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

Martin (1992: 490):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As explained previously, the Mood element carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event, so it remains constant, as the nub of the proposition, unless some positive step is taken to change it (Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 150), whereas the Residue comprises the remaining elements that realise the proposition (or proposal), but which do not 'bear the burden of the clause as an interactive event'.

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

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

—∞—

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

Rhapsodising On Modal Responsibility

Martin (1992: 489-90):

Finally modal responsibility accommodates the interlocutor, making ongoing assessments of meaning at risk.  Vulnerable meanings are woven through the Mood functions of a text's ranking clauses, constructing a constrained resource for openness — for interplay, as interlocutors negotiate the resolution of an exchange.  What is going on here is that meanings that can be shared without risk are not worth being made; there has to be some difference involved to make a text worth meaning.  At the same time, a text is not worth meaning if it cannot be shared.  And so the openness associated with point is delimited by the need to organise messages into interactive events in which certain meanings are taken for granted and others are the stakes.  Where interlocutors cannot agree, these stakes may be very high.  In summary, Residue is what interlocutors are judged to have in common; Mood is what they may not share.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue.  In SFL theory, modal responsibility is the meaning of Subject, and refers to the rôle of Subject as the element on which the validity of a proposition or proposal rests.  The Subject does not "accommodate" the interlocutor.  Consider the "accommodation" of the interlocutor provided by the Subject the square of the hypotenuse in the following clause:

the square of the hypotenuse	equals		the sum of the squares of the other two sides
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood		Residue

[2] This is manifestly untrue.  Subjects do not "make ongoing assessments of meaning at risk".  Consider the "ongoing assessment of meaning at risk" made by the Subject the square of the hypotenuse in the previous example.

[3] This is manifestly untrue.  Consider the "vulnerability" of the meanings of the square of the hypotenuse and equals that are "woven through the Mood functions" in the example above.

[4] The function of the Mood block, Subject + Finite, is to make propositions and proposals arguable.

[5] Not all texts involve "interlocutors negotiating the resolution of an exchange", but all texts involve Subjects.  Consider the "interlocutors negotiating the resolution of an exchange" in the following text:

How pleasant to know Mr. Lear,
Who has written such volumes of stuff.
Some think him ill-tempered and queer,
But a few find him pleasant enough.

[6] This is manifestly untrue.  Consider the "sharing of meaning without risk" in:

the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides

This, the Pythagorean theorem, is a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry and might thus be considered as "worth being made".  Two geometers don't need to disagree about it for it to be "worth meaning".

[7] Martin's point includes paragraph summaries (hyper-News) and a text summary (macro-New).  Summaries do not open up a text, they keep it within the bounds of what has already been written.  See the most recent previous critique here.

[8] This confuses metafunctions.  Modal responsibility is an interpersonal function, whereas the organisation of texts is the province of the textual metafunction.

[9] As well as being manifestly untrue, this misunderstands the nature of Mood and Residue. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 150):

… the Mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event. So it remains constant, as the nub of the proposition, unless some positive step is taken to change it …

The Residue, on the other hand, comprises the remaining elements that realise the proposition (or proposal), but which do not 'bear the burden of the clause as an interactive event'.

Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point

Martin (1992: 489):

In short, method of development is where a text is coming from; point is where it's going to.  Theme is how a speaker looks at things; New is where she takes the listener to.  Hyper-Theme is what a speaker is going to say; hyper-New is what a listener's learned.  Macro-Theme is their way in; macro-New is where they've been.  A text is a trip: method of development is the route taken, while point is why you went there in the first place — what you've seen/learned/experienced/taken away.  Method of development is the plan; point is the holiday.

Blogger Comments:

[1] These characterisations of method of development and point are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes is where the text is coming from;
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary is where it's going to.

[2] Again, these characterisations of Theme and New are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  Theme is the giving of textual prominence to what is the point of departure of the clause as message.  Theme can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.  New is the giving of textual prominence to what the speaker regards as unrecoverable to the listener.  New can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.

[3] Here the concern is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• topic sentence is what a speaker is going to say
• paragraph summary is what a listener's learned

[4] A paragraph summary is meaning created by the speaker (writer).  In contradistinction, what a listener has learned from a text is meaning created by the listener.

[5] Here the concern is again writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph is their way in
• text summary is where they've been.

[6] In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', 'the route taken' also includes the meanings not included in the introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes.  The entire text is 'the route taken'.

[7] The claim of this metaphor is that News, paragraph summaries and text summary is 'why you went there in the first place'.  This misconstrues the meaning of point in terms of cause: purpose, and ascribes it to the interlocutors, rather than the text.

[8] This can be glossed as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes are the plan (of the trip);
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary are the holiday (of the trip).

In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', all the meanings of the entire text constitute the trip (holiday).

Rhapsodising On Point

Martin (1992: 489):

Point is the discourse complement of method of development.  Where Theme ties the text down, point elaborates it, developing it as news.  A much greater range of meanings with be realised in New than Theme, though not a random set.  A text's principle [sic] strings and chains will still be there, constrained by cohesive harmony; but there will be lesser [sic] strings and chains and odds and ends as well.  A text is never hermetically sealed; a text, like the system behind it, is a dynamic open process — and point is a source of openness: a resistance to the closure predicated on cohesive harmony and method of development.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, it is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's point is, again, a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding paragraph summary as hyper-New, and text summary as macro-New, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: New as information deemed unrecoverable to the listener (textual metafunction).

Martin's point is the accumulation of experiential meaning that is highlighted as New information and included in a paragraph summary and text summary.  Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also highlighted as New information — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

Martin's deployment of the linguistic theory is internally inconsistent, given that New information is located on the phonological stratum, and yet construed as an element of the clause (lexicogrammar), rather than the information unit.

[2] Theme, as the point of departure of a message, does not "tie a text down" — anymore than airports, as points of departure during a holiday, "tie a holiday down".

[3] Point does not "develop the text as news".  New is information that is presented as unrecoverable to the listener; hyper-New is a paragraph summary of what has already been written; and macro-New is a text summary of what has already been written.

[4] Cohesive harmony does not constrain a text.  Hasan's cohesive harmony describes the synergy of the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction, cohesion, and the meanings of the experiential metafunction (and potentially the interpersonal metafunction).

[5] To be clear, system and text are related by the vector of instantiation.  In SFL theory, 'system' is short for 'system–&–process' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 507), and text is an instance of the 'system–&–process'.  The unfolding of the text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation is the process of logogenesis.

[7] By definition, New information may be "a source of openness", but summaries of what has already been written (hyper-New and macro-New) are not.  They are repetitions of meanings internal to the text.

[8] This is manifestly untrue.  See [2] and [4] above.

Rhapsodising On Method Of Development

Martin (1992: 489):

Method of development takes these harmonising meanings, and finds a peg to hang them on — it establishes an angle on the field.  This angle will be sensitive to a text's generic structure where this is realised in stages.  Method of development is the lens through which a field is constructed; of all the experiential meanings available in a given field, it will pick on just a few, and weave them through Theme time and again to ground the text — to give interlocutors something to hang onto, something to come back to — an orientation, a perspective, a point of view, a perch, a purchase.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's method of development is a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding introductory paragraph as macro-Theme, and topic sentence as hyper-Theme, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: Theme as point of departure for the clause as message (textual metafunction).  Martin's method of development is the progression of experiential meaning that is highlighted by inclusion in an introductory paragraph, topic sentences, and clause Themes.

[2] It is because Martin focuses on the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than on the textual system that does the highlighting, that he believes that method of development 'establishes an angle on the field' — the ideational dimension of context — keeping in mind that what Martin regards as "field" includes ideational semantics and involves a misconstrual of context as register.

Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also given thematic prominence — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

[3] Consider the "development" of a text that keeps returning to the same Theme, the same point of departure 'time and again'.

Misrepresenting Cohesive Harmony

Martin (1992: 488-9):

Looked at from the point of view of field and embracing the ineffable, the semantics of these texturing processes can be glossed, albeit metaphorically, as follows.  Cohesive harmony locates a text within a particular field or sub-field.  As a measure of coherence cohesive harmony argues that the more meanings are experientially related to each other in a text in similar ways, the more coherent the text is.  A maximally coherent text is thus defined as one in which the same event is repeated over and over again, as in a recount of the operation of a robot on a factory floor.  Since this kind of activity sequence is not worth talking about, the experiential texture associated with coherence never amounts to simple repetition.  But in some sense, the more focussed the field, the more coherent cohesive harmony analysis will show a text to be.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin's notion of field is theoretically inconsistent and self-inconsistent in two distinct ways, as shown in previous posts.  On the one hand, field is confused with semantics (e.g. 'activity sequences' in the text); on the other, field, a dimension of context (culture as a semiotic) is misconstrued as a dimension of register (a sub-potential of language).

[2] In the words of Conan Doyle's Dr. John H. Watson: "What ineffable twaddle!"

[3] Cohesive harmony is not a "texturing process".  Hasan's cohesive harmony refers to the synergy between meanings of the textual metafunction and those of the ideational metafunction (construing experience) and, potentially, the interpersonal metafunction (enacting the self in social relations).  Texture, the quality of being a text, arises from the resources of the textual metafunction.

[4] This confuses metafunctions.  It is not the experiential relations between meanings that measure the coherence of a text.  As Hasan (1985: 94) makes clear:

Variation in coherence is a function of variation in the cohesive harmony of a text. … Cohesive harmony is an account of how the two functions [textual and experiential] find their expression in one significant whole.

[5] This confuses the ideational metafunction (repeated events) with the textual metafunction, the source of coherence.

[6] This is a contradiction in terms.  Texture is achieved through the resources of the textual metafunction.  The experiential metafunction is concerned with the construal of experience.

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).

Misconstruing Strata As Modules

Martin (1992: 488):

In this chapter a brief sketch of some of the ways in which discourse semantics interacts with lexicogrammar and phonology has been presented.  The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface?  What is the nature of the conversation among components?

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the relation between strata, such as semantics and lexicogrammar, is realisation, which is an intensive identifying relation.  That is, strata are levels of symbolic abstraction, and as such, complementary perspectives.  The notion that different levels of abstraction can interact derives from a misunderstanding of strata as modules.

[2] The chapter discussed a lexicogrammatical function (New information) realised by a phonological system (tonicity), rather than phonology itself.  Moreover, New information — despite being misconstrued as phonology — was further misrepresented as an element of the clause (instead of the information unit).

[3] SFL theory is not a modular model of semiosis, and this misunderstanding is one source of the serious global theoretical errors in Martin's discourse semantic model.

Modules are distinct units that can be combined with others to make more complex structures. That is, a modular model is one whose organising principles are association and composition, which, in terms of expansion, are types of extension. The overarching organising principle of SFL theory, on the other hand, in terms of expansion, is elaboration. Elaboration is the organising principle of:

• systemic delicacy,
• stratification (along with identity),
• axial relations (along with identity),
• the cline of instantiation (along with ascription).

Extension is an organising principle of system network wiring (conjunctive 'and' and disjunctive 'or') and the rankscale of forms (composition).

In short, strata are not modules, not components, and the relation between them — realisation — is not one of extension, but one of elaboration and symbolic identity.

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.