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.

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.

Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 563):

Martin (1985/1989) and Martin & Peters (1985) further divided expository writing into analytical and hortatory varieties, depending on whether the text outlined an argument (macro-proposition) or tried to persuade listener/readers to undertake a particular course of action (macro-modulated proposition), a distinction related to Longacre's +/– prescriptive opposition.  The inter-relationships proposed for these factual genres are formulated systemically in Fig. 7.26 (for further delicacy see Peters 1985).  Significantly, the network is comprised of ideational, interpersonal and textual features and thus cuts across register variables to bring out the oppositions between the genres:

ideational variables	+/– activity structure, document/explain
interpersonal variables	resolve/debate, analytical, hortatory
textual variables	+/– generalised

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the rôle of language in context, such as analytical vs hortatory exposition, is a dimension of mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Text types (language) are identified from above, by the situation types (context) they realise.  Here, on the other hand, textual mode is being identified from below, in terms of the interpersonal semantics (speech function).

[2] This misrepresents the distinction between these two types of exposition, both of which involve the presentation of arguments. The text structure (semantics) that realises a hortatory exposition (context: mode) is typically:

1. Thesis
2. Arguments
3. Recommendation

whereas the text structure (semantics) that realises an analytical exposition (context: mode) is typically:

1. Thesis
2. Arguments
3. Reiteration

The function of a hortatory exposition is to explain to the reader that something should or should not happen or be done — not to command the reader — whereas the function of an analytical exposition is a to persuade the reader that an idea is important.

[3] This misrepresents a theoretical defect — a network that mixes metafunctional perspectives — as a virtue.  However, the network also confuses features from different strata and misidentifies their metafunctions, as will be demonstrated below.

[4] In terms of SFL theory, of the "ideational register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), ± activity structure is ideational, but semantic, whereas document/explain is textual context (mode).

[5] In terms of SFL theory, of the "interpersonal register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), resolve/debate is interpersonal, but semantic, whereas analytical/hortatory is textual context (mode).

[6] In terms of SFL theory, the "textual register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), ± generalised is ideational semantics (construing experience).

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.

Misrepresenting Longacre

Martin (1992: 561-2):

It is important to compare Longacre's features [for cross-classifying text types] with those used by Hasan when classifying text structures with respect to contextual configurations. … Longacre's chronological dimension can be related to Hasan's field features, his prescription to her tenor and his dialogue/monologue opposition to her mode.  In effect Longacre has selected features from different aspects of Hasan's contextual construct (i.e. field, mode and tenor variables) and integrated them into a single matrix in order to classify genres.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Longacre's (1976) ± chronological framework classifies text types according ideational semantics whereas Hasan (1977, 1985/9) specifies the ideational dimensions of the culture (field) that identify a text type.  The difference between them is thus stratal. (semantics vs context).

[2] Longacre's ± prescription is concerned with the rôle played by language.  In SFL theory, this is mode, not tenor.  The difference between them is thus metafunctional (textual vs interpersonal).

[3] As Martin reports it, Longacre's monologic vs dialogic opposition distinguishes narrative from drama, respectively.  That is, it distinguishes text types according to whether the projection of the author contain a single voice (a narrator), or many voices (dramatis personæ).  On the other hand, Hasan's monologic vs dialogic opposition is concerned with the number of authors (speakers) of the text.  The difference between them is thus in terms of orders of experience (second-order vs first-order).

[4] As the three previous points clearly demonstrate, this is not true.  Longacre (1976) did not select features of Hasan's (1977, 1985/9) context and integrate them into a single matrix to classify genres.

Metafunctional Inconsistency

Martin (1992: 545-6):

Any such scaling of fields with respect to degree of specialisation and technicality, alongside the scaling of oral and written (especially metaphorical) modes this implies, runs the risk of being misinterpreted as valuing different fields in different ways.  This kind of ranking should not be read into the networks at the level of field.  However it is obvious that fields are valued in different ways and so ranked by all cultures: in Australia, for example, being young, non-anglo, working class or female vastly restricts the meaning potential human cultures otherwise afford.  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.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Alongside the mode system distinction of oral vs written (textual metafunction), Martin includes the distinction of oral vs written transmission in his discussion and system of field (ideational metafunction).

[2] This is misleading.  It is not any mode that is metaphorical.  Instead, the language of some modes may deploy more grammatical metaphor than the language of other modes.  For example, ceteris paribus, there is typically more use of ideational metaphor in the language of written mode than in the language of spoken mode.

[3] This simplistic analysis is falsified, for example, by the considerable number of young, non-"Anglo", female and formerly working class academics in Australian universities.  Compare also the 'coding orientation' of the present blogger, whose ancestral lines include Irish, German, Jewish and Australian indigenous, and who comes from a family where the father laboured as an employee on factory floors and building sites.

[4] The model of the plane of ideology (pp573-88) will be assessed in terms of how well it meets this responsibility.

Misconstruing Mode As Field

Martin (1992: 542):

Taking the nature of socialisation and lexical specialisation into account, a provisional classification of fields can be provided.  The first cut is between fields depending on oral transmission and those depending on writing; this opposes home, recreation and trades to public administration, humanities, social science and science (or in more general terms, oral cultures to literate ones).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The 'oral' vs 'writing' distinction is a distinction of mode (textual), not field (ideational).  The confusion is thus in terms of metafunction.

[2] Many trades, of course, require some form of (literate) tertiary education.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
interaction patterns	experiential metaphor	experiential congruence

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that:

• experiential metaphor construes the tenor feature 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas 
• experiential congruence construes the tenor feature 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors)

This claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• glass crack growth rate is associated with stress magnitude is claimed to construe a lot of previous contact between interlocutors, whereas
• glass cracks more quickly the harder you press on it is claimed to construe less previous contact between interlocutors.

Clearly, the relevant contextual dimension here is field, not tenor.  Metaphorical realisations are more likely to construe specialised fields, whereas more congruent realisations are more likely to construe everyday fields.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
discourse semantics	dialogue	monologue
	homophoric	endophoric
	implicit conjunction	explicit conjunction

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'dialogue' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'monologue' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside the difficulty this poses to uninvolved interlocutors trying to converse, the dialogue vs monologue distinction is one of context, not discourse semantics. The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (interpersonal [tenor] vs textual [mode]).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'homophoric' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'endophoric' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

To be clear:

• homophoric reference is the type of exophoric (situational) reference that doesn't depend on the specific situation (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 71), whereas
• endophoric reference is text-internal reference (op. cit.: 33), and includes the types: demonstrative, personal and comparative reference.

(In SFL theory, the cohesive resource of reference is a system of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.)

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• homophoric reference such as the sun is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• endophoric reference such as the cat I mentioned earlier is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'implicit' conjunction construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'explicit' conjunction construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• He was a chain smoker — he died of lung cancer is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• He was a chain smoker — consequently he died of lung cancer is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Metafunctional Confusion And A Non-Sequitur

Martin (1992: 531):

The problem with adding too many field distinctions to the contact network has to do with motivating them in terms which have not already been defined for field — so the question of realisation is critical.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The problem with adding any field distinctions to the contact network is that contact is a system of tenor, the interpersonal dimension of context, whereas field is the ideational dimension of context.  The confusion is thus in terms of metafunction.  It is the combination of field, tenor and mode features — Hasan's contextual configuration — that specifies a context.

[2] This is a non-sequitur.  The claim is:

the question of realisation is critical because undefined terms have been used to include field features in a tenor network.

1 [cause]			x 2 [effect]
The problem with adding too many field distinctions to the contact network	has to do	with motivating them in terms which have not already been defined for field	so	the question of realisation	is	critical
Carrier	Process	Attribute: matter		Carrier	Process	Attribute

Realisation is the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction; e.g. between strata, between system and structure.  The 'question of realisation' isn't critical as a result of undefined terms being used to include field features in a tenor network.