Not Classifying Text Types From Above

Martin (1992: 568-9):

Obviously much more work on these and related story genres is required before a workable approximation to their generic inter-relationships can be constructed.  Three provisional systems are presented in Fig. 7.27 by way of encouraging this articulation.  The first opposition distinguishes recount genres, which deal unproblematically with activity sequences, from other story genres which depend on counterexpectancy.  Then narratives, which make use of counterexpectancy to frustrate the inclinations of key protagonists are separated from exemplums and anecdotes where what goes wrong is not predicted' in this way.  The third system opposes anecdotes, which focus on reaction, to exemplums, which deal in judgements.

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, from an SFL perspective, this is classifying text types (genres) "from roundabout", in terms of their semantics, instead of "from above", in terms of the the cultural (contextual) functions they serve.  As a functional theory, SFL gives priority to the view "from above".

From Martin's perspective, where genre and register are misconceived, not as language, but as strata of context, this is classifying genres "from below" — either from the stratum immediately below (register: activity sequences), or from the second stratum below (discourse semantics: counter-expectancy).

Misconstruing Semantics (Activity Sequence) As Context (Field)

Martin (1992: 564, 565, 566, 568):

These "stories" are alike in that they are built up around a set of narrative clauses (an activity sequence in terms of the field theory developed here); …

For Plum, as in Martin and Rothery's work, the recount is a relatively iconic rendering of an activity sequence (the Record stage); … Expectancies about how an activity sequence will unfold are countered, with ensuing events departing from the norm in some significant way. …

Texts 7.1-4 have been constructed below to illustrate these genres as interpersonal manipulations of the same activity sequence …

The ways in which interpersonal meaning inflects activity sequences to construct these four story genres is summarised in Table 7.20.

Table 7.20 Interpersonal meaning across story genres

	interpersonal: modalisation	modulation	attitude
recount	usuality		prosodic affect
anecdote	unusuality;		varied affect
exemplum	unusuality;	obligation	negative affect
narrative	unusuality;	inclination	negative to positive affect

Blogger Comment:

This continues the misconstrual of semantics (activity sequence) as context (field).  As can be seen from these excerpts, an activity sequence here refers to events in a narrative.  They are the linguistic construals of experience of an author.

Misconstruing Semantics As Context And Misidentifying Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 562-3):

Martin 1985/1989, working along lines similar to Longacre's, developed a preliminary classification of "factual" genres drawing on field and mode.  The basic field opposition was between texts which were focussing on activity sequences (e.g. narratives, recipes, manuals) and texts which were not (e.g. descriptions, expositions); the basic mode opposition was between texts which generalised across experience and those which referred to a specific manifestation of a culture.  Generalised texts were further divided into those which function to document information and those which explain. … In later work Martin and Rothery divided explaining texts into those which considered more than one point of view, Discussions and Explorations, and those which presented only one position, Exposition and Explanation.  This genre matrix is outlined in Table 7.19.

Table 7.19 Cross-classification of factual genres

	– generalised	generalised: document	explain: resolve	debate
– activity structured	description	report	exposition	discussion
+ activity structured	recount	procedure	explanation	exploration

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is inconsistent with Martin's (p564) opposition of factual and narrative genres.

[2] This confuses ideational semantics (activity sequences) with ideational context (field).  The confusion is thus along the dimension of stratification.

[3] This confuses ideational semantics (construing experience) with textual context (mode).  The confusion is thus simultaneously metafunctional and stratificational.

[4] This confuses interpersonal semantics (heteroglossia vs monoglossia) with textual context (mode).  The confusion is thus simultaneously metafunctional and stratificational.

The Reason For Separating Field & Genre

Martin (1992: 547):

The reason for separating field and genre as far as obligatory elements of text structure are concerned is to maintain inter-relationships among activity sequences and inter-relationships among text structures as distinct patterns of agnation regardless of mode …

Blogger Comment:

Translating into SFL theory, this becomes:

The reason for separating the ideational dimension of context (field) and text type (genre), 

as far as Hasan's obligatory elements of text structure are concerned, 

is to maintain 

inter-relationships among semantic structures viewed from below (Barthes) 

and interrelationships between semantic structures viewed from above (Hasan)

as distinct patterns of agnation, 

regardless of whether the rôle of language is ancillary or constitutive of the cultural context.

See the most recent posts for relevant critiques.

This all derives from Martin interpreting field as activity sequences and genres as social processes.  A legitimate theoretical reason for separating field and genre is that field is context, not language, whereas genre is language, a type of text, not context.

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.

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.

A False Dichotomy

Martin (1992: 544-5):

The activity sequences generated by the discourses of humanities, social science and especially science tend to be logical rather than sequential — if/then or so then rather than and then.  It is for this reasons [sic] that scientific sequences (e.g. how it rains) are referred to as implication sequences in Wignell et al. (1987/1990), Shea (1988) and Martin (1990).

Blogger Comments:

[1] In this modelling of field, in this instance, 'activity sequences' now refers to the language realising fields, rather than to non-linguistic behaviours (see previous post) or to the contextual fields that are realised in language.  The confusion is thus stratificational.

[2] 'Logical vs sequential' is a false dichotomy.  Leaving aside the fact that, in SFL theory, 'sequence' refers to two or more figures related logically through expansion or projection, the relations here are all logical:

• if…then construes a hypotactic logical relation of expansion: enhancement: condition;
• so then construes a logical relation of expansion: enhancement;
• and then construes a paratactic logical relation of expansion: enhancement: temporal.

Confusing Composition And Superordination

Martin (1992: 540-1):

As noted in Chapter 5, alongside activity sequences, the participants involved in sequences are organised into taxonomies of two basic kinds: composition and superordination.  The compositional taxonomy in Fig. 7.17 for members of an Australian linguistics department for example organises participants who play some part in all of the sequences reviewed above.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As noted previously here, Martin confuses composition with superordination taxonomies.

[2] This "compositional" taxonomy (meronymic) is largely one of superordination (hyponymy).  This can be demonstrated by presenting the claims made by Fig. 7.17:

• an Australian linguistics department consists of two parts: salaried staff and students;
• salaried staff consist of two parts: academic and non-academic;
• academic consists of two parts: Head and scaled;
• scaled consists of two parts: lecturing and tutoring;
• lecturing consists of five parts: Professor, Associate Professor, Reader, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer;
• tutoring consists of two parts: full-time and part-time;
• full-time consists of two parts: Senior Tutor and Tutor;
• non-academic consists of two parts: clerical and technological;
• clerical consists of three parts: secretarial, administrative and keyboard operator;
• technological consists of two parts: programmer and technician;
• post-graduate consists of two parts: research and coursework;
• research consists of two parts: PhD and MA;
• MA consists of two parts: MA Hons and MA Pass;
• undergraduate consists of four parts: I, II, III and IV Hons;
• both II and III consist of two parts: pass and honours.

Cf. a spoon consists of two parts: the handle and the bowl.

[3] This is an error of Aristotelian logic.  Not all participants play some part in all of the sequences.  All participants play some part in some sequences.

[4] The confusion here is between playing a part in a sequence and being a part of a whole.

Misrepresenting Barthes And Confusing Material & Semiotic Orders Of Experience

Martin(1992: 538-9):

Focussing on narrative theory, Barthes does not take the step of theorising paradigmatic relations among activity sequences, for which the notion of field is developed here.  A field such as linguistics for example involves a large number of sequences: lecturing, evaluation, supervising, writing, editing, meetings, committees, seminars, conferences, research activities, referee's reports, community work, administration and so on.  More than one of these may well succeed another as a series of micro-sequences, but there is more to their interrelationships than this constituency analysis suggests.  All are related to participation in the field of linguistics, sharing a large number of taxonomies of both the superordinate and compositional variety.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Barthes' sequences, which are language structures, as Martin's activity sequences, which are misconstrued by Martin as context, which in turn is misconstrued by Martin as register.  The confusion is thus simultaneously along the two theoretical dimensions of stratification and instantiation.

[2] This confuses what people do (lecturing etc.) with what people say (sequences). The confusion is thus between material and semiotic orders of experience.

Misrepresenting Barthes

Martin (1992: 538):

Barthes continues by pointing out that activity sequences have names, and may be encapsulated by the name to form part of another sequence.  This suggests in effect that the notion of constituency can be applied to the compositional relations among activity sequences (and Barthes in fact provides an appropriate tree diagram for the first episode of Goldfinger):

It (a sequence) is also founded a maximo: enclosed on its function, subsumed under a name, the sequence itself constitutes a new unit, ready to function as a single term in another, more extensive sequence.  Here, for example, is a micro-sequence: hand held out, hand shaken, hand released.  This Greeting then becomes a simple function: on the one hand, it assumes the rôle of an indice (flabbiness of Du Pont, Bond's distaste); on the other, it forms globally a term in a larger sequence, with the name Meeting, whose other terms (approach, halt, interpellation, sitting down) can themselves be micro-sequences. (1977: 102-3)

The meeting sequence in other words has as one of its nuclei another sequence — greeting:

meeting (greeting):

approach ^ halt ^ interpellation ^ (hand held out ^ hand shaken ^ hand released) ^ sitting down

Blogger Comments:

[1] For Barthes, it is a sequence of language that has a name.  Martin's activity sequence is misconstrued as context (field) which, in turn, is misconstrued as register.

[2] The (tautological) claim here is that part-whole relations (constituency) can be applied to part-whole (compositional) relations.

[3] To be clear, Barthes claim is that (micro-)sequences can be embedded in other sequences.

Not Acknowledging Barthes As Intellectual Source

Martin (1992: 537-8):

Barthes goes on to point out that sequences involve both expectancy and risk. Recognition of an activity sequence implies an expectation that one of its events will follow another, but the succession is not necessary.  It is always possible for expectations to be countered, which creates the context for concessive conjunctive relations. Counterexpectation is a critical feature of narrative genre (and one that does not come naturally to young writers who generally fail to put succession at risk):

However minimal its importance, a sequence, since it is made up of a small number of nuclei (that is to say, in fact of 'dispatchers'), always involves moments of risk and it is this that justifies analysing it.  It might seem futile to constitute into a sequence the logical succession of trifling acts which go to make up the offer of a cigarette (offering, accepting, smoking, lighting), but precisely at every one of these points, an alternative — and hence a freedom of meaning — is possible. … A sequence is thus, one can say, a threatened logical unit, this being its justification a minimo.  (1977: 102)

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin (1992: 322-4) proposes 'expectancy' as an activity sequence relation (e.g. here).  He does not acknowledge Barthes as the source of the idea.  At the symposium to honour the late Ruqaiya Hasan, Martin falsely accused Hasan of not acknowledging Mitchell as one of her sources (evidence here).

[2] The highly fanciful notion of meaning 'at risk' is finally clarified here for the first time and sourced to Barthes.  In terms of SFL theory, it simply means the speaker is always free to instantiate a different option during logogenesis.  The risk is to the feature and it is the risk of not being selected.   All features are thus "put at risk" outside the moment of instantiation.  "Pretentious?! Moi?!"

[3] The perspective on language here is that of the addressee, not the speaker.

[4] This is relevant only for the semantics of specific text types, mainly fictional.  The discussion here is purported to be establishing a model of field (context), the ideational dimension of cultural potential in general — which Martin misconstrues as register.

[5] In SFL theory, concessive conjunctive relations are a specific type of causal-conditional relation, served by items such as yet, still, though, despite this, however, even so, all the same, nevertheless (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 614).  Martin misunderstands and misapplies the concessive enhancement relation, as demonstrated, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

[6] It is worth pointing out that Barthes' construal of nuclei that make up a sequence as 'dispatchers' is imaginative fiction, not semiotic theory.  Barthes otherwise presents the relation as 'made up', but in sense of composition, not fiction.

[7] Barthes' claim is that it is the fact that the speaker is always free to instantiate a different option during logogenesis that justifies both the sequence and its analysis.  This is, of course, no less true, or false, of any instance of language.

[8] Note that, in this misquoting of Barthes, the carcinogenic cause of heart disease is not lit until after it is smoked.

Misconstruing Barthes' 'Sequence' As Field

Martin (1992: 537):

Barthes's sequence, which is equivalent to the notion of activity sequence used here, is defined as follows (his nuclei are roughly equivalent to the clause rank nuclear structures proposed in Chapter 5):

A sequence is a logical succession of nuclei bound together by a relation of solidarity (in the Hjelmslevian sense of double implication: two terms presuppose one another): the sequence opens when one of its terms has no solidary antecedent and closes when another of its terms has no consequent.  To take another deliberately trivial example, the different functions order a drink, obtain it, drink it, pay for it, constitute an obviously closed sequence, it being impossible to put anything before the order or after the payment without moving out of the homogeneous group 'Having a drink' (Barthes 1977: 101).

Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of SFL theory, Barthes' notion of 'sequence' corresponds to a sequence of figures that lack cohesion with the surrounding co-text.  However, Martin's notion of 'activity sequence' corresponds to a sequence of figures without regard to (non-conjunctive) cohesion.  Further, in Martin's model, such semantic sequences are misconstrued as context (culture-as-semiotic), which, in turn, is misconstrued as register (subpotential of language).  This does, however, raise the question as to whether Barthes' 'sequence' is the unacknowledged source of Martin's 'activity sequence'.

[2] In terms of SFL theory, Barthes' notion of 'nuclei' corresponds to semantic figures.  However, in Martin's model, such semantic figures are misconstrued as 'clause rank structures' (lexicogrammar), which, in turn, are construed as (discourse) semantics.  This does, however, raise the question as to whether Barthes' 'nuclei' are the unacknowledged source of Martin's 'nuclear structures'.

[3] It is worth pointing out that, as stated, Barthes' notion of 'sequence' does not survive close scrutiny.  For example, if it only requires one of its terms to have no antecedent or consequent, then the integrity of a sequence is "only as strong as its weakest link".  Further the claim that it is 'impossible to put anything before the order or after the payment without moving out of the homogeneous group Having a drink' is clearly false, since the sequence could be preceded by offering to buy for friends, and followed by thanking the bartender, to name just two possibilities.

Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Fabula And Syuzhet

Martin (1992: 537):

Barthes's notion of sequence was developed in the context of studying the relations between story (alternatively fabula or histoire) and discourse (alternatively sjuzhet or discours) in narrative theory (see Toolan 1988: 9-11), a context very similar to that in which the field/genre distinction proposed here evolved in Australian educational linguistics.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  The distinction between fabula and syuzhet is not the distinction between story and discourse: 

Fabula and syuzhet are terms originating in Russian formalism and employed in narratology that describe narrative construction. Syuzhet is an employment of narrative and fabula is the chronological order of the events contained in the story. They were first used in this sense by Vladimir Propp and Viktor Shklovsky. The fabula is "the raw material of a story, and syuzhet, the way a story is organized.

[2] In SFL Theory, field is the ideational dimension of the culture as a semiotic system that has language as its expression plane, and genre is text type, which is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Martin's model of field, however, confuses field (context) with activity sequences (semantics) and miscontrues this confusion as register.

On the other hand, Martin's model of genre confuses text type (register) with text structure (semantics) and misconstrues this confusion as a level of context that is realised by his confused model of register.