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.

Using Embedding To Argue About Hypotaxis

Martin (1992: 486):

Subjects in embedded clauses are not however modally responsible, as can be seen from the fact that embedded clauses cannot be  tagged or queried.  Both the tag and the response in [6:51] for example refer unambiguously to the test, not the drug.

[6:51]	(embedding)
	The test proved [[the drug killed her]], didn’t it?
	— Yes it did.

With hypotaxis, the situation is more equivocal; the tag and response in [6:52] may refer either to the test or the drug, although the tag is much more likely to refer to the alpha clause than the beta:

[6:52]	(hypotaxis)
	The test suggested that the drug may have killed her, didn’t it?
	— It did.

So while hypotactically dependent clauses are still negotiable, the Mood element is less likely to be replayed than that of the alpha clause, and their Subject can accordingly be considered less at risk than those of ranking a [alpha?] clauses.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Text [6:52], like text [6:51], involves embedding, not hypotaxis.  It is the Subject of this clause simplex that is picked up by the pronoun in the Mood Tag.

the test	suggested		[[that the drug may have killed her]]	didn’t	it
Token/Identified	Process: identifying		Value/Identifier
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	Finite	Subject
Mood		Residue		Mood Tag

Cf. the receptive agnate: That the drug may have killed her was suggested by the test, wasn't it?

[[that the drug may have killed her]]	was	suggested	by the test	wasn’t	it
Value/Identifier	Process: identifying		Token/Identified
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Adjunct	Finite	Subject
Mood		Residue		Mood Tag

See, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 269, 277, 285).

[2] Here the meaning of Subject, modal responsibility, is misconstrued as meaning "at risk".  In SFL theory, the Subject 'is the element the speaker makes responsible for the validity of what he is saying' (Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 83).

Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Is A Metaphor For B'

Martin (1992: 378):

Finally (point (iv) above) lexicogrammar has been taken as naturally related to field, and thus as a resource of metaphors for interpreting this register variable.  The concept of taxonomy was derived from Carrier°Attribute and Classifier°Thing structures; the notion of nuclear configurations was abstracted from TRANSITIVITY and experiential grammar at group rank; and the idea for activity sequences was taken from extending and enhancing clause complexes.

Blogger Comments:

 [1] In 'point (iv) above', A realises B is interpreted as A symbolises B, which is the only accurate interpretation, out of the four provided.

A	realises	B
A	symbolises	B
Token	Process: relational: identifying: intensive: symbol	Value

However, this is then misinterpreted as equivalent to A is a metaphor for B.  Symbolisation is only metaphorical when there is an incongruent realisation between the two levels of symbolic abstraction; congruent realisations are not metaphorical.

[2] SFL takes the relation between semantics and lexicogrammar as natural.  As previously demonstrated, Martin's "field" is actually within ideational semantics.

[3] This confuses incongruent relations between content strata in the linguistic model with the use of metaphor by a theorist while creating a model.

[4] As previously explained, field is not a register variable.  Field is the ideational dimension of context; context is more symbolically abstract than language; language realises/symbolises context.  Register is language, not context; register is a functional variety of language that realises/symbolises a functional variety on context (a situation type).

[5] Hyponymic and meronymic taxonomies are constructed on the expansion relations of elaboration and extension, respectively.  These relations also obtain within clauses and within groups.  In this chapter, like the last, they were misinterpreted.

[6] As previously demonstrated, these involved mistaken applications of the expansion relations of elaboration and extension.

[7] Activity sequences were misconstrued as context, rather than semantics.  It is semantics that is realised by lexicogrammar.  In SFL theory, clause complexes in the lexicogrammar realise sequences in the semantics (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 104-127).