Theoretical Inconsistencies In Modelling Genre And Register As Context Strata

Martin (1992: 495):

The tension between these two perspectives will be resolved in this chapter by including in the interpretation of context two communication planes, genre (context of culture) and register (context of situation), with register functioning as the expression form of genre, at the same time as language functions as the expression form of register.  Register can then itself be organised with respect to field, tenor and mode, reflecting metafunctional diversity in its expression form, leaving genre to concentrate on the integration of meanings engendered by field, tenor and mode as systemically related social processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the theoretical concepts of 

1. stratification,
2. context, 
3. genre and 
4. register.

In SFL theory, strata are levels of symbolic abstraction, such that each lower stratum is a Token that realises an upper stratum, as Value.  Context is culture modelled as a semiotic system that is more symbolically abstract than language; language is a Token that realises context as Value.  Genre and register, on the other hand, are types of language; they are not more abstract than language, they do not realise language, they are language.  Because they are not more abstract than language, it is nonsensical to model them as strata above language.

[2] This misunderstands the theoretical concepts of

1. stratification, and
2. instantiation.

The relation between context of culture and context of situation is one of instantiation (ascription); a situation is an instance of a culture.  On the other hand, the relation between strata is realisation (identity); on this model, genre is realised by register.  Accordingly, it is theoretically inconsistent to equate the ascriptive relation between culture and situation as an identity relation between two strata, however conceived.

With regard to interpreting context of culture as genre and context of situation as register, note the inconsistencies with Martin's definitions of context of culture and context of situation here.

[3] This misunderstands the theoretical concepts of

1. genre, and
2. register.

In SFL theory, genre, in the sense of text type, is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation; and contrariwise, register is genre (text type) viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  That is, genre and register are the same phenomenon viewed from different angles, instance and system.  Genre and register are not, therefore, different levels of symbolic abstraction, and, as such, it is theoretically inconsistent to model them as two strata related by realisation.

[4] This misunderstands the theoretical concepts of

1. stratification, and
2. register.

On the stratificational model, construing language as the 'expression form of register', is construing language as less symbolically abstract than register.  However, since register is language, register and language are of the same level of symbolic abstraction.  Register and language are not, therefore, different levels of symbolic abstraction, and, as such, it is theoretically inconsistent to model them as two strata related by realisation.

[5] In SFL theory, registers of language differ by the different contextual features — field, tenor and mode — that they realise.  Registers of language and contextual features are construed as different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[6] This confuses context with language.  In SFL theory, 'the integration of meanings engendered by field, tenor and mode' is the domain of the textual metafunction at the level of semantics.  So Martin's proposal is to model textual semantics as a higher stratum of context: genre.  It might be remembered that Martin models ideational semantics, activity sequences, as field, within his lower level of context: register.