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).

Rhapsodising On Modal Responsibility

Martin (1992: 489-90):

Finally modal responsibility accommodates the interlocutor, making ongoing assessments of meaning at risk.  Vulnerable meanings are woven through the Mood functions of a text's ranking clauses, constructing a constrained resource for openness — for interplay, as interlocutors negotiate the resolution of an exchange.  What is going on here is that meanings that can be shared without risk are not worth being made; there has to be some difference involved to make a text worth meaning.  At the same time, a text is not worth meaning if it cannot be shared.  And so the openness associated with point is delimited by the need to organise messages into interactive events in which certain meanings are taken for granted and others are the stakes.  Where interlocutors cannot agree, these stakes may be very high.  In summary, Residue is what interlocutors are judged to have in common; Mood is what they may not share.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue.  In SFL theory, modal responsibility is the meaning of Subject, and refers to the rôle of Subject as the element on which the validity of a proposition or proposal rests.  The Subject does not "accommodate" the interlocutor.  Consider the "accommodation" of the interlocutor provided by the Subject the square of the hypotenuse in the following clause:

the square of the hypotenuse	equals		the sum of the squares of the other two sides
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood		Residue

[2] This is manifestly untrue.  Subjects do not "make ongoing assessments of meaning at risk".  Consider the "ongoing assessment of meaning at risk" made by the Subject the square of the hypotenuse in the previous example.

[3] This is manifestly untrue.  Consider the "vulnerability" of the meanings of the square of the hypotenuse and equals that are "woven through the Mood functions" in the example above.

[4] The function of the Mood block, Subject + Finite, is to make propositions and proposals arguable.

[5] Not all texts involve "interlocutors negotiating the resolution of an exchange", but all texts involve Subjects.  Consider the "interlocutors negotiating the resolution of an exchange" in the following text:

How pleasant to know Mr. Lear,
Who has written such volumes of stuff.
Some think him ill-tempered and queer,
But a few find him pleasant enough.

[6] This is manifestly untrue.  Consider the "sharing of meaning without risk" in:

the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides

This, the Pythagorean theorem, is a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry and might thus be considered as "worth being made".  Two geometers don't need to disagree about it for it to be "worth meaning".

[7] Martin's point includes paragraph summaries (hyper-News) and a text summary (macro-New).  Summaries do not open up a text, they keep it within the bounds of what has already been written.  See the most recent previous critique here.

[8] This confuses metafunctions.  Modal responsibility is an interpersonal function, whereas the organisation of texts is the province of the textual metafunction.

[9] As well as being manifestly untrue, this misunderstands the nature of Mood and Residue. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 150):

… the Mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event. So it remains constant, as the nub of the proposition, unless some positive step is taken to change it …

The Residue, on the other hand, comprises the remaining elements that realise the proposition (or proposal), but which do not 'bear the burden of the clause as an interactive event'.

Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point

Martin (1992: 489):

In short, method of development is where a text is coming from; point is where it's going to.  Theme is how a speaker looks at things; New is where she takes the listener to.  Hyper-Theme is what a speaker is going to say; hyper-New is what a listener's learned.  Macro-Theme is their way in; macro-New is where they've been.  A text is a trip: method of development is the route taken, while point is why you went there in the first place — what you've seen/learned/experienced/taken away.  Method of development is the plan; point is the holiday.

Blogger Comments:

[1] These characterisations of method of development and point are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes is where the text is coming from;
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary is where it's going to.

[2] Again, these characterisations of Theme and New are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  Theme is the giving of textual prominence to what is the point of departure of the clause as message.  Theme can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.  New is the giving of textual prominence to what the speaker regards as unrecoverable to the listener.  New can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.

[3] Here the concern is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• topic sentence is what a speaker is going to say
• paragraph summary is what a listener's learned

[4] A paragraph summary is meaning created by the speaker (writer).  In contradistinction, what a listener has learned from a text is meaning created by the listener.

[5] Here the concern is again writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph is their way in
• text summary is where they've been.

[6] In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', 'the route taken' also includes the meanings not included in the introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes.  The entire text is 'the route taken'.

[7] The claim of this metaphor is that News, paragraph summaries and text summary is 'why you went there in the first place'.  This misconstrues the meaning of point in terms of cause: purpose, and ascribes it to the interlocutors, rather than the text.

[8] This can be glossed as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes are the plan (of the trip);
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary are the holiday (of the trip).

In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', all the meanings of the entire text constitute the trip (holiday).

Rhapsodising On Point

Martin (1992: 489):

Point is the discourse complement of method of development.  Where Theme ties the text down, point elaborates it, developing it as news.  A much greater range of meanings with be realised in New than Theme, though not a random set.  A text's principle [sic] strings and chains will still be there, constrained by cohesive harmony; but there will be lesser [sic] strings and chains and odds and ends as well.  A text is never hermetically sealed; a text, like the system behind it, is a dynamic open process — and point is a source of openness: a resistance to the closure predicated on cohesive harmony and method of development.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, it is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's point is, again, a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding paragraph summary as hyper-New, and text summary as macro-New, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: New as information deemed unrecoverable to the listener (textual metafunction).

Martin's point is the accumulation of experiential meaning that is highlighted as New information and included in a paragraph summary and text summary.  Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also highlighted as New information — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

Martin's deployment of the linguistic theory is internally inconsistent, given that New information is located on the phonological stratum, and yet construed as an element of the clause (lexicogrammar), rather than the information unit.

[2] Theme, as the point of departure of a message, does not "tie a text down" — anymore than airports, as points of departure during a holiday, "tie a holiday down".

[3] Point does not "develop the text as news".  New is information that is presented as unrecoverable to the listener; hyper-New is a paragraph summary of what has already been written; and macro-New is a text summary of what has already been written.

[4] Cohesive harmony does not constrain a text.  Hasan's cohesive harmony describes the synergy of the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction, cohesion, and the meanings of the experiential metafunction (and potentially the interpersonal metafunction).

[5] To be clear, system and text are related by the vector of instantiation.  In SFL theory, 'system' is short for 'system–&–process' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 507), and text is an instance of the 'system–&–process'.  The unfolding of the text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation is the process of logogenesis.

[7] By definition, New information may be "a source of openness", but summaries of what has already been written (hyper-New and macro-New) are not.  They are repetitions of meanings internal to the text.

[8] This is manifestly untrue.  See [2] and [4] above.

Misconstruing A Grammatical Reference Item As An Accumulation Of New Information

Martin (1992: 459):

Hyper- and macro-News, like hyper- and macro-Themes are more prominent in written than spoken English.  However, just as marked Themes were shown to functional [sic] in parallel ways to hyper-Themes in spoken mode, so extended reference can be shown to function in parallel ways to hyper-News.  Two excerpts from text [4:2] are re-presented below to illustrate this point.  This in [4:2ff & ii] and that in [4:2aaa & ccc] are used to accumulate the actions in the activity sequences that have gone before in a way which complements their scaffolding with marked Themes as discussed in 6.3.2.  Extended reference is in other words to hyper-New as marked Theme is to hyper-Theme:

Synoptic : Dynamic ::

(WRITTEN : SPOKEN ::)

hyper-Theme : marked Theme ::

hyper-New : extended reference

Blogger Comments:

[1] In text [4:2], or any other text, the grammatical items this and that do not "accumulate" (or summarise) previous New information.  As instances of anaphoric demonstrative reference, they refer back to earlier information, which may have been presented as Given and/or New.

[2] For Martin, activity sequences in the text are misconstrued as field, the ideational dimension of context, and this, in turn, is misconstrued as register.

[3] Glossing Martin's terms, these proportionalities become:

• an anaphoric demonstrative reference item in spoken mode is to
• a paragraph summary in written mode as
• a marked Theme of a clause in spoken mode is to
• a topic sentence in written mode.

When An Abstract Is A Summary And A Summary Is An Introduction

Martin (1992: 458):

The consideration of macro-Theme and macro-New in Matthiessen and Halliday's paper points to the difference between what are often referred to as an abstract and a summary. A[n] abstract is essentially a dislocated macro-New (typically "Theme marked" at a text's beginning or published elsewhere); it presents the essence of what can be learned by reading the text the abstract functions as macro-New for.  A summary on the other hand is more like a dislocated macro-Theme (often "Rhematic" at the end of a text or published elsewhere); it provides an outline of what can or has been read, re-scaffolding by way of review.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On this model, the difference between an abstract and a summary is that an abstract is a summary and a summary is an introductory paragraph; see the next two points, below.

[2] Glossing the term macro-New as 'text summary' (p454), this becomes:

A[n] abstract is essentially a dislocated text summary; it presents the essence of what can be learned by reading the text the abstract functions as text summary for.

[3] Glossing the term macro-Theme as 'introductory paragraph' (p437), this becomes:

A summary on the other hand is more like a dislocated introductory paragraph; it provides an outline of what can or has been read, re-scaffolding by way of review.

[4] An abstract or summary that is published elsewhere, rather than as part of the text in question, though related (intertextually), is not part of the logogenesis of the actual text it abstracts or summarises, and so does not function as its macro-New or macro-Theme.

Presenting Prescription As Theoretical Description

Martin (1992: 456):

Importantly, macro-News are not simply a replay of macro-Themes; they draw together new meanings which could not have been predicted by macro-Theme because they had not been made.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This translates as: 'text summaries are not simply a replay of introductory paragraphs'.  The field here, still, is writing pedagogy — prescribing how to structure written texts — rather than theorising the system of the English language by examining instances (texts).  Moreover, the situation is quite different when an actual text is closely examined.

In text [6:23], the introductory paragraph ('macro-Theme') is given by Martin as:

Wars are costly exercises. They cause death and destruction and put resources to non-productive uses but they also promote industrial and economic change. This benefit does not mean that war is a good thing, but that it sometimes brings useful developments.

and the text summary ('macro-New') is given by Martin as:

… it is clear that future generations not only enjoyed the security and peace won by their forefathers but also the benefits of war-time economic expansion.

It can be seen that, rather than accumulate the New meanings of the preceding co-text (Martin's claim), what actually happens in this particular text summary ('macro-New') is:

1. first, content not previously discussed in the text is introduced (it is clear that future generations not only enjoyed the security and peace won by their forefathers), and
2. second, one piece of New information from the introductory paragraph (promote industrial and economic change) is reworded (lexical cohesion) and again presented as New information (the benefits of war-time economic expansion).

[2] The claim here is that new meanings could not have been predicted by the introductory paragraph on account of the fact that these new meanings had not been made.  The logic here is as follows:

• Q could not have been predicted from P because Q had not yet happened.

The notion of prediction only applies to events that have not yet happened.

Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory

Martin (1992: 456):

Macro-Theme, hyper-Themes and clause Themes project forward, scaffolding the text with respect to its rhetorical purpose (i.e. its genre); macro-New, hyper-News and clause News on the other hand look back, gathering up the meanings which have accumulated to elaborate a text's field.  The result is a textured sandwich in which texts project both forward and back as they unfold.  Texture of this kind, which is a tendency in writing (by no means a categorical rule) is outlined schematically in Fig. 6.12.

 

Fig. 6.12. Sandwich texture in abstract written discourse

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field here is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory:

• macro-Theme is Martin's rebranding of introductory paragraph; 
• hyper-Theme is Martin's use of Daneš's (1974) term to rebrand topic sentence;
• macro-New is Martin's term for a text summary (and so 'New' is a misnomer);
• hyper-New is Martin's term for a paragraph summary (and so 'New' is again a misnomer).

[2] This confuses context (which is more abstract than language) with register (which is a functional variety of language).  The rôle of language in context is its rhetorical mode.  A genre, on the other hand, as a text type, is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

[3] 'New' is a functional element of the information unit, not the clause. The domain of an information unit may be shorter or longer than a single clause.

[4] The meanings that 'elaborate' the field of a context of situation are all the meanings of a text, not just those that are presented as New to the addressee or re-presented in summaries.

[5] The relation between meaning (semantics) and field (context) is realisation, which is both an elaborating and an identifying relation.  It is the identifying component of the relation that marks the two as different levels of symbolic abstraction.  The use of the term 'elaboration' betrays the fact that Martin does not understand strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction, as has been demonstrated in numerous previous posts (here).

When New Information Isn't

Martin (1992: 455):

The pattern of interaction in [6:23] is outlined below, listing the text's News, hyper-New and macro-New.  The News of the introduction are listed (in plain face) but do not participate in this pattern; they participate instead in the complementary function of predicting the text's method of development reviewed above.

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, on this model, information that is presented by the writer as New to the reader in the introduction (Martin's macro-Theme) does not participate in the 'accumulation of New information'.

Misidentifying New Information

Martin (1992: 454-5): 

The next paragraph is not pulled together in this way; instead, [6:23r] functions as a macro-New, summarising the text as a whole. … macro-New [is …] underlined in the following representation of [6:23]; the minimal News of remaining clauses appear in bold-face.

[6:23]	(illustrating New … and macro-New)
	m	The war had also revealed inadequacies in Australia’s scientific and research capabilities.
	n	After the war strenuous efforts were made to improve these.
	o	The Australian National University was established with an emphasis on research.
	p	The government gave its support to the advancement of science in many areas, including agricultural production.
	q	Though it is difficult to disentangle the effects of war from other influences,
	r	it is clear that future generations not only enjoyed the security and peace won by their forefathers but also the benefits of war-time economic expansion.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the first mention of the security and peace won by their forefathers in the text, and so it does not satisfy Martin's definition of macro-New as 'summarising the text as a whole'.

[2] This does not satisfy Martin's definition of minimal New — the "highest ranking" clause constituent (p451) — because [6:23p] is a clause complex, rather than a single clause, with including agricultural production as a possessive attributive clause hypotactically elaborating the clause that precedes it.  Based on a spoken reading, there are likely to be information foci on many and agricultural.

Misrepresenting New Information

Martin (1992: 453-4):

The pattern of hyper- and macro-Themes recognised in 6.3.2 above raises the question of whether a similar symbolic pattern arises based on New.  Reviewing text [6:23] it can be seen that hyper- and macro-New are also important aspects of texture, particularly in abstract writing.  The function of hyper-New is illustrated in [6:23l] below; this clause pulls together and summarises the information build up in the rest of the paragraph. … 

Hyper-New [is] single underlined … in the following representation of [6:23]; the minimal News of remaining clauses appear in bold-face.

[6:23]	(illustrating New, hyper-New …)
	a	Wars are costly exercises.
	b	They cause death and destruction
	c	and put resources to non-productive uses
	d	but they also promote industrial and economic change.
	e	This benefit does not mean that war is a good thing, but that it sometimes brings useful developments.
	f	The Second World War further encouraged the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis.
	g	Between 1937 and 1945 the value of industrial production almost doubled.
	h	This increase was faster than otherwise would have occurred.
	i	The momentum was maintained in the post-war years
	j	and by 1954-5 the value of manufacturing output was three times that of 1944-5.
	k	The enlargement of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all owed something to the demands of war.
	l	The war had acted as something of a hothouse for technological progress and economic change.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field here is again writing pedagogy, rather than linguistic theory.

[2] The paragraph is a unit of graphology, the expression plane of language realising written mode.  It is not a unit of linguistic content.

[3] New is not a functional component of the clause.  It is the obligatory element of the information unit, which is parallel with the clause.  The distribution of information units in a text is indicated by the phonological system of tonality, which specifies the distribution of tone groups, because an information unit is realised by a tone group.  The culmination of New information, the information focus, is indicated by the phonological system of tonicity, which specifies the location of tonic prominence, because the information focus is realised by tonic prominence.

In contrast, in the analysis of text [6:23], the New is arbitrarily assigned to the last functional element of the Rheme of the clause, regardless of intonation, graphological indications of tone group boundaries, lexical density, and so on.  The possibility of New information in the Theme, a very frequent feature of discourse, is ruled out by such a rigid, arbitrary approach.

Some of the likely foci of New information in text [6:23], based on a spoken reading, and overlooked by the arbitrary approach, are highlighted above in dark red.