Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True

Martin (1992: 573):

The general point here is that single plane models of context tend to introduce additional complexity to handle the contextual variables distributed among field, tenor, mode and genre by English Text.  So the cost of recognising two connotative semiotics instead of one is not as high as it might initially appear.

Blogger Comments:

This is the conclusion of Martin's "argument" for the theoretical superiority of his stratification hierarchy over Halliday's original model, and it is clearly the opposite of what is true.

[1] As the previous six posts have demonstrated, Martin's model is more complex, not less complex than Halliday's model, but more importantly, its complexity arises from misunderstandings of the theoretical architecture of SFL, principally stratification and instantiation.  This has resulted in a model that is inconsistent both with the theoretical architecture and also with itself.

Furthermore, in the course of his argument, Martin has been prepared to misrepresent the work of both Halliday and Hasan in order to invent non-existent problems, which he purports to solve with his model.  As the previous posts demonstrate, each of Martin's "solutions" involves the creation of additional theoretical consistencies.

[2] The principal defect in Martin's bi-stratal model of context is, of course, that it is not a model of context.  Register and genre refer to language, not to context, and in SFL theory, they are complementary perspectives on diatypic variation.

With respect to register, Martin's misunderstanding arises from mistaking the contextual systems that identify registers — field, tenor and mode — for systems of registers themselves.  This in turn arises from Martin not understanding the principle of stratification: as levels of symbolic abstraction related by realisation (as demonstrated many times in previous critiques).

With respect to genre, Martin's misunderstanding arises from mistaking Hasan's generic structure potentials for potentials 'at the level of genre'.  For Hasan, they are structural potentials at the level of semantics which vary according to genre (text type/register).

In conclusion, because Martin confuses semogenesis (all strata make meaning) with stratification, his strata of register and genre are — ignoring internal inconsistencies — both focused on linguistic meaning; that is, both strata are theoretical relocations and rebrandings of semantics.

Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context

Martin (1992: 501-2):

Before beginning however, it is important to note that English Text extends the use of the term register as defined by Halliday.  Halliday uses the term simply to refer to language as context's expression plane — the linguistic meanings (entailing their expressions) at risk in a given situation type.  English Text extends the notion to cover in addition part of context's content plane; register is used in other words to refer to the semiotic system constituted by the contextual variables field, tenor and mode.  As outlined above, in the model of context developed here, register is the name of the metafunctionally organised connotative semiotic between language and genre.  This means that instead of characterising context of situation as potential and register as (context's) actual, English Text treats register as a semiotic system in its own right, involving notions of both system and process.

	potential (system)	actual (process)
Halliday (1978)	context of situation :	register ::
English Text	register :	language

Blogger Comments:

[1] No argument is offered that identifies any problems with Halliday's model of register, or as to why Martin's model is to be preferred.  The new model is merely announced, as if a new consumer good.

[2] Martin previously used the term 'meanings at risk' in conjunction with modal responsibility, which in SFL theory, is the meaning of Subject, an interpersonal function of the clause.  Here Martin uses the term to misrepresent Halliday's notion of register, the subpotential of language (all metafunctions) that realises a situation type.  That is, the use of the term is both inconsistent within Martin's own model, and a misconstrual of Halliday's model.

[3] This claim is both inconsistent with what follows, and a misunderstanding of the principle of stratification.  It is inconsistent with what follows because register is simply equated with Halliday's context.  It is inconsistent with stratification because it construes register as both language and context.

[4] This confuses context with language and stratification with instantiation.  To equate register with context is to construe it as more abstract than language (stratification) instead of as a subpotential of language (instantiation) — a major category error that makes the model untenable.

[5] This confuses stratification with instantiation.  Situation type is related to register by realisation, whereas the relation of potential to actual is the relation between system and instance (text).

[6] The implication here is that Halliday's model does not treat register as a semiotic system in its own right.  To be clear, in SFL theory, each register is a semiotic system that realises a situation type.

[7] This misunderstands the meaning of system and process in SFL theory.  The term 'system' is itself shorthand for system–&–process.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 507):

As we conceive of it, the term “semiotic” is framed within a linear taxonomy of “physical – biological – social – semiotic”; and the term “system” is a shortened form of “system–&–process”, there being no single word that encapsulates both the synoptic and dynamic perspectives (we have referred to the term “climatic system” with the same observation on how it is to be understood).

[8] Here the false dichotymy of system/process (see [7]) is misconstrued as two levels of symbolic abstraction.  Note that, previously, Martin has interpreted process as (dynamic) structure. 

[9] This misconstrues the relation between language–as–system and language–as–register (instantiation) as:

• register is realised by language, and
• register as potential, and language as instance.

These are inconsistent with each other, and the second reverses the relation between language and register on the cline of instantiation, relocating register from the midway point to the system pole, and language from the system pole to the instance pole.

Conclusion:

1. No argument is offered to support the model; 
2. the model is inconsistent with itself across several dimensions; 
3. the model is inconsistent with a sound knowledge of the architecture of SFL theory.

Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony

Martin (1992: 418):

Cohesive harmony is basically designed to measure coherence in text, although it needs to be kept in mind that the measure is only a partial one.  As noted in 6.1, no measure of textual unity is complete without taking into account consistency of register (field, tenor, mode) and genre (text structure); and as Hasan (1985: 94) points out the technique needs to be refined to bring logical and interpersonal meaning into the picture (it does not in other words deal with organic relations — CONJUNCTION and NEGOTIATION, nor with the interaction of componential cohesion and MOOD or clause complex functions).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the confusion of register with context (field, tenor and mode). A register is a functional variety of language, whereas context, on the other hand, is the culture modelled as a connotative semiotic system, with language as its expression plane.

[2] This confuses text type with text structure.  A genre is a kind of text, based on one or more criteria.  Genres are (a subset of) registers, viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  Text structure, on the other hand, is the concern of the semantic stratum.  It refers to the structure of the largest semantic unit.  The confusion is thus, once again, between stratification and instantiation.

[3] There are three interwoven misrepresentations here.  Firstly, broadening the scope of cohesive harmony to include logical and interpersonal meaning does not mean the inclusion of organic relations.  Organic relations are part of Hasan's model of non-structural cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction.

Secondly, organic relations, as cohesive relations, also contribute to cohesive harmony.  As Hasan (1985: 85) clearly explains, she does not discuss them for reasons of space and time:

To answer this question, I shall restrict myself to such notions as have been presented above in some detail.  I shall ignore instantial lexical cohesion, all organic relations, and all forms of structural cohesion.  This is not because they are less important, but because time and space are limited.

Thirdly, Martin's discourse systems of conjunction and negotiation are not theoretically consistent with Hasan's organic relations. Hasan's organic relations are types of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices (1985: 82) — in contrast to componential relations — and as such, are non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.  In contrast, the discourse system of conjunction is presented as a system of the logical metafunction, not the textual — though it confuses textual (non-structural) and logical (structural) deployments of expansion; and the discourse system of negotiation is presented as a system of the interpersonal metafunction, not the textual.

Misconstruing Types Of Language As More Abstract Than Language

Martin (1992: 405):

The notion of context will be developed in somewhat different directions in Chapter 7 below, where context of situation and context of culture will be construed as a series of connotative semiotics (named register, genre and ideology).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is one of the most far-reaching misunderstandings of SFL theory in the entire book.  In SFL theory, 'context' is a semiotic system that is realised in language; it is the culture conceived as a connotative semiotic.  The terms 'register' and 'genre', on the other hand, refer to functional varieties of language itself; registers and genres are not more abstract than language — they are language.

The distinction between register and context is clearly stated in the work most cited by Martin. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 22):

The linguistic features which are typically associated with a configuration of situational features — with particular values of field, mode and tenor — constitute a REGISTER.  The more specifically we can characterise the context of situation, the more specifically we can predict the properties of a text in that situation.

[2] The relation between context of situation and context of culture is instantiation, whereas relations between stratified semiotic systems is realisation.  Turning the theory back on itself, instantiation is an intensive attributive relation, whereas realisation is an intensive identifying relation.  This means it is fundamentally flawed to construe context of situation and context of culture (instantiation) 'as a series of connotative semiotics' (realisation) — even before relabelling them as types of language (register and genre).

Misinterpreting Internal And External Conjunctive Relations

Martin (1992: 180):

Internal relations in other words structure semiosis; external ones code the structure of the world.  A less materialistic interpretation, drawing on the semiotic approach to context to be developed in Chapter 7, could be framed along the following lines.  This would treat external relations as by and large oriented to field — they encode the institutional organisation of our culture.  Internal relations on the other hand are oriented to genre (including the conversational structure realising genre in dialogic modes) — they encode the organisation of text as it is formulated to construct our culture.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is an incorrect reading of the distinction between external and internal conjunctive relations in SFL theory.  As cohesive relations, both are text-forming resources of the lexicogrammar that are concerned with marking textual transitions between whole messages or groups of whole messages (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 583).  External conjunctive relations involve textual relations between 'external phenomena' — that is: between experiences construed as meanings — whereas internal conjunctive relations involve textual relations that are internal to the communication situation itself.

[2] A materialistic interpretation of internal and external conjunctive relations is thus a misinterpretation, not least because the textual metafunction is concerned with semiotic reality.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398):

The textual metafunction second–order in the sense that it is concerned with semiotic reality: that is, reality in the form of meaning. This dimension of reality is itself constructed by [the] other two metafunctions: the ideational, which construes a natural reality, and the interpersonal, which enacts an intersubjective reality. … The function of the textual metafunction is thus an enabling one with respect to the rest; it takes over the semiotic resources brought into being by the other two metafunctions and as it were operationalises them …

[3] In SFL theory, context is construed in semiotic terms: as a connotative semiotic system with language as its expression plane. On the other hand, Martin (1992: 33, 39-40, 121, 122) instead uses the term 'context' to refer to the (semiotic) co-text and the material setting.

[4] External conjunctive relations are a resource of the textual metafunction.  The textual metafunction at the level of context is the system of MODE, whereas FIELD is the ideational dimension of context.

[5] In SFL theory, institutions are situation types.  That is, theoretically they are located halfway down the cline of instantiation at the level of context.  Thus they differ by probabilities in the context systems of FIELD, TENOR and MODE — not just field.

[6] Genre, in the sense of the different rôles that language plays, is a system of MODE at the level of context — not a stratum of context.

Genre, in the sense of text type, is a point on the cline of instantiation.  It is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline.

In SFL theory, therefore, genres are registers that vary according to different feature probabilities in the system of MODE — that is, in terms of the textual metafunction.

Confusing Material Setting And Context Of Situation [updated]

Martin (1992: 121):

These orientations [situation vs community] can be systematised as follows.  Adapting Malinowski's terms, a distinction can be drawn between context of culture and context of situation.  Context of situation refers here to relevant information that can be perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled), including text; context of culture embraces relevant information which cannot be perceived, but which can be assumed because of shared knowledge among interlocutors deriving from their membership in some definable community.

Blogger Comment:

[1] The relation between 'situation' and 'community' — even on Martin's understanding of these terms — is not the same relation as that between 'context of situation' and 'context of culture', as will be demonstrated below.

[2] Here Martin fails to inform the reader that Malinowski's terms had already been introduced into SFL theory by Halliday; see, for example, Halliday & Hasan (1985/9: 5-7).  In doing so, Martin thus falsely presents the work of others as his own.

In SFL theory, 'context' is the culture modelled as a semiotic system, whose expression plane includes language — a connotative semiotic in Hjelmslev's (1961) terms.  Language realises context; context is a higher level of symbolic abstraction than language.

The relation between 'context of culture' and 'context of situation' is instantiation, with the former constituting the 'system pole' of the cline of instantiation, and the latter constituting the 'instance pole'.  In other words, a 'situation' is a instance of 'culture' as potential, where both are conceived of as semiotic, not material.

[3] The material phenomena that can be perceived by interlocutors are features of the material setting.  Any such phenomena only feature in the semiotic context of situation if they figure as an instance of the culture that is realised by the (instance of) language of the interlocutors.

[4] This blurs an important distinction.  To be clear, the 'surrounding' text is the co-text, and so is language that realises context, not context itself.  On the other hand, instances of culture realised in any ancillary texts, as in a teaching situation, can feature in the semiotic context of situation.

[5] To be clear, the 'context of culture' is the cultural potential that can be realised in the meaning potential that is language.

__________

Importantly, 374 pages later in this work, these inconsistencies are further compounded when Martin (p495) reinterprets context of situation as register and context of culture as genre.  The absurdity of substituting two perspectives on functional varieties of language (register and genre) for opposite poles of the instantiation cline for context (situation and culture) can be made clear by substituting the later terms for the terms introduced above, yielding:

Register refers here to relevant information that can be perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled), including text; genre embraces relevant information which cannot be perceived, but which can be assumed because of shared knowledge among interlocutors deriving from their membership in some definable community.

The Inconsistency In Treating Genre As A Connotative Semiotic [Revised]

Martin (1992: 51):

The rank scale at the level of discourse proposed originally by Sinclair and Coulthard included three additional ranks, two above the exchange (lesson and transaction) and one below (move).  Considerations at the ranks of lesson and transaction will be handled under the heading of genre in this book and will be taken up again in Chapter 7, along with a discussion of why genre is treated as a[n] underlying connotative semiotic rather than a higher rank at the level of discourse semantics…

Blogger Comments:

Treating genre as a connotative semiotic is inconsistent with the meaning of both genre and connotative semiotic.  Because 'genre' is a variety of language, and language is a denotative semiotic, 'genre' is a variety of a denotative semiotic. And because a connotative semiotic is a semiotic system whose expression plane is language (Hjelmslev 1961), 'genre', as a variety of language, is located on the expression plane of a connotative semiotic, not on its content plane (context).

Confusing Stratification With Instantiation: Register And Genre [Revised]

Martin (1992: 26):

Finally, in Chapter 7, a model of context will be built up by sketching in the connotative semiotics of register, genre and ideology.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (p493) claims to be following Hjelmslev in his use of the notion of a connotative semiotic. However, for Hjelmslev (1943), a connotative semiotic is a semiotic system whose expression plane is a denotative semiotic system. Martin's model of context misunderstands Hjelmslev in two crucial respects.

Firstly, as will be seen, Martin misinterprets Hjelmslev's connotative semiotic as merely its content plane, excluding its expression plane, the denotative semiotic.

Secondly, as will be seen, Martin misinterprets functional varieties of a denotative semiotic, registers and genres of language, as connotative semiotics.

These basic theoretical inconsistencies invalidate Martin's model of stratified context.

In SFL Theory, register and genre (text type), as functional varieties of language, are modelled as language, not as context. This means that, as varieties, they are located at the midpoint on the cline of instantiation of language. Register is text type (genre), viewed from the system pole of the cline, whereas text type (genre) is register, viewed from the instance pole.

However, as will be seen, Martin's model of genre adds further to the theoretical inconsistencies by also encompassing the SFL notions of MODE (e.g. recount, anecdote etc.) and semantic structure (e.g. Orientation^Record^Reorientation).