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.

Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process

Martin (1992: 574-5):

Like Firth, Bakhtin was interested in the heterogeneous nature of speech communities (for which he developed the notion of heteroglossia); and like Firth he saw this heterogeneity manifested in all texts (for which he developed the notion of dialogism*, using the metaphor of dialogue to capture the sense in which different voices converse as texture).

* Endnote #30 (p590):

The distinction between heteroglossia and dialogism in Bakhtin's writing is unclear; here heteroglossia is associated with system and dialogism with process.  Bakhtin himself however did not work with the Hjelmslevian notion of system and process, and was unlikely to have developed an opposition of this kind in light of his objections to Saussure's opposition of langue and parole.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Bakhtin and misunderstands his notion of heteroglossia.  According to the glossary in Bakhtin (1981: 428), 'heteroglossia' is the notion that the same wording has different meanings according to context:

The base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance. It is that which insures the primacy of context over text. At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions — social, historical, meteorological, physiological — that will insure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions; all utterances are heteroglot in that they are functions of a matrix of forces practically impossible to recoup, and therefore impossible to resolve. Heteroglossia is as close a conceptualisation as is possible of that locus where centripetal and centrifugal forces collide; as such, it is that which a systematic linguistics must always suppress.

[2] This misrepresents Bakhtin and misunderstands his notion of dialogism.  According to the glossary in Bakhtin (1981: 426), 'dialogism' is the notion that all utterances are made in the context of other utterances, with which they interact:

Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole — there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of heteroglossia, and thus dialogism.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, texture is the property of being a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 2).

[4] The distinction between heteroglossia and dialogism in Bakhtin's writing is made clear by an appended glossary (Bakhtin (1981: 423-34).

[5] Here Martin maps his misunderstanding of heteroglossia onto the SFL notion of system, and his misunderstanding of dialogism onto the SFL notion of process.  Further complexity is added to these misunderstandings and inconsistencies when it is remembered that Martin has throughout misinterpreted the SFL notion of process — the instantiation of the system in the instance — as the axial realisation of system in structure, as demonstrated in previous posts.

[6] Bakhtin would not have associated heteroglossia with system and dialogism with process because such a mapping is wildly inconsistent with each pair of oppositions.

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.

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.

Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)

Martin (1992: 560):

Linguists' concern with constituency at the level of genre has meant that questions of field, in Pike's sense of the term, have not been actively pursued.  Hasan's notion of generic structure potential does generalise across a range of text structures, determining their generic identity:

The property of structure is what allows us to distinguish between complete and incomplete texts on the one hand, and between different generic forms on the other.  With some oversimplification, the assumptions here can be stated as follows: associated with each genre of text — i.e. type of discourse — is a generalised structural formula, which permits an array of actual structures.  Each complete text must be a realisation of a structure from such an array.  The generic membership of the text is determined by reference to the structural formula to which the actual structure can be shown to belong.  (Hasan 1977: 229)

But Hasan has not attempted to develop these structure potentials in the direction of system/structure theory; and as noted above, the question of systemic relations among structure potentials does not really arise.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This invites the misinterpretation that such linguists also:

• misconstrue genre (language sub-potential) as a stratum of context (cultural potential), and
• misconstrue semantics (text structure) as genre (text type).

[2] To be clear, this is field, in Martin's misconstrual of Pike's sense of the term (as system rather than structure type).

[3] To be clear, as the quote makes plain, Hasan's generic structure potentials provide a generalised formula for a range of semantic structures of a given text type (genre).

[4] Hasan did not make systems of generic structural potentials because to do so would have been inconsistent with the rest of the architecture of SFL theory, since it would have confused the system pole of the cline of instantiation (semantic stratum potential) with the middle of the cline (genre/text type/register).

Misrepresenting Halliday

Martin (1992: 559):

The final pattern of realisation to be considered is the culminative one, which in the grammar derives from the textual metafunction.  As developed in Chapter 6, Sections 3.2-3, culminative patterns structure discourse at several levels beyond the clause.  As Halliday puts this in Thibault (1987: 612):

Textual meanings typically give you the periodic movement which is so characteristic of discourse at all levels; everything from the smallest waves to the very large ones.  In other words, their is a hierarchy of periodicity, and that comes from the textual metafunction.

Blogger Comment:

This gives the very false impression that Martin's work is consistent with Halliday's theory, and invites the misinterpretation that Halliday might endorse both Martin's "beyond the clause" claim here and even his model of discourse semantics.

To be clear, Halliday does not equate discourse with semantics, and does not model it as a stratum of symbolic abstraction.  For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512) define discourse as:

… the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts.

Halliday (2008: 78) also clarifies this meaning of 'discourse' by relating it to 'text':

I do make a distinction between these two; but it is a difference in point of view, between different angles of vision on the phenomena, not in the phenomena themselves. So we can use either to define the other: “discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601) further clarify the semogenic dimension of 'discourse/text':

It is helpful to have a term for this general phenomenon – i.e. the creation of meaning in the course of the unfolding of text. We shall call it logogenesis, with ‘logos’ in its original sense of ‘discourse’ … 

Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies

Martin (1992: 551):

For Hasan, text structures are derived from generic structure potentials conditioned by choices in field, tenor and mode — with most of the optionality apparently determined by tenor and mode.  This suggests that systemic relationships among different text structures are equivalent to relationships among field, mode and tenor options; and the question of systemic relationships among generic structure potentials does not arise.  Challenging the first of these suggestions, and redressing the second, Martin (1985) suggests reformulating generic structure potentials as system networks and realisation rules as with Ventola's (1987: 15) reformulation of Mitchell above, proposing a speculative network and realisation rules for service encounters by way of illustrating how this might be done (Martin 1985: 253-4; Fig. 7.21 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Hasan (1985/9: 64), a generic structure potential is the structural potential of a text — as the largest unit of the semantic stratum — of a given genre (text type/register).  For Hasan, genres that share the same contextual configuration of field, tenor and mode features share the same structural potential at the level of semantics.  In SFL theory, the relation between context and semantics is realisation: context is a higher level of symbolic abstraction than semantics.

[2] This false inference derives from Martin's earlier false claim (see here) that Hasan associates obligatory elements of text structure with field (p546). For Hasan (1985/9: 62), the obligatory elements of text structure are the elements that define the genre (text type).

[3] This is a false inference in that it blurs important distinctions between the theoretical dimensions of axis, stratification and instantiation:

• The relation between structure (syntagmatic axis) and system (paradigmatic axis) is realisation; semantic structure realises semantic system.
• The relation between semantic stratum systems and context stratum systems is realisation, not equivalence.
• Different text structures are a matter of registerial (text type/genre) variation at the level of semantics.

[4] Martin (1985) is thus challenging his own misinterpretation of Hasan.

[5] The proposal here is to model registerial (text type/generic) variation in semantic structure as a system network at the level of context.  The confusion here is thus along two dimensions simultaneously:

• the cline of instantiation: system (potential) vs register (subpotential);
• stratification: context vs semantics.

[6] Ventola's network models registerial variation (service encounters) as a system network with semantic structure specified by realisation rules activated by the selection of features.  That is, it models subpotentials (registers) as potential (system) and specifies semantic structure as its realisation.

The network is thus inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory in that it posits a midway point on the cline of instantiation (subpotential) as the systemic potential that specifies semantic structure.  According to the architecture of SFL theory, the systems that specify semantic structure are the systems of the semantic stratum (axially) and context (stratally).

Misinterpreting Pike

Martin (1992: 548-9):

Halliday (1978, 1979) associates different types of structural realisation with different metafunctions. … In addition Halliday points out the correlation between these different metafunctional perspectives on realisation and Pike's work on particle, wave and field. … Halliday correlates constituency realisation with the particulate perspective, culminative realisation with wave theory and prosodic realisation with field.  The last of these correlations seems to be stretching a point since for Pike field theory is not so much concerned with non-discrete realisations as with "intersecting properties of experience" that "cluster into bundles of simultaneous characteristics which together make up the patterns" of experience (Pike 1982: 13); Pike sums up his perspectives when introducing field as follows:

We have discussed the way in which elements can be viewed by themselves as particles, or as waves smearing into some kind of continuum whose prominent parts make up nuclei.  Now we turn to sets of relationships which occur when units are linked to one another by their presence in some larger system.  A total set of relationships and of units in these relationships we call a field.  (1982: 30)

The component of systemic theory which would appear to correspond most closely to this articulation of field is system, not prosody.  For this reason the discussion will be pursued here at the level of genre under the headings of particle, prosody and wave.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Significantly, Martin's model of discourse structure is inconsistent with the SFL association of metafunction and structure type.  On the one hand:

• the structure of the logical system, conjunction, is modelled as messages (particles) related by types of expansion, and
• the structure of the experiential system, ideation, is modelled as lexical strings of message parts (particles),

but on the other:

• the structure of the interpersonal system, negotiation, is modelled as constituency (particles) — exchange and move — rather than as prosody, and
• the structure of the textual system, identification, is modelled as reference chains of participants (particles), rather than as wave.

[2] While it is true that Pike's notion of field does not correlate with the notion of prosody, it is not true that it correlates with the notion of system in SFL theory.  Martin has simply misinterpreted Pike's notion of 'system' as Halliday's notion of 'system'.  Pike is concerned with complementary perspectives on a sequence of items; that is, in SFL terms: syntagmatic, not paradigmatic relations.  Pike (1993):

The observer can choose to look at a sequence of items as if they were separate, in order to talk about phonemes, words, etc., but he also needs to be able to talk about them in terms of fusion, and he doesn't understand them ultimately unless he sees them in relation to a patterned system. Hence particle, wave, and field.

[3] Halliday (1977, 1978: 188) uses the term 'prosodic' rather than 'field' in relating types of grammatical structure to metafunctions.  Martin (1992) is merely following Halliday while implying otherwise.

The consideration of structure types with regard to genre suggests that text type is about to be confused with semantic structure.

[4] Having introduced Halliday's association of structure types with metafunctions, Martin will now consider the structure types in relation to genre, a stratal system that he does not differentiate in terms of metafunction. 

Misconstruing Relations Between Speakers As Individual Predisposition

Martin (1992: 533):

Poynton classifies affect as positive or negative and as permanent or transient.  The latter distinction takes into account the fact interlocutors have long-term predispositions as more volatile short-term ones.  This distinction will be developed here by suggesting that "transient" affect can be interpreted as a surge of "permanent" affect, with a long term low-key prosodic realisation bursting into an explicit and intense behavioural one: dislike erupting into telling someone off, sadness into tears, happiness into laughter and so on.  In the grammar of TRANSITIVITY this correlates with the opposition between mental processes of reaction and behavioural processes.  Accordingly, Poynton's system will be reworked with the features [surge] and [predisposition] here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misinterprets affect — a relation between interlocutors — as a predisposition of individuals.  It will be seen that this misunderstanding completely undermines the validity of Martin's reworking of Poynton's model of this dimension of tenor.

[2] Here Martin is using the metalanguage of mental and behavioural processes to model individual speakers, distinguishing their "permanent" mental predispositions from their "transient" behavioural surges.  As such, it is not a model of the charged vs neutral affect relation between interlocutors, as a system of the culture.

[3] Accordingly, Martin's misunderstanding of affect makes his reworking of Poynton's system invalid.

Confusing Orders Of Experience

Martin (1992: 494):

Halliday (1978: 122) outlines the semiotic structure of context as follows:

The semiotic structure of the situation is formed out of the three sociosemiotic variables of field, tenor and mode.  These represent in systematic form the type of activity in which the text has significant function (field), the status and rôle relationships involved (tenor) and the symbolic mode and rhetorical channels that are adopted.

Halliday's intrinsic theory of language function is thus projected onto context as an extrinsic theory of language use.  The realisation relationship between context and language is treated as a symbolic one, with language a metaphor for social reality at the same time as social reality is a metaphor for language. … Seen from the perspective of culture on the other hand, context can be alternatively interpreted as a system of social processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misunderstanding of realisation and, within this, the misinterpretation of symbolic as metaphorical, and, within this, the misunderstanding of metaphor.  In SFL theory, context and language are modelled as levels of symbolic abstraction, such that language realises context.  If the notion of metaphor is applied to the relation between context and language, then the claim would be that context may be realised congruently or metaphorically in language.  To claim that the higher level of abstraction, context, is a metaphor for the lower, language, misunderstands metaphor in precisely the same way as saying semantics is a metaphor for lexicogrammar.  On the contrary, semantics may be realised in lexicogrammar either congruently or metaphorically.

[2] This confuses different orders of experience: semiotic and material.  In SFL theory, context is construed as a semiotic system; the Halliday quote above makes this clear in its opening words: 'the semiotic structure of the situation'. Social processes, on the other hand, are of the material order of experience.  Despite interpreting context materially as social reality, it will be seen that Martin's model of context is concerned with the semiotic order: genre and register.

Using Allegory To Misrepresent The Rôle Of Mood And Residue In Modal Responsibility

Martin (1992: 490):

Text is a dialectic, a semiotic rally.  But the ball that comes back may be slightly different from the ball you've just played.  And the ball has two parts — a bit you thought might come back different and a bit you assumed would stay the same.  When the ball comes back unchanged, you throw it away and get a new one; and sometimes it doesn't come back at all — in which case you may choose another ball or stop playing altogether (or decide to find a new partner for the next round). 

Monologue is hitting up against the backboard; the tension is still there — choosing Subjects is important.  But you negotiate against yourself; you can't hit the same shot twice, and someone might be watching anyhow.  So the monologue is a dialogue.  Text is a rally you aren't trying to win; it's a game you're trying to share.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the term 'dialectic', since a vanishingly small proportion of the total number of texts can be accurately categorised as such:

Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. The term was popularised by Plato's Socratic dialogues but the act itself has been central to European and Indian philosophy since ancient history.

The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one's argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however clear winners are frequently determined by either a judge, jury, or by group consensus.

The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. Concepts, like "logos" or rational appeal, "pathos" or emotional appeal, and "ethos" or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience.

[2] This extended tennis metaphor is meant to illustrate Martin's characterisation of Mood and Residue in his misinterpretation of modal responsibility (ibid.):

In summary, Residue is what interlocutors are judged to have in common; Mood is what they may not share.

As explained previously, the Mood element 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 (Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 150), whereas the Residue comprises the remaining elements that realise the proposition (or proposal), but which do not 'bear the burden of the clause as an interactive event'.

[3] In monologue, as elsewhere, the choice of Subject is important in the sense that the validity of a proposition or proposal rests with it; there need be no "tension" (e.g. Mary had a little lamb).  In monologue, where there is negotiation, the speakers or writers don't "negotiate against" themselves, but with the addressees.

[4] This misunderstands the distinction between monologue and dialogue. A text (rally) with one speaker (player) is a monologue, no matter how many readers (observers) there are.

—∞—

Consider also the effectiveness of this tennis allegory: when the ball comes back unchanged, you throw it away and get a new one.

A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6

Martin (1992: 488):

The basic strategy adopted to explore this question [how do modules of the semiotic model interface?] was to look closely at the interaction of reference chains and lexical strings with specific lexicogrammatical and phonological variables — specifically TRANSITIVITY rôles, Theme, New and Subject.  The texture deriving from these four types of interaction was discussed under the headings of cohesive harmony, method of development, point and modal responsibility.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the content plane (New information) with the expression plane (phonology).

[2] The term and concept of 'texture' come from Halliday & Hasan (1976).  Texture is the property of being a text, and is created by the textual metafunction.  Here it is misapplied to the experiential metafunction (TRANSITIVITY rôles) and the interpersonal metafunction (Subject).

[3] The term and concept of 'cohesive harmony' come from Hasan (1984, 1985).  Martin misunderstands and misrepresents Hasan's model and critiques these as if they were her model.  See the evidence in previous posts here, here, here, and here.

[4] The term and concept of 'method of development' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'method of development' is writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands 'topic sentence' as 'hyper-Theme' — a term taken from Daneš (1974) but redefined — and 'introductory paragraph' as 'macro-Theme'.

[5] The term and concept of 'point' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'point' is, again, writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands  'paragraph summary' as 'hyper-New', and 'text summary' as 'macro-New'.

[6] The term and concept of 'modal responsibility' come from Halliday (1985), where it is the meaning of 'Subject': that on which the validity of a proposition or proposal rests.  Martin first misunderstands 'modal responsibility', in proposals, as 'the constituent responsible for seeing that goods are exchanged or a service performed' (p461).  He then misinterprets the meaning of Subject from a discourse perspective, in terms of exchange resolution (p462), as 'what is at stake' (p464) and as 'participant at risk' (p477).

Using A Middle Clause To Illustrate Agency

Martin (1992: 488):

The way in which modal responsibility is mapped onto agency may well be a life and death matter, as text [6:53] shows.  Superintendent Harding is explaining why an innocent Aboriginal man has been shot to death during a commando style police raid (in connection with a search for a suspect who has wounded two policemen).  In contrast to the paper's headline, the Superintendent textures the gun as responsible for the killing.

‘Uptight’ police kill man in raid
[6: 53]	(Superintendent Harding)
	a	A struggle took place
	b	and the officer was reacting
	c	to keep the peace
	d	and stop himself or others being hurt.
	e	The gun then discharged.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The clause in question is middle, not effective; there is no agency:

the gun	then	discharged
Medium Actor		Process: material

[2] In terms of "experiential responsibility", the gun was not construed as an Agent by the speaker.  In terms of modal responsibility, as Subject, the gun is the element that the speaker makes responsible for the validity of what he is saying.

the gun	then	discharged
Subject	(conjunctive Adjunct)	Finite	Predicator

Note that according to Martin's misinterpretation of modal responsibility, it is the gun that is the "participant at risk".

[3] In SFL theory, 'texture', the property of being a text, is created by the textual metafunction.  Here it is misapplied to the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions — agency and modal responsibility, respectively.