Misconstruing Metafunctions As Modules [New]

Martin (1992: 55, 56):

For various reasons this multivariate approach to move structure will not be pursued here. These reflect in general the modular approach to text structure underlying English Text, …

Equally important, as far as modularity is concerned, is the fact that negotiation provides just one of four perspectives on text structure elaborated in the model of discourse semantics presented here.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here and elsewhere (pp90, 268, 269, 390, 488), Martin misconstrues each of the metafunctions and each of the strata proposed by SFL Theory as 'interacting modules'.

Importantly, metafunction and stratification are global dimensions of the theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 20, 32). Each are complementary perspectives on the same phenomenon. As different perspectives on the same phenomenon, they cannot "interact".

For example, the three metafunctional systems and structures of the clause are three perspectives on the same phenomenon (the clause).

Likewise, the two strata of the content plane, semantics and lexicogrammar, are two perspectives on the same phenomenon (the content plane), differing in terms of symbolic abstraction (identity + elaboration).

By the same token, the two planes of language, content and expression, are two perspectives on the same phenomenon (language), differing in terms of symbolic abstraction.