Misconstruing Mode As Genre

Martin (1992: 367):

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

Blogger Comment:

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

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

Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension

Martin (1992: 362-3):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause

Martin (1992: 350):

The meronymy option has been chosen where available in the analysis presented above; this means that the action strings are oriented towards activity sequences in the field, with actions taken as steps in activity sequences.  This bias is balanced in part by the interpretation of processes as delicate experiential subclasses of clause in lexicogrammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The actions and activity sequences are analyses of the meanings made in the text.  They model the semantics of language, not the ideational dimension of context.

[2] In SFL theory, clause is the rank of grammatical form at which the functional choice of PROCESS TYPE (along with AGENCY) becomes available, provided the entry condition major is met.

Misconstruing Mode As Genre

Martin (1992: 338, 352):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial

Martin (1992: 334):

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

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

Blogger Comment:

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

Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration

Martin (1992: 333):

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

Blogger Comment:

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

Structural & Metafunctional Inconsistencies

Martin (1992: 331):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

Martin (1992: 330):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 321):

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

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

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

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

Martin (1992: 327):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 327):

The analysis of lexical relations in two texts presented below will show some of the ways in which this characterisation of the differences between message parts and lexical items needs to be extended in order to present a full account of experiential cohesion in text.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here message parts (discourse semantic stratum) and lexical items (lexicogrammatical stratum) are misconstrued as being of the same level of symbolic abstraction.  Moreover the former is construed as a structural unit of discourse semantics, whereas the latter is the output of the most delicate systems of lexicogrammar.

[2] In SFL theory, cohesion is the non-structural resource of the textual metafunction.  While the textual metafunction is concerned with weaving ideational and interpersonal together as information, the experiential metafunction is concern with the construal of experience as meaning.

Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial

Martin (1992: 327):

At group and word rank instantial relations are constructed through apposition:

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

[5:34]  I met Ben, a friend of mine from Toronto.

[5:35]  Ben stroked (i.e. lobbed) the ball over Flo's head.

Blogger Comment:

The only instantial lexical cohesive relation here is in [5:34] — Ben–friend — since this is the only one specific to a single text.  The other two lexical cohesive relations, both hyponymy, are each 'a general fact of English' (Hasan 1985: 81).

Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration And General As Instantial

Martin (1992: 326-7):

Separate message parts will be recognised where the grammar itself does the work of constructing elaborations.  The following relational clause types will thus be interpreted as instantially connecting two message parts:

RELATIONAL: ATTRIBUTIVE:CLASSIFYING/INTENSIVE

[5:32]  Ben is a sprinter.

[4:2:7.n.]  That's [[because it's a low dog]], 

RELATIONAL: ATTRIBUTIVE:COMPOSITION/POSSESSIVE

[5:33]  The court has lines.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Composition and possession are types of extension, not elaboration.  The three types of relation in relational clause systems, intensive, possessive and circumstantial, correspond to the three types of expansion: elaboration, extension and enhancement, respectively.

[2] Hasan's notion of instantial lexical cohesion — equivalence, naming and semblance — refers to 'cohesive devices that are entirely specific to a single text' as opposed to the general devices that are 'a general fact of English' (Hasan 1985: 81-2).  The meronymic relation between court and lines is thus general, not instantial.

Misconstruing Incongruent Realisations And Expansion Types

Martin (1992: 326):

As has just been reviewed, lexical cohesion is being developed here as an analysis of relations between message parts.  A message part is realised congruently as a lexical item and incongruently through one of the elaborating structures defined above.  These are reviewed in Table 5.19.

Table 5.19. Congruent and incongruent realisations of message parts
	multiple lexical items (incongruent)	single lexical item (congruent)
clause	Process = Range:process act = a role Process = ritual Location go = to work	Process act go
verbal group	Event = Particle think = over Event = Leisure event go = skating	Event consider skate
nominal group	Classifier = Thing skating = rink Pre-Deictic = Thing the edge of = the rink Pre-Numerative = Thing a pair = of skates Pre-Epithet = Thing the largest of = the rinks Pre-Classifier = Thing that kind of = rink Deictic (possessive) = Thing her = foot	Thing rink the rink the skates the rink the rink the foot

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, lexical cohesion is a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction on the lexicogrammatical stratum.  Here it is being "developed" as a relation between experiential units on the discourse semantic stratum.

[2] In SFL theory, the incongruent realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar is termed grammatical metaphor.  On this basis, all the realisations in the 'multiple lexical items' column are metaphorical, whereas all those in the 'single lexical item' column are not.  That is, the incongruent act a rôle etc. are all metaphorical, whereas the congruent act etc. are not.

[3] The expansion relation between the Nucleus and Location (ritual or otherwise) is enhancement, not elaboration, since to work does not specify or describe (they) go.  Unsurprisingly, to work qualifies (they) go in terms of Location: direction.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[4] The expansion relation between such verbal groups in a verbal group complex is not elaboration, since skating does not specify or describe (they) go.  Instead, skating is the cause (purpose or result) of (they) go and, on that basis, the relation is enhancement. Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[5] If skating is the purpose of rink, then the expansion relation here is enhancement: cause, not elaboration;  cf a rink for skating.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[6] In the facet expression the edge of the rink, the expansion relation is extension: composition, not elaboration, since the edge is part of the rink.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[7] Unsurprisingly, the expansion relation between her and foot is extension: possession, not elaboration.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

Using Ideational Labels For Textual Units And Vice Versa

Martin (1992: 325):

These ideational units at the level of discourse semantics are brought into relation with the interpersonal and textual units proposed in Table 5.18.

Table 5.18. Discourse semantics: units proposed in English Text
interpersonal	textual	ideational: logical	experiential
exchange
move		message
	participant		message part

Blogger Comments:

[1] Given that participants are construals of experience (experiential metafunction), and that the textual metafunction is second-order — concerned with organising the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions — the use of the term 'participant' for a unit of the textual metafunction betrays a misunderstanding of what the metafunctions mean.  As explained in posts critiquing Chapter 3, this specific misunderstanding arises from confusing the textual system that makes cohesive reference with the elements thus cohesively related.

[2] In SFL theory, 'message' is a unit of the textual metafunction at the level of semantics.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004) discuss the realisation of textual meaning in the clause under the title 'Clause as Message', and in textual cohesion, the (lexicogrammatical) system of conjunction realises transitions between (semantic) messages.

[3] Here again, the relation between units of the logical and experiential metafunctions is misconstrued as composition (part–whole).

The Avoidance Of Experiential Meaning In Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 325):

The level of discourse semantics is the least differentiated as far as ideational meaning is concerned.  This is mainly due to the fact that the description developed here has focussed on relationships between experiential meanings, rather than the experiential meanings themselves.  So while it was found important to distinguish between message parts and lexical items, no formal distinctions were drawn among message parts.  As work on discourse semantics continues, particularly with respect to grammatical metaphor, it will prove necessary to differentiate technically among the different meanings at this level.  As far as English Text is concerned, the distinctions made at the levels of field and lexicogrammar are rich enough to carry the burden of the text analyses presented below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is a very serious shortcoming indeed, given the rôle of ideational meaning in the history of the human species.  Humans construe experience as ideational meaning.

[2] In SFL theory, ideational meaning includes both experiential meaning and logical meaning.  In the discourse semantics model, logical meaning was the subject of Chapter 4, whereas experiential meaning is the subject of this chapter, Chapter 5: Ideation.

[3] The question here is 'Why?'.  Why does a chapter on experiential meaning focus on the relationships between experiential meanings, rather than on the experiential meanings themselves, and why are the relationships those of other metafunctions, logical and interpersonal?  How is this a model of experiential semantics?  Why, also, are experiential meanings exported to context, which is outside language?  Is it because it provides a better model of semantics?

[4] Given that message parts are proposed as units of the discourse semantic stratum, whereas lexical items are the outputs of systems of the lexicogrammatical stratum, the difference between them is clearly defined by the architecture of SFL theory.

[5] Given that, in SFL theory, grammatical metaphor depends on the distinction between congruent and incongruent realisations of semantics in lexicogrammar, the discourse semantic model provides no means of distinguishing experiential metaphors.  On the weaker claim that grammatical metaphor is a matter of stratal tension, it will be seen from previous and future posts that there is little other than stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar.

[6] This is because the distinctions made at the level of field are actually distinctions made at the level of semantics, as explained in many previous posts.  The misunderstanding of what stratification means is one of many major factors undermining the theoretical value of the entire discourse semantic model, as the reasoning throughout this blog demonstrates.

No Identifiable Discourse Semantic Unit Realised By Clause Complexes

Martin (1992: 324-5):

the grammatical functions (based on Halliday 1985) which correspond most closely to the field categories just reviewed are outlined in Table 5.17.

Table 5.17. Ideational labelling across levels
field	discourse-semantics	experiential grammar
activity sequence	(unnamed)	clause complex (temporal)
activity	message	Process (& transitivity roles)
activity	message part	Event
people & things	message part	Thing
place	message part	Circumstance
quality	message part	Epithet; Manner adverb

Blogger Comments:

[1] Obviously, clause complexes and adverbs are not functions.  They are forms.

[2] The labels listed under 'field' are semantic categories (that realise context), not context.

[3] Activity sequences in 'field' have no identified realisation in discourse semantics, and all sequences other than those related temporally are ignored in the model.

[4] Activity in 'field' is realised by 

• a logical unit in discourse semantics, the message, which, in turn is realised in lexicogrammar by the experiential functions of the clause, and also
• an experiential unit in discourse semantics, the message part, which in turn is realised in lexicogrammar by just one of the experiential functions of the verbal group.

Activity in 'field' is thus realised in discourse semantics by both a whole and a part of that whole. The relation between the logical and experiential metafunctions is thus misconstrued as one of composition.