Blurring The Distinction Between Context And Semantics

Martin (1992: 533-4):

As far as content form is concerned, amplification is achieved largely through iteration — affectual meanings are repeated until the appropriate volume is reached.  This interpersonal "taxis" is most striking in nominal groups (cf. you lousy rotten stinking bastard you vs. my lovely sweet little darling baby puppy dog), where positive and negative attitude is replayed prosodically across Deictic, Epithet and Thing; but attitudinal interpolation of this kind is pervasive across a range of grammatical structures, irrespective of experiential constituency boundaries (e.g. swearing — God damn it I fucking wish that shit of a un-bloody-grateful bastard would work his fucking problems out; or modality — I'm absolutely convinced that there certainly must be a solution right here, mustn't there?).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'content' refers to the two strata: semantics/meaning and lexicogrammar/wording; and 'form' on the content plane refers to the units of the rank scale: clauses, phrases, groups, words and morphemes.

[2] To be clear, such 'affectual meanings' are the meanings (semantics) that realise affect (context).  In terms of stratification, tenor and meaning are distinct levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'taxis' is the logical relation of interdependency.

[4] To be clear, the constituency of form, the rank scale, is not metafunctional.  This is distinct from different metafunctions favouring different types of function structures: experiential/segmental, interpersonal/prosodic, textual/culminative and logical/iterative (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 85).

[5] In SFL Theory, modality is a system of the clause, and quite distinct from attitude.  Modality operates within the limits defined by polarity (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 183).

[6] Trivially, right is not an instance of modality. Modality covers modalisation (probability/usuality) and modulation (obligation/inclination).

Misconstruing A Tenor Relation As The Behaviours And Predispositions Of Individuals

Martin (1992: 533):

The basic realisation principle associated with affect is amplification (see Table 7.14).  Like a stereo system, affect is something that can be turned on or off and balanced between speakers (both off, one on, both on) and whose volume can be adjusted to normal listening levels (predisposition) or turned on really loud when the occasion desires (surge).

Blogger Comment:

This continues the misconstrual of affect — a charged or neutral relation between interlocutors — as the behavioural surges or predisposed reactions of individuals. A given text realises a situation with either charged or neutral affect, as one dimension of the tenor relation between interlocutors.

Misconstruing Affect With Unsupported Claims

Martin (1992: 534):

Table 7.13 Tenor — a provisional classification of affect

		surge	predisposition
		(behaviour)	(reaction)
negative:
	discord:
	self	cry	sad	[misery]
	other	tell off	dislike	[antipathy]
	insecurity:
	self	loss of nerve	nervous	[disquiet]
	other	terror	fearful	[apprehension]
	frustration:
	self	exasperation	tedium	[boredom]
	other	demand	want	[desire]
positive
	satisfaction:
	self	laugh	cheerful	[happiness]
	other	embrace	affection	[care]
	security:
	self	intrepid	confident	[confidence]
	other	entrust	depend	[trust]
	fulfillment: [sic]
	self	excitement	interest	[engagement]
	other	homage	respect	[admiration]

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of a contextual relation between interlocutors (affect) as the behavioural surges and predisposed reactions of individuals.  See previous posts.

[2] The claim here is that 'discord' is the negative counterpart of 'satisfaction', and that

• self-oriented discord is misery, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'cry', and the predisposed reaction 'sad', whereas
• other-oriented discord is antipathy, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'tell off', and the predisposed reaction 'dislike'.

[3] The claim here is that:

• self-oriented insecurity is disquiet, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'loss of nerve', and the predisposed reaction 'nervous', whereas
• other-oriented insecurity is apprehension, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'terror', and the predisposed reaction 'fearful'.

[4] The claim here is that 'frustration' is the negative counterpart of 'fulfilment', and that

• self-oriented frustration is boredom, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'exasperation', and the predisposed reaction 'tedium', whereas
• other-oriented frustration is desire, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'demand', and the predisposed reaction 'want'.

[5] The claim here is that 'satisfaction' is the positive counterpart of 'discord', and that

• self-oriented satisfaction is happiness, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'laugh', and the predisposed reaction 'cheerful', whereas
• other-oriented satisfaction is care, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'embrace', and the predisposed reaction 'affection'.

[6] The claim here is that:

• self-oriented security is confidence, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'intrepid', and the predisposed reaction 'confident', whereas
• other-oriented security is trust, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'entrust', and the predisposed reaction 'depend'.

[7] The claim here is that 'fulfilment' is the positive counterpart of 'frustration', and that

• self-oriented fulfilment is engagement, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'excitement', and the predisposed reaction 'interest', whereas
• other-oriented fulfilment is admiration, which is exemplified by the behavioural surge 'homage', and the predisposed reaction 'respect'.

Because these unsupported claims are irrelevant to the theoretical notion of affect, I will leave it to the reader to consider their internal consistency.

Mental vs Relational vs Material Affection

Martin (1992: 533):

Table 7.13 provides a provisional account of how affections might be classified along three dimensions: surge/predisposition, negative/positive and self/other.  In addition the following proportionalities are suggestive:

positive : negative ::
discord : satisfaction ::	‘feel’
insecurity : security ::	‘be’
frustration : fulfillment [sic]	‘do’

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the confusion of the theoretical notion of affect (a charged or neutral relation between interlocutors) with the general notion of affection ('a gentle feeling of fondness or liking').

[2] These are clearly the reverse of what is intended.

[3] The claim here is that 'discord' is the negative counterpart of 'satisfaction', and 'satisfaction' the positive counterpart of 'discord'.

To be clear, discord is 'disagreement between people' whereas satisfaction is 'fulfilment of one's wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from this'.

[4] The claim here is that "affection" (mental process) oppositions can be further differentiated according to process type:

• the "affection" opposition of discord vs satisfaction is mental ('feel'), whereas
• the "affection" opposition of insecurity vs security is relational ('be'), and
• the "affection" opposition of frustration vs fulfilment is material ('do').

No attempt is made to clarify, let alone justify, the claim.

Confusing Affect With Affection

Martin (1992: 533):

Poynton's (1984: 25) network for affect, subclassifies positive and negative features, but the more delicate features are not discussed.  Unfortunately at present there do not appear to be any obvious linguistic criteria for classifying types of affection.  Feelings about oneself do seem to pair off with attitudes to someone else, and so a [self/other] system will be introduced here (for an alternative classification see Roget).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the theoretical notion of affect (a charged or neutral relation between interlocutors) with the general notion of affection ('a gentle feeling of fondness or liking').

[2] This continues the misconstrual of a relation between interlocutors (affect) as the mental processes and states of an individual.

Misconstruing Relations Between Speakers As Individual Predisposition

Martin (1992: 533):

Poynton classifies affect as positive or negative and as permanent or transient.  The latter distinction takes into account the fact interlocutors have long-term predispositions as more volatile short-term ones.  This distinction will be developed here by suggesting that "transient" affect can be interpreted as a surge of "permanent" affect, with a long term low-key prosodic realisation bursting into an explicit and intense behavioural one: dislike erupting into telling someone off, sadness into tears, happiness into laughter and so on.  In the grammar of TRANSITIVITY this correlates with the opposition between mental processes of reaction and behavioural processes.  Accordingly, Poynton's system will be reworked with the features [surge] and [predisposition] here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misinterprets affect — a relation between interlocutors — as a predisposition of individuals.  It will be seen that this misunderstanding completely undermines the validity of Martin's reworking of Poynton's model of this dimension of tenor.

[2] Here Martin is using the metalanguage of mental and behavioural processes to model individual speakers, distinguishing their "permanent" mental predispositions from their "transient" behavioural surges.  As such, it is not a model of the charged vs neutral affect relation between interlocutors, as a system of the culture.

[3] Accordingly, Martin's misunderstanding of affect makes his reworking of Poynton's system invalid.

Unsupported Claims About Affect

Martin (1992: 533):

As Poynton (1985/9: 78) points out, affect differs from status and contact in that it is not manifested in all texts.  It is much more likely to be realised in involved than uninvolved contact situations; and as far as status is concerned, it is more probable with equal than with unequal status — although it can of course be taken up at the discretion of participants in a dominance position.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Affect has become the tenor system of sociometric rôle in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33):

sociometric rôles (affect, either neutral or charged, positively or negatively)

To be clear, either neutral or charged affect is realised in semantics.

[2] The combinatorial probabilities of affect features with contact features are a matter for empirical research.  Here the claim is merely asserted without supporting evidence.

The combination of charged affect and uninvolved contact is realised, for example, in 'Letters To The Editor' and, more recently, in the texts of internet flame wars between fundamentalist Christians and atheists.  The spatio-temporal distance between interlocutors provided by some modes would seem to to be an important consideration.

[3] The combinatorial probabilities of affect features with status features are a matter for empirical research.  Here the claim is merely asserted without supporting evidence.

[4] The system of affect describes a dimension of the interpersonal relation between interlocutors.  To construe it as being under the control of a dominant interlocutor is misleading.  Consider, for example, the situation of a charged relationship between a boss and the team of employees with justifiable grievances against him.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor

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
interaction patterns	experiential metaphor	experiential congruence

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that:

• experiential metaphor construes the tenor feature 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas 
• experiential congruence construes the tenor feature 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors)

This claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• glass crack growth rate is associated with stress magnitude is claimed to construe a lot of previous contact between interlocutors, whereas
• glass cracks more quickly the harder you press on it is claimed to construe less previous contact between interlocutors.

Clearly, the relevant contextual dimension here is field, not tenor.  Metaphorical realisations are more likely to construe specialised fields, whereas more congruent realisations are more likely to construe everyday fields.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics

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
discourse semantics	dialogue	monologue
	homophoric	endophoric
	implicit conjunction	explicit conjunction

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'dialogue' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'monologue' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside the difficulty this poses to uninvolved interlocutors trying to converse, the dialogue vs monologue distinction is one of context, not discourse semantics. The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (interpersonal [tenor] vs textual [mode]).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'homophoric' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'endophoric' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

To be clear:

• homophoric reference is the type of exophoric (situational) reference that doesn't depend on the specific situation (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 71), whereas
• endophoric reference is text-internal reference (op. cit.: 33), and includes the types: demonstrative, personal and comparative reference.

(In SFL theory, the cohesive resource of reference is a system of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.)

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• homophoric reference such as the sun is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• endophoric reference such as the cat I mentioned earlier is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'implicit' conjunction construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'explicit' conjunction construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• He was a chain smoker — he died of lung cancer is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• He was a chain smoker — consequently he died of lung cancer is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Lexis

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
lexis	specialised	core
	technical	non-technical
	slang	standard
	general words	specific words

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• specialised and technical lexis construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• core and non-technical lexis construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the specialised and technical lexis of two particle physicists, meeting for the first time at CERN, is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the core and non-technical lexis of a retired couple who have been married for 60 years is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[2] The claim here is that:

• slang lexis construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• standard lexis construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the slang lexis of labourers, meeting for the first time on a building site, is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the "standard" lexis of a lawyer and her long-time secretary is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• general words construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• specific words construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the general words of biological taxonomists, meeting for the first time at a conference, are claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the specific words of a regularly convened bird-watching club are claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

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