Misunderstanding System Architecture And Dynamics

Martin (1992: 582):

Martin [1986] suggested as part of a model for dealing with ideology in crisis as system involving two axes: protagonist/antagonist and left/right. […] In general terms the systemic oppositions are outlined below; as far as the dynamics of ideology are concerned these are best treated as genuine oppositions, not simply as alternative choices within a system.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands system architecture.  In terms of SFL theory, the system network (Fig. 7.28) involves two simultaneous (conjunctively related) systems.  The term 'axis', on the other hand, refers to the distinction between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimensions: i.e. system vs structure.

[2] This misunderstands system architecture and dynamics.  Alternative choices (features) in systems are "genuine" oppositions, and the dynamics of the system is its instantiation (the selection of options and the activation of their realisation statements).

Ignoring Halliday's Caution Against Premature Articulation

Martin (1992: 575):

Halliday himself it should be noted has remained rather Firthian in character as far as semantics is concerned, preferring register specific descriptions and cautioning against premature attempts to describe the semantic system as a whole — e.g. 1988: 3; needless to say English Text has nowhere heeded this caution.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The SFL model of ideational semantics is set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

[2] This is true.

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)

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 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).

Prioritising Structure Over System

Martin (1992: 553):

The advantage of the dynamic perspective is that choices can be conditioned by the point reached in a text's development.  Keeping in mind Firth's comment that "The moment a conversation is started, whatever is said is a determining condition for what, in any reasonable expectation, may follow" (1935/1957: 31-2), this is an important perspective to keep in mind.

Blogger Comment:

Importantly, but apparently unknown to Martin, this reflects one crucial difference between Firthian Linguistics and the (Neo-Firthian) Systemic Functional Linguistics of Firth's student, Halliday.  For Firth, consistent with his quote above, entry conditions to systems of choice are specified syntagmatically, whereas for Halliday, entry conditions to systems of choice are specified paradigmatically.  Systemic Functional Linguistics, as the name implies, prioritises paradigmatic system over syntagmatic structure.

Confusing Composition And Superordination

Martin (1992: 540-1):

As noted in Chapter 5, alongside activity sequences, the participants involved in sequences are organised into taxonomies of two basic kinds: composition and superordination.  The compositional taxonomy in Fig. 7.17 for members of an Australian linguistics department for example organises participants who play some part in all of the sequences reviewed above.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As noted previously here, Martin confuses composition with superordination taxonomies.

[2] This "compositional" taxonomy (meronymic) is largely one of superordination (hyponymy).  This can be demonstrated by presenting the claims made by Fig. 7.17:

• an Australian linguistics department consists of two parts: salaried staff and students;
• salaried staff consist of two parts: academic and non-academic;
• academic consists of two parts: Head and scaled;
• scaled consists of two parts: lecturing and tutoring;
• lecturing consists of five parts: Professor, Associate Professor, Reader, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer;
• tutoring consists of two parts: full-time and part-time;
• full-time consists of two parts: Senior Tutor and Tutor;
• non-academic consists of two parts: clerical and technological;
• clerical consists of three parts: secretarial, administrative and keyboard operator;
• technological consists of two parts: programmer and technician;
• post-graduate consists of two parts: research and coursework;
• research consists of two parts: PhD and MA;
• MA consists of two parts: MA Hons and MA Pass;
• undergraduate consists of four parts: I, II, III and IV Hons;
• both II and III consist of two parts: pass and honours.

Cf. a spoon consists of two parts: the handle and the bowl.

[3] This is an error of Aristotelian logic.  Not all participants play some part in all of the sequences.  All participants play some part in some sequences.

[4] The confusion here is between playing a part in a sequence and being a part of a whole.

Invoking Clinical And Social Psychology

Martin (1992: 535):

The system network for affect developed in this section is presented in Figure 7.15.  As with system networks in general, the account is a purely synoptic one, glossing over completely the elaborate interplay that charges relationships between speakers.  For this a dynamic accounts needs to be constructed, drawing on a long tradition of theory and practice in clinical and social psychology.  Regrettably, no attempt has been made to develop an interpersonal dynamics here (this concern will be raised again in 7.3.2.2 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The 'system' of 'system network' is shorthand for system–&–process.  The system is located on the cline of instantiation, from potential to instance.  The process is instantiation, the selection of features and the activation of realisation statements during logogenesis, the unfolding of text.

[2] The belief that the 'long tradition of theory and practice in clinical and social psychology' has much to offer the tenor classification of the relation between interlocutors, as either charged or neutral, during the dynamic unfolding of text, arises from Martin's misunderstanding of that relation as the behavioural surges and predisposed reactions of individuals.

[3] Regrettably, this concern is not raised again in 7.3.2.2 (Narrative Genres).

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.

Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field

Martin (1992: 528-9):

Whereas status addresses the concerns of social hierarchy, contact is concerned with the degree of involvement among interlocutors.  This is determined by the nature of the fields speaker/listeners are participating in — how much contact they involve, how regularly, whether work or leisure activities and so on.  Poynton's (1985/9: 77-78) field oriented contact distinctions have been reworked slightly here; the notion of contact appears to be equivalent to what Hasan (1977: 231-2, 1985/9: 57) refers to as social distance, which for her is determined by "the frequency and range of previous interaction" (1977: 231).

Blogger Comments:

Contact is not determined by field.  In logical terms, the relation between tenor and field systems is extension — they are conjunct systems — not enhancement (cause-condition).  Less abstractly, a given field may involve interlocutors who have had many previous interactions, some previous interactions, or no previous interactions at all.

Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion

Martin (1992: 419):

Hasan's definition of similarity and identity chains suggests a stratified approach to discourse semantics very like that proposed by English Text.  Identity chains are based on co-referentiality, which is realised through pronominal cohesion, instantial equivalence, the definite article and demonstratives (or lexical repetition if the reference is generic); similarity chains are based on co-classification or co-extension, which are realised through substitution and ellipsis, lexical repetition and relations of synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and meronymy.  Discourse systems however, underlying these semantic chain structures, are not articulated.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue, on at least two counts.  Firstly, Hasan does not take a 'stratified approach to discourse semantics'.  Hasan's work is theoretically consistent with the SFL model in stratifying content into semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording).  For example, as Hasan (1985: 71) makes clear:

The texture of a text is manifested by certain kinds of semantic relations between its individual messages.  The nature of these relations and the lexico-grammatical patterns that realise them are discussed in the following sections.

Secondly, Hasan's work is also theoretically consistent with the SFL model in treating cohesive systems as resources of the textual metafunction.  This is not the case with Martin's discourse semantic systems.  The discourse semantic system of conjunction is presented as logical semantics, despite deriving from cohesive conjunction (textual and non-structural) mixed with clause complex relations (logical and structural).  Similarly, the discourse semantic system of ideation is presented as experiential semantics, despite being derived from lexical cohesion (textual and non-structural) mixed up with logico-semantic relations within the clause and lexis as most delicate grammar.

[2] Any similarity between Hasan's approach and Martin's arises from Hasan's (1976, 1980, 1984, 1985) being the original work, and Martin's (1992) being merely a derived reinterpretation.

[3] Hasan does not provide discourse systems because her work is theoretically consistent with the SFL model in stratifying content into semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), and in treating cohesive systems as resources of the textual metafunction.  To be clear, in Hasan's model (1985: 73, 82, 84), the nature of cohesive ties is semantic, and the types of tie relation involves either co-reference, co-classification or co-extension.  These semantic relations are realised by grammatical cohesive devices and lexical cohesive devices.

[4] Hasan's cohesive chains are not structures.  Hasan's work is theoretically consistent with the SFL model in treating cohesive systems as non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.  To be clear, Hasan (1985: 84):

[…] a chain is formed by a set of items each of which is related to the others by the semantic relation of co-reference, co-classification and/or co-extension.  Taking the type of relation into account, we can sub-categorise them into two types: IDENTITY CHAINS and SIMILARITY CHAINS. […] The relation between members of an identity chain is co-reference […] the members of a similarity chain are related to each other either by co-classification or co-extension.

Misrepresenting Halliday On The Stratification Of Content

Martin (1992: 401):

With notable exceptions (e.g. Halliday 1984) Halliday's work on English content form has generally assumed an unstratified system/structure cycle organised by rank and metafunction.

Blogger Comment:

This is a very serious misrepresentation.  The stratification of the content plane into two strata, semantics and lexicogrammar, has long been at the very heart of SFL theory — not least because the notion of grammatical metaphor depends on it — and long precedes the work of Halliday's students, such as Martin (1992).  For example, in the work most cited in Martin (1992), Halliday & Hasan (1976: 3) write:

Language can be explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding, or 'strata': the semantic (meanings), the lexicogrammatical (forms) and the phonological and orthographic (expressions).  Meanings are realised (coded) as forms, and forms are realised in turn (recoded) as expressions.  To put it in everyday terminology, meaning is put into wording, and wording into sound or writing…

The stratification of content, cross-coupled with the distinction of paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes, produces two system–structure cycles, one on each stratum.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 429):

…in our model there are two system-structure cycles, one in the semantics and one in the lexicogrammar. Terms in semantic systems are realised in semantic structures; and semantic systems and structures are in turn realised in lexicogrammatical ones.

It is another of Halliday's students who proposes a single system–structure cycle, though with a stratified model of content.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 429):

In Fawcett’s model, there is only one system–structure cycle within the content plane: systems are interpreted as the semantics, linked through a “realisational component” to [content] form, which includes items and syntax, the latter being modelled structurally but not systemically… 

The importance of modelling content as stratified in SFL theory cannot be overstated.  For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 25):

The stratification of the content plane had immense significance in the evolution of the human species — it is not an exaggeration to say that it turned Homo … into Homo sapiens. It opened up the power of language and in so doing created the modern human brain. …

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 604):

This deconstrual of the content plane into two strata … is a unique feature of the post-infancy semiotic, corresponding to Edelman’s (1992) “higher–order consciousness” as the distinguishing characteristic of Homo sapiens.

Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation And Instantiation

Martin (1992: 392):

The modularity imposed by stratification is also an important issue.  Discourse systems generate structures which in principle cut across grammatical and phonological ones.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of strata as modules instead of complementary levels of symbolic abstraction.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the relation between system and structure is realisation.  This axial relation is distinct from the process of instantiation — the selection of systemic features and the activation of realisation statements — during logogenesis.

Misrepresenting Realisation And Preselection

Martin (1992: 390):

Within grammar, the problem of mapping different systems onto each other is handled by realisation.  Structures deriving from different metafunctional components are conflated and preselect options from constituent ranks until lexicogrammatical options are exhausted.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is untrue. Conflation is not realisation. The relation between the different metafunctional systems on the lexicogrammatical stratum is not one of realisation.  Realisation is the relation between different levels of symbolic abstraction, as between strata, between function and form and between system and structure.  The metafunctional systems on the lexicogrammatical stratum are of the same level of symbolic abstraction.  The metafunctions on the lexicogrammatical stratum are different perspectives on the same phenomenon: wording.

[2] This is untrue.  Structures do not preselect options.  The selection of a feature of a paradigmatic system can preselect a feature of a system on a lower stratum (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 378-9), and, across axes, paradigmatic specifications can select syntagmatic specifications (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 94).  The latter has been renamed 'eco-functional selection' (ibid.).

A Summary Of Discourse Systems Inconsistencies

Martin (1992: 372-3):

This chapter concludes the presentation of the four major discourse systems developed in this book.  Lexical relations represent the discourse semantics of experiential meaning.  The association of discourse systems with metafunctions and their unmarked realisations in lexicogrammar can now be summarised as in Table 5.26.

Table 5.26. Unmarked realisations for discourse semantics systems in lexicogrammar
(discourse system)	metafunction	lexicogrammaticalisation
ideation	experiential	transitivity; group rank experiential grammar; lexis as delicate grammar; collocation
conjunction	logical	clause complex: logico-semantics & interdependency
identification	textual	nominal group: deixis
negotiation	interpersonal	clause: mood

Blogger Comments:

[1] The discourse semantics model of experiential meaning is a "development" of the lexicogrammatical system of lexical cohesion, a system of the textual metafunction, mixed up with the notion of lexis as most delicate grammar.  It involves units, message parts, that are related logically and/or interpersonally.

[2] This continues the confusion between markedness and congruence.  The realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar is either congruent or incongruent (metaphorical).  A pattern is either unmarked (typical), as when Theme conflates with Subject in a declarative clause, or marked, as when Theme conflates with a functional element other than Subject in a declarative clause.

[3] If the discourse system of ideation were an experiential system at the level of semantics, it would be realised by an experiential system at the level of lexicogrammar — and a theoretical requirement would be the inclusion of realisation statements that specify the relations between the two stratal systems.  Here, the lexicogrammatical realisations are said to include lexis as most delicate grammar and (only) one type of lexical cohesion, collocation, a non-structural system of the textual metafunction.  The model is claimed to be a development of lexical cohesion, but this is omitted from the list of lexicogrammatical realisations.

[4] The discourse system of conjunction is claimed to be a logical system at the level of semantics, and to be realised in the lexicogrammar by the logico-semantic and interdependency relations of the clause complex.  However, it makes no distinction between logical deployments of expansion (creating complexes) and textual deployments of expansion (cohesively marking transitions between messages).  Moreover, the logical relation of projection is omitted altogether from the semantic model — because, in fact, the model takes the textual deployment of expansion (cohesive conjunction) as its point of departure for logical semantics.  The discourse semantics system also omits the logical relation of elaboration in cases where the interdependency relation is hypotaxis.  For the rich panoply of miscategorisations of logical relations, see most of the critiques of Chapter 4.

[5] The discourse system of identification is claimed to be a textual system at the level of semantics.  If this were so, its realisations would involve the textual systems at the level of lexicogrammar, such as those of theme, information and cohesion.  Even if the textual metafunction is reduced for discourse semantics to merely 'reference as semantic choice', the realisation of the system of identification in lexicogrammar would be the cohesive system of reference.  As demonstrated in previous posts, by treating cohesive relations as structures, the discourse system of identification confuses the system of referring with the items thus referred to.

[6] In SFL theory, the semantic system realised by the lexicogrammatical system of mood is termed speech function.

Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause

Martin (1992: 350):

The meronymy option has been chosen where available in the analysis presented above; this means that the action strings are oriented towards activity sequences in the field, with actions taken as steps in activity sequences.  This bias is balanced in part by the interpretation of processes as delicate experiential subclasses of clause in lexicogrammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The actions and activity sequences are analyses of the meanings made in the text.  They model the semantics of language, not the ideational dimension of context.

[2] In SFL theory, clause is the rank of grammatical form at which the functional choice of PROCESS TYPE (along with AGENCY) becomes available, provided the entry condition major is met.

Misconstruing Meronymy As Hyponymy

Martin (1992: 297):

Composition taxonomies organise people, places and things in a given field with respect to part/whole rather than class/subclass relations.  An illustrative taxonomy is outlined in Fig. 5.13, drawing once again on the field of music.  The less delicate systems [Fig. 5.13] focus on the organisation of the swing bands… .  The more delicate systems [Fig. 5.14] break down the players into sections as they were typically organised on stage.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Figure 5.13 starts out as a composition taxonomy — e.g. 'management' and 'personnel' are parts of the whole 'swing band' — but then construes 'female' and 'male' as parts of the whole 'vocalists'; and 'vocalists' and 'players' as parts of the whole 'members'.  That is, it misconstrues hyponyms (types of x) as meronyms (parts of x).

The continuation of the taxonomy in Figure 5.14 is entirely hyponymic — despite being presented as meronymic; e.g. 'rhythm', 'horns' and 'reeds' are misconstrued as parts of the whole 'players'.

[2]  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 92):

While the choice of ‘level’ in hyponymic elaboration is the choice in delicacy of categorisation, the choice of level in a meronymic taxonomy is the choice in delicacy of focus.  The focus is typically on the whole (i.e. the most inclusive region within the meronymy) even if a specific part is particularly important.

[3] This misconstrues (what is not) a composition taxonomy as a system network.

Misrepresenting The Model Of Transitivity

Martin (1992: 278):

Where Halliday (1985) justifies his process types largely on the basis of configurations of Agent, Process and Medium, Hasan additionally draws the Beneficiary role into the picture.

Blogger Comment:

The system of process types isn't justified on configurations of Agent, Process and Medium.  Each of these — process types, on one hand, configurations of Agent, Process and Medium, on the other — represents a distinct complementary perspective on transitivity: the transitive and ergative models, respectively.

The transitive model is concerned with the ways in which processes are different, with each type of process 'characterised by process-participant configurations where the functions are particular to that type' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 280).

The ergative model, on the other hand, is concerned with how the process types are all alike; how 'they all have the same grammar' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 281).

Some Of The Theoretical Problems With Participant As The Entry Condition To The System Of Identification

Martin (1992: 155-6):

IDENTIFICATION has the semantic entity participant as its entry condition; its unmarked realisation is a nominal group and the people, places and things this encodes all have the potential to participate as Agent or Medium in clause structure at some point or other in a text.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Participant as the entry condition to the IDENTIFICATION system creates a host of serious theoretical inconsistencies.  For example, 

• metafunction: participant is an experiential function, whereas IDENTIFICATION is a textual system;
• delicacy: the features of the system do not elaborate the entry condition, participant, but  (purported) relations between participants; (cf. the entry condition 'clause' for the systems that elaborate the clause);
• function: participant is the entry condition for circumstantial features (manner/extent).

[2] To be clear, Martin's entire argument to justify IDENTIFICATION as discourse semantic, rather than lexicogrammatical, rests solely on "stratifying with respect to nominal group structure".

[3] To be clear, places are circumstantial meanings, not participants.

[4] To be clear, this does not define any semantic unit, let alone participant, since, through grammatical metaphor, all meaning has "the potential to be construed as an Agent or Medium in clause structure at some point or other in a text."

Mistaking Manner For Extent And Confusing Circumstances With Comparative Reference Items

Martin (1992: 154):

Comparative adverbs realise relevance phoricity; they function as Circumstances [sic] of Extent and Manner in clause structure and presume events.  Both relevant events and supersets of events are presumed.  The network of oppositions is outlined in Fig. 3.16; typical realisations are shown in the network and illustrated in [3:94] through [3:99].

Extent [quantity:difference]
[3:94]

Ben ran five miles;
Carl ran farther.

Manner [quality:semblance]
[3:95]

Ben ran very fast;
Carl didn't run as fast.

Extent [quantity:difference:superset]
[3:96]

The runners ran long distances;
Carl ran farthest.

Manner [quality:difference:superset]
[3:97]

The sprinters ran fast heats;
Ben didn't run fastest.

Extent [quantity:purposive]
[3:98]

You had to set a record to place;
Ben ran fast enough.

Manner [quality:purposive]
[3:99]

You had to run a record time to win;
Carl ran too slow.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'relevance phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar (cohesion) to structural discourse semantics.

[2] This mistakes circumstances of Extent and Manner (clause rank experiential functions) for comparative reference items (a non-structural textual functions).  Moreover, it will be seen below that none of the examples provided are instances of Extent.

To be clear, the grammatical domains of comparative adverbs that function as reference items are the nominal group and the adverbial group.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 633):

[3] The notion of "presuming events" — Martin is not referring here to the verbal group function 'Event' — demonstrates that Martin has little understanding of the principles underlying comparative reference.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: ) explain:

Whereas personals and demonstratives, when used anaphorically, set up a relation of co-reference, whereby the same entity is referred to over again, comparatives set up a relation of contrast. In comparative reference, the reference item still signals ‘you know which’; not because the same entity is being referred to over again but rather because there is a frame of reference – something by reference to which what I am now talking about is the same or different, like or unlike, equal or unequal, more or less.

[4] In addition to being devised on the basis of the above-mentioned theoretical misunderstandings, a number of further problems with the network in Figure 3.16 Phoric circumstances of extent and manner can be identified.

• The system has no entry condition; the entry condition for IDENTIFICATION is 'participant', so including the entry condition would have exposed the theoretical inconsistency of having types of circumstance ('manner/extent') as a more delicate feature.
• None of the features in the network have been argued for in the text, let alone validated on the basis of evidence.  On the contrary, they have merely been attached to the six examples as labels.
• The more delicate features are distinctions in experiential meaning (quantity, quality, purposive), and the undefined term 'superset' derives from misconstruing ordinatives (last) and superlatives (fastest, farthest) as serving a comparative function.

[5] To be clear, these realisations are neither structural realisations (the dimension of axis) nor lexicogrammatical realisations (the dimension of stratification); they are merely examples of items that are said to serve the particular feature.

[6] To be clear, none of these is an instance of Extent.  The experiential function of farther, farthest and fast enough is Manner.

[7] To be clear, superlatives (farthest, fastest) do not function as comparative reference items.

[8] Here Martin misinterprets clause complexes as single clauses, and claims that the respective circumstances (fast enough, too slow) "presume" the respective purpose clauses (to place, to win).  However, in terms of cohesion, these are both instances of ellipsis, as restoring the elided items makes plain:

||| You had to set a record || to place. |||
|| Ben ran fast enough [[to place]]. || 

||| You had to run a record time || to win. |||
|| Carl ran too slow [[to win]]. ||

In terms of Martin's own model, these are instances of redundancy phoricity, not relevance phoricity — redundancy phoricity being Martin's rebranding of ellipsis-&-substitution, misunderstood as a type of reference, and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.