Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammar

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
grammar	minor clauses	major clauses
	Mood ellipsis	no ellipsis
	Mood contraction	no contraction
	vocation	no vocation
	range of names	single name
	nick-name	full name

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the grammar feature of 'minor' clause construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the grammar feature of 'major' clause construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Minor clauses include exclamations, calls, greetings and alarms; major clauses are the rest: those expressing mood and transitivity.  The claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• exclamations, calls, greetings and alarms between people who not previously met are claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the clauses expressing transitivity and mood of married couples are claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the grammar feature of 'Mood ellipsis' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the grammar feature of 'no ellipsis' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• I'll just get that form signed and sent off for you is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• I'll cook tonight and I'll even wash the dishes is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the grammar feature of "vocation" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the grammar feature of "no vocation" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• Was I speeding, officer? is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• I'll be late home tonight is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & "Phonology"

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "native accent" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "standard accent" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside both the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, and the dubious categorisation of "accents" as 'standard' vs 'non-standard', the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the use of a native accent by two students meeting for the first time is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of a "standard" accent by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "range of accents" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "single accent" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the use of a range of accents by students from different nations meeting for the first time in a foreign country is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of a single accent by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "acronym" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "full form" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the use of 'U.N.' by two delegates meeting for the first time is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of 'United Nations' by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonicity

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of 'marked tonicity' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of 'unmarked tonicity' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Unmarked tonicity is when tonic prominence falls on the last element of clause structure containing a lexical item (or of group structure in cases where the tone group realises less than a clause).  Any other tonic placement is marked (Halliday 1967: 22-3).

Martin's claim can be falsified by a concrete example.  For the clause Victor Meldrew was played by Richard Wilson:

• tonic prominence within Victor Meldrew is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• tonic prominence within Richard Wilson is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

For the record, the differences between the two variants actually include:

• agency: middle vs effective, and
• direction of coding: decoding vs encoding.

middle clause decoding a Token:

Victor Meldrew	was played	by Richard Wilson
Identifier/Value	Process: relational	Identified/Token
New		Given

effective clause encoding a Value:

Victor Meldrew	was played	by Richard Wilson
Identified/Value	Process: relational	Identifier/Token
Given		New

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonality

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comment:

The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of 'marked tonality' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of 'unmarked tonality' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Unmarked tonality is one tone group realising one clause; marked tonality is a tone group realising either less than a clause or more than a clause (Halliday 1967: 20-1).

Martin's claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the realisation of the clause Columbus was the last person to discover America as two tone groups is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the realisation of the clause Columbus was the last person to discover America as one tone group is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tone

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comment:

Table 7.12 contains a list of unsupported claims, made without reference to any data.

The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "Pretonic delicacy" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "basic tone" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The distinction alluded to here is the distinction between primary and secondary tones.  Secondary tones are more delicate classifications of the primary tones (Halliday 1970: 9). Accordingly, the degree of delicacy resides in the analysis, not in the speech.  However, some secondary tones are the 'neutral' options, so for present purposes, these will be assumed to be what is meant by "basic tone".  The claim then becomes:

• the pretonics -1, …1, -2 and -3 construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the pretonics 1, 2 and 3 construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

So, for example:

• the listing (…1) pretonic in a pound of apples, a grapefruit and half a dozen oranges is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the even (1) pretonic in John's decided to become a doctor is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim is thus falsified by every use of the listing pretonic by interlocutors who have never met, as when placing an order over the telephone.

Misrepresenting Field As Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 531-2):

Contraction is easiest to illustrate from phonology, where various reduction processes make the casual conversation of intimate friends and family almost unintelligible to outsiders.  Proliferation is easier to illustrate at the level of discourse semantics, where the choice of subject matter for example expands considerably the better more people get to know each other.

Blogger Comment:

This misrepresents subject matter (field) as discourse semantics.  The confusion is thus along the dimension of stratification (context vs semantics).  In terms of stratification, this confusion is in the opposite direction of Martin's more common misrepresentation of activity sequences (semantics) as field (context).