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).

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).

Underestimating The Mood Grammar

Martin (1992: 50-1):

… Ventola's category of a linguistic service (1987: 115-7) functions semantically as both an action and a knowledge exchange, and can be initiated with an interrogative as in the example below:

Can you tell me your name?
— Yes, allright, John Smith

The responding move picks up on the grammar (Can you … Yes), the SPEECH FUNCTION (tell me … allright) and the exchange structure (your name … John Smith).  This can be captured by analysing the exchange structure as K2^K1 (since the exchange can only be completed by providing the appropriate information), with the K2 realised by a demand for services, which is in turn coded through the grammar as a modalised polar interrogative.  Note that linguistic services of this kind thus demonstrate that Berry's (1981a: 40) suggestion that the exchange be viewed as a lexicogrammatical rank consisting of clauses cannot be maintained since such a model could not show that Can you tell me your name? is initiating an exchange of information as a service.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The polar interrogative clause Can you tell me your name? realises a demand for goods–&–services — a command, in terms of speech function.  The speech function is demonstrated by its congruent realisation as the imperative verbal clause Tell me your name.  The service demanded is thus the giving of information.  However, here the command is realised metaphorically by a modalised polar interrogative, as a way of construing a particular tenor relation between the interactants.

The modal operator can checks the inclination of the addressee, which is, in congruent realisations, the function of an imperative mood tag.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 627):

On the one hand, an ‘imperative’ clause imposes an obligation; on the other hand, the imperative tag checks the addressee’s inclination to comply… .

[2] What the response 'picks up on' is first the grammar — the polar interrogative: yes — and then the semantics — the command to tell: allright, John Smith).  This relates to grammatical metaphor as 'junctional'.

As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 283, 288) point out, the metaphorical form also embodies semantic features deriving from its own incongruent lexicogrammatical properties.  That is, grammatical metaphor is a means of simultaneously construing the meanings of both the congruent and incongruent grammatical realisations — in this instance: of imperative and of polar interrogative mood, respectively.

These two meanings, the speech functions command and question, are themselves in an elaborating token-value relation within the semantic stratum, with the metaphorical Token (question) realising the congruent Value (command).