Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum

Martin (1992: 505-6):

(i) Establishing genre as a level of semiosis which is not itself metafunctionally organised means that texts can be classified in ways which cut across metafunctional components in language.  This strengthens Halliday's suggestion that field is strongly predictive of experiential choices, tenor of interpersonal choices and mode of textual ones without sacrificing the classification of texts into generic types such as narrative, exposition, procedure, report etc. … Generic labels such as narrative or exposition are impossible to tie satisfactorally [sic] to any one type of meaning; their realisation cuts across metafunctions.  For this reason, it is useful not to associate genre too closely with any one register variable (e.g. mode in Halliday's work or field in Hasan's).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Modelling 'genre as a level of semiosis' is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory and the meanings of the theoretical terms.  Strata represent levels of symbolic abstraction, but a type of text (genre) is not more abstract than the semantics and lexicogrammar of the text type. 

[2] This is inconsistent with one of the most fundamental postulates of SFL theory.  Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 60):

In fact, the threefold pattern of meaning is not simply characteristic of the clause; these three kinds of meaning run throughout the whole of language, and in a fundamental respect they determine the way language has evolved.  They are referred to in systemic accounts of grammar as metafunctions, and the concept of 'metafunction' is one of the basic concepts around which the theory is constructed.

[3] In SFL theory, texts can be identified according to features of the three metafunctional dimensions — field, tenor and mode — of the context of situation that they realise.  To classify texts in ways which "cut across metafunctional components" is to classify texts in a less principled way, and according to fewer and less elaborated features.  Theoretically, it is a step backwards.

[4] This is manifestly untrue.  Classifying texts without regard to metafunction has no bearing on metafunctional predictions across strata.

[5] No such sacrifice is required.  To the extent that such classifications refer to the rôle played by a text type in a situation type, they are either features of the system of mode, or else the synthetic outputs of mode systems.

[6] This confuses context with language.  Generic labels are features of context, whereas their realisation is in language.  Moreover, "generic labels" can be modelled in terms of the textual metafunction (see [5]), and their realisation in language involves all three metafunctions (see [2]).

[7] Given the falsity of the reason, the conclusion does not follow.

Problems With 'Genre As A Pattern Of Register Patterns'

Martin (1992: 505):

The advantage of formulating genre as a pattern of register patterns will now be briefly reviewed:

Blogger Comment:

This needs unpacking from several angles.  (The 'pattern of patterns' formula is stratal realisation stated in terms of redundancy.)

From the perspective of SFL theory, genre is text type: it is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, just as register is text type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  From this perspective, Martin's formulation relates the same phenomenon viewed from different poles of the cline of instantiation as different levels of symbolic abstraction (strata).

However, from the perspective of SFL theory, Martin's 'register' corresponds to context.  From this perspective, Martin's formulation relates text type and context as different levels of symbolic abstraction, such that text type is realised by context.  That is, on this model, a type of language is realised by the culture as a semiotic system.  On the SFL model, context is realised by language — the reverse of Martin's formulation.

A broader inconsistency here is the modelling of types (genre and register) as strata.  In SFL theory, strata — context, semantics, lexicogrammar, phonology — are not types.  Types are modelled in terms of instantiation, not stratification.

Confusing Context (And Semantics) With Text Type

Martin (1992: 505):

Where the models do differ substantively is with respect to Martin's suggestion that there is a network of relationships underlying register which relates text types to each other in ways they cannot be inter-related considered from the perspective of any one register variable.

Blogger Comment:

This misunderstands the SFL model with which Hasan's model is consistent, and with which Martin's model is not consistent.

In SFL theory, registers are text types (genres) viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  Text types realise situation types, whose metafunctional dimensions are field tenor and mode.  Text types differ in terms of the contextual features (field tenor and mode) they realise.

In Martin's model, a system of mode is relocated from context (misconstrued as register) to a new higher stratum (misconstrued as genre), with this higher system said to "underlie" the lower stratum.

Moreover, schematic structure — text structure — is located on the higher stratum of "context" (genre), instead of on the stratum of semantics.

Misunderstanding Stratification And Realisation

Martin (1992: 505):

The common ground between the two models lies in the correlation proposed between schematic structure and field, mode and tenor options; for both Martin and Hasan staging redounds with social context.  Keeping in mind that realisation is not theoretically directional in systemic models, there is nothing substantive in the fact that whereas for Hasan, choices in field, mode and tenor are realised by schematic structure, for Martin schematic structure is realised through these same components of register.

Blogger Comment:

This seriously misunderstands stratification and realisation.  Strata are relative levels of symbolic abstraction, with higher levels realised by lower levels.  Contra Martin, higher levels do not realise lower levels; e.g. lexicogrammar does not realise phonology.

In Hasan's model, context is realised by semantics —configurations of field, tenor and mode features are realised in text structure.

In Martin's model, semantics is realised by context — i.e. schematic (text) structure is realised by field, tenor and mode — with the complications that semantics is misconstrued as genre, and context is misconstrued as register.

It is manifestly untrue that this represents "common ground between the two models".

Inverting The Stratification Hierarchy

Martin (1992: 505):

Martin's alternative proposal is that text structure is generated at the level of genre, as in Ventola's systemic formulation of Mitchell's work above.  Genre networks would thus be formulated on the basis of similarities and differences between text structures which thereby define text types.  As part of the realisation process, generic choices would preselect field, mode and tenor options associated with particular elements of text structure.  Text structure is referred to as schematic structure in Martin's model, with genre defined as a staged, goal-oriented social process realised through register (see Martin 1984b, 1985a, 1985b, Martin, et al. n.d., Ventola 1987: 63-66).

Blogger Comments:

[1] From the perspective of SFL theory, Martin's proposal confuses semantics (text structure) with text type (genre) and misconstrues text type as context.

[2] From the perspective of SFL theory, this inverts the stratification hierarchy, since choices of text structure (semantics) are realised by field, tenor and mode options (context).  Martin misconstrues this semantic structure as genre, and context as register.

[3] In SFL theory, the term 'schematic structure' comes from Hasan (e.g. 1984: 79), where it means an instance of generic structure potential; that is, the semantic structure of an actual text.  Martin makes no acknowledgement of this source.

[4] From the perspective of SFL theory, genre (text type) and register are the same phenomenon viewed from different poles of the cline of instantiation.  Stratifying genre and register misconstrues them as different levels of symbolic abstraction.  Stratifying them as context, confuses (types) of language with context (the culture as a semiotic system).

Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure

Martin (1992: 504-5):

For Hasan, text structure is the realisation of choices made from among the options constituting a culture's field, mode and tenor (each permissable [sic] combination of choices is referred to by Hasan as a contextual configuration).  In practice, obligatory elements of structure appear to derive from field, with variations in generic structure controlled by tenor and mode.  This means that there is a strong association between field, text structure and genre.  As Hasan (1985/1989: 61) puts it:

by implication, the obligatory elements define the genre to which a text belongs; and the appearance of all these elements in a specific order corresponds to our perception of whether the text is complete or incomplete.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents Hasan (1985: 59-63) in a way that encourages a misreading of the provided quote, and in a way that suits Martin's proposed model of text structure. In describing a particular service encounter, Hasan (1985: 60) writes of the first obligatory element, SALES REQUEST: 'Its occurrence is predicted mainly because of field values' and of the second, SALES COMPLIANCE: 'The motivation for SC is to be found in field and tenor values'.  Hasan associates none of the other three obligatory elements (SALE, PURCHASE and PURCHASE CLOSURE) with a specific contextual value.

[2] This also misrepresents Hasan (1985: 59-63) in a way that encourages a misreading of the provided quote, and in a way that suits Martin's proposed model of text structure.  Hasan (1985: 60) relates optional elements to contextual configurations (field, tenor and mode), not merely to tenor and mode:

So, while optional elements do not occur randomly, their optionality arises from the fact that their occurrence is predicted by some attribute of a CC that is non-defining for the CC and to the text type embedded in that CC.

[3] Given the false representations of Hasan above, the singling out of field here is misleading.  On Hasan's model, the structure of a text of a particular type (genre), realises the field, tenor, and mode values that make up a contextual configuration.

Misrepresenting Previous Work On Text Structure And Context

Martin (1992: 504):

Given the strong teleological orientation of systemic work on text structure alongside the uncertainty about how to deal with rhetorical purpose in models of context, it is not surprising that staging is dealt by systemicists in different ways.

Blogger Comment:

This misrepresents the earlier work of systemic linguists in a way that lends unwarranted weight to Martin's own work.  On the one hand, the "strong teleological orientation" is Martin's alone; it is not the orientation of the other theorists he has cited.  On the other hand, "rhetorical purpose" is Martin's invention alone; it is not a term that covers the various approaches to context by the other theorists he has cited.  Only Fawcett uses the concept of purpose, though his notions are 'relationship purpose' and 'pragmatic purpose', not 'rhetorical purpose'.

Confusing Text Type (Genre) With Text Structure (Semantics)

Martin (1992: 503):

Approaching genre from a teleological perspective is also useful in accounting for the way in which texts typically move through stages to a point of closure and are explicitly treated by speaker/listener as incomplete when closure is not attained (having mentioned closure it is important to stress that genre, like all semiotic systems, is a dynamic open system (see Lemke 1984) and so in [sic] constantly evolving;

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is more true of clauses than it is of genres (text types), and yet, clause structure can be usefully accounted for without approaching the clause from a teleological perspective.  All repetitions of a previously established process have a previously established endpoint.  This does not necessitate the adoption of a teleological perspective.

A functional theory of language is concerned with functions, not purposes — the functions of clauses, the functions of text types, and so on.

[2]  Note the confusion of text type (genre) with text structure (semantics).

[3] This confuses the termination of a process (the closure of a text) with the boundary conditions (open or closed) of dynamic systems.  A closed system is isolated from its environment, whereas an open system interacts with its environment and derives energy from it.

[4] To be clear, genres are types of semiotic systems.

Misrepresenting Purpose And Intention

Martin (1992: 503):

It should be stressed here that bringing telos into contextual theory at this point in no way implies that text is being interpreted as the realisation of speakers' intentions; genres are social processes, and their purpose is being interpreted here in social, not psychological terms. Nor does the model imply that the cultures as a whole are goal-directed, with some over-riding purpose governing the interaction of social processes. Social processes negotiate with each other and evolve, as noted above in the motivation for a level of ideology superordinate to genre and register. The metaphor of intentionality, in other words, is just as inappropriate for explaining why a culture has the social processes it does as for explaining why an individual speaker produces certain kinds of text. With these qualifications in mind, the notion of telos is a useful one for glossing systemic relations between combinations of field, mode and tenor choices at the level of genre.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It is useful here to consider the congruent construals of 'purpose' and 'intention' in the lexicogrammar of English.  Purpose is an enhancing expanding relation between processes (because intention Q so action P), in which a desiderative mental process of intention is the reason for another process.  That is, intention and purpose congruently involve mental processes.  Speakers undergo mental processes, genres do not.  The purposes of genres are the purposes of their speakers, whether viewed linguistically, socially or psychologically.

The functions of genres, on the other hand, are modelled in SFL theory by the contextual features (field, tenor and mode) of the situation type that the particular text type realises.

[2] This confuses orders of experience.  Genres, as processes, are types of semogenic processes; types of logogenesis.  Social processes are of the material order of experience, semogenic processes are of the semiotic order of experience.

[3] Social processes do not "negotiate" with each other.  Speakers negotiate through the interpersonal metafunction of language.  The metaphor is a misleading one.

[4] This continues the misunderstanding of stratal relations as hyponymic.

[5] This is manifestly untrue.  Intentionality — metaphorical or otherwise — can indeed explain 'why an individual produces certain kinds of text'.  For example, the intention of speaker A to learn something from speaker B about grammar explains why speaker A produces texts involving questions about grammar.

[6] The utility of the notion of telos has not been demonstrated. It has merely been asserted without supporting argument.

Assigning Purpose To Theoretical Dimensions

Martin (1992: 502-3):

The register variables field, tenor and mode can then be interpreted as working together to achieve a text's goals, where goals are defined in terms of systems of social processes at the level of genre.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, field, tenor and mode are the metafunctional dimensions of context, not register.  A register realises the field, tenor and mode of a situation type.

[2] In SFL theory, field, tenor and mode do not "work" and texts do not have goals:

• at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, field, tenor and mode are dimensions of the situation that is realised by a text;
• it is speakers and writers who have goals; see the next post.

the register variables field, tenor and mode	can	then	be interpreted	as	[[[working together || to achieve a text's goals]]]
Token/Identified	Process:		relational		Value/Identifier

Value realised by clause nexus of purpose:

working	together	to achieve	a text's goals
a		x b
Process: material	Accompaniment	Process: material	Goal

cf.

We	can interpret	the register variables field, tenor and mode	as	[[[working together || to achieve a text's goals]]]
Assigner	Process: relational	Token/Identified		Value/Identifier

Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context

Martin (1992: 502):

As noted above, the fact that notions of purpose and effect do not correlate with any one metafunctional component of language and have been associated with different variables in the development of register theory suggests that a teleological perspective on text function might be better set up as superordinate to — rather than alongside or incorporated in — field, mode and tenor.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue.  Notions of purpose (Fawcett 1980) and effects (Firth 1950) were not 'associated with different variables in the development of register theory'.  Each was featured in  early models of context.

[2] This misunderstands stratification.  The term 'superordinate' misconstrues relations between strata as a relationship of hyponymy (delicacy), instead of symbolic identity (realisation); see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145).

[3] The argument here for establishing genre as a contextual stratum is as follows:

• Premiss 1: Because notions of purpose and effect do not correlate with one metafunction only, and
• Premiss 2: because purpose and effect have been associated with different variables in the development of register theory,
• Conclusion: it follows that a teleological perspective on text function might be modelled as "superordinate" to field, mode and tenor.

As noted in [1] and [2] above, Premiss 2 features an untruth, and the Conclusion mistakes stratification for hyponymy.  Leaving these aside, the conclusion does not follow from the premisses. This is because the number of metafunctions and the different theorisings of purpose and effect are entirely irrelevant to the question of levels of symbolic abstraction in the stratificational hierarchy.

[4] Teleology has its Western philosophical origins in Aristotle, who 'believed in purpose as the fundamental concept in science' (Russell 1961: 90).  However, it ceased to be part of scientific explanation with the rise of science in the 17th Century.  As Bertrand Russell (1961: 523) makes clear:

Another thing that resulted from science was a profound change in the conception of man's place in the universe. … Moreover purpose, which had since Aristotle formed an intimate part of the conception of science, was now thrust out of scientific procedure. … The world might have a purpose, but purposes could no longer enter into scientific explanations.

Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context

Martin (1992: 501-2):

Before beginning however, it is important to note that English Text extends the use of the term register as defined by Halliday.  Halliday uses the term simply to refer to language as context's expression plane — the linguistic meanings (entailing their expressions) at risk in a given situation type.  English Text extends the notion to cover in addition part of context's content plane; register is used in other words to refer to the semiotic system constituted by the contextual variables field, tenor and mode.  As outlined above, in the model of context developed here, register is the name of the metafunctionally organised connotative semiotic between language and genre.  This means that instead of characterising context of situation as potential and register as (context's) actual, English Text treats register as a semiotic system in its own right, involving notions of both system and process.

	potential (system)	actual (process)
Halliday (1978)	context of situation :	register ::
English Text	register :	language

Blogger Comments:

[1] No argument is offered that identifies any problems with Halliday's model of register, or as to why Martin's model is to be preferred.  The new model is merely announced, as if a new consumer good.

[2] Martin previously used the term 'meanings at risk' in conjunction with modal responsibility, which in SFL theory, is the meaning of Subject, an interpersonal function of the clause.  Here Martin uses the term to misrepresent Halliday's notion of register, the subpotential of language (all metafunctions) that realises a situation type.  That is, the use of the term is both inconsistent within Martin's own model, and a misconstrual of Halliday's model.

[3] This claim is both inconsistent with what follows, and a misunderstanding of the principle of stratification.  It is inconsistent with what follows because register is simply equated with Halliday's context.  It is inconsistent with stratification because it construes register as both language and context.

[4] This confuses context with language and stratification with instantiation.  To equate register with context is to construe it as more abstract than language (stratification) instead of as a subpotential of language (instantiation) — a major category error that makes the model untenable.

[5] This confuses stratification with instantiation.  Situation type is related to register by realisation, whereas the relation of potential to actual is the relation between system and instance (text).

[6] The implication here is that Halliday's model does not treat register as a semiotic system in its own right.  To be clear, in SFL theory, each register is a semiotic system that realises a situation type.

[7] This misunderstands the meaning of system and process in SFL theory.  The term 'system' is itself shorthand for system–&–process.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 507):

As we conceive of it, the term “semiotic” is framed within a linear taxonomy of “physical – biological – social – semiotic”; and the term “system” is a shortened form of “system–&–process”, there being no single word that encapsulates both the synoptic and dynamic perspectives (we have referred to the term “climatic system” with the same observation on how it is to be understood).

[8] Here the false dichotymy of system/process (see [7]) is misconstrued as two levels of symbolic abstraction.  Note that, previously, Martin has interpreted process as (dynamic) structure. 

[9] This misconstrues the relation between language–as–system and language–as–register (instantiation) as:

• register is realised by language, and
• register as potential, and language as instance.

These are inconsistent with each other, and the second reverses the relation between language and register on the cline of instantiation, relocating register from the midway point to the system pole, and language from the system pole to the instance pole.

Conclusion:

1. No argument is offered to support the model; 
2. the model is inconsistent with itself across several dimensions; 
3. the model is inconsistent with a sound knowledge of the architecture of SFL theory.

Self-Contradiction

Martin (1992: 501):

In broad terms the development of work on register and context reviewed above can be interpreted in terms of a gradual de-materialising and concomitant semioticising of frameworks for relating language to situation (see in particular Hasan's 1977, 1979, 1985/1989 use of contextual features to generate text structure).

Blogger Comment:

This is inconsistent with Martin's own claim (p497) that the early work of Firth (1950, 1957b, 1957c) developed context 'more abstractly as a level of language'.  The confusion of semiotic context with material setting is Martin's, as demonstrated here, here, here and here.  The material and semiotic are distinct orders of experience.

Confusing Context With Text Type

Martin (1992: 501):

Overall it would appear that "rhetorical purpose" is the wild card in contextual description, being variously categorised under field (Halliday 1965), tenor (Gregory 1967), mode (Halliday 1978, 1985/1989) and as a separate contextual variable in its own right (Firth 1950 — effects, Ure & Ellis 1977 — rôle, Fawcett 1980 — pragmatic purpose). The main reason for this is that purpose is difficult to associate with any one metafunctional component of the lexicogrammar or discourse semantics.  The effect of a text is the result of all components of its meaning.  This makes associating the notion of rhetorical purpose with Bakhtin's more global notion of speech genres an attractive one (cf. Gregory 1982).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The introduction of the word 'purpose' here is misleading.  It is falsely presented as a common feature of the various models of context, despite it being restricted to just one (Fawcett 1980).  This unwarranted fudge invalidates Martin's argument.

[2] Here purpose is not distinguished from effect.  This confuses two types of cause: purpose and result.  The meaning of purpose is 'because intention Q, so action P', whereas the meaning of result is 'because P so result Q'.  This confusion also invalidates Martin's argument.

[3] Martin's main confusion here is between mode, the rôle played by language, and genre a type of text.  This is a confusion of stratification (mode is a dimension of the context stratum) with instantiation (a genre is a subpotential of language).  The confusion arises from not distinguishing text types from the contextual features — such as mode: narrative — by which they are identified.

Confusing Context With Semantics

Martin (1992: 500):

At the same time however it is important to note the uncertainty in Halliday's writing as to whether mode is meant to cover genre.  At times this connection is explicitly made (e.g. "mode covers roughly Hymes' channel, key and genre" 1978: 62).  Elsewhere Halliday would appear to disassociate genre from any one contextual variable (e.g. In the most general terms there are two other components of texture.  One is the textual structure that is internal to the sentence: the organisation of the sentence and its parts in a way which relates it to its environment.  The other is the 'macrostructure' of the text, that establishes it as a text of a particular kind — conversation, narrative, lyric, commercial correspondence and so on" Halliday & Hasan 1976: 324).

Blogger Comments:

There is no uncertainty on this matter in the quotes presented above.  The first quote is about the textual metafunction at the level of context, whereas the second quote is about the textual metafunction at the level of semantics.  That is, each quote is concerned with a different level of symbolic abstraction.

In the first quote, rhetorical mode is identified with Hymes' notion of genre, which, in SFL theory, is the part language plays in the situation type.  

The second quote, on the other hand, is concerned with the textual structure (semantics) of a text type ("genre") that realises a particular rhetorical mode (situation type).

The dimensions in play here are

• stratification: context versus semantics, and
• instantiation: situation type as subpotential of context, and text type as subpotential of semantics.

Purpose, Genre And Register

Martin (1992: 499):

Instead, taking Halliday's (1978) model [of context] as a baseline, the problem of purpose will be explored, since it bears critically on the relationship between genre and register to be further developed below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the "purpose" of a functional variety of language is modelled in terms of the rhetorical mode of the situation type that the language realises.  Mode is concerned with the rôle that language plays.

[2] In SFL theory, register and genre — in the sense of text type — are the same phenomenon viewed from different poles of the cline of instantiation.  Register is the view of functional varieties of language from the system pole; text type is the view from the instance pole.  Importantly, these are identified by the contextual features — field, tenor and mode — that they realise.  That is, situation type (context) and register/text type (language) are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

Misunderstanding Stratification And Context

Martin (1992: 498):

Register is defined as "the configuration of semantic resources that the member of a culture associates with a situation type.  It is the meaning potential that is accessible in a given social context" (Halliday 1978: 111). 

Defining register in these terms pushes considerations of context such as those addressed by Malinowski and Firth one level up, to what Halliday refers to as context of situation — presumably what is referred to as situation (non-linguistic phenomena) in Fig. 7.4.  Context of situation is then organised metafunctionally into field, tenor and mode as described above.

Blogger Comment:

This is a very strange misunderstanding indeed.  Halliday's definition of register — as the meaning that realises a situation type — has no bearing whatsoever on the organisation of strata.  Register and situation type are midway points on the cline of instantiation — for the strata of semantics and context, respectively.

Halliday's notion of context derives from Malinowski and Firth, and is structured semiotically in terms of field, tenor and mode, as Martin has already explained (p494) with a quote from Halliday (1978).