Martin's Argument For Stratifying Identification And Nominal Group Options

Martin (1992: 135-6):

In theory, the IDENTIFICATION network developed above could be viewed as cross-classifying other nominal group systems much as THEME at clause rank cross-classifies TRANSITIVITY  and MOOD.  But the interdependence between textual and other nominal group options is so great that a tremendous amount of relative correlative marking (see Martin 1987) or negative conditioning in realisation (see Fawcett 1980) would be required; IDENTIFICATION options would not in other words combine relatively freely with other nominal group ones in a way characteristic of simultaneous systems at the same rank on the same stratum.  The relationship between IDENTIFICATION and nominal group systems displays much more clearly the interlocking diversification (Lockwood 1972) characteristic of inter- rather than intra-stratal relations.  Setting aside then the question of discourse structure, to be taken up in 3.5 below, there are sound systemic reasons for stratifying IDENTIFICATION and nominal group oppositions (cf. the critical discussion of Halliday's (1976b) DEIXIS network in Martin 1987).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is just an obfuscatory way of claiming that IDENTIFICATION could, in theory, be viewed as a textual system of the nominal group.  However, in terms of theory, this view is not tenable, since reference is not a system of the nominal group, and IDENTIFICATION is proposed as the semantic counterpart of reference, not a grammatical system.

[2] This attempted obfuscation is irrelevant to the question of what stratum IDENTIFICATION is located.  The degree of interdependence of feature options is irrelevant to the level of symbolic abstraction at which options are available.  The works cited, as if to support this misunderstanding are:

• Martin, J. R. 1987. "The Meaning of Features in Systemic Linguistics".  M. A. K. Halliday & R. P. Fawcett [eds] New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1: theory and description, 14-40.  London: Pinter  

• Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: towards and integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of an interacting mind.  Heidelberg: Julius Groos.

[3] This explicitly demonstrates that Martin does not understand that strata, which he misconceives as interacting modules, are distinct levels of symbolic abstraction.  The work cited, as if in support, is from the framework of Sydney Lamb's Stratificational Linguistics:

• Lockwood, D. G. 1972. Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

[4] To be clear, no sound systemic reasons have been provided for "stratifying IDENTIFICATION and nominal group oppositions".  As previously demonstrated, Martin's rebranding of cohesive reference as IDENTIFICATION is constructed on serious theoretical misunderstandings, including:

• confusing ideational denotation with textual reference,
• confusing interpersonal deixis with textual reference, and
• confusing nominal groups with reference items.

The work cited, as if in support, is Martin's own critique:

• Martin, J. R. 1987. "The Meaning of Features in Systemic Linguistics".  M. A. K. Halliday & R. P. Fawcett [eds] New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1: theory and description, 14-40.  London: Pinter  

of

• Halliday, M. A. K. 1976b Halliday: system and function in language. G. Kress [ed.]. London: Oxford University Press.