Misconstruing A Higher Order Of Experience As A Lower Level Of Symbolic Abstraction

Martin (1992: 571):

First and second order tenor would be dealt with as the difference between register (tenor) and discourse semantics (NEGOTIATION) here;

Blogger Comment:

For Halliday, tenor is the interpersonal dimension of context.  The relation between first and second order tenor is projection.

Martin's proposal is to reconstrue:

• first order tenor as a dimension of register (misconstrued as context), and
• second order tenor as a dimension of discourse semantics.

That is, the proposal is to treat a higher order of experience within context, as a lower level of symbolic abstraction — within language.

That is, Martin misconstrues

• orders of experience (related by projection) as levels of symbolic abstraction (related by realisation), and 
• the lower order as the higher level.

Consequently, on this first tendered piece of evidence, Martin's claim that his model of register and genre avoids additional complications in Halliday's model is the exact opposite of what is true.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre

Martin (1992: 571):

For Halliday, the complication has to do with introducing the concept of first and second order contexts, with first order field and tenor oriented to situation and second order field, tenor and mode defined by reference to language.  Table 7.21 sums up his (1978: 143-5) position:

Table 7.21. First and second oder [sic] register in Halliday (1978)

	first order	second order
field	social action	subject matter
tenor	social roles	speech function roles
mode	–	medium, rhetorical genre

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, both first and second order field and tenor are systems of context, and both are related to language by realisation — the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction.  The relation between different orders of experience is projection.

[2] Here Martin misrepresents Halliday (1978: 142-5) by substituting his own model for Halliday's.  For Halliday's 'context', Martin substitutes 'register', and for Halliday's '(rhetorical) mode', Martin substitutes his 'genre'.

Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's

Martin (1992: 571):

Before turning to the plane of ideology, the question of distinguishing register and genre as semiotic planes will be taken up once again with reference to the work of Halliday, Hasan and Longacre, none of whom "stratify" context along these lines.  Their models can each be shown however to involve additional complexity that the genre and register model here avoids.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the beginning of Martin's argument as to why his model of register and genre as contextual planes is preferable to (his misunderstanding of) Halliday's original model in which genre and register are construed, instead, as complementary perspectives on varieties of language.

[2] It will be demonstrated in the following posts that this is the opposite of what is true.  That is, it will be demonstrated that Martin's model is more complex, as well as being inconsistent with several dimensions of the architecture of SFL theory.  It will also be demonstrated that Martin misrepresents the work of Halliday and Hasan in the course of his argument.

Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems

Martin (1992: 571):

The major stumbling block to overcoming this obstacle and deploying the tools that are already developed is unwieldiness.  The text structures realising genre are large and thus time-consuming to analyse, and compared with examples of syllable and clause structures agnate texts are hard to find.  As an institution linguistics is organised to frustrate work on systems of text — most of the generic slots available for presenting work (papers, seminars, theses, etc. are too short to be equal to the task), appointment and promotion is based on individual, not group work (thereby encouraging revolution in place of evolution), and funding is directed to applications rather than research development (at the same time as applied work has low status within the discipline itself).  All of this manifests an ideologically motivated naturalisation process that will be taken up in 7.4 below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that the obstacle to overcoming the obstacle to mapping out genre systems — see previous post — is the size of the phenomenon to be modelled (texts).

This is meant to explain why Martin has not presented any genre systems in his section on genre systems.

[2] For Martin, the claim that text structures realise genre refers to the axial relation between system and structure on the genre stratum, which is construed as context, not language.  That is, text structure is construed in this model as not being language.

Translated into SFL theory, the claim is that text structures (semantic stratum) realise text types (genres), which is inconsistent with the architecture of the theory.  Semantic structures realise semantic systems axially, and context systems — field, tenor and mode — stratally.

[3] This ideologically motivated conspiracy in linguistics is offered as another reason why Martin hasn't presented any genre systems in his section on genre systems.

As previously explained, the notion of genre systems confuses two distinct points on the cline of instantiation: the system pole and a point midway along the cline (genre/text type/register).

Weaving An Illogical Argument Around A Misinterpretation Of Halliday

Martin (1992: 570):

Probably the main theoretical weakness as far as modelling [the system of genres that constitute our context of culture] is concerned lies in interpreting both system and process as what might metaphorically be referred to as "negotiation".  This stems in part from a fundamental weakness in the dynamic modelling of the exchange; but it projects from there onto difficulties in dealing with tenor (the ways in which interlocutors treat in status, contact, affect), with genre (the interplay through which participants consummate, frustrate or abandon a genre) and on to ideology where tension among coding orientations vies with power, deprivation and systemic inertia to engender evolution.  As Halliday comments in Thibault (1987):

I would interpret the power relations in a particular situation, when we represent that situation in terms of field, tenor and mode, by building into our representation that fact that the situation may be different things for different interactants.  The total picture is obviously going to bring in all angles; but in any typical context of situation in which there is a power relationship of inequality, then the configuration embodied in that situation is different from the way it is seen from either end.  This means, of course, that the register that is being operated by the interactants will be bifurcated, although we may choose to characterise the register of the situation as a whole by building in both strands.  (1987: 620-1)

It remains to develop ways of building in "both strands" that show how text negotiates with system, and different systems with each other; lacking a model of this metasystemic dynamism, contextual theory remains dangerously incomplete.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The main theoretical weakness, as far as modelling "the system of genres that constitute our context of culture" is concerned, actually lies in Martin's confusion of context potential (context of culture) with language sub-potentials (genres/text types/registers), as explained in previous posts.  There has since appeared an entire book devoted to promoting this misunderstanding: Genre Relations: Mapping Culture (Martin & Rose 2008).

[2] This confuses potential (system) and the instantiation of potential (process) with interpersonal semantics, the system–&–process whereby interlocutors enact intersubjective relations as meaning.  Note that Martin's argument is that it is this interpretation that is the main theoretical weakness as far as modelling genre systems is concerned.

probably	the main theoretical weakness	lies in	[[interpreting both system and process as [[ what might metaphorically be referred to as "negotiation"]] ]]
	Identified / Value	Process: relational	Identifier / Token

[3] The claim here is that the source (cause) of this theoretical weakness — the (mis)interpretation — is a fundamental weakness in the dynamic modelling of interpersonal semantics.

this	in part	stems from	a fundamental weakness [in the dynamic modelling [of the exchange] ]
Identified / Token	Manner: degree	Process: relational: causal: reason	Identifier / Value

[4] The claim here is that the theoretical weakness — the (mis)interpretation — extends to difficulties in modelling tenor, genre and ideology.

[simplified]

it	projects	from there onto difficulties [[[in dealing with tenor …  genre … ideology … ]]]
Carrier	Process: relational: spatio-temporal	Attribute: circumstantial

[5] This misunderstands Halliday.  The Halliday quote is concerned with the question of modelling contexts in which two interlocutors see the same situation as different configurations of field, tenor and mode.  These are the two strands that Halliday refers to.

[6] There can be no such "negotiation".  Text and system are the same phenomenon viewed from opposite poles of the cline of instantiation.

Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials As Constituting Context Potential

Martin (1992: 570):

For ideological reasons, mapping out the system of genres that constitute our context of culture is a pressing task — and there is no reason in principle to expect it to be a more complex one than mapping lexicogrammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] From the perspective of SFL theory, the term 'system of genres' confuses potential (system) with sub-potentials (genres).  The confusion is along the cline of instantiation.

[2] In SFL theory, genres do not constitute the context of culture.  Genres, as language, realise context; genres as text types, realise situation types.  That is genres are sub-potentials of language that realise sub-potentials of the culture as a semiotic system.  The relation between genre (language sub-potentials) and context of culture (context potential) is therefore along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously:

• stratification (context vs language), and
• instantiation (potential vs sub-potential).

	potential	sub-potential / instance type	instance
context	context of culture
language		genre

Classifying Text Types From Semantics Instead Of Context

Martin (1992: 569):

There are many avenues for extending a network of this kind [classifying story genres].  Recounts, for example, can be subclassified with respect to the time scale involved (my day, last week-end, it's been quite a month, annual reports, biographies, history etc.).  Cross-classifying +/– frustration with reaction/judgements makes room for fables (+frustration/+judgement), parables and other moral tales.  Anecdotes need to be related to jokes, and possibly comedy of various kinds.  And narrative, needless to say, has to be indefinitely extended if it is to do justice to the centuries of composing and research that has elaborated such a significant portion of our culture.  Of this work, English Text has offered the barest glimpse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from an SFL perspective, this is classifying text types (genres) "from roundabout", in terms of their semantics, instead of "from above", in terms of the the cultural (contextual) functions they serve.  As a functional theory, SFL gives priority to the view "from above".

From Martin's perspective, where genre and register are misconceived, not as language, but as strata of context, this is classifying genres "from below" — from the second stratum below, discourse semantics, leapfrogging register.

[2] This is true.

Not Classifying Text Types From Above

Martin (1992: 568-9):

Obviously much more work on these and related story genres is required before a workable approximation to their generic inter-relationships can be constructed.  Three provisional systems are presented in Fig. 7.27 by way of encouraging this articulation.  The first opposition distinguishes recount genres, which deal unproblematically with activity sequences, from other story genres which depend on counterexpectancy.  Then narratives, which make use of counterexpectancy to frustrate the inclinations of key protagonists are separated from exemplums and anecdotes where what goes wrong is not predicted' in this way.  The third system opposes anecdotes, which focus on reaction, to exemplums, which deal in judgements.

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, from an SFL perspective, this is classifying text types (genres) "from roundabout", in terms of their semantics, instead of "from above", in terms of the the cultural (contextual) functions they serve.  As a functional theory, SFL gives priority to the view "from above".

From Martin's perspective, where genre and register are misconceived, not as language, but as strata of context, this is classifying genres "from below" — either from the stratum immediately below (register: activity sequences), or from the second stratum below (discourse semantics: counter-expectancy).

Misconstruing Semantics (Activity Sequence) As Context (Field)

Martin (1992: 564, 565, 566, 568):

These "stories" are alike in that they are built up around a set of narrative clauses (an activity sequence in terms of the field theory developed here); …

For Plum, as in Martin and Rothery's work, the recount is a relatively iconic rendering of an activity sequence (the Record stage); … Expectancies about how an activity sequence will unfold are countered, with ensuing events departing from the norm in some significant way. …

Texts 7.1-4 have been constructed below to illustrate these genres as interpersonal manipulations of the same activity sequence …

The ways in which interpersonal meaning inflects activity sequences to construct these four story genres is summarised in Table 7.20.

Table 7.20 Interpersonal meaning across story genres

	interpersonal: modalisation	modulation	attitude
recount	usuality		prosodic affect
anecdote	unusuality;		varied affect
exemplum	unusuality;	obligation	negative affect
narrative	unusuality;	inclination	negative to positive affect

Blogger Comment:

This continues the misconstrual of semantics (activity sequence) as context (field).  As can be seen from these excerpts, an activity sequence here refers to events in a narrative.  They are the linguistic construals of experience of an author.

Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 563):

Martin (1985/1989) and Martin & Peters (1985) further divided expository writing into analytical and hortatory varieties, depending on whether the text outlined an argument (macro-proposition) or tried to persuade listener/readers to undertake a particular course of action (macro-modulated proposition), a distinction related to Longacre's +/– prescriptive opposition.  The inter-relationships proposed for these factual genres are formulated systemically in Fig. 7.26 (for further delicacy see Peters 1985).  Significantly, the network is comprised of ideational, interpersonal and textual features and thus cuts across register variables to bring out the oppositions between the genres:

ideational variables	+/– activity structure, document/explain
interpersonal variables	resolve/debate, analytical, hortatory
textual variables	+/– generalised

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the rôle of language in context, such as analytical vs hortatory exposition, is a dimension of mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Text types (language) are identified from above, by the situation types (context) they realise.  Here, on the other hand, textual mode is being identified from below, in terms of the interpersonal semantics (speech function).

[2] This misrepresents the distinction between these two types of exposition, both of which involve the presentation of arguments. The text structure (semantics) that realises a hortatory exposition (context: mode) is typically:

1. Thesis
2. Arguments
3. Recommendation

whereas the text structure (semantics) that realises an analytical exposition (context: mode) is typically:

1. Thesis
2. Arguments
3. Reiteration

The function of a hortatory exposition is to explain to the reader that something should or should not happen or be done — not to command the reader — whereas the function of an analytical exposition is a to persuade the reader that an idea is important.

[3] This misrepresents a theoretical defect — a network that mixes metafunctional perspectives — as a virtue.  However, the network also confuses features from different strata and misidentifies their metafunctions, as will be demonstrated below.

[4] In terms of SFL theory, of the "ideational register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), ± activity structure is ideational, but semantic, whereas document/explain is textual context (mode).

[5] In terms of SFL theory, of the "interpersonal register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), resolve/debate is interpersonal, but semantic, whereas analytical/hortatory is textual context (mode).

[6] In terms of SFL theory, the "textual register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), ± generalised is ideational semantics (construing experience).