Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"

Martin (1992: 526-7):

Status-like relationships between participants can be interpreted from a number of perspectives, including mode, field, genre and ideology as well as tenor.  The term prominence will be used here to refer to the way in which various media construct public figures (mode), authority for the ways in which institutions position people through job classification and expertise (field), control for the way in which participants direct other participants to do things (genre) and power as the overarching term for the way in which ethnicity, gender, generation and class give participants differential access to status, prominence, authority and control.  This set of terminology for situating social difference in the model of context being developed here is summarised below:

status	- tenor (social hierarchy)
prominence	- mode (publicity)
authority	- field (expertise and classification)
control	- genre (manipulation)
power	- ideology (access)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The system of tenor is not one of many "perspectives" on "status-like relationships between participants".  It specifically models the relative status of interacting language users.  This is distinct from:

• mode (the part played by language)
• field ('what's going on' and subject matter)
• genre (text type), and
• ideology (a system of ideas and ideals)

[2] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which various media construct public figures" is not "prominence".  Further, the assignment of prominence to public figures by the media is not mode.

[3] This is semantically incoherent: the "ways in which institutions position people through job classification and expertise" is not "authority".  Further, the assignment of authority to people by institutions is not field.

[4] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which participants direct other participants to do things" is not "control".  Control is the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.  Further, the power to direct people's behaviour is not genre.

[5] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which ethnicity, gender, generation and class give participants differential access to status, prominence, authority and control" is not "power".  Power is the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way, or the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events (i.e. 'control'; see [4]).  Further, the capacity to act in a particular way is not ideology.

Confusing Context Potential With The Semantics Of Registers

Martin (1992: 526):

In many registers, for reasons of status, contact and genre, affect is not linguistically manifested (because participants scarcely know each other for example) — this is not to say that it is not immanent and cannot be realised in other ways; where language is emotionally charged, then the basic contrast is between positive and negative.

Blogger Comment:

This confuses affect, a system of the interpersonal dimension of context, tenor, with the interpersonal semantics of registers.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and instantiation (potential vs register).

Three Minor Clarifications

Martin (1992: 526):

The basic opposition as far as status is concerned is between equal and unequal depending on whether the social ranking of participants is comparable or not.  Contact can be broken down into involved and uninvolved depending on a number of factors influencing the familiarity of participants with each other.  Contact is logically independent of status, since seeing someone often does not in itself change one's ranking (senior administrators and their secretaries for example do not change rank because they see each other every day; they do however become more "involved" with each other).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the assignment of equal vs unequal status is a comparison of the ranking of the interactants.  If the ranking of the interactants cannot be compared, then the features equal vs unequal status cannot be assigned.

[2] Contact and familiarity are distinct variables.  It is possible to have involved contact between unfamiliar interactants, and uninvolved contact between familiar interactants.

[3] The notion of "changing rank" is irrelevant here.  The tenor system of status is an interpersonal dimension of cultural potential.  A particular instance of the tenor system is an interpersonal dimension of a particular situation in which a text unfolds.

Misattributing A Source

Martin (1992: 525):

Affect has been included to cover what Halliday (1978: 33) refers to as the "degree of emotional charge" in a relationship between participants.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not to be confused with the system of the same name in appraisal: attitude (interpersonal semantics).

[2] More accurately,  Halliday (1978: 33) is actually citing Pearce's summary of related schemata:

A number of other, more or less related, schemata have been proposed; see especially Ellis 1965, 1966; Gregory 1967.  John Pearce summarises these as follows (Doughty et al. 1972, 186-6):

…Tenor…refers to the relationship between participants…not merely variation in formality…but…such questions as the permanence or otherwise of the relationship and the degree of emotional charge in it.

[3] This has become the system of sociometric rôle in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33):

tenor – who is taking part in the situation: (i) the rôles played by those taking part in the socio-semiotic activity – (1) institutional rôles, (2) status rôles (power, either equal or unequal), (3) contact rôles (familiarity, ranging from strangers to intimates) and (4) sociometric rôles (affect, either neutral or charged, positively or negatively); and (ii) the values that the interactants imbue the domain with (either neutral or loaded, positively or negatively).

Blurring The Distinction Between Tenor (Context) And Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)

Martin (1992: 523):

The model of tenor to be presented here is that developed by Poynton (1984, 1985, 1990).  As with interpersonal meaning in general, tenor is concerned with the semiotics of relationships.  It mediates these relationships along three dimensions, which will be referred to here as status (Poynton's power), contact and affect.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This blurs the important stratificational distinction between the context of culture (tenor) and the semantics of language (interpersonal meaning).  As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 320) tenor is concerned with: 

the relationship between the interactants, between speaker and listener, in terms of social rôles in general and those created through language in particular (‘who are taking part?).

Interpersonal meaning, on the other hand, is concerned with the linguistic resources that interactants use to enact social and intersubjective relationships.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 11):

The interaction base provides the resources for speaker and listener to enact a social and intersubjective relationship, through the assignment of discursive rôles, the expression of evaluations and attitudes.

[2] This is misleading.  Tenor does not mediate the "semiotics of relationships".  The system of tenor models the interpersonal dimension of cultural potential that is realised in language.

Misconstruing Context Potential (Tenor) As Language Sub-Potential (Register)

Martin (1992: 523):

Within register, it [tenor] is the projection of interpersonal meaning, and so is realised primarily through the interpersonal metafunction in language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, tenor is the interpersonal dimension of context, not register.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (potential vs instance type).

[2] More accurately, tenor is the theoretical application of the interpersonal metafunction to context.

Misunderstanding Tenor

Martin (1992: 523):

Tenor refers to the negotiation of social relationships among participants.

Blogger Comment:

This confuses context (tenor) with language (negotiation).  The confusion is thus along the theoretical dimension of stratification.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 320) describe tenor as: 

the relationship between the interactants, between speaker and listener, in terms of social rôles in general and those created through language in particular (‘who are taking part?).

The Non-Argument For 'Experiential Distance'

Martin (1992: 523):

Some of the key realisations associated with experiential distance are reviewed in Table 7.9 [Mode — aspects of the realisation of experiential distance] for monitoring, reconstructing and genre-structured texts.

Blogger Comment:

This is the first mention of 'experiential distance'.  That is, the term has not been defined and there has been no discussion of its theoretical location, apart from including it at the end of a discussion of mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  The claims in the table are thus unsupported by argument.

The nature of the unsupported claims can be exemplified by one row of the table, the realisation of experiential distance in the system of negotiation, Martin's interpersonal system at the level of discourse semantics:

• for 'monitoring' mode — textual metafunction — there are no realisations of experiential distance in the interpersonal system of negotiation;
• for 'reconstruction' mode  — textual metafunction — experiential distance is realised in the interpersonal system of negotiation as 'projected' (logical metafunction);
• for 'genre-structured' mode  — textual metafunction — experiential distance is realised in the interpersonal system of negotiation as 'quoted writing' (logical metafunction?).

Misconstruing Dialogue As Unprojected

Martin (1992: 523):

With film and theatre projection is naturalised as real; this does not however take away from the fact that the language spoken has been scripted and is very different from the unprojected dialogue of everyday life.  These projection systems are developed in Fig. 7.12 where they crossclassify [sic] the basic action/reflection mode options.

Blogger Comments:

[1] More accurately, and theoretically, scriptwriters/dramatists (first-order experience) verbally project written texts, scripts/dramas, in which characters (second-order experience) verbally project spoken texts (third-order experience).  In the acting of films and plays, the orders of experience are reduced to as if two, with the characters as if of first-order experience, and their projections as if of second-order experience.

[2] Whether the language of films and plays is "very different" from the language of everyday life depends very much on the script/drama and the scriptwriter/dramatist.  Compare the films of Ken Loach with the films of Peter Greenaway, for example.

[3] This provides further evidence that the SFL theoretical notion of projection is not understood.  All dialogue is projected — all texts are projected — by sayers engaged in verbal processes, at whatever order of experience.

[4] In addition to the misconceived notions of projected vs unprojected mode, and experientialised vs unexperientialised verbalisation, the system network in Fig. 7.12 (p524) introduces two new inconsistencies — an inconsistency with the accompanying text, and an internal (logical) inconsistency.

With regard to the first inconsistency, the network distinguishes 'projected' from 'unprojected' and includes speaking and writing within 'projected', despite referring to the language of everyday life (above) as "unprojected".

With regard to the second inconsistency, the network distinguishes 'projected' from 'unprojected' and, within 'unprojected': '–'.  The logical problem here is that –unprojected equals projected.

Misconstruing Mode

Martin (1992: 521-3):

Some examples of linguistically and pictorially projected texts across three modes are outlined in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8. Projection across modes
	field-structured: accompanying	(re-)constructing	genre-structured
linguistic	simultaneous	narrative	quotations
	translation	dialogue
pictorial	comic strip	comic strip	figures, tables
	dialogue	headers

Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of first-order experience, the dialogue and headers of comic strips are verbal projections of the author; that is, they are linguistic, not pictorial.  In terms, of second-order experience, the dialogues of comic strips are projections of the characters; again, they are linguistic, not pictorial.  It is the drawing that accompanies these wordings that is pictorial.

Language and pictures are distinct semiotic modes; that is, distinct semiotic systems.  Pictorial semiosis differs from language, both in terms of its expression plane and in not having a stratified content plane (meaning without wording).

[2] The projection relation between speaker/writer and text is ideational, not textual, and so is not a feature of mode.

[3] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[4] In terms of Hasan's (1985/9: 58) mode opposition of constitutive vs ancillary, the rôle of the language of comic strips is constitutive, not ancillary to something else.

Misconstruing The Notion Of Projection

Martin (1992: 521):

The final ideational consideration which has to be taken into account here has to do with projection.  All of the text types considered to this point can be spoken or written directly; alternatively their verbalisation may itself be experientialised.  Linguistically this is accomplished through behavioural, mental and verbal processes which explicitly construct meaning as doing (as in the examples from [4:2] above).  Alternative resources for projection include drawing (comics and cartoons), film and stage.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This discussion is purported to be concerned with systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context — mode — which Martin misconstrues as register.  Ideational considerations thus add a further confusion of metafunction.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, projection is the logical relation between two orders of experience, as between a mental clause and an idea clause, or between a verbal clause and a locution clause.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 443):

projection relates phenomena of one order of experience (the processes of saying and thinking) to phenomena of a higher order (semiotic phenomena – what people say and think).

[3] The claim here is that, as an alternative to speaking or writing, "verbalising" may be "made experiential".  This is nonsensical both in terms of the everyday meaning of experiential as involving or based on experience and observation, and in terms of the technical usage in SFL theory as a metafunction of meaning.

[4] The claim here is that behavioural, mental and verbal clauses that project material clauses are the means by which "verbalising may be made experiential".  This again is nonsensical, both, for the reason given above in [3], and for the further reasons that:

• behavioural processes do not project meaning (Martin has misconstrued a verbal process as behavioural; see [5] below),
• mental processes project ideas, not (verbal) locutions,
• verbal processes projecting locutions are not an alternative to "verbalisation", but a construal of it.

[5] The "examples in [4:2] above" (p517) are two projecting verbal processes, and a projecting desiderative mental process:

• After that he usually tells you to wait over there.
• Then he will say "line up your dog or get the best out of your dog."
• so you're hoping all the time that your dog will stand nice and steady…

[6] The claim here is that drawing (comics and cartoons), film and stage are alternatives to "direct" verbal projection through speaking or writing.  This confusion can be untangled by examining it from two orders of experience.

In terms of first order experience, the authors of comics, cartoons, film scripts or dramas verbally project the wordings of their respective texts.  This is not an alternative to "direct" projection through writing.

In terms of second order experience, the characters in comics, cartoons, film scripts or dramas verbally project the wordings of their respective texts.  This is not an alternative to "direct" projection through speaking.

Given the above — and the absence of projection from Martin's logical system of discourse semantics, conjunction — it is fair to say that Martin does not understand the SFL theoretical notions of projection and orders of experience.

Misconstruing Field As Mode

Martin (1992: 521):

And fictional constructions can be broken down into realistic (e.g. romance or detective fiction) and fantastic (e.g. science fiction); in fantastic texts, more has to be constructed as less can be assumed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As the meaning of 'realistic' and 'fantastic' suggests, these are ideational distinctions, not textual; that is, field features, not mode features.  The confusion is thus metafunctional.

[2] The use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials

Martin (1992: 521):

Reconstructions of unshared experience can be further divided into vicarous [sic] (e.g. gossip) and personal (e.g. anecdote) experience.

Blogger Comment:

The claim here is that types of previous experience of the speaker and listener is a distinction of mode. This is inconsistent with the notion of mode as the part played by language in cultural contexts.

Registerial reconstructions of unshared experience are the construals of experience as meaning.  The confusion is thus along three theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics), metafunction (textual vs ideational) and instantiation (potential vs instance type).

Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials

Martin (1992: 521):

Field-structured texts constituting a social process are sensitive to the length of time-line in focus.  The longer the time-line, the more selective the coverage.  These texts can therefore be crossclassified [sic] as episodic (e.g. biography) and primarily organised through setting in time (typically theme marked circumstantial adjuncts) or sequential (e.g. narratives) and primarily organised through sequence in time (typically by temporal conjunctions).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] This confuses mode potential with the ideational meaning of text types.  The confusion is thus along three theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics), metafunction (textual vs ideational) and instantiation (potential vs instance type).

Misconstruing Lower And Higher Orders Of Experience As Higher & Lower Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction

Martin (1992: 521):

Participation may allow room for the construction of an additional field if the activity sequence in which the speakers/listeners are involved is not too engaging (e.g. chatting while washing up).  The notion of first (washing up) and second (what the chat is about) order field has been used for texts of this kind (Halliday 1978: 144).*

* Endnote #19 (p589):

It has also been used for distinguishing the field of a review (first order) from the field of the text being reviewed (second order), which is a different distinction involving what can be conceived of metaphorically as projection.  English Text's distinction between genre and field makes it unnecessary to use the concepts of first and second order field to distinguish a discussion (genre) about a football game from the game itself (field: activity sequence).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands orders of experience.  Both instances involve the distinction between first and second order experience, and the theoretical relation between orders of experience is projection — it is not metaphorical.

[2] This is inconsistent with the notion of first and second order field.  In Martin's model, genre and field are related stratally, so the relation between them is realisation — elaboration + identity — whereas the relation between orders of experience is projection.  Moreover, Martin misconstrues the lower order of experience (first order field) as his higher level of semiotic abstraction (genre).

These inconsistencies are further multiplied by the inconsistencies entailed by Martin misconstruing field as register, instead of context, and register and genre as context, instead of language.

[3] The absurdity here is made patently obvious by tabulating the confusions as follows:

SFL Theory		Martin (1992)
field (ideational semiotic context)	higher order	lower stratum	field (register)	a game of football
	projected by	realises
	lower order	higher stratum	genre	a discussion of that game of football

On Martin's model, a game of football — people running around kicking a ball — is 'register', and the game realises a discussion of itself.

[4] This confuses the material order (what people do) with the semiotic order (what people say).

Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive

Martin (1992: 521):

Constructions can be broken down into fiction and generalisation.  Fictional texts are semiotically closely related to texts constructing unshared experience, but generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed.  Generalising texts neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here, in Martin's terms, is that all "field-structured" texts that constitute "social processes" — and which do not construct past events — are either fiction or generalisation.  Generalising texts were said (pp518-9) to be those where 'the language generalises about what goes on', and the examples that were provided were:

• recipes
• manual You do. (proposal)
• implication sequence It does. (proposition)
• procedure It does. (activity focus)
• report They're attractive. (thing focus)

However, in terms of Hasan's (1985/9: 58) mode opposition of constitutive vs ancillary — as well as the meanings of the terms — the language rôle of recipes, manuals and procedures is ancillary, not constitutive.

[2] The claim here is that fictional constructions "generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed" than vicarious reconstructions.  Reconstructions were exemplified (p519) by:

• projected instruction S/he told me to do. (proposal)
• recount I/we did. (proposition/activity focus)
• description It was pretty. (thing focus)

The claim, then, is that romantic novels, for example, "generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed" than, for example, a speaker's recount of an overseas trip to an addressee who has never travelled overseas.

[3] The claim here is that texts such as recipes, manuals, procedures and reports "neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations".  A grammatical analysis of this clause complex (see here) demonstrates that it is intended to merely bamboozle the reader.  This can be further demonstrated by applying this clause complex to recipes for chicken parmesan with basil; now the claim becomes:

recipes for chicken parmesan with basil neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations.

That is, it is claimed that the purpose of neutralising these grammatical features in recipes (for chicken parmesan with basil) is to reconstruct the act of cooking (chicken parmesan with basil) as cooking potential, and that the potential (for cooking chicken parmesan with basil) "underlies" and "cuts across" particular manifestations of cooking (chicken parmesan with basil).

Confusing Different Strata, Metafunctions & Orders Of Experience

Martin (1992: 521):

Reconstructions may be based on shared or unshared experience, which affects how much of the social process has to be explicitly replayed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that the ± shared experience of the speaker and listener is a distinction of mode.  This is inconsistent with the notion of mode as the part played by language in cultural contexts.

[2] This confuses mode — the textual metafunction at the level of context — with the construal of experience as meaning — the ideational metafunction at the level of semantics.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (textual vs ideational).

[3] This misrepresents the verbal reconstrual of a past experience as the replaying of a social process.  That is, it confuses the (verbally projected) semiotic order of experience (metaphenomena) with the material order of experience (phenomena).

Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction

Martin (1992: 520-1):

Texts constituting a social process can be divided into those reconstructing a social process which has taken place and those constructing one which has not (TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON all shift to distanced values — past, there/then, 3rd).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] This confuses the language rôle feature 'constitutive' (Hasan 1985/9: 58) — the textual metafunction at the level of context — with the construal of experience as meaning — the ideational metafunction at the level of semantics.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (textual vs ideational).