Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level

Martin (1992: 575, 576):

In their interpretations of language, register and genre as semiotic systems, systemicists have generally attempted to model cultures as a whole — to generalise meaning potential across all imaginable texts… .  The problems with this are:

1. as noted above, this meaning potential is not evenly distributed across participants in a culture; and 

2. for a culture to survive, this meaning potential has to evolve.

These two problems are in fact closely related; it is the tensions produced by the unequal distribution of meaning potential that forces a culture to change.  This brings social semiotic theory face to face with the central problem in marxist [sic] theory: what is the nature of the dialectic between base and superstructure that facilitates and at the same time frustrates social change?  Even more to the point, from the perspective of a theory of linguistics as social action, how is it possible to intervene in a dialectic of this kind?  These are the questions that the communicative plane of ideology has been articulated to address.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Theory–competent Systemicists do not distinguish register and genre from language and do not model them as systems.

[2] This confuses culture (context potential) with the language that realises it.  The confusion is thus along the dimension of stratification.

[3] Neither of these are problems for proposing a system of language potential.  On the one hand, the social distribution of language system variants is a further dimension to be added to the model, and on the other, the evolution of the language system is modelled in SFL theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 18) by phylogenesis in relation to the other two semogenic processes:

• logogenesis provides the material for ontogenesis which provides the material for phylogenesis, while
• phylogenesis provides the environment for ontogenesis which provides the environment for logogenesis.

[4] The claim here is that:

• it is the tensions produced by the unequal distribution of meaning potential that forces a culture to change

Leaving aside the possibility that there may be other factors that "force a culture to change", the implication here is that an equal distribution of meaning potential would reduce tensions, but by doing so, put an end to cultural change.

[5] On the basis of [4], the academic revolutionary is faced with the choice of either working for social inequity or working for cultural stagnation.

[6] The claim here is that adding another level of symbolic abstraction to Martin's stratification hierarchy will address two questions:

1. what is the nature of the dialectic between base and superstructure that facilitates and at the same time frustrates social change?
2. how is it possible to intervene in a dialectic of this kind?

It might be remembered that the following has also been promised (p546):

Discourses of generation, gender, ethnicity and class channel subjects in very different ways according to the coding orientations they enjoy. It is the responsibility of the plane of ideology to make the nature of this channeling clear, deconstructing the momentum and inherent contradictions which allow it to evolve.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre

Martin (1992: 575):

The register and genre theory reviewed and developed above represents systemic theory's attempts to model heteroglossia and dialogism; it does this by formulating register and genre as social semiotic systems realised through text, thereby providing an account not simply of how one text relates to another (cohesion across products) but in addition of how one text relates to all the texts that might have been (product in relation to system). …

The interpretation does however need to be qualified in two important respects — namely heterogeneity and semogensis [sic] (i.e. semiotic change). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading.  Firstly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not represent systemic theory's attempts.  On the contrary, it is inconsistent with SFL theory, and represents Martin's attempts only.  Secondly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not model heteroglossia and dialogism.  On the contrary, what is claimed bears little or no relation to heteroglossia and dialogism; see further below.

[2] This is inconsistent, both with Martin's model and with SFL theory.

In terms of Martin's stratification model, register and genre systems are realised by the systems of language, not by text.  In this, Martin confuses the system and instance poles of the cline of instantiation.

In terms of SFL theory, it involves two confusions.  Firstly, the notion of register and genre systems confuses a midway point of variation on the cline of instantiation (register/genre/text type) with the system pole of the cline.  Secondly, it misconstrues the relation between system and text as realisation instead of instantiation.  (This in addition to the inconsistencies entailed by modelling varieties of language as context rather than language.)

[3] This is misleading in terms of both register and genre.  In terms of register, any chance of providing an account how one text relates to another is undermined by Martin's numerous misinterpretations of field, tenor and mode systems, as demonstrated in many previous posts.  In terms of genre, Martin merely provides two simple taxonomies of factual and story genres (text types).  Martin nowhere presents any account of how his formulation of register and genre relates one individual text to another.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesion is not a relation between 'products' (texts).

[5] This is the opposite of what is true.  This is precisely what Martin's model does not do.  In SFL theory, the relation of texts to text potential — of instances to system — is modelled as the cline of instantiation.  Martin's model is inconsistent with the cline of instantiation, due to the fact that it misconstrues the midway point on the cline (register/genre), not as language, but as systems of context, and as such, as higher levels of symbolic abstraction than language.  This follows from not understanding either stratification or instantiation, as demonstrated many times in previous posts.

[6] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 18) identify three types of semogenic processes:

• logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text;
• ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual; and
• phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992)

Martin (1992: 574):

The first point that needs to be made is that the interpretation of language and context here is indeed multi-structural and polysystemic.  System/structure theory has been re-involved in the description on a number of different levels — rank, stratum and plane — most of which involve metafunctional diversity and so can be analysed simultaneously as particle, wave and prosody; in addition, synoptic and dynamic perspectives on text as system and text as process have been introduced.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, context is interpreted here as types of language, rather than as context, with the result that, being context, these types of language are not considered language.

[2] This is misleading, in that it overstates what has actually been done.  Almost none of the systems that Martin has provided specifies structural realisations.  This is partially disguised by the fact that some networks do include realisation statements; however, these merely provide textual instances of the feature.

• Of Martin's 49 discourse semantic system networks, across four metafunctions, only 4 specify structural realisations, and all are confined to the interpersonal metafunction.
• Of Martin's 11 register system networks, not one specifies any structural realisations; that is, no register structures are specified by register systems.
• Martin provides 0 genre systems — only taxonomies of types (factual and story genres); that is, no genre structures are specified by genre systems.

[3] This is misleading, in that it overstates what has actually been done.  Martin has not provided a rank scale for his planes of register and genre, and in the case of the stratum of discourse semantics, only one of the four metafunctional systems, the interpersonal, includes a rank scale: exchange and move.  The ranks discussed in the experiential dimension of discourse semantics — the clause and group — are ranks of a different stratum: lexicogrammar. 

[4] The level that does not involve metafunctional diversity is genre.  Metafunction is thus another dimension in which the model is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory, which follows from the misinterpretation of genre as context.

[5] To be clear, these are the favoured modes of structural realisation only, varying according to metafunction.  Significantly, these were introduced in the section on genre, the plane without metafunctional diversity. 

[6] This confuses text with language.  Text is only the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  Language is the entire cline, from systemic potential to actual instance, with every point on the cline providing a different perspective.

'Text as system', therefore, is the instantial system; i.e. the system of an actual text, not the system of the language as a whole.  It is the instance viewed from the system pole.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384): 

If we look at logogenesis from the point of view of the system (rather than from the point of view of each instance), we can see that logogenesis builds up a version of the system that is particular to the text being generated: the speaker/writer uses this changing system as a resource in creating the text; and the listener/reader has to reconstruct something like that system in the process of interpreting the text — with the changing system as a resource for the process of interpretation. We call this an instantial system.

'Text as process', on the other hand, is the process of instantiation that occurs at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation during logogenesis.  As previously explained, Martin misconstrues 'process' as structure, the syntagmatic axis, "viewed dynamically".  That is, he confuses the instantiation of the system as instance with the axial realisation of the system as structure.

Misunderstanding Realisation

Martin (1992: 574):

In general terms Firth privileged text over system (see Halliday's comments in Thibault 1987: 603) and it was left to Halliday to develop system/process theory in a way that placed potential and actual on an equal footing, related through the dialectic of realisation. …

Setting aside for a moment the problems of formalising realisation as a dialectic, English Text has for the most part followed Halliday's lead in refusing to privilege either system or process.  The attention paid to system however does run the risk of being read as involving an over-deterministic interpretation of language, register and genre as homogeneous systems.  This (mis)reading needs to be seriously addressed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the relation between potential and actual, which is instantiation, not realisation.

[2] This misunderstands the notion of realisation.  Realisation is an intensive identifying relational process that relates different levels of symbolic abstraction.  It is the relation, for example, between strata, on the one hand, and between axes, on the other.

It also misunderstands the notion of dialectic, which refers to the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. Its synonyms include reasoning, argumentation, contention, logic; discussion, debate, dialogue, logical argument.

[3] The notion of "formalising realisation as a dialectic" is therefore nonsensical, at best.

formalising (‘making formal’)		realisation	as a dialectic
Process: relational	Attribute	Carrier	Rôle: guise

[4] There is a concealed confusion here, in as much as Martin (1992) uses the term 'process' to mean structure, viewed dynamically, rather than the process of instantiation.  In terms of system vs structure, SFL theory, as the name implies, does give priority to system.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is one of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features.

[5] To be clear, SFL theory maps out the dimensions of language as a resource of choices for making meaning.

[6] Here diatypic varieties of language, register and genre, are again presented as not being language.

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.

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.

Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field

Martin (1992: 572):

The distinction between first and second order field is presented as follows:

In a discussion about a game of football, the social action is the discussion and the verbal interaction among the participants is the whole of this interaction.  Here the game constitutes a second order of 'field', one that is brought into being by that of the first order, the discussion … (1978: 144)

English Text would model a context of this kind by treating it as a discussion at the level of genre, and as simultaneously involving two fields at the level of register — one field realised through language in action mode (the discussion), and the other realised reflectively (the subject matter).  Keeping in mind that as far as text structure is concerned genre and field give convergent accounts as texts approach ancillary mode, English Text's approach to this context would amount in practice to treating the genre as discussion and the field as the game discussed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The inconsistencies here are too complex to analyse without the glossary below:

Martin’s Usage	What Martin Thinks It Means	What Halliday Means By It
context	register and genre	the semiotic system that has language as its expression plane
genre	context, not language; more abstract than register	language, not context; text type, i.e. register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation
register	context, not language; less abstract than genre	language, not context; text type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation
field	ideational dimension of register	ideational dimension of context, not register

So Martin's approach is to model this situation type

• as a discussion at his higher level of context (genre), and 
• as two fields at his lower level of context (register),
• with first order field realised through ancillary mode, and
• second order field realised through constitutive mode.

That is, new inconsistencies are introduced at this point:

• a situation type has two modes simultaneously (two points on the same cline);
• systems at the same level of abstraction (field and mode) are related by realisation — the relation between different levels of abstraction;
• ideational features (field) are realised by textual features (mode);
• different orders of experience (first and second order field) are both realised by the same order (mode, which is second order).

[2] Note that mode of this situation type is constitutive, not ancillary.  Halliday explicitly specifies that 'the verbal interaction among the participants is the whole of this interaction'.

[3] Martin's approach is thus to treat the lower (first) order field as the higher level of semiotic abstraction — genre stratum — and higher (second) order field as the lower level of semiotic abstraction — register stratum — based on an incorrect interpretation of mode (see [2]).  The inconsistencies therefore are in terms of ordering (lower vs higher), relation (realisation vs projection) and mode (ancillary vs constitutive).

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

Misconstruing One Mode System As Register And Another As Genre

Martin (1992: 571-2):

… and Halliday's second order opposition of medium to rhetorical genre is English Text's opposition between genre and mode.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Halliday's 'rhetorical mode' as 'rhetorical genre'.  For Halliday, rhetorical mode is context, whereas genres are text types — registers viewed from the instance pole — which can be identified, in part, by the rhetorical modes they realise.

[2] Assuming Martin has these in reverse order, the proposal here is to reconstrue

• Halliday's mode system of medium (spoken vs written etc.) as his registerial system of mode, and
• Halliday's system of rhetorical mode (expository vs persuasive etc.) as his system of genre.

That is, two systems of potential at the same level of semiotic abstraction — context — are reconstrued as different levels of semiotic abstraction — genre realised by register — which, in SFL theory, are complementary perspectives on sub-potentials of language.  The confusions here are thus along two dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

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

Misconstruing A Higher Order Of Experience As A Lower Level Of Symbolic Abstraction

Martin (1992: 571):

First and second order tenor would be dealt with as the difference between register (tenor) and discourse semantics (NEGOTIATION) here;

Blogger Comment:

For Halliday, tenor is the interpersonal dimension of context.  The relation between first and second order tenor is projection.

Martin's proposal is to reconstrue:

• first order tenor as a dimension of register (misconstrued as context), and
• second order tenor as a dimension of discourse semantics.

That is, the proposal is to treat a higher order of experience within context, as a lower level of symbolic abstraction — within language.

That is, Martin misconstrues

• orders of experience (related by projection) as levels of symbolic abstraction (related by realisation), and 
• the lower order as the higher level.

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

Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre

Martin (1992: 571):

For Halliday, the complication has to do with introducing the concept of first and second order contexts, with first order field and tenor oriented to situation and second order field, tenor and mode defined by reference to language.  Table 7.21 sums up his (1978: 143-5) position:

Table 7.21. First and second oder [sic] register in Halliday (1978)

	first order	second order
field	social action	subject matter
tenor	social roles	speech function roles
mode	–	medium, rhetorical genre

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, both first and second order field and tenor are systems of context, and both are related to language by realisation — the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction.  The relation between different orders of experience is projection.

[2] Here Martin misrepresents Halliday (1978: 142-5) by substituting his own model for Halliday's.  For Halliday's 'context', Martin substitutes 'register', and for Halliday's '(rhetorical) mode', Martin substitutes his 'genre'.

Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's

Martin (1992: 571):

Before turning to the plane of ideology, the question of distinguishing register and genre as semiotic planes will be taken up once again with reference to the work of Halliday, Hasan and Longacre, none of whom "stratify" context along these lines.  Their models can each be shown however to involve additional complexity that the genre and register model here avoids.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the beginning of Martin's argument as to why his model of register and genre as contextual planes is preferable to (his misunderstanding of) Halliday's original model in which genre and register are construed, instead, as complementary perspectives on varieties of language.

[2] It will be demonstrated in the following posts that this is the opposite of what is true.  That is, it will be demonstrated that Martin's model is more complex, as well as being inconsistent with several dimensions of the architecture of SFL theory.  It will also be demonstrated that Martin misrepresents the work of Halliday and Hasan in the course of his argument.

Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems

Martin (1992: 571):

The major stumbling block to overcoming this obstacle and deploying the tools that are already developed is unwieldiness.  The text structures realising genre are large and thus time-consuming to analyse, and compared with examples of syllable and clause structures agnate texts are hard to find.  As an institution linguistics is organised to frustrate work on systems of text — most of the generic slots available for presenting work (papers, seminars, theses, etc. are too short to be equal to the task), appointment and promotion is based on individual, not group work (thereby encouraging revolution in place of evolution), and funding is directed to applications rather than research development (at the same time as applied work has low status within the discipline itself).  All of this manifests an ideologically motivated naturalisation process that will be taken up in 7.4 below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that the obstacle to overcoming the obstacle to mapping out genre systems — see previous post — is the size of the phenomenon to be modelled (texts).

This is meant to explain why Martin has not presented any genre systems in his section on genre systems.

[2] For Martin, the claim that text structures realise genre refers to the axial relation between system and structure on the genre stratum, which is construed as context, not language.  That is, text structure is construed in this model as not being language.

Translated into SFL theory, the claim is that text structures (semantic stratum) realise text types (genres), which is inconsistent with the architecture of the theory.  Semantic structures realise semantic systems axially, and context systems — field, tenor and mode — stratally.

[3] This ideologically motivated conspiracy in linguistics is offered as another reason why Martin hasn't presented any genre systems in his section on genre systems.

As previously explained, the notion of genre systems confuses two distinct points on the cline of instantiation: the system pole and a point midway along the cline (genre/text type/register).

Weaving An Illogical Argument Around A Misinterpretation Of Halliday

Martin (1992: 570):

Probably the main theoretical weakness as far as modelling [the system of genres that constitute our context of culture] is concerned lies in interpreting both system and process as what might metaphorically be referred to as "negotiation".  This stems in part from a fundamental weakness in the dynamic modelling of the exchange; but it projects from there onto difficulties in dealing with tenor (the ways in which interlocutors treat in status, contact, affect), with genre (the interplay through which participants consummate, frustrate or abandon a genre) and on to ideology where tension among coding orientations vies with power, deprivation and systemic inertia to engender evolution.  As Halliday comments in Thibault (1987):

I would interpret the power relations in a particular situation, when we represent that situation in terms of field, tenor and mode, by building into our representation that fact that the situation may be different things for different interactants.  The total picture is obviously going to bring in all angles; but in any typical context of situation in which there is a power relationship of inequality, then the configuration embodied in that situation is different from the way it is seen from either end.  This means, of course, that the register that is being operated by the interactants will be bifurcated, although we may choose to characterise the register of the situation as a whole by building in both strands.  (1987: 620-1)

It remains to develop ways of building in "both strands" that show how text negotiates with system, and different systems with each other; lacking a model of this metasystemic dynamism, contextual theory remains dangerously incomplete.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The main theoretical weakness, as far as modelling "the system of genres that constitute our context of culture" is concerned, actually lies in Martin's confusion of context potential (context of culture) with language sub-potentials (genres/text types/registers), as explained in previous posts.  There has since appeared an entire book devoted to promoting this misunderstanding: Genre Relations: Mapping Culture (Martin & Rose 2008).

[2] This confuses potential (system) and the instantiation of potential (process) with interpersonal semantics, the system–&–process whereby interlocutors enact intersubjective relations as meaning.  Note that Martin's argument is that it is this interpretation that is the main theoretical weakness as far as modelling genre systems is concerned.

probably	the main theoretical weakness	lies in	[[interpreting both system and process as [[ what might metaphorically be referred to as "negotiation"]] ]]
	Identified / Value	Process: relational	Identifier / Token

[3] The claim here is that the source (cause) of this theoretical weakness — the (mis)interpretation — is a fundamental weakness in the dynamic modelling of interpersonal semantics.

this	in part	stems from	a fundamental weakness [in the dynamic modelling [of the exchange] ]
Identified / Token	Manner: degree	Process: relational: causal: reason	Identifier / Value

[4] The claim here is that the theoretical weakness — the (mis)interpretation — extends to difficulties in modelling tenor, genre and ideology.

[simplified]

it	projects	from there onto difficulties [[[in dealing with tenor …  genre … ideology … ]]]
Carrier	Process: relational: spatio-temporal	Attribute: circumstantial

[5] This misunderstands Halliday.  The Halliday quote is concerned with the question of modelling contexts in which two interlocutors see the same situation as different configurations of field, tenor and mode.  These are the two strands that Halliday refers to.

[6] There can be no such "negotiation".  Text and system are the same phenomenon viewed from opposite poles of the cline of instantiation.