Confusing Text Type (Genre) With Text Structure (Semantics)

Martin (1992: 503):

Approaching genre from a teleological perspective is also useful in accounting for the way in which texts typically move through stages to a point of closure and are explicitly treated by speaker/listener as incomplete when closure is not attained (having mentioned closure it is important to stress that genre, like all semiotic systems, is a dynamic open system (see Lemke 1984) and so in [sic] constantly evolving;

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is more true of clauses than it is of genres (text types), and yet, clause structure can be usefully accounted for without approaching the clause from a teleological perspective.  All repetitions of a previously established process have a previously established endpoint.  This does not necessitate the adoption of a teleological perspective.

A functional theory of language is concerned with functions, not purposes — the functions of clauses, the functions of text types, and so on.

[2]  Note the confusion of text type (genre) with text structure (semantics).

[3] This confuses the termination of a process (the closure of a text) with the boundary conditions (open or closed) of dynamic systems.  A closed system is isolated from its environment, whereas an open system interacts with its environment and derives energy from it.

[4] To be clear, genres are types of semiotic systems.

Inconsistent Claims About Discourse Semantics, Register, Genre And Ideology

Martin (1992: 496):

In this projection [Fig. 7.3 Language and its semiotic environment] metaredundancy (Lemke 1984) is reflected through the metaphor of concentric [sic] circles, with larger circles recontextualising smaller ones; the size of the circles also reflects the fact that the analysis tends to focus on larger units as one moves from phonology to ideology.  Thus the tendency in phonology to focus on syllables and phonemes, at the level of lexicogrammar to focus on the clause, at the level of discourse semantics to focus on the exchange or "paragraph", at the level of register to focus on a stage in a transaction, at the level of genre to focus on whole texts and at the level of ideology to focus on discourses manifested across a range of texts.  More in the spirit of Firth than Hjelmslev, this projection lends itself to a reading whereby meaning is constructed on all levels …

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL, the tendency in phonology is to focus on the tone group, not on syllables and phonemes, and a tone group can be larger than a clause.

[2] To be clear, the lexicogrammar also affords the study of clause complex relations, and cohesive relations, some of which may obtain throughout an entire text.

[3] The units in Martin's model of discourse semantics (p325) are:

• exchange and move (interpersonal),
• participant (textual),
• message (logical), and
• message part (experiential)

The message is said (ibid.) to be realised in the lexicogrammar as 'Process (& transitivity rôles)', and the message part is said to be realised in the lexicogrammar as

• Event (element at group rank),
• Thing (element at group rank),
• circumstance (element at clause rank),
• Epithet (element at group rank) and
• Manner adverb (element at group rank in Martin, but at clause rank in SFL theory).

That is to say, the focus in discourse semantics is on units that are, for the most part, smaller than the clause, not larger.  On the other hand, Martin's macro-Theme (introductory paragraph) and macro-New (text summary) are construed as functions at the level of text — which is said to be the focus at the level of genre, rather than the focus at the level of discourse semantics.

[4] Leaving aside the facts that, in SFL theory, register is language and context is not, there is the inconvenient truth that not all registers involve staged transactions.

[5] On Martin's own model, this confuses context (genre) with language (text).  In terms of SFL theory, it confuses text type (genre) with the meanings of a text (semantics).

[6] This confuses stratification with instantiation.  In SFL theory, the study of "discourses manifested across a range of texts" is the concern of register (text type, genre).

[7] This continues the confusion between semogenesis (making meaning) and stratification.  The whole point of stratification is to parcel out the complexity of meaning making into different levels of symbolic abstraction, thereby relating meaning to both lower levels of abstraction (wording and sounding) and to higher levels of abstraction (context).

Inconsistencies In The Notion Of 'Discourse Semantic Structure' [Augmented]

Martin (1992: 25-6):

Following Lemke (1985) [Ideology, Intertextuality and the Notion of Register], discourse semantic structures of this kind will be referred to as covariate.  Covariate structures are those in which a semantic interdependency is constructed between items (which may or may not be grammaticalised) and in which dependent items have the potential to themselves be depended on.  These structures are the principle resource used by the discourse semantics for constructing text (although multivariate and univariate structures are also found…). A summary of the types of structure considered to this point and their association with different strata is outlined in Fig. 1.16. In this model, covariate structures in which one item presumes another are referred to phoric; covariate structures in which information is not so presumed are referred to as expectant.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Lemke (1988: 159) reinterprets his 'covariate structure' as a structuring principle, rather than a kind of structure:

My own 'covariate structure' (Lemke 1985), which includes Halliday's univariate type, is for the case of homogeneous relations of co-classed units, and should perhaps be called a 'structuring principle' rather than a kind of structure.

Martin includes Lemke (1988) in his list of references (p603).

[2] No argument has been offered to demonstrate that these discourse semantic 'structures' are structures.  It has been presumed throughout.  This is the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question':

The fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, is committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.

[3] Interdependency is a system of the logical metafunction.  Here it is applied to systems of the textual metafunction — cohesion — which Martin reconstrues as the full range of metafunctions at a higher level of symbolic abstraction — discourse semantics.  Each move creates a serious theoretical inconsistency.  

A related inconsistency is the reconstrual of the interdependency relations, hypotaxis and parataxis, as the relations 'presumption' and 'expectancy', respectively, neither of which is a form of interdependency.

[4] In SFL, the resource for 'constructing text' is the textual metafunction, structural and non-structural, operating at all strata.  It is not restricted to one level of symbolic abstraction — 'discourse semantics' — nor is it the concern of the other metafunctions.  The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with enacting the self and relationships as meaning; the ideational metafunction is concerned with construing experience as meaning.

[5] Here a relation that has been explored through the lens of the logical metafunction — as hypotaxis — is given a label of a resource of the textual metafunction — phoric (reference) — and then proposed as a structural principle across all metafunctions at a level of symbolic abstraction above the lexicogrammar — discourse semantics.  Each move creates a serious theoretical inconsistency.

Metafunctional Structure Types In Discourse Semantics [New]

Martin (1992: 21-2):

In Section 1.3.2 above three highly generalised types of structure were introduced, the particulate, prosodic and periodic, and correlated with the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions respectively. Particulate, prosodic and periodic realisation is an important motif, and one that will be taken up in various places throughout English Text, especially in Chapters 6 and 7. At this point however it is necessary to return to earlier work by Halliday (1981b) on univariate and multivariate structure. 

In this work Halliday is concerned to distinguish the kinds of structure generated by the logical metafunction (univariate structures) from those realising experiential, interpersonal and textual meaning (multivariate structures). Univariate structures as defined as structures involving a single variable, which recurs one or more times. Multivariate structures on the other hand involve more than one variable, with each variable occurring only once. 

This is the distinction between open ended projecting structures such as Ford thought Marvin wanted Zaphod to tell Trillian that ... (α 'β 'y "δ — univariate) and closed structures such as Ford bored Marvin (Phenomenon^Process^Senser — multivariate). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Martin (1992) largely ignores these metafunctional structure types, except in discussing genre, which is not distinguished in terms of metafunction. Instead, Martin's discourse semantics models 

• interpersonal meaning in terms of constituency (exchanges consisting of moves), not prosody;
• textual meaning as covariate structure: reference chains of participants, not periodicity;
• experiential as covariate  structure: lexical strings of message parts, not as particulate.

From the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin's use of Lemke's (1985) notion of 'covariate structure' corresponds to non-structural cohesive relations. Lemke (1987) later conceded that what he termed 'covariate structure' was not, in fact, a type of structure.

[2] To be clear, Halliday (1981b) was actually first published in 1965 as a Working Paper, before Halliday had formulated Systemic Functional Theory. It was Halliday's first exploration of the distinction between univariate and multivariate structure — focusing on univariate structure — and contains statements that are inconsistent with the distinction as it later developed in SFL Theory. For example, in this paper, (p230), a Head°Modifier structure is classified as multivariate, rather than univariate.

Similarly, Halliday's pre-Systemic claim (p229) that, in multivariate structures, a variable occurs only once is clearly contradicted in SFL Theory by 

• clauses with more than one Agent (experiential),
• clauses with more than one Adjunct (interpersonal), and 
• information units (textual) with more than one Given, as in Given^New^Given.

[3] This is potentially misleading, since 'open vs closed' does not reliably define the difference between univariate and multivariate structure, as demonstrated by the relatively open-ended multivariate experiential structure of a clause like Arthur made Ford make Marvin make Zaphod tell Trillian. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 353):