Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonicity

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of 'marked tonicity' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of 'unmarked tonicity' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Unmarked tonicity is when tonic prominence falls on the last element of clause structure containing a lexical item (or of group structure in cases where the tone group realises less than a clause).  Any other tonic placement is marked (Halliday 1967: 22-3).

Martin's claim can be falsified by a concrete example.  For the clause Victor Meldrew was played by Richard Wilson:

• tonic prominence within Victor Meldrew is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• tonic prominence within Richard Wilson is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

For the record, the differences between the two variants actually include:

• agency: middle vs effective, and
• direction of coding: decoding vs encoding.

middle clause decoding a Token:

Victor Meldrew	was played	by Richard Wilson
Identifier/Value	Process: relational	Identified/Token
New		Given

effective clause encoding a Value:

Victor Meldrew	was played	by Richard Wilson
Identified/Value	Process: relational	Identifier/Token
Given		New

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonality

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comment:

The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of 'marked tonality' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of 'unmarked tonality' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Unmarked tonality is one tone group realising one clause; marked tonality is a tone group realising either less than a clause or more than a clause (Halliday 1967: 20-1).

Martin's claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the realisation of the clause Columbus was the last person to discover America as two tone groups is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the realisation of the clause Columbus was the last person to discover America as one tone group is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tone

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comment:

Table 7.12 contains a list of unsupported claims, made without reference to any data.

The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "Pretonic delicacy" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "basic tone" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The distinction alluded to here is the distinction between primary and secondary tones.  Secondary tones are more delicate classifications of the primary tones (Halliday 1970: 9). Accordingly, the degree of delicacy resides in the analysis, not in the speech.  However, some secondary tones are the 'neutral' options, so for present purposes, these will be assumed to be what is meant by "basic tone".  The claim then becomes:

• the pretonics -1, …1, -2 and -3 construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the pretonics 1, 2 and 3 construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

So, for example:

• the listing (…1) pretonic in a pound of apples, a grapefruit and half a dozen oranges is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the even (1) pretonic in John's decided to become a doctor is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim is thus falsified by every use of the listing pretonic by interlocutors who have never met, as when placing an order over the telephone.

Misrepresenting Field As Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 531-2):

Contraction is easiest to illustrate from phonology, where various reduction processes make the casual conversation of intimate friends and family almost unintelligible to outsiders.  Proliferation is easier to illustrate at the level of discourse semantics, where the choice of subject matter for example expands considerably the better more people get to know each other.

Blogger Comment:

This misrepresents subject matter (field) as discourse semantics.  The confusion is thus along the dimension of stratification (context vs semantics).  In terms of stratification, this confusion is in the opposite direction of Martin's more common misrepresentation of activity sequences (semantics) as field (context).

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'.