Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Martin (1992: 587):

So — texts are coherent, cultures are not.  Where does this leave linguistics which is articulated as a form of social action?

Clearly one important job, which has already begun […] lies in deconstructing the naturalisation process.  Systemic functional linguistics has always adressed [sic] this concern, and English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory was undertaken with this goal explicitly in mind.  What seems crucial here is a model which displays the way in which language inflects and is inflected by contextual systems; one model of this kind has been provided.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated by the reasoned arguments in the 550+ analyses on this website, English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory proceeds from multiple misunderstandings of SFL theory — misunderstandings so fundamental and pervasive that they undermine the validity of the work as theory.  In an intelligent, informed academic community that values reason and intellectual integrity, this would be a serious problem.

[2] The relation between language and context is precisely defined in SFL theory as realisation.  This is the relation of intensive identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] The contextual model that has been provided confuses context (the culture that is realised by language) with sub-potentials of language itself (registers/genres).  The confusion is along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Ideology Systems

Martin (1992: 580-1):

What are the implications of Hasan and Bernstein's work for the interpretation of ideology as system?  This is a question which is in some respects premature.  Work on mapping out the fashions of meaning constituting a culture at the level of ideology has only just begun (most of Hasan's own work in this area remains unpublished as of 1989). …

All of this is compounded by the fact that fashions of meaning and the more abstract notion of coding orientation need always to be interpreted in context — that is, with respect to the genre and register through which they are manifested.  Given our present understanding of these planes, this is a challenging task; and certainly not one for which even a provisional network of oppositions can be provided at this time.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The work of Hasan and Bernstein has no implications for the interpretation of ideology as system.  The reason for this is that neither work is concerned with ideology.  One way to define 'ideology' is as a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.  In contrast, from the perspective of SFL theory, Bernstein's work on codes is concerned with how social structures affect the semantics of registers, and Hasan's work is concerned with that semantic variation.

[2] The implication here is that Martin cannot devise an ideology system until Hasan has provided one that he can alter.

[3] This is misleading.  It misrepresents the work of Hasan and colleagues on semantic variation as framed within Martin's model of ideology.

[4] Given that Martin locates fashions of meaning and coding orientations on a contextual plane of ideology, this misconstrues lower levels in the stratification hierarchy as the context of higher levels.  This is the opposite of what the hierarchy represents.

Misrepresenting Hasan

Martin (1992: 579):

Hasan's major innovation has been to base her study on semantic variables, essentially by conceptualising system networks as variable rules and coding her data on the basis of selections from delicately elaborated discourse semantic networks she devised.

Blogger Comment:

This is misleading.  The unwarranted intrusion of the word 'discourse' falsely implies that Hasan shares Martin's misconstrual of semantics as discourse semantics.  Hasan's networks are semantic networks.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre

Martin (1992: 575):

The register and genre theory reviewed and developed above represents systemic theory's attempts to model heteroglossia and dialogism; it does this by formulating register and genre as social semiotic systems realised through text, thereby providing an account not simply of how one text relates to another (cohesion across products) but in addition of how one text relates to all the texts that might have been (product in relation to system). …

The interpretation does however need to be qualified in two important respects — namely heterogeneity and semogensis [sic] (i.e. semiotic change). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading.  Firstly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not represent systemic theory's attempts.  On the contrary, it is inconsistent with SFL theory, and represents Martin's attempts only.  Secondly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not model heteroglossia and dialogism.  On the contrary, what is claimed bears little or no relation to heteroglossia and dialogism; see further below.

[2] This is inconsistent, both with Martin's model and with SFL theory.

In terms of Martin's stratification model, register and genre systems are realised by the systems of language, not by text.  In this, Martin confuses the system and instance poles of the cline of instantiation.

In terms of SFL theory, it involves two confusions.  Firstly, the notion of register and genre systems confuses a midway point of variation on the cline of instantiation (register/genre/text type) with the system pole of the cline.  Secondly, it misconstrues the relation between system and text as realisation instead of instantiation.  (This in addition to the inconsistencies entailed by modelling varieties of language as context rather than language.)

[3] This is misleading in terms of both register and genre.  In terms of register, any chance of providing an account how one text relates to another is undermined by Martin's numerous misinterpretations of field, tenor and mode systems, as demonstrated in many previous posts.  In terms of genre, Martin merely provides two simple taxonomies of factual and story genres (text types).  Martin nowhere presents any account of how his formulation of register and genre relates one individual text to another.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesion is not a relation between 'products' (texts).

[5] This is the opposite of what is true.  This is precisely what Martin's model does not do.  In SFL theory, the relation of texts to text potential — of instances to system — is modelled as the cline of instantiation.  Martin's model is inconsistent with the cline of instantiation, due to the fact that it misconstrues the midway point on the cline (register/genre), not as language, but as systems of context, and as such, as higher levels of symbolic abstraction than language.  This follows from not understanding either stratification or instantiation, as demonstrated many times in previous posts.

[6] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 18) identify three types of semogenic processes:

• logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text;
• ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual; and
• phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.

Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process

Martin (1992: 574-5):

Like Firth, Bakhtin was interested in the heterogeneous nature of speech communities (for which he developed the notion of heteroglossia); and like Firth he saw this heterogeneity manifested in all texts (for which he developed the notion of dialogism*, using the metaphor of dialogue to capture the sense in which different voices converse as texture).

* Endnote #30 (p590):

The distinction between heteroglossia and dialogism in Bakhtin's writing is unclear; here heteroglossia is associated with system and dialogism with process.  Bakhtin himself however did not work with the Hjelmslevian notion of system and process, and was unlikely to have developed an opposition of this kind in light of his objections to Saussure's opposition of langue and parole.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Bakhtin and misunderstands his notion of heteroglossia.  According to the glossary in Bakhtin (1981: 428), 'heteroglossia' is the notion that the same wording has different meanings according to context:

The base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance. It is that which insures the primacy of context over text. At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions — social, historical, meteorological, physiological — that will insure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions; all utterances are heteroglot in that they are functions of a matrix of forces practically impossible to recoup, and therefore impossible to resolve. Heteroglossia is as close a conceptualisation as is possible of that locus where centripetal and centrifugal forces collide; as such, it is that which a systematic linguistics must always suppress.

[2] This misrepresents Bakhtin and misunderstands his notion of dialogism.  According to the glossary in Bakhtin (1981: 426), 'dialogism' is the notion that all utterances are made in the context of other utterances, with which they interact:

Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole — there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of heteroglossia, and thus dialogism.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, texture is the property of being a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 2).

[4] The distinction between heteroglossia and dialogism in Bakhtin's writing is made clear by an appended glossary (Bakhtin (1981: 423-34).

[5] Here Martin maps his misunderstanding of heteroglossia onto the SFL notion of system, and his misunderstanding of dialogism onto the SFL notion of process.  Further complexity is added to these misunderstandings and inconsistencies when it is remembered that Martin has throughout misinterpreted the SFL notion of process — the instantiation of the system in the instance — as the axial realisation of system in structure, as demonstrated in previous posts.

[6] Bakhtin would not have associated heteroglossia with system and dialogism with process because such a mapping is wildly inconsistent with each pair of oppositions.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992)

Martin (1992: 574):

The first point that needs to be made is that the interpretation of language and context here is indeed multi-structural and polysystemic.  System/structure theory has been re-involved in the description on a number of different levels — rank, stratum and plane — most of which involve metafunctional diversity and so can be analysed simultaneously as particle, wave and prosody; in addition, synoptic and dynamic perspectives on text as system and text as process have been introduced.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, context is interpreted here as types of language, rather than as context, with the result that, being context, these types of language are not considered language.

[2] This is misleading, in that it overstates what has actually been done.  Almost none of the systems that Martin has provided specifies structural realisations.  This is partially disguised by the fact that some networks do include realisation statements; however, these merely provide textual instances of the feature.

• Of Martin's 49 discourse semantic system networks, across four metafunctions, only 4 specify structural realisations, and all are confined to the interpersonal metafunction.
• Of Martin's 11 register system networks, not one specifies any structural realisations; that is, no register structures are specified by register systems.
• Martin provides 0 genre systems — only taxonomies of types (factual and story genres); that is, no genre structures are specified by genre systems.

[3] This is misleading, in that it overstates what has actually been done.  Martin has not provided a rank scale for his planes of register and genre, and in the case of the stratum of discourse semantics, only one of the four metafunctional systems, the interpersonal, includes a rank scale: exchange and move.  The ranks discussed in the experiential dimension of discourse semantics — the clause and group — are ranks of a different stratum: lexicogrammar. 

[4] The level that does not involve metafunctional diversity is genre.  Metafunction is thus another dimension in which the model is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory, which follows from the misinterpretation of genre as context.

[5] To be clear, these are the favoured modes of structural realisation only, varying according to metafunction.  Significantly, these were introduced in the section on genre, the plane without metafunctional diversity. 

[6] This confuses text with language.  Text is only the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  Language is the entire cline, from systemic potential to actual instance, with every point on the cline providing a different perspective.

'Text as system', therefore, is the instantial system; i.e. the system of an actual text, not the system of the language as a whole.  It is the instance viewed from the system pole.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384): 

If we look at logogenesis from the point of view of the system (rather than from the point of view of each instance), we can see that logogenesis builds up a version of the system that is particular to the text being generated: the speaker/writer uses this changing system as a resource in creating the text; and the listener/reader has to reconstruct something like that system in the process of interpreting the text — with the changing system as a resource for the process of interpretation. We call this an instantial system.

'Text as process', on the other hand, is the process of instantiation that occurs at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation during logogenesis.  As previously explained, Martin misconstrues 'process' as structure, the syntagmatic axis, "viewed dynamically".  That is, he confuses the instantiation of the system as instance with the axial realisation of the system as structure.

Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True

Martin (1992: 573):

The general point here is that single plane models of context tend to introduce additional complexity to handle the contextual variables distributed among field, tenor, mode and genre by English Text.  So the cost of recognising two connotative semiotics instead of one is not as high as it might initially appear.

Blogger Comments:

This is the conclusion of Martin's "argument" for the theoretical superiority of his stratification hierarchy over Halliday's original model, and it is clearly the opposite of what is true.

[1] As the previous six posts have demonstrated, Martin's model is more complex, not less complex than Halliday's model, but more importantly, its complexity arises from misunderstandings of the theoretical architecture of SFL, principally stratification and instantiation.  This has resulted in a model that is inconsistent both with the theoretical architecture and also with itself.

Furthermore, in the course of his argument, Martin has been prepared to misrepresent the work of both Halliday and Hasan in order to invent non-existent problems, which he purports to solve with his model.  As the previous posts demonstrate, each of Martin's "solutions" involves the creation of additional theoretical consistencies.

[2] The principal defect in Martin's bi-stratal model of context is, of course, that it is not a model of context.  Register and genre refer to language, not to context, and in SFL theory, they are complementary perspectives on diatypic variation.

With respect to register, Martin's misunderstanding arises from mistaking the contextual systems that identify registers — field, tenor and mode — for systems of registers themselves.  This in turn arises from Martin not understanding the principle of stratification: as levels of symbolic abstraction related by realisation (as demonstrated many times in previous critiques).

With respect to genre, Martin's misunderstanding arises from mistaking Hasan's generic structure potentials for potentials 'at the level of genre'.  For Hasan, they are structural potentials at the level of semantics which vary according to genre (text type/register).

In conclusion, because Martin confuses semogenesis (all strata make meaning) with stratification, his strata of register and genre are — ignoring internal inconsistencies — both focused on linguistic meaning; that is, both strata are theoretical relocations and rebrandings of semantics.

Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Hasan's

Martin (1992: 572):

English Text's preferred position is to treat mode differences as simply difference in mode and to derive all text types from genre networks elaborated along the lines illustrated above.  These networks are in a sense systemic formulations of what Hasan's [sic] refers to as a culture's "array of existing conventions".  The model suggests however that these arrays are relevant for all genres, not just those constitutive in mode.  This avoids the problems inherent in Hasan's apparently materialist reading of context, which leads her to derive some texts from their context of situation and others with respect to their cultural heritage.  The ancillary/constitutive opposition is in any case a cline, which creates considerable uncertainty about how to model context for texts in 'middling' modes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] A preferred position is not a reasoned argument; it is merely a stance, an attitude, a pose.

[2] This is doubly misleading.  On the one hand, it falsely implies that Hasan does not "treat mode differences as simply difference in mode", and on the other hand, it falsely implies that Martin does.  As previously explained here, Martin allocates the mode system of medium to his register and the system of rhetorical mode to his genre.  In SFL theory, mode is a system of context, whereas register and genre are complementary perspectives on functional (diatypic) varieties of language.

[3] This is also doubly misleading.  

Firstly, the comparison here is with Hasan's model.  The discussion of Hasan's work focused on deriving text structures.  Here Martin offers his alternative "preferred position" but in doing so switches to deriving text types.  That is, it does not address the issue he raised about Hasan's model, and yet purports to be offering a better alternative.

Secondly, the reason Martin has switched from deriving text structures to deriving text types is to divert attention away from the fact that he has not devised any genre systems for deriving text structures — merely given excuses for not doing so; see here.  He has however provided small taxonomies of factual genres (Fig. 7.26) and story genres (Fig. 7.27), neither of which, of course, generates structures.

[4] This is a false claim.  Martin's taxonomy merely classifies types of story in terms of a few semantic features.  It provides no information about the conventions of text (semantic) structure associated with specific types.

[5] This is also doubly misleading.  On the one hand, it falsely implies that Hasan claimed these were relevant to constitutive mode, and on the other hand, it falsely implies that Hasan claimed these were relevant only to constitutive mode.  As Hasan (1984: 78) pointed out with regard to this "array of existing conventions":

But to say that the structure of a nursery tale is controlled by artistic conventions is to explain nothing …

[6] The claims here are that:

• Hasan's model of context is materialist;
• it is this materialist perspective that 'leads her to derive some texts from their context of situation and others with respect to their cultural heritage; and
• Martin's model avoids such problems inherent in Hasan's model.

All three claims are, of course, false.  This can be demonstrated as follows.

[a] Firstly, it is not true that Hasan's model of context is materialist.  Hasan uses Halliday's model of context, which conceives as context as the culture as a semiotic system.  In contrast, as previously demonstrated, Martin has used the term 'context' to refer to:

• material setting,
• co-text,
• register (diatypic variety of language viewed from the system pole),
• genre (diatypic variety of language viewed from the instance pole).

Materialism is clearly anathema to Martin, despite the fact that he doesn't understand what it is.  Here's one definition:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

By way of contrast with Martin, Halliday and Matthiessen (1999: 609) clarify the philosophical underpinning of SFL theory as materialist in this sense:

… we are prepared to acknowledge a broadly materialist position …

[b] Secondly, it is untrue that a materialist perspective of context leads Hasan 'to derive some texts from their context of situation and others with respect to their cultural heritage'.  There are three untruths here, in addition to the false claim about Hasan's perspective being materialist:

• a materialist perspective — since this is Martin's misrepresentation — is thus not the reason for Hasan's two methods of analysis;
• Hasan does not "derive" texts, but text structures — Martin's omission of 'structure' misleadingly invites the interpretation as 'text type', on the basis of the preceding co-text; and
• Hasan does not "derive" text structures "with respect to their cultural heritage" — but from the semantic features of such texts, as explained in the previous post.

[c] Thirdly, it is untrue that Martin's model avoids the problems inherent in Hasan's model.  This also doubly misleading.  On the one hand, the "problems" in Hasan's model are not problems, but misrepresentations and misunderstandings on Martin's part, as demonstrated above and in the previous post.  On the other hand, Martin's model lacks what Hasan's model provides, since, unlike Hasan's, it does not account for text structures; it is merely a taxonomy of text types (genres).

[7] The claim here is that because ancillary vs constitutive opposition is a matter of degree — modelled as a cline — it "creates considerable uncertainty about how to model context for texts in 'middling' modes" when using Hasan's model.  Martin's confusions here are threefold:

• the mode system cline is a way of modelling context;
• Hasan is concerned with modelling the structural potential (semantics) of text types — i.e. language — not context;
• uncertainty does not arise, because both of Hasan's methods can be used for determining the structural potential of text types that realise intermediate values on the mode cline.

Consequently, on this fourth tendered piece of evidence, Martin's claim that his model of register and genre avoids additional complications in Halliday's (and Hasan's) model is the exact opposite of what is true.

∞

The number of untruths here, so efficiently packed into such a small passage of text, amply justifies the type of assessment made by Peter Medawar (1961) of another author:

its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.

Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan

Martin (1992: 572):

Mode also impinges on Hasan's model of context and text structure, since for her only texts where the role of language is ancillary and whose environment is pragmatic can be derived from contextual configurations (in her discussion she is opposing text types such as service encounters to the nursery tale; Hasan 1984: 76).  Since for constitutive modes, context cannot predict text structure, Hasan suggests that for these texts what matters most is "the array of existing conventions" (1984: 78).  Hasan's model then is one which derives text structures in two fundamentally different ways, depending on mode (see Harris 1987: 36-7 for a related critique).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The reason mode "impinges" on Hasan's model of context and text structure is because Hasan understands that

• text structure is semantics, 
• semantic structure realises semantic systems, and
• semantics realises context (field, tenor and mode).

[2] This seriously misrepresents Hasan (1984: 78), who only raised this in order to point out that, by itself, it explains nothing:

The single most salient fact that appears most relevant is the overall adherence to an array of existing conventions.  But to say that the structure of a nursery tale is controlled by artistic conventions is to explain nothing, unless alongside this assertion we can also provide a convincing account of how artistic conventions themselves originate and how any change is successfully introduced into a body of pre-existing conventions.

In contrast, Hasan goes on to derive the structural potential of this text type from the semantics of the texts themselves.

[3] This is falsely presented as if it is a defect in the Hasan's theory, rather than a distinction that is motivated by the data.  In the passage immediately preceding the quote above, Hasan (1984: 78) explains :

I would suggest that the nature of the factors which motivate the elements of structure in such genres is relatively opaque.  This is because the environments in which such texts are either created or received bears only a tangential relationship to their inner unity.  It follows then that the elements of the structure of the nursery tale can neither be seen as fully governed by the author-audience interaction

To contextualise this and the previous misrepresentation, Hasan's (1984) paper was not easily accessible at the time that Martin was writing, being only published in a Nottingham Linguistic Circular.  However, the paper was eventually published in the 1996 collection Ways Of Saying: Ways Of Meaning.

[4] No indication is given as to how the critique in the following obscure paper relates to Martin's "critique" of Hasan.

Harris, S. 1987. "Court Discussion as Genre: some problems and issues".  Department of English, University of Nottingham.  Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 2. 35-74.

∞

This misrepresentation of Hasan's work is strategic because its function is to demonstrate that Martin's model is less complex, and thus preferable.  See the next post for an assessment of the truth of this proposition.

Misconstruing One Mode System As Register And Another As Genre

Martin (1992: 571-2):

… and Halliday's second order opposition of medium to rhetorical genre is English Text's opposition between genre and mode.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Halliday's 'rhetorical mode' as 'rhetorical genre'.  For Halliday, rhetorical mode is context, whereas genres are text types — registers viewed from the instance pole — which can be identified, in part, by the rhetorical modes they realise.

[2] Assuming Martin has these in reverse order, the proposal here is to reconstrue

• Halliday's mode system of medium (spoken vs written etc.) as his registerial system of mode, and
• Halliday's system of rhetorical mode (expository vs persuasive etc.) as his system of genre.

That is, two systems of potential at the same level of semiotic abstraction — context — are reconstrued as different levels of semiotic abstraction — genre realised by register — which, in SFL theory, are complementary perspectives on sub-potentials of language.  The confusions here are thus along two dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

Consequently, on this second tendered piece of evidence, Martin's claim that his model of register and genre avoids additional complications in Halliday's model is the exact opposite of what is true.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre

Martin (1992: 571):

For Halliday, the complication has to do with introducing the concept of first and second order contexts, with first order field and tenor oriented to situation and second order field, tenor and mode defined by reference to language.  Table 7.21 sums up his (1978: 143-5) position:

Table 7.21. First and second oder [sic] register in Halliday (1978)

	first order	second order
field	social action	subject matter
tenor	social roles	speech function roles
mode	–	medium, rhetorical genre

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, both first and second order field and tenor are systems of context, and both are related to language by realisation — the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction.  The relation between different orders of experience is projection.

[2] Here Martin misrepresents Halliday (1978: 142-5) by substituting his own model for Halliday's.  For Halliday's 'context', Martin substitutes 'register', and for Halliday's '(rhetorical) mode', Martin substitutes his 'genre'.

Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's

Martin (1992: 571):

Before turning to the plane of ideology, the question of distinguishing register and genre as semiotic planes will be taken up once again with reference to the work of Halliday, Hasan and Longacre, none of whom "stratify" context along these lines.  Their models can each be shown however to involve additional complexity that the genre and register model here avoids.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the beginning of Martin's argument as to why his model of register and genre as contextual planes is preferable to (his misunderstanding of) Halliday's original model in which genre and register are construed, instead, as complementary perspectives on varieties of language.

[2] It will be demonstrated in the following posts that this is the opposite of what is true.  That is, it will be demonstrated that Martin's model is more complex, as well as being inconsistent with several dimensions of the architecture of SFL theory.  It will also be demonstrated that Martin misrepresents the work of Halliday and Hasan in the course of his argument.

Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 563):

Martin (1985/1989) and Martin & Peters (1985) further divided expository writing into analytical and hortatory varieties, depending on whether the text outlined an argument (macro-proposition) or tried to persuade listener/readers to undertake a particular course of action (macro-modulated proposition), a distinction related to Longacre's +/– prescriptive opposition.  The inter-relationships proposed for these factual genres are formulated systemically in Fig. 7.26 (for further delicacy see Peters 1985).  Significantly, the network is comprised of ideational, interpersonal and textual features and thus cuts across register variables to bring out the oppositions between the genres:

ideational variables	+/– activity structure, document/explain
interpersonal variables	resolve/debate, analytical, hortatory
textual variables	+/– generalised

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the rôle of language in context, such as analytical vs hortatory exposition, is a dimension of mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Text types (language) are identified from above, by the situation types (context) they realise.  Here, on the other hand, textual mode is being identified from below, in terms of the interpersonal semantics (speech function).

[2] This misrepresents the distinction between these two types of exposition, both of which involve the presentation of arguments. The text structure (semantics) that realises a hortatory exposition (context: mode) is typically:

1. Thesis
2. Arguments
3. Recommendation

whereas the text structure (semantics) that realises an analytical exposition (context: mode) is typically:

1. Thesis
2. Arguments
3. Reiteration

The function of a hortatory exposition is to explain to the reader that something should or should not happen or be done — not to command the reader — whereas the function of an analytical exposition is a to persuade the reader that an idea is important.

[3] This misrepresents a theoretical defect — a network that mixes metafunctional perspectives — as a virtue.  However, the network also confuses features from different strata and misidentifies their metafunctions, as will be demonstrated below.

[4] In terms of SFL theory, of the "ideational register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), ± activity structure is ideational, but semantic, whereas document/explain is textual context (mode).

[5] In terms of SFL theory, of the "interpersonal register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), resolve/debate is interpersonal, but semantic, whereas analytical/hortatory is textual context (mode).

[6] In terms of SFL theory, the "textual register variables" classifying genres ("from below"), ± generalised is ideational semantics (construing experience).

Misrepresenting Longacre

Martin (1992: 561-2):

It is important to compare Longacre's features [for cross-classifying text types] with those used by Hasan when classifying text structures with respect to contextual configurations. … Longacre's chronological dimension can be related to Hasan's field features, his prescription to her tenor and his dialogue/monologue opposition to her mode.  In effect Longacre has selected features from different aspects of Hasan's contextual construct (i.e. field, mode and tenor variables) and integrated them into a single matrix in order to classify genres.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Longacre's (1976) ± chronological framework classifies text types according ideational semantics whereas Hasan (1977, 1985/9) specifies the ideational dimensions of the culture (field) that identify a text type.  The difference between them is thus stratal. (semantics vs context).

[2] Longacre's ± prescription is concerned with the rôle played by language.  In SFL theory, this is mode, not tenor.  The difference between them is thus metafunctional (textual vs interpersonal).

[3] As Martin reports it, Longacre's monologic vs dialogic opposition distinguishes narrative from drama, respectively.  That is, it distinguishes text types according to whether the projection of the author contain a single voice (a narrator), or many voices (dramatis personæ).  On the other hand, Hasan's monologic vs dialogic opposition is concerned with the number of authors (speakers) of the text.  The difference between them is thus in terms of orders of experience (second-order vs first-order).

[4] As the three previous points clearly demonstrate, this is not true.  Longacre (1976) did not select features of Hasan's (1977, 1985/9) context and integrate them into a single matrix to classify genres.

Misrepresenting Halliday

Martin (1992: 559):

The final pattern of realisation to be considered is the culminative one, which in the grammar derives from the textual metafunction.  As developed in Chapter 6, Sections 3.2-3, culminative patterns structure discourse at several levels beyond the clause.  As Halliday puts this in Thibault (1987: 612):

Textual meanings typically give you the periodic movement which is so characteristic of discourse at all levels; everything from the smallest waves to the very large ones.  In other words, their is a hierarchy of periodicity, and that comes from the textual metafunction.

Blogger Comment:

This gives the very false impression that Martin's work is consistent with Halliday's theory, and invites the misinterpretation that Halliday might endorse both Martin's "beyond the clause" claim here and even his model of discourse semantics.

To be clear, Halliday does not equate discourse with semantics, and does not model it as a stratum of symbolic abstraction.  For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512) define discourse as:

… the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts.

Halliday (2008: 78) also clarifies this meaning of 'discourse' by relating it to 'text':

I do make a distinction between these two; but it is a difference in point of view, between different angles of vision on the phenomena, not in the phenomena themselves. So we can use either to define the other: “discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601) further clarify the semogenic dimension of 'discourse/text':

It is helpful to have a term for this general phenomenon – i.e. the creation of meaning in the course of the unfolding of text. We shall call it logogenesis, with ‘logos’ in its original sense of ‘discourse’ … 

Misrepresenting The Prosodic Mode Of Realisation

Martin (1992: 553):

Beyond the problems of sequence and order reviewed above, the problem of non-discrete realisations which smear across rather than mapping onto elements of schematic structure needs attention.  These have been as much ignored in grammar as in genre … and so once again it is linguists' reliance on old tools for mapping new territory that stands in the way of progress …

Blogger Comments:

[1] The "problems" identified by Martin derive from a number of misunderstandings; see previous post here.

[2] This is a false opposition.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 166-7) point out, the prototypical example of the prosodic mode of expression that is characteristic of the interpersonal metafunction is tone.  However, tone choices do "map onto" the elements of structure of the tone group: the Pretonic and Tonic segments.  In doing so, they also "smear across" the feet that realise those segments.

[3] The implication here is that relying on new tools, such as those that Martin might provide, will not "stand in the way of progress".  See the rest of this blog.

Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential

Martin (1992: 551-3):

In the same paper, Martin (1985) cautions against another bias inherited by genre theory from grammarians — namely that towards a synoptic as opposed to dynamic form of representation and interpretation.  The basic problem here is that in order to attain generality, grammarians have tended in various ways to abstract away from linear progression (to divorce in other words functional order from sequence).  Structure potentials such as those used by Hasan, and to an even greater extent the system/structure realisation cycle suggested by Martin, separate order from sequence in such a way that choices leading to a particular text structure bear no direct temporal relation to the unfolding of that text in real time.  To the extent that aspects of the unfolding of text are conditioned by linear progression, this perspective breaks down.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In Systemic Functional Grammatics, sequence during instantiation is specified by realisation statements of features, such as declarative Subject ^ Finite.

[2] This misunderstands the relation between order and sequence.  Sequence is one type of order; that is, sequence is a hyponym of order.  To speak of separating a hyponym from its superordinate category is a nonsense — cf separating lorikeet from bird.

[3] This is manifestly untrue with respect to Hasan's generic structure structure potentials.  Hasan (1985/9: 61) specifies the order of obligatory elements in the sense of 'sequence':

So the obligatory elements of text 4.1 are SR, SC, S, P and PC in that order.  This can be displayed as SR ^ SC ^ S ^ P ^ PC, with the sign ^ showing the order of elements.

[4] This continues the earlier confusion of syntagmatic structure with logogenesis (the unfolding of text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation).