Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials

Martin (1992: 521):

Field-structured texts constituting a social process are sensitive to the length of time-line in focus.  The longer the time-line, the more selective the coverage.  These texts can therefore be crossclassified [sic] as episodic (e.g. biography) and primarily organised through setting in time (typically theme marked circumstantial adjuncts) or sequential (e.g. narratives) and primarily organised through sequence in time (typically by temporal conjunctions).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] This confuses mode potential with the ideational meaning of text types.  The confusion is thus along three theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics), metafunction (textual vs ideational) and instantiation (potential vs instance type).

Misconstruing Lower And Higher Orders Of Experience As Higher & Lower Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction

Martin (1992: 521):

Participation may allow room for the construction of an additional field if the activity sequence in which the speakers/listeners are involved is not too engaging (e.g. chatting while washing up).  The notion of first (washing up) and second (what the chat is about) order field has been used for texts of this kind (Halliday 1978: 144).*

* Endnote #19 (p589):

It has also been used for distinguishing the field of a review (first order) from the field of the text being reviewed (second order), which is a different distinction involving what can be conceived of metaphorically as projection.  English Text's distinction between genre and field makes it unnecessary to use the concepts of first and second order field to distinguish a discussion (genre) about a football game from the game itself (field: activity sequence).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands orders of experience.  Both instances involve the distinction between first and second order experience, and the theoretical relation between orders of experience is projection — it is not metaphorical.

[2] This is inconsistent with the notion of first and second order field.  In Martin's model, genre and field are related stratally, so the relation between them is realisation — elaboration + identity — whereas the relation between orders of experience is projection.  Moreover, Martin misconstrues the lower order of experience (first order field) as his higher level of semiotic abstraction (genre).

These inconsistencies are further multiplied by the inconsistencies entailed by Martin misconstruing field as register, instead of context, and register and genre as context, instead of language.

[3] The absurdity here is made patently obvious by tabulating the confusions as follows:

SFL Theory		Martin (1992)
field (ideational semiotic context)	higher order	lower stratum	field (register)	a game of football
	projected by	realises
	lower order	higher stratum	genre	a discussion of that game of football

On Martin's model, a game of football — people running around kicking a ball — is 'register', and the game realises a discussion of itself.

[4] This confuses the material order (what people do) with the semiotic order (what people say).

Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive

Martin (1992: 521):

Constructions can be broken down into fiction and generalisation.  Fictional texts are semiotically closely related to texts constructing unshared experience, but generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed.  Generalising texts neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here, in Martin's terms, is that all "field-structured" texts that constitute "social processes" — and which do not construct past events — are either fiction or generalisation.  Generalising texts were said (pp518-9) to be those where 'the language generalises about what goes on', and the examples that were provided were:

• recipes
• manual You do. (proposal)
• implication sequence It does. (proposition)
• procedure It does. (activity focus)
• report They're attractive. (thing focus)

However, in terms of Hasan's (1985/9: 58) mode opposition of constitutive vs ancillary — as well as the meanings of the terms — the language rôle of recipes, manuals and procedures is ancillary, not constitutive.

[2] The claim here is that fictional constructions "generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed" than vicarious reconstructions.  Reconstructions were exemplified (p519) by:

• projected instruction S/he told me to do. (proposal)
• recount I/we did. (proposition/activity focus)
• description It was pretty. (thing focus)

The claim, then, is that romantic novels, for example, "generally make fewer assumptions about what can be assumed" than, for example, a speaker's recount of an overseas trip to an addressee who has never travelled overseas.

[3] The claim here is that texts such as recipes, manuals, procedures and reports "neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations".  A grammatical analysis of this clause complex (see here) demonstrates that it is intended to merely bamboozle the reader.  This can be further demonstrated by applying this clause complex to recipes for chicken parmesan with basil; now the claim becomes:

recipes for chicken parmesan with basil neutralise TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON in order to construct social processes as potentials underlying and cutting across particular manifestations.

That is, it is claimed that the purpose of neutralising these grammatical features in recipes (for chicken parmesan with basil) is to reconstruct the act of cooking (chicken parmesan with basil) as cooking potential, and that the potential (for cooking chicken parmesan with basil) "underlies" and "cuts across" particular manifestations of cooking (chicken parmesan with basil).

Confusing Different Strata, Metafunctions & Orders Of Experience

Martin (1992: 521):

Reconstructions may be based on shared or unshared experience, which affects how much of the social process has to be explicitly replayed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that the ± shared experience of the speaker and listener is a distinction of mode.  This is inconsistent with the notion of mode as the part played by language in cultural contexts.

[2] This confuses mode — the textual metafunction at the level of context — with the construal of experience as meaning — the ideational metafunction at the level of semantics.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (textual vs ideational).

[3] This misrepresents the verbal reconstrual of a past experience as the replaying of a social process.  That is, it confuses the (verbally projected) semiotic order of experience (metaphenomena) with the material order of experience (phenomena).

Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction

Martin (1992: 520-1):

Texts constituting a social process can be divided into those reconstructing a social process which has taken place and those constructing one which has not (TENSE, DEIXIS and PERSON all shift to distanced values — past, there/then, 3rd).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] This confuses the language rôle feature 'constitutive' (Hasan 1985/9: 58) — the textual metafunction at the level of context — with the construal of experience as meaning — the ideational metafunction at the level of semantics.  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (textual vs ideational).

Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle

Martin (1992: 520):

Commentary texts can be divided into those where the speaker and listener are both observers (TV sports/parade/wedding commentary) and those in which only one party is observing (radio commentary).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] The claim here is that the experiential rôles of the speaker and listener, as observers or not, is a distinction of mode.  This is inconsistent with the notion of mode — a system of the textual metafunction — as the part that language plays (not the speaker).  The confusion here is metafunctional.

Cf. the system of process sharing in Hasan (1985/9: 58):

The second factor to be considered under mode is that of PROCESS SHARING.  Is the addressee able to share the process of text creation as it unfolds, or does the addressee come to the text when it is a finished product?

Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle

Martin (1992: 520):

The accompanying texts are then distinguished according to whether the verbal action is that of participants in or observers of the social action.

Blogger Comment:

[1] Again, the use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text types (registers) and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type).

[2] The claim here is that the experiential rôle of the speaker, as participant or observer, is a distinction of mode.  This is inconsistent with the notion of mode — a system of the textual metafunction — as the part that language plays (not the speaker).  The confusion here is metafunctional.

Cf. the system of process sharing in Hasan (1985/9: 58):

The second factor to be considered under mode is that of PROCESS SHARING.  Is the addressee able to share the process of text creation as it unfolds, or does the addressee come to the text when it is a finished product?

Confusing Mode Potential (Context) With Text Type/Register

Martin (1992: 520):

The oppositions relevant to field-structured texts are elaborated systemically in Fig. 7.10. Texts accompanying a social process are distinguished from those constituting one.

 

     Fig. 7.10. Mode — degrees of abstraction 

Blogger Comments:

[1] The intellectual source of the most general opposition in this system is Hasan (1985/9: 58), where the features are termed ancillary and constitutive, and the system is termed language rôle, one of three systems within mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context.

[2] The use of the word 'texts' here betrays the ongoing confusion between text type/register and context (mode).  The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs language) and instantiation (system vs instance type/subpotential).

[3] As previously explained, there are no "degrees of abstraction" here.  On the basis of this and numerous previous critiques, it is fair to say that the notion of abstraction is not understood.

∞

Problems with the network itself will be identified in the following posts.

Misrepresenting Abstraction

Martin (1992: 520):

Keeping this in mind, the logical independence of action/reflection and activity/thing is outlined in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7. Degrees of abstraction for activities and things
	activity	thing
monitoring	commentary	evaluation
	We are doing.	That’s pretty.
reconstructing	recount	description
	I/we did.	It was pretty.
generalising	procedure	report
(timeless)	It does.	They’re attractive.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The term "logical independence" misrepresents cross-classification. This cross-classification table shows the interrelation between two variables.

[2] The claim here is that:

'action/reflection' = 'degrees of abstraction' = 'monitoring/reconstructing/generalising'.

Halliday's mode feature distinction of 'language in action' vs 'language in reflection' does not correspond to degrees of abstraction (Token-Value relations).  That is, one does realise the other.

As previously explained, the proposed mode features of monitoring, reconstructing and generalising are not degrees of abstraction (Token-Value relations) — whether or not they are distinguished by tense.

[3] The distinction between "activities and things", as presented here, is actually the experiential distinction between material processes and attributive relational processes and the interpersonal distinction between the absence and presence of evaluation (variously labelled evaluation, description and report).

∞

The fundamental confusion here is that the discussion is presented as theorising mode, the systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Here, instead, the discussion is concerned with the ideational dimension of semantics (activities and things) of registers.  The confusion is thus simultaneously along three theoretical dimensions: stratification, metafunction and instantiation.

Confusing Strata And Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 519-20):

The potential source of confusion here has to do with the fact that genre-structured texts tend to be heavily nominalised, and through grammatical metaphor construct fields as thing-like, whether referring to activities or not.  Abstract modes in other words interpret social reality through semiotic resources that in less abstract modes would be applied to things — texts are organised around semiotic space instead of experiential time or place.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses ideational context (field) with ideational content (grammatical metaphor) of registers. The confusion is thus simultaneously along two theoretical dimensions: stratification and instantiation.

[2] The term 'abstract mode' confuses context (textual metafunction) with content (ideational metafunction).  The confusion is thus simultaneously along two theoretical dimensions: stratification and metafunction.

[3] This confuses context (textual metafunction) with content (ideational metafunction — construing experience).

[4] The term 'social reality' blurs the distinction between ideational metafunction (construing experience as meaning) and the interpersonal metafunction (enacting intersubjective relations as meaning).

Confusing Mode (Context) With The Ideational Semantics Of Registers

Martin (1992: 519):

Experientially, the distinction between texts which focus on activities and those which focus on things is also independent of the action/reflection dimension under construction here.  Activity was taken as the base line in introducing this dimension of mode above, with organisation around sequence in time as the key variable.  The same distinctions can however be applied to thing oriented discourse, with place (including composition and setting) rather than the time the critical parameter.  It is possible to comment (typically evaluatively) on people, places and things as one experiences them (monitoring); similarly one can reconstruct objects through description and generalise about them as generic classes in reports.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The fundamental confusion here is that the discussion is presented as theorising mode, the systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Here, instead, the discussion is concerned with the ideational dimension of semantics (activities and things) of registers.  The confusion is thus simultaneously along three theoretical dimensions: stratification, metafunction and instantiation.

[2] To be clear, commenting (± evaluating) ≠ monitoring.

The practice of insisting that a word means whatever one wishes is termed Humpty Dumptyism.

Misconstruing Degrees Of Abstraction

Martin (1992: 518):

This crossclassification of mode by MOOD is outlined in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6. Degrees of abstraction for proposals and propositions
	proposal	proposition
monitoring	guidance	running commentary
(present)	Do.	We are doing.
(future)		We’ll just do.
reconstructing	projected instruction	recount
(past)	S/he told me to do.	I/we did.
generalising	manual	implication sequence
(timeless)	You do.	It does.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, proposals and propositions are classifications of speech functions (semantics), not mood (lexicogrammar).  The confusion is stratal.

[2] The proposed mode features of monitoring, reconstructing and generalising are not degrees of abstraction — whether or not they are distinguished by tense.  Different levels of abstraction can be construed as identifying relations, with the lower level as Token and the higher level as Value.  This is not the case with monitoring and reconstructing or with reconstructing and generalising.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 615) point out:

General terms are not necessarily abstract; a bird is no more abstract than a pigeon.

[3] See the most recent previous posts for critiques of these text types cross-classified for "mood" and mode features.

∞

The fundamental confusion here is that the discussion is presented as theorising mode, the systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Here, instead, the discussion is concerned with the interpersonal dimension of linguistic content — semantics (speech function) and lexicogrammar (mood) — of registers.  The confusion is thus simultaneously along three theoretical dimensions: stratification, metafunction and instantiation.

Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Hortatory And Analytical Exposition

Martin (1992: 518):

The same MOOD opposition is relevant to the genre-structured texts, distinguishing hortatory ('so change your ways') from analytical ('so this is how things are') exposition.

Blogger Comment:

This purports to cross-classify exposition texts, hortatory vs analytical, according to (Martin's) mode and mood: imperative vs indicative, respectively. However, 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.

∞

The fundamental confusion here is that the discussion is presented as theorising mode, the systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context. Here, instead, the discussion is concerned with the interpersonal dimension of linguistic content — semantics (speech function) and lexicogrammar (mood) — of registers. The confusion is thus simultaneously along three theoretical dimensions: stratification, metafunction and instantiation.

Miscategorising Text Types

Martin (1992: 518):

Similarly reconstruction may be either an account of what someone was told to do or what they did, and generalising texts may be either macro-proposals (e.g. assembly manuals) or macro-propositions (e.g accounts of how a product works).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This purports to cross-classify texts according to (Martin's) mode and mood: imperative vs indicative.  However, an account of what someone was told to do — just like an account of what someone did — is "indicative" in these terms, not "imperative"; the "imperative" lies in the 'telling what to do', not in the accounting of it.

[2] This is inconsistent with the meaning of the word 'generalise': to make a general or broad statement by inferring from specific cases.  That is, generalisations are propositions, not proposals, and, moreover, neither 'assembly manuals' nor 'accounts of how a product works' constitute text types that can be accurately termed "generalising".

The practice of insisting that a word means whatever one wishes is termed Humpty Dumptyism.

∞

The fundamental confusion here is that the discussion is presented as theorising mode, the systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Here, instead, the discussion is concerned with the interpersonal dimension of linguistic content — semantics (speech function) and lexicogrammar (mood) — of registers.  The confusion is thus simultaneously along three theoretical dimensions: stratification, metafunction and instantiation.

Miscategorising Texts By Mode

Martin (1992: 518):

It is important not to confuse the semiotic space under construction here with either of two independent dimensions; the interpersonal distinction between proposals and propositions, and the experiential distinction between activities and things.  Pursuing the MOOD opposition first, monitoring texts for example can be 'imperative', telling someone what to do (e.g. ærobics class), or indicative, telling someone (e.g. a small child) what is going on (or is about to).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "the interpersonal distinction between proposals and propositions" is one of speech function (semantics), not mood (lexicogrammar).  The difference between the systems is stratal.

[2] A text that tells someone what to do is not a monitoring text.  Synonyms of 'monitor' include: 

observe, watch, keep an eye on, keep track of, track, keep under observation, keep watch on, keep under surveillance, surveil, check, keep a check on, scan, examine, study, record, note, oversee, supervise, superintend

[3] In an ærobics class, the language that 'tells people what to do' is instructing, not monitoring.  Further, the rôle of language (Hasan 1985/9) in such a situation type is ancillary, not monitoring.  (Martin distinguishes monitoring from ancillary.)

[4] Telling someone what is about to happen is predicting, not monitoring.

The practice of insisting that a word means whatever one wishes is termed Humpty Dumptyism.

∞

The fundamental confusion here is that the discussion is presented as theorising mode, the systems of the textual metafunction at the level of context.  Here, instead, the discussion is concerned with the interpersonal dimension of linguistic content — semantics (speech function) and lexicogrammar (mood) — of registers.  The confusion is thus simultaneously along three theoretical dimensions: stratification, metafunction and instantiation.

Confusing Contextual Potential With Semantic Sub-Potentials

Martin (1992: 518):

It is important not to confuse the semiotic space under construction here with either of two independent dimensions; the interpersonal distinction between proposals and propositions, and the experiential distinction between activities and things.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The 'semiotic space under construction here' (pp 508-23) is purported to be mode, the system of the textual metafunction at the level of context — though Martin misconstrues this as a dimension of register.  As previously explained, this confuses contextual potential with semantic sub-potentials. That is, the confusion is along two dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

[2] The 'interpersonal distinction between proposals and propositions and the experiential distinction between activities and things' are distinctions of the other metafunctions at the level of semantics.  The confusion here is thus stratificational.  In SFL theory, the proposal vs proposition distinction is one of speech function, whereas the "activities vs things" distinction corresponds to the elemental distinction between process and participant (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 177).

Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source

Martin (1992: 517-8):

With this reservation in mind, a preliminary grid can be established as in Table 7.5 — with exemplary texts noted (Hasan 1985/9: 58 uses the opposition ancilliary [sic] / constitutive to establish a closely related continuum). 

This grid distinguishes field-structured from genre-structured texts and subclassifies field-structured texts according to how much of the social action is constructed by language. 

Texts in which most of the social action is realised non-verbally are referred to as ancilliary [sic]; texts in which most of the social action is realised linguistically are further divided into those in which language monitors what is going on (e.g. sports commentary), those in which it reconstructs what has gone on (e.g. biography) and those in which the language generalises about what goes on (e.g. recipes).

Genre-structured texts are divided into those which review field-structured texts (e.g. movie reviews), and so are partially determined by their activity sequences, and theoretical texts which are not organised around a sequence of events in any respect (e.g. editorials).  This scale arranges texts with respect to iconicity and the amount of ideational meaning that needs to be made explicit to realise the field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] More accurately, Hasan's (1985) ancillary/constitutive distinction is the source of Martin's (1992) theorising here.

[2] To be clear, in terms of SFL theory, Martin is classifying text types (registers/genres) according to how semantic structure varies with the mode features of situation types (context). That is, three theoretical dimensions are entangled here:

• stratification (context realised by semantics),
• axis (system realised by structure), and
• instantiation (text types and situation types)

[3] A recipe does not "generalise about what goes on".  As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 356) point out, a recipe is a procedural text, a 'macro-operation consisting of a number of micro-operations'.

[4] To be clear, a movie review of a text is a review of just the script of a movie.

[5] An editorial is merely an opinion piece.  The classification of an opinion piece as a theoretical text is consistent with Martin's approach to theory, as demonstrated over and over again by these critiques.