Taking A Monostratal Approach To Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 406):

Table 6.15. Examples of grammatical metaphor across metafunctions
metafunction	congruent	metaphorical
ideational:
logical
conjunctive relation	therefore	reason
experiential
process	advance	advancement
interpersonal
assessment	might	possibility
textual
reference	he	this point

Blogger Comments:

[1] From a lexicogrammatical perspective ('from below'), grammatical metaphor is an incongruent grammatical realisation of meaning, as, in the case of ideational metaphor, when a Process (semantics) is realised by a Thing (lexicogrammar).  From a semantic perspective ('from above'), grammatical metaphor creates a junctional construct: the meanings of both the metaphorical and congruent grammatical realisations, as in the meaning of advancement as 'process thing'.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 271): 

Thus grammatical metaphor is a means of having things both ways. … A[n] element that is metaphorised does not lose its original status. Its construction is not triggered by its being associated with any new semantic feature. If it has a new semantic feature this is a result of the metaphorising process. … It has become a ‘junctional’ construct, combining two of the basic properties that the grammar evolved as it grew into a theory of experience.

Halliday (2008: 96):

The effect of this semantic junction is to create virtual phenomena which exist on the semiotic plane. Thus motion and heat are virtual entities; cause and follow (“come after in time”) are virtual processes; while heat resistance is a virtual class of a virtual entity resistance. Such virtual phenomena are critical for the construction of theory;

This table does not present a semantic perspective of grammatical metaphor, and does not present it from a grammatical perspective as a relation between content strata.

[2] In SFL theory, the noun 'reason' is an incongruent grammatical realisation of the meaning 'expansion: enhancement: cause: reason', a type of enhancement within the semantic system of expansion.  In SFL theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 600), therefore realises expansion: enhancement: cause: reason, but through the textual system of cohesive conjunction.  However, in Martin's discourse semantics (p179), therefore realises 'consequential: consequence', through the logical system of conjunction.

[3] Martin's discourse semantics does not provide 'process' as an experiential system or feature — see Figure 5.23 p320 — and the experiential unit of meaning is simply 'message part' (p325).  That is, the discourse semantic model provides no distinct semantic category by which to determine congruent (advance) and metaphorical (advancement) realisations in the grammar.

[4] Martin's discourse semantics does not provide '(modal) assessment' as an interpersonal system; see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 608-12).  That is, the discourse semantic model provides no system of features by which to determine congruent and metaphorical realisations of low values of probability in the grammar.

Further, the metaphorical realisation provided here is the nominalisation possibility (a noun of modalisation). Interpersonal metaphors of modality are actually the explicit subjective and objective forms, such as, in the case of low probability: I think… and it's possible….  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 624):

The explicitly subjective and explicitly objective forms of modality are all strictly speaking metaphorical, since all of them represent the modality as being the substantive proposition. Modality represents the speaker’s angle, either on the validity of the assertion or on the rights and wrongs of the proposal; in its congruent form, it is an adjunct to a proposition rather than a proposition in its own right.

[5] In SFL theory, as previously explained, there is no textual metaphor.  Leaving this minor detail aside, here the grammatical system of cohesive reference is identified as providing the example of textual metaphor, rather than the discourse semantic system of identification.  But in any case, no semantic category is provided that is said to be realised in the grammar congruently as he and metaphorically as this point.

∞

Note that grammatical metaphor was cited as one of the three motivations for theorising a discourse semantics stratum.  See previous post here.

Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 406):

Like discourse systems, grammatical metaphor is sensitive to metafunction and it is possible to recognise different types of metaphor according to the kinds of meaning they interface.  Examples of ideational (logical and experiential), interpersonal and textual metaphors have been introduced at various points in English Text; an example of each type of metaphor is presented in Table 6.15.  The role of each in interfacing discourse semantics and lexicogrammar is taken up in more detail below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, grammatical metaphor involves, in the first instance, an incongruent relation (of realisation) between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar) — which is why it's called grammatical metaphor — demonstrating that it was theorised on the basis on a stratified content plane.

[2] In SFL theory, grammatical metaphor involves either the incongruent realisation of ideational meaning in wording, or the incongruent realisation of interpersonal meaning in wording.  It does not involve the incongruent realisation of textual meaning in wording.  On the other hand, grammatical metaphor is itself a manifestation of the second-order nature of the textual metafunction.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-9):

Grammatical metaphor is a ‘second-order’ use of grammatical resources: one grammatical feature or set of features is used as a metaphor for another feature or set of features; and since features are realised by structures, one grammatical structure comes to stand for another.

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 401):

But ideational grammatical metaphors typically have a discourse function of this kind; they are as it were pressed into service by the textual metafunction, to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information.

[3] To be clear, logical and textual metaphors have not yet been identified 'at various points in English Text'.  Up to this point in the text, only interpersonal metaphor (p39, pp50-1) and experiential metaphor (pp327-329) have been discussed, as verified by the index.

Misconstruing Contextual Systems And 'Text Forming Resources'

Martin (1992: 405):

At this stage however all that needs to be stressed is that contextual systems are a critical component of any culture's text forming resources.  The notion of text cannot be understood unless linguistic text forming resources are interpreted against the background of (or better, as redounding with) contextual ones.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, contextual systems are not a component of a culture's text forming resources.  Contextual systems model culture as a semiotic system, and do so in terms of all metafunctions: ideational (field), interpersonal (tenor) and textual (mode).  The 'text forming resources', on the other hand, are linguistic systems of the textual metafunction.

[2] The 'linguistic text forming resources' — those of the textual metafunction — realise the system of mode, the textual dimension of context.

[3] To be clear, the meaning of 'redound' here — previously quoted from Halliday in Thibault (1987: 619)  — is 'construes and is construed by'.  So a theoretically consistent interpretation would be that the text forming resources construe and are construed by the contextual system of mode.

Misconstruing Types Of Language As More Abstract Than Language

Martin (1992: 405):

The notion of context will be developed in somewhat different directions in Chapter 7 below, where context of situation and context of culture will be construed as a series of connotative semiotics (named register, genre and ideology).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is one of the most far-reaching misunderstandings of SFL theory in the entire book.  In SFL theory, 'context' is a semiotic system that is realised in language; it is the culture conceived as a connotative semiotic.  The terms 'register' and 'genre', on the other hand, refer to functional varieties of language itself; registers and genres are not more abstract than language — they are language.

The distinction between register and context is clearly stated in the work most cited by Martin. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 22):

The linguistic features which are typically associated with a configuration of situational features — with particular values of field, mode and tenor — constitute a REGISTER.  The more specifically we can characterise the context of situation, the more specifically we can predict the properties of a text in that situation.

[2] The relation between context of situation and context of culture is instantiation, whereas relations between stratified semiotic systems is realisation.  Turning the theory back on itself, instantiation is an intensive attributive relation, whereas realisation is an intensive identifying relation.  This means it is fundamentally flawed to construe context of situation and context of culture (instantiation) 'as a series of connotative semiotics' (realisation) — even before relabelling them as types of language (register and genre).

Misconstruing Non-Structural Cohesion As Discourse Structure

Martin (1992: 404, 403):

This projection of metafunction across the content plane in correlation with register is outlined in Table 6.14, which illustrates the way in which interpreting cohesion as discourse structure re-organises its metafunctional address.

Table 6.14. Register and metafunction in relation to discourse semantic and lexicogrammatical systems
register	discourse semantics	lexicogrammar
Tenor	interpersonal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	negotiation	clause: mood (modalisation, modulation, polarity, vocation, tagging)
Mode	textual --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	identification	nominal group: deixis, substitution & ellipsis
		interdependency
Field	logical --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	conjunction	clause complex:
	experiential --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		logico-semantics
	ideation	clause: transitivity (including lexis as delicate grammar); group rank experiential grammar; collocation

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misrepresentation of context, a semiotic system that is more abstract than language, as register, a functional variety of language that realises a functional variety of context: a situation type.

[2] In SFL theory, cohesion is a non-structural system of the textual metafunction only.  Construing cohesion as a stratum more abstract than lexicogrammar arises from several interrelated misunderstandings, including the confusion of logogenesis (discourse) with semantics (meaning).

[3] The system of identification, theorised as the semantics of reference, to be consistent, would be realised lexicogrammatically by the non-structural cohesive system of reference, not the structural system of deixis at group rank.

[4] The system of identification, theorised as the semantics of reference, to be consistent, would be realised lexicogrammatically by the cohesive system of reference, not the cohesive system of substitution–&–ellipsis.

[5] Logico-semantic relations are systems of the logical metafunction, not the experiential metafunction.

Ideational Metaphor And Mode

Martin (1992: 404):

Beyond this, ideational metaphor in general is a powerful measure of a text's level of abstraction and is another mode determined variable.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, ideational metaphor is the principal means of generating abstraction in texts.

[2] The common feature of ideational metaphor and mode is the textual metafunction.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-9):

One manifestation of the second–order nature of the textual metafunction that is important for our purposes is grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor is a ‘second-order’ use of grammatical resources…

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 401):

But ideational grammatical metaphors … are as it were pressed into service by the textual metafunction, to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information.

In SFL theory, the realisation of the contextual system of mode in textual meaning and wording varies according to register.

Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Conjunction

Martin (1992: 404):

CONJUNCTION was presented in Chapter 4 as the semantics of the clause complex and is oriented to activity sequences in field.  The way in which CONJUNCTION is realised however (between clause complexes, within clause complexes or within clauses) is very sensitive to mode.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the system of conjunction does not model the semantics of the clause complex.  Instead, it confuses clause complex relations (logical metafunction) and cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction) and excludes several logical relations, the most important of which is projection.  This omission of projection follows from taking cohesive conjunction as the point of departure, since this system is the textual deployment of expansion.

[2] 'To be oriented' is to be positioned in a direction relative to something or someplace else.  The theoretical relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction, such as semantics and context, is realisation.

[3] The system of conjunction (Chapter 4) was not identified with regard to 'activity sequences in field' (Chapter 5).  Instead, temporal clause complex relations were said to realise the field system 'activity sequence', whose feature options were expectancy (realised by and (then) versus implication (realised by if/then).  No discourse semantic system was identified in the discussion (pp321-5).

[4] The notion of clause complex relations within clauses is a logical contradiction.  See the original critique here.

[5] In SFL theory, the realisation of the contextual system of mode in textual meaning and wording  — e.g. cohesive conjunction — varies according to register.

Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Identification

Martin (1992: 403-4):

IDENTIFICATION is abstracted from nominal group DEIXIS, and alongside the lexicogrammatical systems of SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS is a powerful measure of contextual dependency and thereby strongly associated with MODE.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The discourse semantic system of identification is presented as the semantics of reference.  However, rather than being theorised at a more abstract level than this cohesive system, a reworking of it has merely been moved to a different location within the theory.

[2] The nominal group system of deixis realises an orientation to the '"speaker-now", the temporal–modal complex that constitutes the point of reference of the speech event' (Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 314).  The system of identification is a reworking of the non-structural cohesive system of reference, not the structural system of deixis.

[3] This discussion (p33) misconstrued context as co-text and material setting.  See original critique here.

[4] The "association" of these systems with the contextual system of mode is not due to their being 'a powerful measure of contextual dependency'.  Substitution–&–ellipsis and reference (the source of identification) are both systems of the textual metafunction, and mode is the contextual stratum system of the textual metafunction.

[5] In SFL theory, the realisation of the contextual system of mode in textual meaning and wording varies according to register.

Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Ideation

Martin (1992: 403):

IDEATION, as was noted in Chapter 5, is realised through experiential grammar systems (including the LOGICO-SEMANTICS of the clause complex) and is strongly correlated with field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Realisation statements specifying how ideation is realised in these grammatical systems are not provided.

[2] The realisation of the experiential discourse system of ideation in the logical relations of the clause complex was not discussed in Chapter 5. As the summarising Table 5.26 (p373) makes clear, the system of ideation is said to be realised in the lexicogrammar by transitivity, group rank experiential grammar, lexis as delicate grammar and collocation. The same table identifies the logical discourse semantic system of conjunction as that which is realised by the logico-semantics and interdependency of the clause complex.

The discussion of clause complex relations in Chapter 5 was restricted to temporal relations (p323-5), and these were said to realise the field system 'activity sequence', whose feature options were expectancy (realised by and (then) versus implication (realised by if/then).  (See the relevant critiques for an analysis of most of the inconsistencies involved.)  No experiential discourse semantic system was identified in the discussion.

[3] In SFL theory, the realisation of the contextual system of field in ideational meaning and wording varies according to register.

Misrepresenting Tenor As A 'Register Variable'

Martin (1992: 403):

NEGOTIATION is realised through the interpersonal grammatical systems of MOOD (alongside MODALIZATION, MODULATION and ATTITUDE); taking interpersonal metaphor into account, these systems are all strongly correlated with the register variable tenor.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Realisation statements specifying how negotiation is realised in these grammatical systems are not provided.

[2] This is irrelevant to the point being made.  Realisational relations across strata hold even when not "taking interpersonal metaphor into account".  Interpersonal metaphor is the incongruent varying of such interstratal relations.

[3] In SFL theory, the realisation of the contextual system of tenor in interpersonal meaning and wording varies according to register. 

[4] In SFL theory, tenor is the system that models the interpersonal potential of context.  It is not a "register variable" in the sense of being a system of register because register is a functional variety of language, whereas context is a semiotic system that is more abstract than language.

Misunderstanding The Textual Metafunction And Misrepresenting Context As Register

Martin (1992: 402-3):

And it follows from setting up a text-focussed discourse semantics of this kind (as opposed to a speech act-focussed pragmatics or a proposition-focussed semantics) that systems on this stratum will be concerned with text integrating relations. This does not mean that all discourse systems need therefore to be treated as metafunctionally textual. The grammatical systems that discourse systems are abstracted with respect to need to be taken into account. In addition, the relation of discourse systems to register variables is an important consideration.

Interpreted as an interface between context and grammar, discourse semantics can be seen to have its own metafunctional organisation, reflecting both the organisation of the lexicogrammatical resources realising its meanings as well as the organisation of context into the register variables tenor, mode and field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, all systems "concerned with text integrating relations" are systems of the textual metafunction, by definition.  Ideational and interpersonal systems are not "concerned with text integrating relations". Any discourse semantic system that is "concerned with text integrating relations" is a system of the textual metafunction.  Any discourse semantic system that is not of the textual metafunction is not "concerned with text integrating relations".

[2] This would go without saying if the meaning of stratification and metafunction were properly understood.

[3] This continues the misrepresentation of context, a semiotic system that is more abstract than language, as register, a functional variety of language that realises a functional variety of context: a situation type.

Misunderstanding The Principles Of Metafunction And Stratification

Martin (1992: 402-3):

Considered from the point of view of an unstratified content plane, this allocation of cohesion to the textual metafunction makes sense; cohesion is about relating ideational and interpersonal meanings to each other, integrating them as text. … 

Considered from the perspective of a stratified content plane however, this metafunctional interpretation of cohesion is not appropriate.  Semantic systems in the model assumed here deal with meanings that are both more abstract and bigger in size than grammatical ones.  And it follows from setting up a text-focussed discourse semantics of this kind (as opposed to a speech act-focussed pragmatics or a proposition-focussed semantics) that systems on this stratum will be concerned with text integrating relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The notion of cohesion has, in fact, been theorised on the basis of a stratified content plane since its formulation.  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 304):

It has been pointed out that reference, while it is expressed by grammatical means, is actually a semantic relation, a relation between meanings of particular instances rather than between words or other items of linguistic form.  Substitution and ellipsis, on the other hand, are formal relations between elements at the lexicogrammatical level.

[2] The "allocation" of cohesion to the textual metafunction is consistent with the theoretical definitions of both cohesion and the textual metafunction.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398): 

The textual metafunction second–order in the sense that it is concerned with semiotic reality: that is, reality in the form of meaning. This dimension of reality is itself constructed by [the] other two metafunctions: the ideational, which construes a natural reality, and the interpersonal, which enacts an intersubjective reality. … The function of the textual metafunction is thus an enabling one with respect to the rest; it takes over the semiotic resources brought into being by the other two metafunctions and as it were operationalises them …

[3] Many of the discourse systems are not more abstract than lexicogrammar.  For example, as many previous posts demonstrate, identification is a misunderstanding of reference, ideation is merger of misunderstandings of lexical cohesion, lexicogrammatical delicacy and transitivity, and the system of conjunction is a merger of misunderstandings of logical relations between clauses and cohesive conjunction between messages.  Simply relocating reworkings of previous work by other theorists to a higher stratum does not make such systems more abstract.

[4] The notion of meanings being "bigger in size" — which is irrelevant to the principle (symbolic abstraction) on which stratification is based — suggests that meaning is conceived here structurally rather than systemically.  In SFL theory, as the name suggests, priority is given to system. With regard to syntagmatic extent, it is appropriate to point out that the textual and experiential discourse semantic units, participant and message part, are both less extensive than the clause, the unit of highest rank in lexicogrammar.

[5] This continues the misunderstanding of stratification.  In SFL, the content plane is stratified into meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar).  "Grammatical meanings" are the meanings of the semantic stratum that are realised in the wordings of the lexicogrammatical stratum.

[6] This does not follow at all.  A semantics that is "text-focussed" is not limited to "text integrating relations". In SFL theory, the text is a semantic unit and semantics involves all metafunctions.  The text forming systems, on the other hand, are those of the (aptly named) textual metafunction.  The ideational and interpersonal metafunctions are not concerned with integrating text, but with construing experience and enacting intersubjective relations.

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.

Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 401):

Grammatical metaphor, like interaction patterns, will be interpreted as a process here, rather than as a synoptic system taking its place alongside the text forming systems proposed for English above.  Metaphorically speaking, it is part of the conversation that must go on among text forming systems across strata if meanings are to be integrated in contextually effective ways. … The gatekeeping function of grammatical metaphor is incorporated as part of English Text's classification of text forming resources in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12. Grammatical metaphor as a texturing interface
Discourse Semantics		Lexicogrammar	Phonology/Graphology
negotiation	grammatical metaphor	substitution & ellipsis
			information
identification		theme
conjunction & continuity			tone concord & tone sequence
ideation		collocation

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses realisation with instantiation.  Grammatical metaphor is an incongruent relation of realisation between semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording).  The deployment of grammatical metaphor during logogenesis is effected by the process of instantiation: the selection of systemic features and the activation of realisation statements.

[2] This is misleading.  Grammatical metaphor is not a relation between the text forming systems across strata.  In SFL theory, the text forming systems are those of the textual metafunction.  Grammatical metaphor involves incongruent realisations between ideational meaning and wording or between interpersonal meaning and wording.

[3] It is theoretically inaccurate to describe the function of grammatical metaphor as a "gatekeeping" interface between strata. Where gatekeeping is a filtering process, grammatical metaphor is an incongruent relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction: meaning and wording.

[4] In SFL theory, information is a system of the lexicogrammatical stratum.  Here it is again misconstrued as a system of the phonological/graphological stratum.  That is, it is misconstrued as expression rather than content.  The phonological systems that realise the grammatical system of information are tonicity (the placement of tonic prominence) and tonality (the placement of tone group boundaries).

Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal

Martin (1992: 392):

As far as lexical strings and reference chains are concerned, this interaction across strata is better understood than that among discourse systems themselves.  Fries (1981), Hasan (1984), Halliday (1985) and Plum (1988) have all done pioneering work in this area (see also Martin 1991).

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, in SFL theory, the cohesive relations effected by lexical cohesion and reference are located at the level of lexicogrammar and within the textual metafunction.  Studies that examine how the non-structural systems of the lexicogrammar pattern with the structural systems of the lexicogrammar are thus not concerned with "interaction across strata".

To be clear, in discourse semantic theory, lexical strings are construed as experiential structures at the level of discourse semantics, and reference chains are construed as textual structures at the level of discourse semantics.

Accordingly, the work of Fries (1981), Hasan (1984) and Halliday (1985) does not support the relocation of non-structural textual systems at the level of lexicogrammar to structural experiential and textual systems at the level of discourse semantics.

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.

Misunderstanding Stratification

Martin (1992: 391):

Within discourse semantics, the ways in which systems co-operate in the process of making text is much less well understood. … A more explicit account of this co-operation is clearly an urgent research goal; English Text has been concerned not so much with addressing this goal as with making it addressable by proposing four relatively independent discourse modules to beg the question… .  The point is that integrating meanings deriving from different metafunctions is not a task that can be left to lexicogrammar alone.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of the metafunctions as modular units, rather than as complementary perspectives.

[2] This misunderstands the meaning of 'to beg the question'.  Begging the question is a logical fallacy identified by Aristotle in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.  See further here or here.

[3] This misunderstands stratification.  The wordings of lexicogrammar realise the meanings of semantics; the meanings of semantics are realised by the wordings of lexicogrammar.  Further, it ignores the trinocular perspective on which linguistic analysis is based in SFL.  Each stratum is viewed 'from above', 'from roundabout' and 'from below'.  This includes looking at lexicogrammar 'from above' (in terms of the meaning being realised) and looking at semantics 'from below' (in terms of the wording that realises it).