Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion

Martin (1992: 419):

Hasan's definition of similarity and identity chains suggests a stratified approach to discourse semantics very like that proposed by English Text.  Identity chains are based on co-referentiality, which is realised through pronominal cohesion, instantial equivalence, the definite article and demonstratives (or lexical repetition if the reference is generic); similarity chains are based on co-classification or co-extension, which are realised through substitution and ellipsis, lexical repetition and relations of synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and meronymy.  Discourse systems however, underlying these semantic chain structures, are not articulated.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is manifestly untrue, on at least two counts.  Firstly, Hasan does not take a 'stratified approach to discourse semantics'.  Hasan's work is theoretically consistent with the SFL model in stratifying content into semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording).  For example, as Hasan (1985: 71) makes clear:

The texture of a text is manifested by certain kinds of semantic relations between its individual messages.  The nature of these relations and the lexico-grammatical patterns that realise them are discussed in the following sections.

Secondly, Hasan's work is also theoretically consistent with the SFL model in treating cohesive systems as resources of the textual metafunction.  This is not the case with Martin's discourse semantic systems.  The discourse semantic system of conjunction is presented as logical semantics, despite deriving from cohesive conjunction (textual and non-structural) mixed with clause complex relations (logical and structural).  Similarly, the discourse semantic system of ideation is presented as experiential semantics, despite being derived from lexical cohesion (textual and non-structural) mixed up with logico-semantic relations within the clause and lexis as most delicate grammar.

[2] Any similarity between Hasan's approach and Martin's arises from Hasan's (1976, 1980, 1984, 1985) being the original work, and Martin's (1992) being merely a derived reinterpretation.

[3] Hasan does not provide discourse systems because her work is theoretically consistent with the SFL model in stratifying content into semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), and in treating cohesive systems as resources of the textual metafunction.  To be clear, in Hasan's model (1985: 73, 82, 84), the nature of cohesive ties is semantic, and the types of tie relation involves either co-reference, co-classification or co-extension.  These semantic relations are realised by grammatical cohesive devices and lexical cohesive devices.

[4] Hasan's cohesive chains are not structures.  Hasan's work is theoretically consistent with the SFL model in treating cohesive systems as non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.  To be clear, Hasan (1985: 84):

[…] a chain is formed by a set of items each of which is related to the others by the semantic relation of co-reference, co-classification and/or co-extension.  Taking the type of relation into account, we can sub-categorise them into two types: IDENTITY CHAINS and SIMILARITY CHAINS. […] The relation between members of an identity chain is co-reference […] the members of a similarity chain are related to each other either by co-classification or co-extension.

Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony

Martin (1992: 418):

Cohesive harmony is basically designed to measure coherence in text, although it needs to be kept in mind that the measure is only a partial one.  As noted in 6.1, no measure of textual unity is complete without taking into account consistency of register (field, tenor, mode) and genre (text structure); and as Hasan (1985: 94) points out the technique needs to be refined to bring logical and interpersonal meaning into the picture (it does not in other words deal with organic relations — CONJUNCTION and NEGOTIATION, nor with the interaction of componential cohesion and MOOD or clause complex functions).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the confusion of register with context (field, tenor and mode). A register is a functional variety of language, whereas context, on the other hand, is the culture modelled as a connotative semiotic system, with language as its expression plane.

[2] This confuses text type with text structure.  A genre is a kind of text, based on one or more criteria.  Genres are (a subset of) registers, viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  Text structure, on the other hand, is the concern of the semantic stratum.  It refers to the structure of the largest semantic unit.  The confusion is thus, once again, between stratification and instantiation.

[3] There are three interwoven misrepresentations here.  Firstly, broadening the scope of cohesive harmony to include logical and interpersonal meaning does not mean the inclusion of organic relations.  Organic relations are part of Hasan's model of non-structural cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction.

Secondly, organic relations, as cohesive relations, also contribute to cohesive harmony.  As Hasan (1985: 85) clearly explains, she does not discuss them for reasons of space and time:

To answer this question, I shall restrict myself to such notions as have been presented above in some detail.  I shall ignore instantial lexical cohesion, all organic relations, and all forms of structural cohesion.  This is not because they are less important, but because time and space are limited.

Thirdly, Martin's discourse systems of conjunction and negotiation are not theoretically consistent with Hasan's organic relations. Hasan's organic relations are types of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices (1985: 82) — in contrast to componential relations — and as such, are non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.  In contrast, the discourse system of conjunction is presented as a system of the logical metafunction, not the textual — though it confuses textual (non-structural) and logical (structural) deployments of expansion; and the discourse system of negotiation is presented as a system of the interpersonal metafunction, not the textual.

Misunderstanding The Trinocular Perspective And Misconstruing Context As Register

Martin (1992: 417):

The interpretation of grammatical metaphor as a processing interface opens up the question of what the interface is for.  This can be answered from above, with respect to register variation — interpersonal metaphor is sensitive to tenor, ideational metaphor to mode. The relationship between field, mode and tenor and grammatical metaphor will be taken up in Chapter 7 below.  Here the problem of interfacing will be approached from below by asking questions about the function of packaging information as Theme, New, Subject and experiential clause and group functions.

Blogger Comments:

[1] No argument has been presented that justifies the interpretation of grammatical metaphor as a processing interface between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar, it has merely been asserted (op. cit.:401).  The interpretation derives from confusing realisation with instantiation; see the explanatory critique Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor here.

[2] To view grammatical metaphor — construed as a processing interface between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar — from above is to view it from discourse semantics, not from context (field, tenor and mode).  In SFL theory, grammatical metaphor is an incongruent relation between semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), and viewing it from above means viewing it from semantics.

[3] This misconstrues context (field, tenor and mode) as register. Context is the culture construed as a semiotic system; it is more symbolically abstract than language.  Each register, on the other hand, is a variant sub-potential of language itself; register variation is a point on the cline of instantiation between system (language) and instance (text).  That is, the confusion here is between stratification and instantiation.  No argument has been presented for the interpretation of context (culture) as register (language); it has merely been continually asserted.

[4] To view grammatical metaphor from below is to view it in terms of its lexicogrammatical realisations.  To consider the function of these metaphorical realisations is to view grammatical metaphor from above.

[5] To be clear, grammatical metaphor provides alternative groupings of quanta of information, such that meanings are realised as alternative wordings to the congruent, potentially at all ranks.

The Confused Notion Of "Interpersonally Oriented Textual Metaphor"

Martin (1992: 417):

Textual metaphors are not however tied to logical meaning.  They are commonly interpersonally oriented as well, deployed particularly for expressing an interlocutor's attitude to meanings being made:

meta-message relation	That point is just silly!
text reference	That’s ridiculous!
negotiating text	What a stupid point you just made!
internal conjunction	Indeed, she just made a complete mess of it.

Blogger Comments:

[1] By definition, a textual metaphor would involve textual meaning (semantics) being incongruently realised as textual wording (lexicogrammar).  Metaphorical grammatical realisations of logical meaning — e.g. as circumstantial processes — constitute ideational metaphor.

[2]  This blurs the distinction between what is claimed to be textual metaphor and various (congruent) grammatical realisations of negative attitude:

just	mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: limiting)
silly	Attribute
ridiculous	Attribute
stupid	Epithet
mess	Thing

[3] The notion of 'negotiating text(ure)' as textual metaphor derives from mistaking monologic texts that acknowledge the addressee for dialogic texts, as explained in a previous post here.

The Confused Notion Of "Logically Oriented Textual Metaphor"

Martin (1992: 416-7, 397):

Textual metaphors are illustrated in the following revision of [6:22]; in this text all the textual metaphors are logically oriented — they provide resources for metaphorical realisations of conjunctive relations:

meta-message relation	reason, example, point, factor, pointing out
text reference	this
negotiating texture	let me begin by…
internal conjunction	a number of reasons, for example, let me begin by, another example, as a final point, as a result of these factors

[6:32]	revised version: illustrating textual metaphor
	a.	I think Governments are necessary at different levels for a number of reasons.
	b.	For example, they make laws, without which people would be killing themselves,
	c.	and help keep our economic system in order.
	d.	Let me begin by pointing out that the Federal Government fixes up problems that occur in the community.
	e.	Another example the State Government looks after schools;
	f.	this prevents vandalism and fighting.
	g.	As a final point the Local Government is important to look after rubbish:
	h.	otherwise everyone would have diseases.
	i.	As a result of these factors, Governments at several administrative levels are necessary.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As explained in the previous post, textual grammatical metaphor, if it were possible, would, by definition, involve an incongruent realisation of textual meaning (semantics) in textual wording (lexicogrammar).  Since discourse semantics reduces all textual meaning to the system of identification ('the semantics of reference'), textual grammatical metaphor would involve, on the discourse semantic model, an incongruent realisation of the semantic system of identification in the grammatical system of reference.  None of the examples involves an incongruent realisation of identification in reference.

[2] On the discourse semantic model, conjunctive relations are logical meaning, and metaphorical realisations in the grammar would thus be logical metaphor.  Indeed, in the discussion of logical metaphor (p408) — critique here — four of the seven examples above of "logically oriented textual metaphor" were presented as logical metaphor:

[6:25]	metaphorical internal conjunction
	a.	I think Governments are necessary at different levels for a number of reasons.
	b.	They make laws, without which people would be killing themselves,
	c.	and help keep our economic system in order.
	d.	To begin, the Federal Government fixes up problems that occur in the community.
	e.	Another example is that the State Government looks after schools,
	f.	preventing vandalism and fighting.
	g.	As a final point the Local Government is important to look after rubbish:
	h.	otherwise everyone would have diseases.
	i.	As a result of these factors, Governments at several administrative levels are necessary.

In SFL theory, on the other hand, conjunction is a non-structural (cohesive) grammatical system of the textual metafunction, and there is no such thing as textual metaphor.

[3] See the critiques in the previous post here.

Problems With The Argument For "Textual" Metaphor

Martin (1992: 416):

The possibility of textual grammatical metaphor is not introduced in Halliday (1985).  However, as has been introduced in Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5, discourse systems can be used to construe text as "material" social reality.  From the point of view of lexical relations Winter's (1977) Vocabulary 3 items and Francis's (1985) A-nouns (e.g. reason, example, point, factor) organise text, not field.  Similarly, text reference identifies facts, not participants, and internal conjunction orchestrates textual not activity sequences.  NEGOTIATION can also be exploited to construe monologic text as dialogue.  Good examples of meta-proposals/propositions were considered from a different perspective in Chapter 4 (see also 6.3.4 below): the imperative realisation of internal elaboration in [4:187j] — Let's be clear, and the interrogative realisation of internal concession as [4:188a] — What if you're having to clean floppy heads too often?  These proportionalities are summarised below:

organising social reality :	organising text as social reality ::
message part relation :	meta-message relation ::
participant reference :	text reference ::
external conjunction :	internal conjunction ::
negotiating dialogue :	negotiating texture

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, there is only ideational and interpersonal metaphor, though these are themselves manifestations of the second–order nature of the textual metafunction (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 398-9).  Setting aside the incongruity of the notion of 'textual metaphor', in order to demonstrate textual metaphor, Martin would need to provide congruent versus metaphorical grammatical realisations (wordings) of his textual discourse semantic system of identification (meanings).  Since this system reduces all textual semantics to merely the semantics of cohesive reference, textual metaphor would involve congruent versus metaphorical grammatical realisations of identification, which he does not provide; see further below.

[2] This specific misunderstanding was only explicitly introduced in the present chapter (6); see [3]. 

[3] This notion of construing text as "material" social reality is presented as the basis of Martin's notion of textual metaphor.  The argument (Martin 1992: 406) was that this follows from nominalisation (a source of ideational metaphor):

Construing meaning as a thing in other words means construing text as material object — as a material part of the social reality it is simultaneously engaged in constructing (ideationally) and intruding upon (interpersonally). 

See the critique in the post Mistaking Ideational Metaphor For Metaphor here.

[4] This distinction — organising field versus organising text — from the logical discourse semantic system of conjunction (Martin 1992: 183) is presented as the basis for determining congruent versus metaphorical grammatical realisations of textual meaning.  As previously demonstrated, this distinction arises from a misunderstanding of the distinction between external and internal expansion relations together with a misunderstanding of stratification, inter alia.  See, for example, the critique in the post Misconstruing Internal And External Relations here.

[5] This combines the notion of 'construing text as material social reality' ([3] above) with the notion of 'organising text' ([4] above) to present 'organising text as social reality' as the identifier of textual metaphor, i.e. of metaphorical grammatical realisations of textual meaning.

The notion of 'organising field' then becomes relabelled as 'organising social reality' and presented as the identifier of congruent grammatical realisations of textual meaning.

Cf.  Martin (1992: 378):

organising field :	organising text ::
message part relation :	meta-message relation ::
participant reference :	text reference ::
external conjunction :	internal conjunction

[6] This distinction — identifying participants versus identifying facts — from the textual discourse semantic system of identification is presented as the basis for determining congruent versus metaphorical grammatical realisations of textual meaning.  

However, this distinction is not one of metaphor, but Martin's (1992: 139) blurring of Halliday & Hasan's distinctions within the grammatical system of cohesive reference: in personal reference, the distinction of extended versus text reference (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 52), and in demonstrative reference, the type of extended reference termed 'reference to fact' (op. cit.: 66).

[7] This confuses dialogic text (two or more speakers) with monologic text (one speaker) in which the addressee is acknowledged.

[8] The text [4:187j] does not appear in Chapter 4.  Text [4:187] on page 237 is:

[4:187] a. Ben was unlucky.
b. He had to take steroids for his injured hamstring
c. and then they introduced more sophisticated tests.

The clause let's be clear occurs in text [4:199j] on page 244.  See the critique in the post Confusing Textual Conjunction With Logical Relations here.

The text [4:188a] on page 238 is:

[4:188] a. Ben was thirsty.

The clause simplex What if you're having to clean floppy heads too often? occurs as text [4:200a] on page 247.  The claim there was that it was related to the following clause simplex Ask for SYNCOM diskettes, with burnished Ectype coating and dust-absorbing jacket liners by the logical relation of internal condition.