Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field

Martin (1992: 572):

The distinction between first and second order field is presented as follows:

In a discussion about a game of football, the social action is the discussion and the verbal interaction among the participants is the whole of this interaction.  Here the game constitutes a second order of 'field', one that is brought into being by that of the first order, the discussion … (1978: 144)

English Text would model a context of this kind by treating it as a discussion at the level of genre, and as simultaneously involving two fields at the level of register — one field realised through language in action mode (the discussion), and the other realised reflectively (the subject matter).  Keeping in mind that as far as text structure is concerned genre and field give convergent accounts as texts approach ancillary mode, English Text's approach to this context would amount in practice to treating the genre as discussion and the field as the game discussed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The inconsistencies here are too complex to analyse without the glossary below:

Martin’s Usage	What Martin Thinks It Means	What Halliday Means By It
context	register and genre	the semiotic system that has language as its expression plane
genre	context, not language; more abstract than register	language, not context; text type, i.e. register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation
register	context, not language; less abstract than genre	language, not context; text type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation
field	ideational dimension of register	ideational dimension of context, not register

So Martin's approach is to model this situation type

• as a discussion at his higher level of context (genre), and 
• as two fields at his lower level of context (register),
• with first order field realised through ancillary mode, and
• second order field realised through constitutive mode.

That is, new inconsistencies are introduced at this point:

• a situation type has two modes simultaneously (two points on the same cline);
• systems at the same level of abstraction (field and mode) are related by realisation — the relation between different levels of abstraction;
• ideational features (field) are realised by textual features (mode);
• different orders of experience (first and second order field) are both realised by the same order (mode, which is second order).

[2] Note that mode of this situation type is constitutive, not ancillary.  Halliday explicitly specifies that 'the verbal interaction among the participants is the whole of this interaction'.

[3] Martin's approach is thus to treat the lower (first) order field as the higher level of semiotic abstraction — genre stratum — and higher (second) order field as the lower level of semiotic abstraction — register stratum — based on an incorrect interpretation of mode (see [2]).  The inconsistencies therefore are in terms of ordering (lower vs higher), relation (realisation vs projection) and mode (ancillary vs constitutive).

Consequently, on this third 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.

Misconstruing Semantics As Context

Martin (1992: 289-90):

For the remainder of this chapter it will be assumed that lexical cohesion will be analysed with respect to field oppositions, and that lexical relations can [be] approached from four different perspectives within a systemic functional model.  These perspectives are:

i. from the point of view of mutual expectancy in lexicogrammar (collocation) 

ii. from the point of view of more delicate options in lexicogrammatical networks (the grammarian's dream)

iii. from the point of view of semantic relations between lexical items in text (lexical cohesion) 

iv. from the point of view of register specific oppositions (field taxonomies)

An overview of these perspectives is provided in Table 5.2. …

Table 5.2. Lexical relations across planes and strata

Context	Language
	DISCOURSE SEMANTICS	LEXICOGRAMMAR
field specific taxonomies	lexical relations (cohesion)	field neutral taxonomies (as delicate grammar)
		collocation patterns (lexical sets)

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, lexical cohesion is a grammatical resource of the textual metafunction and field is the ideational dimension of context.  Field oppositions and taxonomies are context oppositions and taxonomies, not language oppositions and taxonomies.

[2] In SFL theory, collocation is a type of lexical cohesion and both are located in the lexicogrammar.

[3] Not just in SFL theory, register is a functional variety of language.  Field, on the other hand, is the ideational dimension of context, which is not language, but the culture as a semiotic system that has language as its expression plane.  Field is more symbolically abstract than language.

Perhaps this confusion of register with context arose from the terms 'spoken registers' and 'written registers' in which registers are classified in terms of the context (mode features) they realise — as when Martin later writes: 'though these are less spoken in register' (op cit: 312).

[4]  In SFL theory, "field specific taxonomies" — in Martin's sense — are located at the level of semantics, not context, because they are a way of organising linguistic meaning, not the culture as semiotic.  Such a taxonomy constitutes a lexically oriented domain model, a way of modelling a semantic domain.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 323):

…the semantic correlate of a contextual field is a domain.  When we model the ideational semantics of a particular field, we create a domain model. … Domain models are variants of the general model.  A particular domain model specifies which of the semantic systems in the overall model are activated in a particular contextual field …

[5] As explained in the previous post, field "neutrality" is irrelevant for elaborating grammatical networks into the lexical zone.

[6] In SFL theory, 'lexical set' is opposed to 'collocation'.  That is, it describes the types of lexical cohesion in which the nature of the relation is paradigmatic (repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy).  Here the term is misapplied to the opposite type of lexical cohesion, collocation, in which the nature of the relation is syntagmatic.

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).

Confusing Field With The Language That Realises It

Martin (1992: 536):

The semiotic system of field was introduced in Chapter 5 by way of contextualising the discussion of IDEATION.  Field was introduced there in terms of sets of activity sequences oriented to some global institutional purpose (or more informally, field provides the semiotic interpretation of what counts as an answer to the question //1 What do you do// as put to strangers).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in several previous posts, the discussion (p292, pp321-5) of activity sequences in Chapter 5 confuses the contextual category of field with the language that realises it.

[2] This is misleading.  The answer to the question What do you do? is language, not field (context).  As a dimension of context, field is not language.  Language realises field; language and field are different levels of symbolic abstraction, with language as Token and field as Value.  This stratal identity relation encodes field by reference to language; and decodes language by reference to field.

The confusion arises, most generally, from Martin mistaking semogenesis (all strata make meaning) for stratification (context/meaning/wording/sounding), and because of this, treating all strata as levels of (linguistic) meaning.  This misunderstanding then leads, in the present chapter, to misconstruing context as types of language (register and genre).  Martin's model of register and genre, as contextual strata, is thus based on sequenced theoretical misunderstandings, and is inconsistent with both stratification and the notion of text type (register/genre).

Misconstruing The Context As Register

Martin (1992: 271-2):

Something of the role played by lexical relations is illustrated in [5:1] below.  A mother is talking with her 10 year old son about his experiences at school earlier in the day.  Towards the end the mother realises that she may have misinterpreted the field, and interrupts to clarify the situation.  It is the lexical cohesion that has been misread, not the NEGOTIATION, IDENTIFICATION or CONJUNCTION. …

Meanwhile it suffices to comment that it is the relations between lexical items, not lexical items per se that have been misunderstood.  And the misreading of these relations is the misreading of the text's field. … This means that although considerations of register have been set aside as far as possible in Chapters 2, 3 and 4, with lexical cohesion the register variable field needs to be brought more clearly into the picture.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In the 33-line text, the child begins talking about choosing teams in kickball then switches to playing baseball, upon which the mother realises she had mistaken kickball for soccer.  The first field is identified in the second clause:

In s…kickball we have two captains, right?

and second field is identified in the 25th clause:

I got a home run today.

It is not the lexical cohesion that has been misunderstood — not the lexical relations of repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy and collocation.  The mother misread the first field because she misheard 's…kickball' as 'soccer'.  It was the experiential meaning that was misunderstood, not the textual cohesion.

[2] Given what is to come, it is worth mentioning that this use of situation and field is consistent with SFL theory.  The situation is the instance of the context that is realised by the text, and the field is the ideational dimension of context.  Note that this is second order field — what the language is about —which Martin later (op cit: 292) dismisses as less 'appropriate' than his conception of first order field.

[3] This misconstrues context as register.  To use Martin's words (p260): 'this short-coming is a very serious one indeed'.  In SFL theory, field is not a register variable, field is a dimension of context, and context is more symbolically abstract than language.  Register, on the other hand, is not more abstract than language; register is a text type: a functional variety of language (not of context) that varies with the situation type (context) being realised.

The relation between language and context is realisation: an identifying relational process.  The relation between language as system (potential) and language as register (subpotential) is instantiation: an ascriptive relational process.

The relation between context (situation type) and register (text type) is realisation.  The lower order of symbolic abstraction, text type (language), realises the higher order, situation type (context).

Post Titles For Chapter 7 — Context: Register, Genre And Ideology

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 7 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Misunderstanding Metafunctions
2. Confusing Orders Of Experience
3. The Invalidity Of The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata
4. Theoretical Inconsistencies In Modelling Genre And Register As Context Strata
5. The Invalidity Of The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology
6. Inconsistent Claims About Discourse Semantics, Register, Genre And Ideology
7. Misrepresenting Firth On Context
8. Misrepresenting Halliday On Formal And Contextual Meaning
9. Misunderstanding Stratification And Context
10. Purpose, Genre And Register
11. Confusing Context With Semantics
12. Confusing Context With Text Type
13. Self-Contradiction
14. Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context
15. Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context
16. Assigning Purpose To Theoretical Dimensions
17. Misrepresenting Purpose And Intention
18. Confusing Text Type (Genre) With Text Structure (Semantics)
19. Misrepresenting Previous Work On Text Structure And Context
20. Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure
21. Inverting The Stratification Hierarchy
22. Misunderstanding Stratification And Realisation
23. Confusing Context (And Semantics) With Text Type
24. Problems With 'Genre As A Pattern Of Register Patterns'
25. Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum
26. Two Problems With The Second Justification For A Genre Stratum
27. Eight Problems With The Third Justification For A Genre Stratum
28. Two Problems With The Fourth Justification For A Genre Stratum
29. Two Problems With The Fifth Justification For A Genre Stratum
30. Misidentifying Metafunctions
31. Misrepresenting Mode
32. Misconstruing A Dialogic Response As Monologue
33. Misunderstanding Mode
34. Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source
35. Blurring Distinctions
36. Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'
37. Misunderstanding Orders Of Experience
38. Confusing Material Order Phenomena With Textual Semiosis
39. Confusing Context Potential (Mode) With Language Sub-Potentials (Registers)
40. Multiple Violations Of Theoretical Dimensions
41. Redefining Genre As Field
42. Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source
43. Confusing Contextual Potential With Semantic Sub-potentials
44. Miscategorising Texts By Mode
45. Miscategorising Text Types
46. Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Hortatory And Analytical Exposition
47. Misconstruing Degrees Of Abstraction
48. Confusing Mode (Context) With The Ideational Semantics Of Registers
49. Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
50. Misrepresenting Abstraction
51. Confusing Mode Potential (Context) With Text Types (Register)
52. Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
53. Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
54. Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction
55. Confusing Different Strata, Metafunctions & Orders Of Experience
56. Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive
57. Misconstruing Lower And Higher Orders Of Experience As Higher & Lower Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
58. Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
59. Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
60. Misconstruing Field As Mode
61. Misconstruing The Notion Of Projection
62. Misconstruing Mode
63. Misconstruing Dialogue As Unprojected
64. The Non-Argument For 'Experiential Distance'
65. Misunderstanding Tenor
66. Misconstruing Context Potential (Tenor) As Language Sub-Potential (Register)
67. Blurring The Distinction Between Tenor (Context) And Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
68. Misattributing A Source
69. Three Minor Clarifications
70. Confusing Context Potential With The Semantics Of Registers
71. Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"
72. Misconstruing Status As Control
73. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Phonology
74. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammar
75. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Lexis
76. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Discourse Semantics
77. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammatical Metaphor
78. Misconstruing The Realisation Of Tenor
79. Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field
80. Metafunctional Confusion And A Non-Sequitur
81. Confusing Instantiation With Axial And Stratal Realisation
82. Misrepresenting Field As Discourse Semantics
83. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tone
84. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonality
85. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonicity
86. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & “Phonology”
87. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammar
88. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Lexis
89. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics
90. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor
91. Unsupported Claims About Affect
92. Misconstruing Relations Between Speakers As Individual Predisposition
93. Confusing Affect With Affection
94. Mental vs Relational vs Material Affection
95. Misconstruing Affect With Unsupported Claims
96. Misconstruing A Tenor Relation As The Behaviours And Predispositions Of Individuals
97. Blurring The Distinction Between Context And Semantics
98. Inconsistent Unsupported Claims About The Realisation Of Misconstrued Affect
99. Invoking Clinical And Social Psychology
100. Confusing Field With The Language That Realises It
101. Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation, Logogenesis And Instantiation
102. Misrepresenting Data & Confusing Strata
103. Confusing Context With Extra-Linguistic Knowledge, Register And Semantics
104. Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Fabula And Syuzhet
105. Misconstruing Barthes' 'Sequence' As Field
106. Not Acknowledging Barthes As Intellectual Source
107. Misrepresenting Barthes
108. Misrepresenting Barthes And Confusing Material & Semiotic Orders Of Experience
109. Confusing Composition And Superordination
110. Why Chomskyan Linguistics Has Power
111. Misconstruing Mode As Field
112. Misconstruing Behaviour As A Register Of Language
113. A False Dichotomy
114. Confusing Field And Language
115. Confusing Orders Of Experience
116. Misconstruing Field Taxonomies As Classifications Of Personnel & Semiotic Objects
117. Confusing Experience With Construals Of Experience
118. Metafunctional Inconsistency
119. Internal Inconsistency
120. Some Of The Problems With Register and Genre As Semiotic Planes
121. Misconstruing Activity Sequence (Semantics) As Field And Schematic Structure (Semantics) As Genre
122. Confusing First And Second Orders Of Experience
123. Inferring Invalidly From Misconstruals Of Semantic Structure As Field And Genre
124. The Reason For Separating Field And Genre
125. Misinterpreting Pike
126. Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies
127. The Question Of Whether Systematising Generic Structure Potentials Leads Directly To A Two Plane Model Of Register And Genre
128. Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential
129. Prioritising Structure Over System
130. Misrepresenting The Prosodic Mode Of Realisation
131. Distinguishing Interpersonal Meaning From Evaluation
132. Misconstruing Prosody
133. Confusing Text Type With Text Structure
134. Misrepresenting Halliday
135. A Transparently False Claim
136. Misunderstanding Stratal Relations And Confusing Text Type (Genre) With System (Potential)
137. Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)
138. Misrepresenting Longacre
139. Martin's Reason Why Field, Tenor & Mode Are Insufficient To Classify Genres
140. Misconstruing Semantics As Context And Misidentifying Metafunctions
141. Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions
142. Misconstruing Semantics (Activity Sequence) As Context (Field)
143. Not Classifying Text Types From Above
144. Classifying Text Types From Semantics Instead Of Context
145. Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials As Constituting Context Potential
146. Weaving An Illogical Argument Around A Misinterpretation Of Halliday
147. Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems
148. Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's
149. Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre
150. Misconstruing A Higher Order Of Experience As A Lower Level Of Symbolic Abstraction
151. Misconstruing One Mode System As Register And Another As Genre
152. Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field
153. Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
154. Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Hasan's
155. Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True
156. Misunderstanding Realisation
157. Misrepresenting Martin (1992)
158. Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process
159. Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre
160. Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level
161. Ignoring Halliday's Caution Against Premature Articulation
162. Preparing To Misconstrue Bernstein's Codes As Ideology
163. Misrepresenting Hasan
164. Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin
165. Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Ideology Systems
166. Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology
167. Discursive Power And The Evolutionarily Necessary Resolution Of Semiotic Tension Through Dynamic Openness
168. Confusing Linguistic Variabilty With Contextual Tension
169. Misunderstanding System Architecture And Dynamics
170. Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems
171. Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
172. Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy
173. Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Relocating Lexis Outside Language

Martin (1992: 289):

This raises the question as to what extent lexis can be treated as most delicate grammar while maintaining a lexicogrammar that is essentially neutral with respect to field. … One way of keeping the grammar neutral would be to locate specialised taxonomies in the register variable field, allowing the grammar to focus on field neutral oppositions.  This would mean for example that the similarity between morphology in linguistics and geology could be brought out in lexicogrammar and the differences between them in field taxonomies; similarly for cover in yachting and sleeping.  And analysts could make a principled decision as to whether they were analysing lexical cohesion with respect to lexicogrammatical taxonomies or field ones, depending on the purposes for which the analysis was designed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] 'Neutrality with respect to field' is irrelevant for elaborating lexis as most delicate grammar.  The lexicogrammar is the overall system of wording potential.  This misunderstanding seems to arise from giving priority to the view from below (e.g. the forms morphology, cover).

[2] This seriously misunderstands the meaning of the stratified model of SFL theory.  Field is not modelled as language; it is a higher level of symbolic abstraction than language: it is the ideational dimension of the culture construed as a semiotic system.  Locating lexical taxonomies outside language is a major category error.

[3] Construing field as a register variable confuses a higher level of symbolic abstraction than language, context, with a functional variety of language, a register.

Construing field variation as a register variable confuses instantial variation (e.g. situation type probabilities) with hyponymy (feature options in systems).

[4] The difference between morphology in the fields of linguistics and geology is characterised in the lexicogrammar — not field — by the different lexical features that specify them as distinct outputs.

[5] This confuses lexical cohesion with lexicogrammatical delicacy, and language with context.

In SFL theory, lexical cohesion is the use of repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy and collocation to establish non-structural textual relations.  A lexicogrammatical taxonomy, however, is a means of modelling the lexicogrammatical system.  A field taxonomy, on the other hand, is means of modelling the ideational dimension of context — not lexicogrammar (nor even language).

Confusing Genre (Text Type) With Field (Context)

Martin (1992: 517):

…it needs to be kept in mind that in referring to the iconic texts as field-structured, what one is saying is that for this group of texts it is difficult to distinguish genre and field — looking from the perspectives of social process (genre) and activity sequence (field) amounts to very much the same thing (in other words the model of context developing here overdetermines the classification of these text types).  With genre-structured texts, on the other hand, the organisation of the text is very different from the organisation of activity sequences to which the text may refer.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To translate this into SFL theory, the claim here is that there is a text type (register) for which the structure at the level of the semantic stratum is organised according to field (the ideational dimension of context).

[2] To translate this into SFL theory, the claim here is that, for this text type (register), it is difficult to distinguish between text type (genre) and the ideational context of language (field).  One reason why it is difficult to distinguish between text type and context, in Martin's model, is because the model confuses text type (register/genre) with context.

[3] The reason why "looking from the perspectives of social process (genre) and activity sequence (field) amounts to very much the same thing" is that Martin has redefined genre as field. In SFL theory, social processes fall within the definition of field.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33):

field – what’s going on in the situation: (i) the nature of the social and semiotic activity; and (ii) the domain of experience this activity relates to (the ‘subject matter’ or ‘topic’)

The following table clarifies the theoretical inconsistency.  In SFL theory, field is located at the intersection of context and system (culture), whereas text type (genre/register) is located at the intersection of semantics and instance type.

The confusion is thus along two scales simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.  Moreover, there is a further confounding inconsistency with regard to metafunction, since this discussion is purported to be about mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.

Confusing Context With Semantics

Martin (1992: 291-2):

Halliday (1985: 12) defines field of discourse as follows:

The FIELD OF DISCOURSE refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place; what is it [sic] that the participants are engaged in, in which the language figures as some essential component.

This is a useful starting point for interpreting the contextual semantics of experiential meaning in functional linguistics because the perspective is a social one, and because of the emphasis placed on language as action; field is not specifically tied to subject matter or topic, notions through which it can be discussed only in certain modes (it makes little sense for example when watching and listening to a rugby league training session to ask what the topic is; the appropriate question is "What is going on?").

Blogger Comments:

[1] The term 'contextual semantics' merges two distinct strata — two levels of symbolic abstraction — in the SFL model: context and semantics.  The former refers to the culture as a semiotic system, while the latter refers to a level within language.  It is a clear indication that the principle of stratification is not understood in the discourse semantic model.

[2] The concept of 'language as action' is distinct from 'field' referring to 'the nature of the social action taking place'. For the former, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 354) acknowledge a cline from ‘language in reflection’ to ‘language in action’:

In situations of the ‘language in action’ kind, where the discourse is a relatively minor component of the total activity, the grammar and the semantics are obviously less constructive of the whole than in a ‘reflection’ context …

[3] In SFL theory, field refers to both 'what's going on' and the subject matter.  The former is the first order field; the latter is the second order field (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 320-1).

[4] If the first order field ('what's going on') is watching and listening to a rugby league training session, then the second order field ('what the topic is') is the subject matter of what is said while doing so.  To paraphrase Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 354): while watching and listening to a rugby league training session itself is not constituted of language, the activity of commenting on it is.  The subject matter is indispensable for modelling field.

Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]

Martin (1992: 292):

Halliday's notion of field will be developed here by defining fields as sets of activity sequences oriented to some global institutional purpose.  Examples include linguistics, tennis, cooking, wine making, gardening, dog breeding, film, architecture, sewing, car racing, philosophy, sailing, building, chess, war, politics, religion and so on. …

A given institution comprises a large number of different activity sequences, where these are realised linguistically through temporally ordered chains of Process and Medium with their attendant participant and circumstantial roles.  Tennis for example includes, among other activity sequences, playing coaching, commenting, analysing, viewing, training, club meetings, tournament presentations, interviews, grading, and so on.  The participants and processes in these are overlapping, not identical.  At the same time, each of these activities participates in an overall institutional focus — that of making it possible for people to enjoy in diverse ways a game played with strung raquets [sic] and a furry hollow ball.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This defines field only as first order field (what's going on), but exemplifies it largely in terms of second order field (what it's about).  That is, it is inconsistent in terms of orders of experience.

[2] This misconstrues (the linguistic realisation of first order) field as semantic descriptions of 'what's going on'. That is, if the field is 'someone predicting the weather', then the claim is that this is realised linguistically as participant^process^participant. In other words, the theoretical characterisation of the field is treated as text to be analysed semantically. On the SFL model, the field of weather prediction is realised in the language that realises the weather prediction.

[3] In SFL theory, 'chains of Process and Medium with their attendant participant and circumstantial roles' are modelled as sequences of figures, but they are not limited to temporal relations.  They involve the full range of expansion and projection types.  The depiction of 'activity sequences' as only 'temporally ordered' demonstrates that field is here misconstrued as semantic descriptions of temporally ordered social activities.

Martin's Reason Why Field, Tenor & Mode Are Insufficient To Classify Genres

Martin (1992: 562):

English Text's suggestion is that in pursuing work of this kind [classifying genres], a very different system of valeur will be established than that developed when looking at field, mode or tenor variables alone (even though very similar oppositions might be used on the levels of register and genre).  The reason for this is that no culture combines field, mode and tenor variables freely — all are selective.  Thus the system of social processes constituting a culture at the level of genre will always differ from the systems of field, mode and tenor options it makes available in one or other contexts of situation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On Martin's model, register and genre, as strata, are different levels of symbolic abstraction.  On this model, the more abstract features of genre are realised by less abstract register features of field, tenor and mode.  In SFL theory, on the other hand, register and genre are the same phenomenon — a point of variation midway along the cline of instantiation — viewed from opposite poles of the cline.

[2] Translating into SFL theory, the argument here is as follows:

• a. Field, tenor and mode features are insufficient to classify text types

because

• b. not all combinations of field, tenor and mode features occur in a culture

and because of this

• c. the system of text types will always differ from situational instances of field, tenor and mode features.

This can be examined in stages, first considering the argument from (a) to (b), and then the argument from (b) to (c).

First, (b) does not follow logically from (a).  By definition, only the contextual configurations that do occur specify cultural contexts that are realised by text types.  (In a system network, the available feature combinations are constrained by the (if…then) wiring of the network.)

Second, (c) does not follow logically from (b).  This is because the notion of available contextual configurations is logically independent of the confused notion of differences between genre systems and contextual instances.

Moreover, the confusions in (c) are themselves confused.  On the one hand:

• the notion of a 'genre system' confuses two distinct points on the cline of instantiation, namely: a midway point sub-potential (genre/text type), and the pole of potential (system);

and on the other:

• the difference between system and instance, instantiation,

is confused with

• the difference between genre (language) and field, tenor and mode (context), stratification.

[3] It is curious that Martin uses the SFL notion 'contexts of situation' here, given that his model has replaced this with register.

Metafunctional Confusion And A Non-Sequitur

Martin (1992: 531):

The problem with adding too many field distinctions to the contact network has to do with motivating them in terms which have not already been defined for field — so the question of realisation is critical.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The problem with adding any field distinctions to the contact network is that contact is a system of tenor, the interpersonal dimension of context, whereas field is the ideational dimension of context.  The confusion is thus in terms of metafunction.  It is the combination of field, tenor and mode features — Hasan's contextual configuration — that specifies a context.

[2] This is a non-sequitur.  The claim is:

the question of realisation is critical because undefined terms have been used to include field features in a tenor network.

1 [cause]			x 2 [effect]
The problem with adding too many field distinctions to the contact network	has to do	with motivating them in terms which have not already been defined for field	so	the question of realisation	is	critical
Carrier	Process	Attribute: matter		Carrier	Process	Attribute

Realisation is the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction; e.g. between strata, between system and structure.  The 'question of realisation' isn't critical as a result of undefined terms being used to include field features in a tenor network.