Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Misidentifying Metaphor

Martin (1992: 425, 427):

Notes on analysis:

(i) home and work are taken as places in this analysis to show their relationship to the domicile string; they could just as well have been treated as elaborations of the Process coming (home is so treated in the action strings below). …

Notes on the analysis:

(i) dead is taken as a metaphorical realisation of the action "die", and so worked into the "living" string here.

(ii) home is treated as a locative elaboration of the Process coming (cf. its treatment as a place in the place string above).

(iii) name is taken as a metaphorical realisation of the action "name", and so taken [as] a repetition of named in [6:33:a].

Blogger Comment:

[1] In SFL theory, Location circumstances are related to the nucleus (Process/Medium) by enhancement, not elaboration.  These are the clauses involved:

The next morning	she	ran away	from home
Location: temporal: rest	Medium	Process	Location: spatial: motion: away from

Meanwhile	the seven dwarfs	were coming	home	from work
	Medium	Process	Location: spatial: motion: towards	Location: spatial: motion: away from

[2] These are not instances of grammatical metaphor, but in any case, it isn't necessary to regard them as such for the purpose of analysing lexical cohesion — the lexical strings of Martin's discourse semantic ideation.

The clause featuring dead is an intensive attributive clause, congruently realising a figure of ascriptive being–&–having:

because	her parents	were	dead
	Carrier	Process: intensive	Attribute

The clauses featuring name are intensive identifying clauses, congruently realising figures of identifying being–&–having:

what	is	your name
Token/Identified	Process: intensive	Value/Identifier

my name	is	Snow White
Value/Identified	Process: intensive	Token/Identifier

"One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique"

Martin (1992: 419, 422):

One apparently unresolved problem with Hasan's technique is that there is often considerable overlap between some strings and chains, especially where pronouns are lexically rendered. […] For reasons that are not made explicit however strings and chains do not overlap in Hasan's diagrams, possibly because reference chains are given priority, with lexical strings composed only of items not already included in reference chains.  A strategy for resolving the problem of overlapping strings and chains will be proposed during the analysis of chain interaction in [6:33] below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin does not explain — here or elsewhere — why he regards overlapping 'strings and chains' as a problem.  He merely asserts that it is.

To be clear, only Martin's model has (lexical) strings and (reference) chains.  On Hasan's model, the grammatical cohesive device of reference and the lexical cohesive devices involve different types of cohesive chains.  Grammatical reference involves identity chains, whereas lexical cohesion involves similarity chains.

[2] When serving as a comment Adjunct, apparently signals 'presumption: hearsay'.

[3] The overlapping of Martin's lexical strings and reference chains arises from Martin's discourse semantic system of identification — 'the semantics of reference' — confusing two distinct types of cohesion, reference and lexical cohesion, largely as a consequence of confusing the referent with the system of reference.  See previous critiques here, here, here, here and here.

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.