Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 401):

Grammatical metaphor, like interaction patterns, will be interpreted as a process here, rather than as a synoptic system taking its place alongside the text forming systems proposed for English above.  Metaphorically speaking, it is part of the conversation that must go on among text forming systems across strata if meanings are to be integrated in contextually effective ways. … The gatekeeping function of grammatical metaphor is incorporated as part of English Text's classification of text forming resources in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12. Grammatical metaphor as a texturing interface
Discourse Semantics		Lexicogrammar	Phonology/Graphology
negotiation	grammatical metaphor	substitution & ellipsis
			information
identification		theme
conjunction & continuity			tone concord & tone sequence
ideation		collocation

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses realisation with instantiation.  Grammatical metaphor is an incongruent relation of realisation between semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording).  The deployment of grammatical metaphor during logogenesis is effected by the process of instantiation: the selection of systemic features and the activation of realisation statements.

[2] This is misleading.  Grammatical metaphor is not a relation between the text forming systems across strata.  In SFL theory, the text forming systems are those of the textual metafunction.  Grammatical metaphor involves incongruent realisations between ideational meaning and wording or between interpersonal meaning and wording.

[3] It is theoretically inaccurate to describe the function of grammatical metaphor as a "gatekeeping" interface between strata. Where gatekeeping is a filtering process, grammatical metaphor is an incongruent relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction: meaning and wording.

[4] In SFL theory, information is a system of the lexicogrammatical stratum.  Here it is again misconstrued as a system of the phonological/graphological stratum.  That is, it is misconstrued as expression rather than content.  The phonological systems that realise the grammatical system of information are tonicity (the placement of tonic prominence) and tonality (the placement of tone group boundaries).

Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal

Martin (1992: 392):

As far as lexical strings and reference chains are concerned, this interaction across strata is better understood than that among discourse systems themselves.  Fries (1981), Hasan (1984), Halliday (1985) and Plum (1988) have all done pioneering work in this area (see also Martin 1991).

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, in SFL theory, the cohesive relations effected by lexical cohesion and reference are located at the level of lexicogrammar and within the textual metafunction.  Studies that examine how the non-structural systems of the lexicogrammar pattern with the structural systems of the lexicogrammar are thus not concerned with "interaction across strata".

To be clear, in discourse semantic theory, lexical strings are construed as experiential structures at the level of discourse semantics, and reference chains are construed as textual structures at the level of discourse semantics.

Accordingly, the work of Fries (1981), Hasan (1984) and Halliday (1985) does not support the relocation of non-structural textual systems at the level of lexicogrammar to structural experiential and textual systems at the level of discourse semantics.

Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation And Instantiation

Martin (1992: 392):

The modularity imposed by stratification is also an important issue.  Discourse systems generate structures which in principle cut across grammatical and phonological ones.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of strata as modules instead of complementary levels of symbolic abstraction.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the relation between system and structure is realisation.  This axial relation is distinct from the process of instantiation — the selection of systemic features and the activation of realisation statements — during logogenesis.

Misunderstanding Stratification

Martin (1992: 391):

Within discourse semantics, the ways in which systems co-operate in the process of making text is much less well understood. … A more explicit account of this co-operation is clearly an urgent research goal; English Text has been concerned not so much with addressing this goal as with making it addressable by proposing four relatively independent discourse modules to beg the question… .  The point is that integrating meanings deriving from different metafunctions is not a task that can be left to lexicogrammar alone.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of the metafunctions as modular units, rather than as complementary perspectives.

[2] This misunderstands the meaning of 'to beg the question'.  Begging the question is a logical fallacy identified by Aristotle in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.  See further here or here.

[3] This misunderstands stratification.  The wordings of lexicogrammar realise the meanings of semantics; the meanings of semantics are realised by the wordings of lexicogrammar.  Further, it ignores the trinocular perspective on which linguistic analysis is based in SFL.  Each stratum is viewed 'from above', 'from roundabout' and 'from below'.  This includes looking at lexicogrammar 'from above' (in terms of the meaning being realised) and looking at semantics 'from below' (in terms of the wording that realises it).

Misrepresenting Realisation And Preselection

Martin (1992: 390):

Within grammar, the problem of mapping different systems onto each other is handled by realisation.  Structures deriving from different metafunctional components are conflated and preselect options from constituent ranks until lexicogrammatical options are exhausted.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is untrue. Conflation is not realisation. The relation between the different metafunctional systems on the lexicogrammatical stratum is not one of realisation.  Realisation is the relation between different levels of symbolic abstraction, as between strata, between function and form and between system and structure.  The metafunctional systems on the lexicogrammatical stratum are of the same level of symbolic abstraction.  The metafunctions on the lexicogrammatical stratum are different perspectives on the same phenomenon: wording.

[2] This is untrue.  Structures do not preselect options.  The selection of a feature of a paradigmatic system can preselect a feature of a system on a lower stratum (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 378-9), and, across axes, paradigmatic specifications can select syntagmatic specifications (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 94).  The latter has been renamed 'eco-functional selection' (ibid.).

Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules

Martin (1992: 390):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective.  As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification and, within strata, metafunction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Taking a modular perspective on strata and metafunctions is a source of serious theoretical errors, as will become apparent as this chapter is examined.  Modules are distinct units that can be combined with others to make more complex structures. This is at odds with the status of strata and metafunctions in SFL theory as complementary perspectives.

[2] This is misleading.  Stratification and metafunction are dimensions of SFL theory; the observation is not an insight of English Text.

Misrepresenting Interstratal Realisation, Grammatical Metaphor & Register

Martin (1992: 389-90):

The relationship of SPEECH FUNCTION to MOOD mediated by interpersonal metaphor is precisely parallel to that between CONJUNCTION and the clause complex as mediated by ideational metaphor.  Because of this it was possible to present a register neutral description of the semantics of dialogue in Chapter 2, just as it was possible to produce a register neutral description of conjunctive relations in Chapter 4.  Both these types of organic relation are essential components of English text forming resources and need to be interpreted systematically as semantic systems in language, not as register specific features of context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is untrue.  Speech function and mood are both interpersonal systems — at the level of semantics and lexicogrammar respectively — and the relationship between them is realisation (congruent or metaphorical).  However, whereas clause complexing is a manifestation of the logical metafunction in lexicogrammar, Martin's discourse semantic system of conjunction takes as its point of departure the textual system of cohesive conjunction.  Because this cohesive system is the textual deployment of expansion relations, the other major logico-semantic type, projection, is absent from the discourse semantic model.  This is a major theoretical shortcoming, since clause complexes involving projection are not accounted for semantically.  Crucially, this in turn removes the means of distinguishing congruent vs metaphorical realisations in the grammar.

[2] The realisation relation between strata is not "mediated" by grammatical metaphor.  Realisations are either congruent or metaphorical, the latter being a manifestation of the textual metafunction as a second-order resource (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 398-9).

[3] The realisation relation between strata applies to all systems on all strata.  It does not provide a special means of presenting "register neutral" descriptions for two of the four discourse semantic systems.

[4] In SFL theory, the relation between the general system of semantic potential and the semantic systems of specific registers is theorised as instantiation.  The interpersonal semantic systems of specific registers are termed exchange relationships.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 377-8): 

Midway between potential and instance, sets of such strategies cluster within ranges of tenor values. Such a cluster is the interpersonal analogue of a domain in the ideation base: it is a region within the overall interpersonal space of meaning, selected according to tenor, just as a domain is a region within the overall ideational space of meaning, selected according to field. The options in interpersonal meaning that make up the cluster together enact a tenor relationship … We might call such a cluster an exchange relationship to foreground that it is semantic (i.e. constituted in meaning through exchanges of meaning) and that it is interpersonal (rather than one-sidedly personal). To indicate that it is analogous to a domain model, we might have called it an exchange or interaction “model”; but we have avoided that term because it suggests a construal of something and construal is the ideational mode of meaning — it is more like a protocol than a model.

[5] To be clear, the term 'organic relation' is used by Hasan (1985: 81) with respect to the textual metafunction: to differentiate conjunction from the other ('componential') types of cohesion:

These devices are ORGANIC; the terms in the tie are whole message(s) rather than message components…

[6] In SFL theory, the text forming resources are the systems of the textual metafunction.  In discourse semantics, the systems of all metafunctions are said to be text forming.

[7] To be clear, in SFL theory, 'register specific features of context' are the features of specific situation types (field, tenor and mode) that are realised by specific registers of language.  This is not what Martin means.  See the critiques of field in Chapter 5.

Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan And Confusing Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 389):

The other main difference between English Text and Cohesion in English has to do with the recognition of NEGOTIATION as a linguistic text forming resource.  Halliday and Hasan treat this system as an aspect of the "macro-structure" of text, alongside generic structure — as a feature of register rather than of language (1976: 324 & 327). Halliday's (1984) interpretation of SPEECH FUNCTION as the semantics of MOOD however is preferred here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the text forming resources are those of the textual metafunction.  Negotiation, on the other hand, is presented as a system of the interpersonal metafunction.

[2] Halliday & Hasan (1976: 324, 326-7) are concerned with the textual metafunction — not an interpersonal system of negotiation.  They cite the work of Sacks and Schegloff on adjacency pairs to illustrate their point that 'every genre has its own discourse structure', even casual conversation.  Such a macrostructure is the one of three components of texture, the other two being non-structural cohesion and structural theme and information.

[3] This is manifestly untrue in two respects.  Firstly, Halliday & Hasan (1976: 324, 326-7) do not describe the macrostructure of a text 'as a feature of register rather than of language'.  Secondly, the opposition of register vs language is a nonsense, given that register is defined as a functional variety of language.

[4] These are not two alternative views of the same phenomenon.  The macrostructure of the text is a manifestation of the textual metafunction, and varies according to the mode being realised.  Speech function, on the other hand, is a system of the interpersonal metafunction, at the level of semantics.

Misconstruing Textual Grammar As "Redounding With" Interpersonal And Experiential Semantics

Martin (1992: 389):

As far as realisation across strata is concerned, at clause rank SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS redound with NEGOTIATION while at group rank they redound with IDEATION (cf. Hasan's category of co-classification above).

Blogger Comments:

[1] No realisation statements are provided that specify how these interpersonal and experiential discourse semantic systems are realised in the textual lexicogrammatical system of substitution–&–ellipsis.

[2] The proposal here is that the non-structural textual system of substitution–&–ellipsis in the domain of the clause on the lexicogrammatical stratum "construes and is construed by" the (structural) interpersonal system of negotiation on the discourse semantics stratum.  In this grammatical domain, textual wording "construes and is construed by" interpersonal meaning.

[3] The proposal here is that the non-structural textual system of substitution–&–ellipsis in the domain of the group on the lexicogrammatical stratum "construes and is construed by" the (structural) experiential system of ideation on the discourse semantics stratum.  In this grammatical domain, textual wording "construes and is construed by" experiential meaning.

[4] Hasan's (1985: 82) category of co-classification refers to the type of cohesive tie in substitution–&–ellipsis (and lexical cohesion).  It is irrelevant to claims that substitution–&–ellipsis realises either experiential or interpersonal meanings, according to the grammatical domain of the textual cohesion.

Misconstruing Stratification

Martin (1992: 389):

What this argument amounts to saying is that it is more economical to leave SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS in the grammar, generating cohesive ties with respect to grammatical functions defined on that stratum.  Since text forming resources are distributed across all three strata in the meaning making model assumed by English Text, there is nothing remarkable in this.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This betrays Martin's modus operandi of theorising a discourse semantics — taking Halliday & Hasan's ideas from where they fit consistently within the overall theory, and moving them to a new ill-considered theoretical location.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the text forming resources across all strata are those of the textual metafunction.

[3] This continues the confusion of stratification and semogenesis.

[4] There is much that is remarkable in this, not least because the meanings realised this grammatical system need to be modelled by a semantic theory.

Misconstruing Cataphoric Reference

Martin (1992: 388-9):

The difference between presuming grammatical items and presuming meanings is illustrated in [6:4] and [6:5] below.  The lengthy monograph in [6:4bi] does not refer to any particular grammatical unit in [6:4a]; it simply presumes meaning that was there implied:

[6:4]	a.		It took several months of writing
	b.	i.	but in the end the lengthy monograph was complete
		ii	?? but in the end the lengthy one was complete

Blogger Comment:

This has the reference relation the wrong way around.  The reference in this instance is cataphoric, not anaphoric: it refers to the lengthy monograph.  In SFL theory, the nominal group the lengthy monograph is not a reference item.

To be clear, reference is a semantic relation between elements, whereas substitution–&-ellipsis is a lexicogrammatical relation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 538, 561-2).

Resorting To A Misconstrual of Stratification

Martin (1992: 388):

In spite of the fact that SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS are used to link items cohesively between clause complexes, English Text has not treated them as a discourse semantic system.  There are two reasons for this. … The second reason is that SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS presume grammatical functions, not meanings.  At clause rank, they have to be defined interpersonally, with respect to Mood and Residue; at group rank specific nominal and verbal group experiential functions are similarly presumed.

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, in SFL theory, substitution–&–ellipsis is a grammatical system that sets up textually cohesive (non-structural) grammatical relations (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 561-2).  All lexicogrammatical (wording) selections realise semantic (meaning) selections.  A comprehensive theory of semantics accounts for the meanings realised in wordings.

Misconstruing Stratification And Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 388):

In spite of the fact that SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS are used to link items cohesively between clause complexes, English Text has not treated them as a discourse semantic system.  There are two reasons for this.  One is that there is nothing in the grammar to stratify them with respect to.  Unlike NEGOTIATION, IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION they are not a semantic resource with diversified lexicogrammaticalisations — there is no such thing as incongruent (i.e. metaphorical) SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS, nor is there a semantic motif running through the grammar which disperses their realisation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misconstrues stratification.  Substitution–&–ellipsis is lexicogrammatical system that realises semantic choices.

[2] The reason there is no metaphorical substitution–&–ellipsis is that it realises textual meanings, not ideational or interpersonal meanings.  There is ideational and interpersonal metaphor, but no textual metaphor.  Metaphor itself is a resource of the textual metafunction.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-9):

One manifestation of the second–order nature of the textual metafunction that is important for our purposes is grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor is a ‘second-order’ use of grammatical resources: one grammatical feature or set of features is used as a metaphor for another feature or set of features; and since features are realised by structures, one grammatical structure comes to stand for another.

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 401):

But ideational grammatical metaphors typically have a discourse function of this kind; they are as it were pressed into service by the textual metafunction, to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information.

Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan

Martin (1992: 388):

As Halliday and Hasan point out, this redundancy is typically exploited in the context of repudiation.  The second response in [6:3] illustrates this function.  The Thing drink is presumed from the offer by the substitute one; this allows the unmarked tonic to fall on small, which is contrastive in this environment.

[6:3]	Would you like a drink?		a drink
	— //13 A small gin and tonic thanks //		#
	— //13 Just a small one thanks //		one
	— //13 Just the smaller one thanks //

Note the absence of repudiation in the first response, where gin and tonic is realised explicitly, proposed as a hyponym of drink.  The third response illustrates the difference between repudiation and comparison; one presumes the Thing drink as in the second response, but in addition smaller presumes a set of bigger drinks which are not identified in the second.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Contrary to what is implied here, the discussion in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 93-5) of repudiation in substitution–&–ellipsis does not conceive it in terms of redundancy, and so does not support Martin's interpretation.  [Note the omission of page references.]

[2] This discussion completely misunderstands the notion of repudiation, and the text does not illustrate it.  Cf. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 93):

The notion of repudiation is explained as follows.  In any anaphoric context, something is carried over from a previous instance.  What is carried over may be the whole of what there was, or it may be only a part of it; and if it is only a part of it, then the remainder, that which is not carried over, has to be REPUDIATED.  For example, in

[3:10] We have no coal fires; only wood ones.

fires is carried over anaphorically, but coal is repudiated.

[3] It is not true that using the substitute one 'allows the unmarked tonic to fall on small.  The tonic falls on small to mark contrastive prominence.  If the substitute had not been used, the tonic would still fall on small, in the unmarked case.

[4] There is no repudiation in any of the responses, because there is nothing to repudiate in the offer.  See [2] above.

[5] Since there is no repudiation in the third response, it does not illustrate the difference between repudiation (substitution–&–ellipsis) and comparison (reference).

Misconstruing Substitution–&–Ellipsis

Martin (1992: 388):

First, SUBSTITUTION and ELLIPSIS.  Like the discourse semantics systems of IDENTIFICATION and CONJUNCTION, these systems can be used to presume information which is not grammatically related to presuming items.  Substitutes and ellipses make explicit almost none of the experiential or interpersonal meaning they presume, treating it as redundant (thus the term redundancy phoricity, as opposed to reminding and relevance phoricity).

Blogger Comments:

[1] In contradistinction, in SFL theory, substitution–&–ellipsis is a resource for setting up a relation that is lexicogrammatical.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 561-2, 563):

Another form of anaphoric cohesion in the text is achieved by ellipsis, where we presuppose something by means of what is left out.  Like all cohesive agencies, ellipsis contributes to the semantic structure of the discourse.  But unlike reference, which is itself a semantic relation, ellipsis sets up a relationship that is not semantic but lexicogrammatical — a relationship in the wording rather than directly in the meaning. … The substitute is phonologically non-salient and serves as a place-holding device, showing where something has been omitted and what its grammatical function would be;

[2] In SFL theory, the cohesive system of substitution–&–ellipsis is a resource for marking textual prominence.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 563):

Ellipsis marks the textual status of continuous information within a certain grammatical structure.  At the same time, the non-ellipsed elements of that structure are given the status of being contrastive in the environment of continuous information.  Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present.  The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of their lack of prominence.

Misconstruing Collocation And Interstratal Relations

Martin (1992: 385):

Collocation has been included as a text forming resource in the English Text model in order to allow for the possibility that there are inherent expectancy relations among lexical items at the level of lexicogrammar which make a contribution to texture independent of the semantic relations predicted by field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, collocation is a text forming resource in SFL theory, not just in the English Text model.  It is a form of lexical cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction.  See, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 576-8).

However, Martin locates collocation within the experiential lexicogrammar, despite the fact that it is concerned with (second-order) relations within the text rather than with the (first-order) construal of experience, and without demonstrating how it relates to other experiential systems, such as transitivity at clause rank.

[2] Lexicogrammar and semantics are two perspectives — wording vs meaning — on the one phenomenon: content.  They are two levels of symbolic abstraction in a relation of identity.  By definition, they are not independent.  All wordings realise meanings.

Misrepresenting Inconsistency As Consistency

Martin (1992: 384-5):

Hasan's componential/organic, grammatical/lexical and co-reference/co-classification/co-extension oppositions do not conflict with English Text's proposals, but simply represent a more delicate consideration of the categorisation of text forming resources at issue here.  The componential/organic opposition is reflected in the discourse semantic units proposed by English Text, with NEGOTIATION and CONJUNCTION linking moves and messages respectively, and IDENTIFICATION and IDEATION linking participants and message parts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue.  Hasan's model is broadly consistent with SFL theory and locates these oppositions within the system of cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction.  In contradistinction, Martin's model is inconsistent with the basic parameters and architecture of SFL theory, as the preceding and following posts demonstrate, and his four systems are presented as being of each of the four metafunctions.

[2] The difference between the two models is clearly not one of delicacy of categorisation, not least because they are located on different strata.  Hasan's oppositions are made at the level of lexicogrammar within the textual metafunction:

• The componential/organic opposition distinguishes reference, substitution–&–ellipsis and lexical cohesion from conjunction.

• The grammatical/lexical opposition distinguishes grammatical cohesion (reference, substitution–&–ellipsis and conjunction) from lexical cohesion.

• The co-reference/co-classification/co-extension oppositions classify the type of cohesive tie relation in the 'componential relations' set of cohesive resources ((reference, substitution–&–ellipsis and lexical cohesion).

[3] The componential/organic opposition between two types of non-structural textual cohesion is not "reflected" in the discourse semantic units of the four metafunctional systems.  Specifically, because:

• a paradigmatic opposition of two options is not "reflected" in four syntagmatic units;

• a non-structural system is not "reflected" in the structures of systems;

• the textual metafunction is not "reflected" in the interpersonal, experiential and logical metafunctions.

Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 382-4):

Hasan's more delicate classification of texture creating resources is summarised in Table 6.2 (Table 5.1 from Hasan 1985: 82).  Grammatical parallelism is added to Halliday's structural resources, alongside THEME and INFORMATION systems. … Hasan's table provides a useful point of comparison for the model of text forming resources proposed in English Text.  These resources are outlined by strata in Table 6.3.  The fact that English Text assumes a stratified content plane accounts for most of the difference in categorisation.

Table 6.3. English Text’s organisation of text forming resources in English
Discourse Semantics	Lexicogrammar	Phonology/Graphology
negotiation	substitution & ellipsis	information
identification	theme
conjunction & continuity		tone concord & tone sequence
ideation	collocation

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue, not least because Hasan, along with Halliday, long ago stratified the content plane into semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording).  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 5):

Language can be explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding, or 'strata': the semantic (meanings), the lexicogrammatical (forms) and the phonological and orthographic (expressions).

[2] In SFL, the 'text forming resources' are those of the textual metafunction.  Martin's negotiation is a system of the interpersonal metafunction, Martin's conjunction & continuity is a system of the logical metafunction, and Martin's ideation is a system of the experiential metafunction.  The confusion is complexified considerably by

• the fact that Martin's (experiential) ideation is partially a relocation of lexical cohesion (textual metafunction) from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics;
• the fact that Martin's (logical) conjunction & continuity is partially a relocation of cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction) from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, and partially a relocation of clause complexing (logical metafuction) from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics; and
• the fact that Martin's (textual) identification, while partially being a relocation of cohesive reference (textual metafunction) from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, involves units (participants) that are of the experiential metafunction. 

[3] In SFL, substitution–&–ellipsis is a (cohesive) resource of the textual metafunction.  Here it is aligned with negotiation, a system of the interpersonal metafunction.

[4] In SFL, collocation is a (lexically cohesive) resource of the textual metafunction.  Here it is aligned with ideation, which for Martin, is a system of the experiential metafunction.

[5] In SFL, information is a textual system of the lexicogrammatical stratum.  Here it is misconstrued as an interpersonal system of the phonological/graphological stratum.  That is, it is misconstrued in terms of both metafunction and stratification, and in the latter case, misconstrued as expression rather than content.  This adds a new level to the ongoing misunderstanding of stratification.

Misrepresenting Interstratal Relations

Martin (1992: 379):

The interaction of discourse semantic and lexicogrammatical structures will be taken up in Chapter 6 below in an attempt to underline the way in which the two strata contribute independently, dependently and interdependently to the process whereby meanings are made as text.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the "interaction" between these two levels of symbolic abstraction, these two perspectives on the content plane, is realisation: either congruent or metaphorical.

[2] The logical relation of interdependency is irrelevant to interstratal relations; the only logical relation between strata is elaboration (the intensive relation of identity).  The notion of semantics and lexicogrammar being independent aligns with the Chomskyan view of 'autonomous syntax', which contradicts the previously espoused view of a natural relation between content strata.

[3] To clarify, the process whereby meaning potential becomes actualised as the meanings of a text is termed instantiation — the selection of features and the activation of their realisation statements — as occurs during the semogenic process of logogenesis, the unfolding of the text.  Logogenesis occurs at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.