Confusing Instantiation With Axial And Stratal Realisation

Martin (1992: 531):

Poynton's realisation principle for contact needs to be considered from the point of view of both system and process.  From the perspective of system, the relevant principle is proliferation; the degree of contact determines the predictability of meanings at risk — the less contact, the fewer the choices available and conversely, the more contact, the more options available to be taken up.  Alongside this is the process oriented principle of contraction; less contact means that the realisation of meanings selected has to be more explicit, whereas more contact means that more can be left unsaid.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the term 'system' is shorthand for 'system-&-process'.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 507):

As we conceive of it, … the term “system” is a shortened form of “system–&–process”, there being no single word that encapsulates both the synoptic and dynamic perspectives … .

Previously, as demonstrated here, with regard to 'process', Martin has confused the instantiation process, both with the realisation relation between system and structure, and with structure itself.

[2] This is asserted without supporting evidence.  Such matters are decided by empirical research.

[3] The exact nature of the risk that meanings face is never actually specified.  To be clear, risk is the potential of gaining or losing something of value.

[4] This confuses realisation with instantiation.  The axial realisation of meaning is as semantic structure; the stratal realisation of meaning is as wording.  The selection of meaning is the instantiation process, at the level of semantics, during logogenesis (the unfolding of the text).

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.

Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field

Martin (1992: 528-9):

Whereas status addresses the concerns of social hierarchy, contact is concerned with the degree of involvement among interlocutors.  This is determined by the nature of the fields speaker/listeners are participating in — how much contact they involve, how regularly, whether work or leisure activities and so on.  Poynton's (1985/9: 77-78) field oriented contact distinctions have been reworked slightly here; the notion of contact appears to be equivalent to what Hasan (1977: 231-2, 1985/9: 57) refers to as social distance, which for her is determined by "the frequency and range of previous interaction" (1977: 231).

Blogger Comments:

Contact is not determined by field.  In logical terms, the relation between tenor and field systems is extension — they are conjunct systems — not enhancement (cause-condition).  Less abstractly, a given field may involve interlocutors who have had many previous interactions, some previous interactions, or no previous interactions at all.

Misconstruing The Realisation Of Tenor

Martin (1992: 528):

As with register systems in general, tenor systems put certain types of meaning at risk and for the most part it is a pattern of interpersonal choices across a text which is meaningful, not the individual choices themselves.  Indeed, the notion of reciprocity implies that a number of choices have to be examined from the perspective of different participants for tenor to be realised at all.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses functional varieties of language (registers/text types) with the culture as a semiotic system that is realised in language (and other semiotic systems).  The confusion is thus along two semiotic dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] The "risks" that meaning is exposed to are never actually specified.  To be clear, risk is the potential of gaining or losing something of value.

[3] All interpersonal choices are meaningful, whether as meanings realised in wordings, or as wordings realising meanings.  Each selection is an instantiation of the system during logogenesis; patterns of selections are termed logogenetic patterns (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 524-31; Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 593-603).

[4] The realisation of tenor in language does not depend on what linguists examine, let alone on the perspectives taken.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 529):

Table 7.10. Aspects of the realisation of unequal status
Unequal status non-reciprocity [grammar foregrounded]	dominate	defer
interaction patterns	interpersonal congruence	interpersonal metaphor

Blogger Comment:

The claim here is that:

• interpersonal congruence construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• interpersonal metaphor construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by concrete examples of the interpersonal system of modality:

• the implicit modality of you might be right is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• the explicit modality of it is expected that you attend is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 529):

Table 7.10. Aspects of the realisation of unequal status
Unequal status non-reciprocity [grammar foregrounded]	dominate	defer
discourse semantics	negotiation:
	primary knower	primary actor
	initiating	responding
	challenging	tracking
	[not anticipate]	[anticipate]
	turn controlling	turn respecting
	initiate chains	elaborate chains (pronominal)
	initiate strings	elaborate strings (repetition)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of "primary knower" construes the tenor feature of 'dominate', whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of "primary actor" construes the tenor feature of 'defer'.

The terms "primary knower" and "primary actor" are categorisations of rôles played by speakers and addressees.  That is, they are features of tenor, not discourse semantics.  The confusion is thus one of stratification.

[2] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'initiating' construes the tenor feature of 'dominate', whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'responding' construes the tenor feature of 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the initiating moves of a journalist interviewing a political leader are claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• the responding moves of the interviewed political leader are claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

Moreover, the alignment of primary actor with 'responding' moves is inconsistent with Martin's model of negotiation. Martin (1992: 48):

The primary knower is defined as the person "who already knows the information" (Berry 1981: 126) and the primary actor as the person who "is actually going to carry out the action" (Berry 1981: 23).  Exchanges can be initiated by either party;

[3] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of "turn controlling" construes the tenor feature of 'dominate', whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of "turn respecting" construes the tenor feature of 'defer'.

The terms "turn controlling" and "turn respecting" are categorisations of the behaviour of speakers and addressees.  That is, they are not features of discourse semantics.

[4] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of "initiate chains" construes the tenor feature of 'dominate', whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of "elaborate chains (pronominal)" construes the tenor feature of 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• a reference chain initiated by a child when talking to a teacher is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• elaborations of that reference chain by the teacher are claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

[5] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of "initiate strings" construes the tenor feature of 'dominate', whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of "elaborate strings (repetition)" construes the tenor feature of 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• a lexical string initiated by a child when talking to a teacher is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• elaborations of that lexical string by the teacher are claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Lexis

Martin (1992: 529):

Table 7.10. Aspects of the realisation of unequal status
Unequal status non-reciprocity [grammar foregrounded]	dominate	defer
lexis	explicit bodily functions	euphemise
	swearing	tempered swearing

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that:

• the lexis of "explicit bodily functions" and "swearing" construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• the lexis of "euphemise" and "tempered swearing" construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the lexis of "explicit bodily functions" and "swearing" of a handcuffed person being arrested by police is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• the lexis of "euphemise" and "tempered swearing" of the arresting officers is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammar

Martin (1992: 529):

Table 7.10. Aspects of the realisation of unequal status
Unequal status non-reciprocity [grammar foregrounded]	dominate	defer
grammar	no ellipsis	Residue ellipsis
	polarity asserted	polarity matched
	modalisation: high	modalisation: low
	modulation: obligation	modulation: inclination
	attitude: manifested	attitude: concur
	comment: presented	comment: invited
	vocation: familiar	vocation: respectful
	person: 1st	person: 2nd
	tagging: inviting;	tagging: checking;
	agency: I/Agent	agency: I/Medium

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the absence of ellipsis construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• the ellipsis of the Residue construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

That is, the absence or presence of the textually cohesive resource of ellipsis construes different values of interpersonal context.  This claim can be falsified by concrete examples.  In answer to the question Is he at home?:

• Yes he is at home is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• Yes he is is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

[2] The claim here is that:

• 1st person construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• 2nd person construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• I will clean up my mess is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• You will clean up your mess is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

[3] The claim here is that:

• the conflation of 'I' (speaker) with Agent construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• the conflation of 'I' (speaker) with Medium construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

That is:

• the construal of the self as Initiator, effective Actor, targeting Sayer, impinging Phenomenon, effective Token, Attributor or Assigner construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas 
• the construal of the self as middle Actor, effective Goal, Behaver, Senser, Sayer, Carrier, middle Token, effective Value or Existent construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

This claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• I praised my boss (Agent/Sayer) is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• I am your boss (Medium/Token) is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Phonology

Martin (1992: 528-9):

In order to explore the realisation of status it is useful to make a further distinction between dominance and deference in the context of unequal status between interlocutors. Not only are choices non-reciprocal in these contexts, but certain kinds of selections are associated with speakers of higher status and other kinds of choices with speakers of lower status — there is in other words a symbolic relationship between position in the social hierarchy and various linguistic systems, especially interpersonal ones. A preliminary attempt to survey some of the more important of these symbolic relationships is outlined in Table 7.10.

Table 7.10. Aspects of the realisation of unequal status
Unequal status non-reciprocity [grammar foregrounded]	dominate	defer
phonology	tone certain (1,5)	tone uncertain (2,4)
	establish rhythm	follow rhythm
	standard accent	non-standard accent

Blogger Comments:

Table 7.10 contains a list of unsupported claims, made without reference to any data.

[1] The claim here is that:

• "tone certain (1,5)" construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• "tone uncertain (2,4)" construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

To be clear, the general meaning of falling tone is 'polarity known', and the general meaning of rising tone is 'polarity unknown' (Halliday 1970: 23).

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples that take into account the combination of tone, mood and speech function:

• I've finished the work you gave me (tone 1/declarative/statement) is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• give me time! (tone 4/imperative/command) is claimed to construe the tenor feature 'defer'.

[2]  The claim here is that:

• 'standard accent' construes the tenor feature 'dominate', whereas
• 'non-standard accent' construes the tenor feature 'defer'.

Leaving aside both the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, and the dubious categorisation of "accents" as 'standard' vs 'non-standard', the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the 'non-standard' English "accent" of a German physics professor realises 'defer', whereas 
• the 'standard' English "accent" of his American undergraduate students realises 'dominate'.

Misconstruing Status As Control

Martin (1992: 527-8):

The unequal status in text [4:2] for example is signalled in part by the fact that the interviewer asks questions and listens while the interviewer [sic] answers questions and talks.  This is not to say that the interviewer is not in control; s/he is, but that is a matter of genre, not tenor — interviewers generally defer to interviewees as part of the social process of manipulating them (as do salespersons opening a sale in service encounters).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The different rôles of interviewer and interviewee do not, in themselves, correlate with unequal social status.  Individuals of equal status may interview each other.  Moreover, higher status individuals may interview lower status individuals, as in job interviews, and lower status individuals may interview higher status individuals, as in political interviews.

[2] As previously explained, the notions of 'status' and 'control' are not equivalent.  Note that the assumption here is that the interviewee is of higher status than the interviewer.

[3] The claim here is that an interviewer being in control of an interview is a matter of text type (genre) rather than tenor (context: the relationship between the interlocutors).  Leaving aside the fact that control is not equivalent to social status, whether or not the interviewer is in control of an interview is a matter of the situation (instance of cultural context) realised in the text.  The most common situation type where the interviewee turns out to be in control is that of a political interview.

Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"

Martin (1992: 526-7):

Status-like relationships between participants can be interpreted from a number of perspectives, including mode, field, genre and ideology as well as tenor.  The term prominence will be used here to refer to the way in which various media construct public figures (mode), authority for the ways in which institutions position people through job classification and expertise (field), control for the way in which participants direct other participants to do things (genre) and power as the overarching term for the way in which ethnicity, gender, generation and class give participants differential access to status, prominence, authority and control.  This set of terminology for situating social difference in the model of context being developed here is summarised below:

status	- tenor (social hierarchy)
prominence	- mode (publicity)
authority	- field (expertise and classification)
control	- genre (manipulation)
power	- ideology (access)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The system of tenor is not one of many "perspectives" on "status-like relationships between participants".  It specifically models the relative status of interacting language users.  This is distinct from:

• mode (the part played by language)
• field ('what's going on' and subject matter)
• genre (text type), and
• ideology (a system of ideas and ideals)

[2] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which various media construct public figures" is not "prominence".  Further, the assignment of prominence to public figures by the media is not mode.

[3] This is semantically incoherent: the "ways in which institutions position people through job classification and expertise" is not "authority".  Further, the assignment of authority to people by institutions is not field.

[4] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which participants direct other participants to do things" is not "control".  Control is the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.  Further, the power to direct people's behaviour is not genre.

[5] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which ethnicity, gender, generation and class give participants differential access to status, prominence, authority and control" is not "power".  Power is the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way, or the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events (i.e. 'control'; see [4]).  Further, the capacity to act in a particular way is not ideology.