced values — past, there/then, 3rd).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] This confuses the language rôle feature 'constitutive' (Hasan 1985/9: 58) — the textual metafunction at the level of context — with the construal of experience as meaning — the ideational metafunction at the level of semantics.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (textual vs ideational).

Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle

Martin (1992: 520):

Commentary texts can be divided into those where the speaker and listener are both observers (TV sports/parade/wedding commentary) and those in which only one party is observing (radio commentary).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] The claim here is that the experiential rôles of the speaker and listener, as observers or not, is a distinction of mode.  This is inconsistent with the notion of mode — a system of the textual metafunction — as the part that language plays (not the speaker).  The confusion here is metafunctional.

Cf. the system of process sharing in Hasan (1985/9: 58):

The second factor to be considered under mode is that of PROCESS SHARING.  Is the addressee able to share the process of text creation as it unfolds, or does the addressee come to the text when it is a finished product?

Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle

Martin (1992: 520):

The accompanying texts are then distinguished according to whether the verbal action is that of participants in or observers of the social action.

Blogger Comment:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] The claim here is that the experiential rôle of the speaker, as participant or observer, is a distinction of mode.  This is inconsistent with the notion of mode — a system of the textual metafunction — as the part that language plays (not the speaker).  The confusion here is metafunctional.

Cf. the system of process sharing in Hasan (1985/9: 58):

The second factor to be considered under mode is that of PROCESS SHARING.  Is the addressee able to share the process of text creation as it unfolds, or does the addressee come to the text when it is a finished product?

Confusing Mode Potential (Context) With Text Type/Register

Martin (1992: 520):

The oppositions relevant to field-structured texts are elaborated systemically in Fig. 7.10. Texts accompanying a social process are distinguished from those constituting one.

 

     Fig. 7.10. Mode — degrees of abstraction 

Blogger Comments:

[1] The intellectual source of the most general opposition in this system is Hasan (1985/9: 58), where the features are termed ancillary and constitutive, and the system is termed language rôle, one of three systems within mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.

[2] The use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text type/register and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type/subpotential).

[3] As previously explained, there are no "degrees of abstraction" here.  On the basis of this and numerous previous critiques, it is fair to say that the notion of abstraction is not understood.

∞

Problems with the network itself will be identified in the following posts.

Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source

Martin (1992: 517-8):

With this reservation in mind, a preliminary grid can be established as in Table 7.5 — with exemplary texts noted (Hasan 1985/9: 58 uses the opposition ancilliary [sic] / constitutive to establish a closely related continuum). 

This grid distinguishes field-structured from genre-structured texts and subclassifies field-structured texts according to how much of the social action is constructed by language. 

Texts in which most of the social action is realised non-verbally are referred to as ancilliary [sic]; texts in which most of the social action is realised linguistically are further divided into those in which language monitors what is going on (e.g. sports commentary), those in which it reconstructs what has gone on (e.g. biography) and those in which the language generalises about what goes on (e.g. recipes).

Genre-structured texts are divided into those which review field-structured texts (e.g. movie reviews), and so are partially determined by their activity sequences, and theoretical texts which are not organised around a sequence of events in any respect (e.g. editorials).  This scale arranges texts with respect to iconicity and the amount of ideational meaning that needs to be made explicit to realise the field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] More accurately, Hasan's (1985) ancillary/constitutive distinction is the source of Martin's (1992) theorising here.

[2] To be clear, in terms of SFL theory, Martin is classifying text types (registers/genres) according to how semantic structure varies with the mode features of situation types (context). That is, three theoretical dimensions are entangled here:

• stratification (context realised by semantics),
• axis (system realised by structure), and
• instantiation (text types and situation types)

[3] A recipe does not "generalise about what goes on".  As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 356) point out, a recipe is a procedural text, a 'macro-operation consisting of a number of micro-operations'.

[4] To be clear, a movie review of a text is a review of just the script of a movie.

[5] An editorial is merely an opinion piece.  The classification of an opinion piece as a theoretical text is consistent with Martin's approach to theory, as demonstrated over and over again by these critiques.

Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source

Martin (1992: 510):

In effect, mode is the semiotic construction of communication technology. As far as interpersonal space is concerned, what is critical is the way in which various channels of communication affect the kind of interaction that is possible between speaker and listener. This is conditioned by the kind of feedback that is possible, depending on whether or not the speaker and listener can see each other and at the same time whether or not they can hear each other.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, communication technology provides the material means of expanding the semiotic system of mode.

[2] The unacknowledged source of these ideas is Hasan (1985/9: 58):

The second factor to be considered under mode is that of PROCESS SHARING.  Is the addressee able to share the process of text creation as it unfolds, or does the addressee come to the text when it is a finished product?  Here again, there are degrees of process sharing from the most active — as in dialogue — to the most passive — as in a formal lecture.  The degree to which process sharing can occur is closely related to CHANNEL. … The first channel I will call PHONIC, the second GRAPHIC.

At the memorial to honour the life and work of Ruqaiya Hasan, Martin accused Hasan — falsely — of not having acknowledged her sources.  Evidence here.

Inverting The Stratification Hierarchy

Martin (1992: 505):

Martin's alternative proposal is that text structure is generated at the level of genre, as in Ventola's systemic formulation of Mitchell's work above.  Genre networks would thus be formulated on the basis of similarities and differences between text structures which thereby define text types.  As part of the realisation process, generic choices would preselect field, mode and tenor options associated with particular elements of text structure.  Text structure is referred to as schematic structure in Martin's model, with genre defined as a staged, goal-oriented social process realised through register (see Martin 1984b, 1985a, 1985b, Martin, et al. n.d., Ventola 1987: 63-66).

Blogger Comments:

[1] From the perspective of SFL theory, Martin's proposal confuses semantics (text structure) with text type (genre) and misconstrues text type as context.

[2] From the perspective of SFL theory, this inverts the stratification hierarchy, since choices of text structure (semantics) are realised by field, tenor and mode options (context).  Martin misconstrues this semantic structure as genre, and context as register.

[3] In SFL theory, the term 'schematic structure' comes from Hasan (e.g. 1984: 79), where it means an instance of generic structure potential; that is, the semantic structure of an actual text.  Martin makes no acknowledgement of this source.

[4] From the perspective of SFL theory, genre (text type) and register are the same phenomenon viewed from different poles of the cline of instantiation.  Stratifying genre and register misconstrues them as different levels of symbolic abstraction.  Stratifying them as context, confuses (types) of language with context (the culture as a semiotic system).