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.

Misidentifying Transitivity Rôles And Expansion Types

Martin (1992: 371-2):

Australia II is an Actor in [5:36kk] but a Car[r]ier in [5:36ll]; similarly the Americans are a Medium in [5:36y] but an Agent in [5:36dd]; and 'being ahead of' is variously realised as a Process [5:36kk], Attribute [5:36ll], Goal [5:36y] and Circumstance [5:36dd].

Boats leading
kk	Australia II	+	leading	x	by a couple of = boat-lengths
ll	Australia II	+	leading [was ahead]	x	by 21 seconds
y	Americans	+	leading [increased lead]	x	to 46 seconds, at second = mark
dd	Liberty	+	leading x more & more [surged ahead]
Fig. 5.36. Nuclear structures for ‘leading’ in text [5:36]

Blogger Comments:

[1] Clause [kk] — like clause [ll] — construes an attributive relational Process.  Viewed 'from above', it construes 'being–&–having', not 'doing–&–happening'.  Viewed 'from roundabout', the unmarked present tense for lead in such a clause is the simple present leads, rather than the present–in–present is leading, which rules out the material Process analysis.

kk

Australia II	was leading		by the same margin
Medium	Process	Range	Extent
Carrier	relational: intensive	Attribute: circumstantial

ll

she (Australia II)	was	21 seconds ahead	around the fifth mark
Medium	Process	Range	Location
Carrier	relational: intensive	Attribute: circumstantial

[2] In clause [y] the Americans serves as Agent, not Medium, and in clause [dd] Liberty serves as Medium, not Agent.

y

at the second mark	the Americans	had increased	their lead	to 46 seconds
Location	Agent	Process	Medium	Extent
	Actor	material	Goal

dd

Liberty	surged	ahead
Medium	Process	Location: motion: away from
Actor	material

[3] In clause [kk] 'being ahead' is construed as Process and circumstantial Attribute, not just Process, and in clause [ll] also as Process and circumstantial Attribute, not just Attribute.

[4] The relation between Medium and Process is complementarity, not extension, for reasons previously given.

[5] The relation between Agent and Nucleus is enhancement, not extension, because the Agent is the external cause of the Process unfolding through the Medium.

Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor & Neglecting Interstratal Accountability

Martin (1992: 371-2):

The major advantage of the stratified approach is related to the problem of grammatical metaphor. Being less tied to lexicogrammar, the nuclear relations analysis is freed to recognise semantic continuities across a diversified range of realisations. Because the TRANSITIVITY structures are so varied, cohesive harmony analysis would give a very different account of chain interaction among the following messages than the nuclear relations analysis re-presented in 5.36.  Australia II is an Actor in [5:36kk] but a Car[r]ier in [5:36ll]; similarly the Americans are a Medium in [5:36y] but an Agent in [5:36dd];

Blogger Comments:

[1] Grammatical metaphor is raised here as a problem, but the supporting argument does not present examples of grammatical metaphor.  Instead, it identifies (and misidentifies) a range of different participant rôles played by Australia II and the Americans — as if these constitute instances of grammatical metaphor.

[2] In SFL theory, the relation between semantics and lexicogrammar is clearly defined as realisation: the higher level of symbolic abstraction (semantics) is realised by the lower level of symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar).  In this model, semantics is thus not less tied to the lexicogrammar — it is simply that the relations between the stratal systems are neither thoroughly considered nor made explicit.

Misidentifying The Main Differences Between Martin And Hasan

Martin (1992: 371):

The main differences between nuclear relations and cohesive harmony analysis is that Hasan's approach is based on lexical items rather than message parts and built up around TRANSITIVITY relations rather than extending and enhancing ones.  This is because nuclear relations obtain at the level of discourse semantics in the model being developed here, with message parts realised by one or more lexical items and the elaboration, extension, enhancement analysis stratified with respect to TRANSITIVITY and group rank experiential grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The main difference between Hasan's cohesive harmony analysis and Martin's nuclear relations analysis is that Hasan's model is consistent with SFL theory — modelling how the textual and experiential metafunctions harmonise — whereas Martin's model is neither consistent with SFL — being located within the experiential metafunction, confusing cohesion with lexis etc. — nor self-consistent.  See previous posts for details.

[2]  That is, Martin's development of the textual resource of lexical cohesion involves experiential units related logically by two of the three types of expansion.

[3] The difference between the two models is not simply a matter of stratal location and realisation relations.  Martin takes a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar and "develops" it as a structural resource of the experiential metafunction at the level of discourse semantics.

[4] That is, structural units, at the level of discourse semantics are realised by one or more non-structural (lexical) outputs at the level of lexicogrammar.

[5] That is, in this development of the SFL textual system of lexical cohesion, logical relations at the level of discourse semantics are "stratified with respect to" experiential systems at the level of lexicogrammatical stratum — with the realisation relation between them left unspecified.

Misconstruing Context As Register

Martin (1992: 370):

The approach to lexical relations developed here represents one of two major extensions of the analysis of lexical cohesion as it was outlined in Halliday and Hasan (1976).  The other has been developed by Hasan in her work on cohesive harmony (1984, 1985).  The two approaches have different goals.  The interpretation of lexical relations is an attempt to refine lexical cohesion analysis in the direction of the register variable field.  Hasan on the other hand has been concerned with developing a measure of coherence across texts.  In spite of these different goals there is considerable convergence across the two approaches, especially with respect to what were treated above as nuclear relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin's 'discourse semantics' model of lexical cohesion is not a development of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) theory of lexical cohesion — it is a major misunderstanding of it, as so many of the analyses herein demonstrate.  Most fundamentally, Martin misconstrues a resource of the textual metafunction as a system of experiential meaning.  Within this misunderstanding, Martin confuses textually cohesive lexical relations with the notion of (experiential) lexis as most delicate grammar.  Moreover, Martin's discourse semantic model of experiential meaning consists of experiential units that are logically and/or interpersonally related to other experiential units.  See previous posts for detailed verification.

[2] In SFL theory, field is not a register variable.  Field is the ideational dimension of context, which is more abstract than language, whereas register is a functional variety of language itself.  Each register realises a contextual situation type whose metafunctional dimensions are subpotentials of field, tenor and mode systems.

Misconstruing Mode As Genre

Martin (1992: 367):

Because of the text's genre, recount rather than procedure, the realisation of activity sequences is more fragmented than in text [4:2];

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, the rhetorical function of language is modelled as the system of mode, the textual dimension of context (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 321).  Any function of language is more abstract than language, just as any function of form (e.g. Process) is more abstract than form (e.g. verbal group).  The level of abstraction above language is context — and field, tenor and mode are its metafunctional dimensions.  The relation between strata is realisation, which is an intensive identifying relation.

Genre, on the other hand, refers to a text type: a class to which a text belongs as a member.  The relation between a text and its genre is thus class membership, which is an intensive attributive relation.  In SFL theory, this relation is modelled as a cline of instantiation, with text at the instance pole, and text type, or register, midway between the instance and the system of overall potential.  A text is a member (Carrier) of a register (Attribute), which is a member (Carrier) of a system (Attribute).

Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension

Martin (1992: 362-3):

In [5:36] for example the actions of the yachts during the race are divided into three main strings: manœuvering, covering and leading.  Proto-typically, the manœuvering actions are extended by a Medium and enhanced by a Circumstance of direction, the covering actions are extended by an Agent and a Medium, and the leading actions are extended by a Medium and enhanced by a Circumstance of measure.  These configurations are outlined below.

manœuvering
p	Medium:Australians	Process:tacked	Circumstance:left
covering
mm	Agent:Australia II	Process:blocked	Medium:Americans
leading
kk	Medium:Australia II	Process:leading	Circumstance:by a couple of boat lengths

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the relation between Process and Medium is complementarity, not extension.  A Medium does not extend a Process because one cannot be construed without the other.  Every Process unfolds through a Medium.

[2] Because Agent is defined as the participant that is the external cause of a Process unfolding through a Medium, the expansion relation with the Nucleus is enhancement, not extension.

[3] In SFL theory, this is termed a circumstance of Extent: distance.

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 Mode As Genre

Martin (1992: 338, 352):

The first text to be considered is text [4:2] which was the point of departure for the CONJUNCTION analyses developed in Chapter 4.  The text is a relatively iconic one, focussing step by step on the showing area activity sequence in the field of dog showing.  Generically, the text is a procedure; its function is to explain how things are done in a given field. …

The second text to be considered, text [5:36] is The Sydney Morning Herald's account of Australia's historic victory in the 1983 America's Cup.  Generically, [5:36] is a recount rather than a procedure or news story; its function is to give an account of what happened during the deciding race of the series…

Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of the SFL stratification hierarchy, the activity sequence in the text and the field of dog showing are different levels of symbolic abstraction.  Dog showing, as field, is construed at the level of context: the culture as a semiotic system.  The activity sequence, as ideational meaning in the text, is semantics, not field.  The meanings of a text are language, not context.  Ideational meanings realise contextual field.

[2] In SFL theory, the rhetorical function of language is modelled as the system of mode, the textual dimension of context.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 321):

… there is a third contextual variable that is specifically concerned with the part language is playing in any given context — the symbolic mode, how the linguistic resources are deployed. This covers both the medium (spoken, written, and various subtypes such as written in order to be spoken) and the rhetorical function — persuasive, didactic, informative, etc.

The functional variety of language that realises the mode (and field and tenor) of a situation type is termed a register.

Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial

Martin (1992: 334):

With instantial relations, the elaboration marker = will be used as a valence, classifying the relation as one between message parts rather than within:

[4:2]  9.r.  With the smaller breeds of dog such as Corgis, all the Toy-breeds, Dachshunds and this type of thing we — as our turn comes,

Blogger Comment:

The lexical relations between the various canines here are general, not instantial, since each is 'a general fact about English' rather than being 'entirely specific to a single text' (Hasan 1985: 81).

Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration

Martin (1992: 333):

Note that elaborations are included as single message parts (as with the centre of = the ring).

Blogger Comment:

The relation here is extension, not elaboration, because the centre is part of the ring and composition is one major category of extension that resonates across the entire linguistic system.  The reason why this type of error matters is that, on the discourse semantic model, instances involving extension are regarded as two message parts, not one, and such miscategorisations can have significant consequences on the outcome of text analysis.

Structural & Metafunctional Inconsistencies

Martin (1992: 331):

All the discourse structures introduced to this point have been covariate ones, with the exception of the multivariate interpretation of the exchange introduced in Chapter 2.  But even there the multivariate approach presented only a partial picture; covariate tracking and challenging structures had to be developed to fill out the picture.  Lexical relations are also covariate structures — message parts depend semantically on each other, and depending message parts are themselves depended on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, units have internal structure.  In discourse semantics, on the other hand, the units participant, message and message part form structures.  This inconsistency is necessary because, as previously explained, these discourse semantic structures are not actually structures.  The discourse semantic unit move, on the other hand — inconsistent with the other discourse semantic units — is presented as a unit with internal structure and one which realises elements of structure at a higher rank, exchange.  See previous post here.

[2] The multivariate interpretation of the exchange confused multivariate structures (of a rank) with constituency (rank hierarchy).  See previous post here.

[3] In SFL theory, dependency is a relation of the logical metafunction.  In this chapter on experiential meaning, it is applied to lexical cohesion (textual metafunction), modality (interpersonal metafunction), and only some logico-semantic relations — extension and enhancement, but not elaboration or projection.

Claiming That Analysing A Text Can Alter The Mode Of The Text

Martin (1992: 330):

As with the unpacking of grammatical metaphors discussed above, this procedure  [lexical rendering] radically changes a text's mode.  This makes it inappropriate for register analysis which attends to contextual dependency.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Analytical procedures, such as lexical rendering or unpacking grammatical metaphor, do not change 'a text's mode'.  The mode of the text depends on the context of its creation, which is distinct from the actions performed by a discourse analyst.

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 321):

… there is a third contextual variable that is specifically concerned with the part language is playing in any given context — the symbolic mode, how the linguistic resources are deployed. This covers both the medium (spoken, written, and various subtypes such as written in order to be spoken) and the rhetorical function — persuasive, didactic, informative, etc.

[2] Since neither lexical rendering nor unpacking grammatical metaphor can affect the mode of discourse, this is not a reason for excluding them for register analysis.

[3] The relation between register and context (i.e. situation type) is realisation.  Analysing a register necessarily includes identifying the field, tenor and mode variables of the situation type that the register of language realises.

Claiming The Verb 'Stand' Is A Repetition Of The Verb 'Tabled'

Martin (1992: 327):

Derivational variants were classified as repetitions in 5.3.2 above, alongside inflexional members of a lexical item's formal scatter.  This implied that congruent and incongruent realisations of a particular message part would be treated under this heading.  Accordingly, both the verb stand and the noun table in [4:2:[9]] would be treated as repetition of the verb tabled in [4:2:6], both of which are antonyms of ground (taking tabled as a metaphorical variant of stand on the table).

[4:2]  6.m.  With the Dachshund, a Dachsund is tabled.
         8.p.   With the bigger breeds of dog, they're stood on the ground.
         9.s.   we stand our dog on the table.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is invalid reasoning.  Treating the various forms of a single lexical item as repetition does not imply that multiple lexical items — incongruent realisations of message parts — can also be treated as repetition.  Only the repeated lexical item within the message part, by definition, constitutes a lexical repetition.

[2] The invalid reasoning, above, leads to an absurd conclusion: that stand is a repetition of tabled.  In SFL theory, there are two instances of lexically cohesive repetition in the text: tabled-table and stood-stand.

[3] Obviously, neither of the lexical items, stand or table is an antonym of the lexical item ground.  By definition, an antonym is a word opposite in meaning to another: stand is not the opposite of ground; table is not the opposite of ground.