Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)

Martin (1992: 560):

Linguists' concern with constituency at the level of genre has meant that questions of field, in Pike's sense of the term, have not been actively pursued.  Hasan's notion of generic structure potential does generalise across a range of text structures, determining their generic identity:

The property of structure is what allows us to distinguish between complete and incomplete texts on the one hand, and between different generic forms on the other.  With some oversimplification, the assumptions here can be stated as follows: associated with each genre of text — i.e. type of discourse — is a generalised structural formula, which permits an array of actual structures.  Each complete text must be a realisation of a structure from such an array.  The generic membership of the text is determined by reference to the structural formula to which the actual structure can be shown to belong.  (Hasan 1977: 229)

But Hasan has not attempted to develop these structure potentials in the direction of system/structure theory; and as noted above, the question of systemic relations among structure potentials does not really arise.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This invites the misinterpretation that such linguists also:

• misconstrue genre (language sub-potential) as a stratum of context (cultural potential), and
• misconstrue semantics (text structure) as genre (text type).

[2] To be clear, this is field, in Martin's misconstrual of Pike's sense of the term (as system rather than structure type).

[3] To be clear, as the quote makes plain, Hasan's generic structure potentials provide a generalised formula for a range of semantic structures of a given text type (genre).

[4] Hasan did not make systems of generic structural potentials because to do so would have been inconsistent with the rest of the architecture of SFL theory, since it would have confused the system pole of the cline of instantiation (semantic stratum potential) with the middle of the cline (genre/text type/register).

Misunderstanding Stratal Relations And Confusing Text Type (Genre) With System (Potential)

Martin (1992: 560):

Once posited as potentially divergent patterns of realisation, particulate, prosodic and periodic aspects of generic structure are not difficult to find.  More problematic is the question of how to model and integrate them once observed.  In particular this raises questions about the role played by genre in mapping field, tenor and mode choices onto each other in ways which capture teleological aspects of generic structure.  Current formulations of genre as system do not resolve these issues, but are nevertheless pursued below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is not in the least problematic.  The modes of realisation are the models, and the text, as semantic unit, provides the domain of application, just as the clause does in the lexicogrammar.

[2] This is a non-sequitur.  The modelling and integration of structure types is logically distinct from what follows; see [3].

[3] Translating into SFL theory, this becomes:

• the rôle played by text type
• in configuring contextual features
• in ways that capture purpose-directed aspects
• of the semantic structure of different text types.

In the first instance, this misunderstands the relation between contextual configurations and text type (genre).  Different text types realise different configurations of field, tenor and mode.

In the second instance, field, tenor and mode features do not "map onto each other"; selections from the three systems specify a given context (situation or situation type).

In the third instance, the notion of teleology is as redundant for text structure as it is for clause structure.  This confuses purpose with function.  In functional linguistics, structures have functions.

[4] The formulation of genre as system confuses subpotential (text type) with potential (system).  That is, it confuses a point of variation midway along the cline of instantiation with the system pole of that cline.  As such, such a formulation cannot resolve these non-issues — merely add to the confusion and theoretical inconsistency.

A Transparently False Claim

Martin (1992: 559):

Not in passing that wave patterns are very commonly reflected in the labelling given to beginning and end stages across genres, reflecting the peaks and troughs of prominence that open and close a text; a number of these are reviewed in Table 7.17.

Table 7.17 Culminative prominence and generic structure

	beginning (initial prominence)	end (final prominence)
Mitchell (1957)	Auctioneer’s Opening	Conclusion
Hasan (1977)	Greeting	Summary ^ Finis
Hasan (1985)	Sale Initiation	Purchase Closure
Hasan (1984)	Initiating Event	Finale
Ventola (1979)	Greeting	Leave-taking ^ Goodbye

Blogger Comment:

As the table demonstrates, this claim is wholly bogus.  Not one of the labels "reflects" the notion of a wave peak or trough.

Misrepresenting Halliday

Martin (1992: 559):

The final pattern of realisation to be considered is the culminative one, which in the grammar derives from the textual metafunction.  As developed in Chapter 6, Sections 3.2-3, culminative patterns structure discourse at several levels beyond the clause.  As Halliday puts this in Thibault (1987: 612):

Textual meanings typically give you the periodic movement which is so characteristic of discourse at all levels; everything from the smallest waves to the very large ones.  In other words, their is a hierarchy of periodicity, and that comes from the textual metafunction.

Blogger Comment:

This gives the very false impression that Martin's work is consistent with Halliday's theory, and invites the misinterpretation that Halliday might endorse both Martin's "beyond the clause" claim here and even his model of discourse semantics.

To be clear, Halliday does not equate discourse with semantics, and does not model it as a stratum of symbolic abstraction.  For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512) define discourse as:

… the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts.

Halliday (2008: 78) also clarifies this meaning of 'discourse' by relating it to 'text':

I do make a distinction between these two; but it is a difference in point of view, between different angles of vision on the phenomena, not in the phenomena themselves. So we can use either to define the other: “discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601) further clarify the semogenic dimension of 'discourse/text':

It is helpful to have a term for this general phenomenon – i.e. the creation of meaning in the course of the unfolding of text. We shall call it logogenesis, with ‘logos’ in its original sense of ‘discourse’ … 

Confusing Text Type With Text Structure

Martin (1992: 559):

Given the subversion of Labov and Waletzky's Complication/Resolution distinction by the non-discrete realisation of Evaluation, recognising simultaneous dimensions of experientially and interpersonally oriented structure at the level of genre (as with Halliday's 1985 analysis of the English clause) seems a more promising approach than the unidimensional modelling undertaken by Labov.

Blogger Comment:

This continues the confusion of text type (genre) with text structure (semantics).  This is not a promising approach, in terms of theoretical consistency.

Misconstruing Prosody

Martin (1992: 557):

Martin (1992a) treats one aspect of interpersonal meaning at the level of genre as a kind of generic prosody (with high, median and low values) mapped onto a particulate structure of the kind reviewed in 7.3.1.1 above …

Blogger Comments:

[1] Cf Martin (1992: 556):

The difficulty here lies in Labov's equation of interpersonal meaning (language) with Evaluation (genre) and his failure to distinguish clearly between particulate and prosodic perspectives on generic structure.

[2] Prosody and particulate are alternative modes of structural realisation.  A prosody is not particulate; a particulate realisation is not prosodic.  Anything "mapped onto" a particulate structure is, by definition, not prosodic.

Distinguishing Interpersonal Meaning From Evaluation

Martin (1992: 556):

Rather problematically for this definition of Resolution [Labov and Waletzky (1967: 39)], the realisation of Evaluation turns out to be potentially non-discrete.  There may be more than one Evaluation in a narrative … .  The non-discrete realisation of Evaluation makes locating the major focus of the Evaluation difficult, which in turn calls into question the use of a localised Evaluation to define the Resolution.  The difficulty here lies in Labov's equation of interpersonal meaning (language) with Evaluation (genre) and his failure to distinguish clearly between particulate and prosodic perspectives on generic structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is a contradiction in terms.  Martin claims Evaluation is potentially non-discrete — i.e. not separate — but equates this with there being more than one.  By definition, for there to be more than one, each must be a discrete realisation.

[2] The claim here is that the connected realisation of Evaluation entails that there is more than one of them, and that this makes it difficult to choose which of the "connected realisation" can be used to define the Resolution stage of a narrative.  See [1].

[3] The "difficulty" here derives:

• firstly, from Martin's misunderstanding of the term 'non-discrete',
• secondly, from his opposition of interpersonal meaning and Evaluation, and
• thirdly, and more seriously, from his claim that types of language (genres) and the linguistic evaluations made in such text types are not language.

[4] Perhaps this failure can be forgiven, on the grounds that Labov was not a student of Halliday and worked in a discrete linguistic tradition.

Misrepresenting The Prosodic Mode Of Realisation

Martin (1992: 553):

Beyond the problems of sequence and order reviewed above, the problem of non-discrete realisations which smear across rather than mapping onto elements of schematic structure needs attention.  These have been as much ignored in grammar as in genre … and so once again it is linguists' reliance on old tools for mapping new territory that stands in the way of progress …

Blogger Comments:

[1] The "problems" identified by Martin derive from a number of misunderstandings; see previous post here.

[2] This is a false opposition.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 166-7) point out, the prototypical example of the prosodic mode of expression that is characteristic of the interpersonal metafunction is tone.  However, tone choices do "map onto" the elements of structure of the tone group: the Pretonic and Tonic segments.  In doing so, they also "smear across" the feet that realise those segments.

[3] The implication here is that relying on new tools, such as those that Martin might provide, will not "stand in the way of progress".  See the rest of this blog.

Prioritising Structure Over System

Martin (1992: 553):

The advantage of the dynamic perspective is that choices can be conditioned by the point reached in a text's development.  Keeping in mind Firth's comment that "The moment a conversation is started, whatever is said is a determining condition for what, in any reasonable expectation, may follow" (1935/1957: 31-2), this is an important perspective to keep in mind.

Blogger Comment:

Importantly, but apparently unknown to Martin, this reflects one crucial difference between Firthian Linguistics and the (Neo-Firthian) Systemic Functional Linguistics of Firth's student, Halliday.  For Firth, consistent with his quote above, entry conditions to systems of choice are specified syntagmatically, whereas for Halliday, entry conditions to systems of choice are specified paradigmatically.  Systemic Functional Linguistics, as the name implies, prioritises paradigmatic system over syntagmatic structure.

Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential

Martin (1992: 551-3):

In the same paper, Martin (1985) cautions against another bias inherited by genre theory from grammarians — namely that towards a synoptic as opposed to dynamic form of representation and interpretation.  The basic problem here is that in order to attain generality, grammarians have tended in various ways to abstract away from linear progression (to divorce in other words functional order from sequence).  Structure potentials such as those used by Hasan, and to an even greater extent the system/structure realisation cycle suggested by Martin, separate order from sequence in such a way that choices leading to a particular text structure bear no direct temporal relation to the unfolding of that text in real time.  To the extent that aspects of the unfolding of text are conditioned by linear progression, this perspective breaks down.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In Systemic Functional Grammatics, sequence during instantiation is specified by realisation statements of features, such as declarative Subject ^ Finite.

[2] This misunderstands the relation between order and sequence.  Sequence is one type of order; that is, sequence is a hyponym of order.  To speak of separating a hyponym from its superordinate category is a nonsense — cf separating lorikeet from bird.

[3] This is manifestly untrue with respect to Hasan's generic structure structure potentials.  Hasan (1985/9: 61) specifies the order of obligatory elements in the sense of 'sequence':

So the obligatory elements of text 4.1 are SR, SC, S, P and PC in that order.  This can be displayed as SR ^ SC ^ S ^ P ^ PC, with the sign ^ showing the order of elements.

[4] This continues the earlier confusion of syntagmatic structure with logogenesis (the unfolding of text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation).

The Question Of Whether Systematising Generic Structure Potentials Leads Directly To A Two Plane Model Of Register And Genre

Martin (1992: 551):

To date, no empirical work has been done developing genre networks along these lines, and so the question of whether systematising generic structure potentials leads directly to the two plane model of register and genre being developed here or not has not been fully resolved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As explained in the previous post, a genre network "along these lines" confuses genre, a midway point on the cline of instantiation (subpotential) with the system pole (network of potential).

[2] Even ignoring all the theoretical inconsistencies entailed, developing genre networks has no bearing whatsoever on the stratification of register and genre as contextual planes.  The principal reasons why it is theoretically inconsistent to model register and genre as levels of context are:

• context is more abstract than language, whereas
• register and genre are both language, and
• register and genre are not different levels of symbolic abstraction (strata), but instead
• the same phenomenon viewed from opposite poles of the cline of instantiation.

Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies

Martin (1992: 551):

For Hasan, text structures are derived from generic structure potentials conditioned by choices in field, tenor and mode — with most of the optionality apparently determined by tenor and mode.  This suggests that systemic relationships among different text structures are equivalent to relationships among field, mode and tenor options; and the question of systemic relationships among generic structure potentials does not arise.  Challenging the first of these suggestions, and redressing the second, Martin (1985) suggests reformulating generic structure potentials as system networks and realisation rules as with Ventola's (1987: 15) reformulation of Mitchell above, proposing a speculative network and realisation rules for service encounters by way of illustrating how this might be done (Martin 1985: 253-4; Fig. 7.21 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Hasan (1985/9: 64), a generic structure potential is the structural potential of a text — as the largest unit of the semantic stratum — of a given genre (text type/register).  For Hasan, genres that share the same contextual configuration of field, tenor and mode features share the same structural potential at the level of semantics.  In SFL theory, the relation between context and semantics is realisation: context is a higher level of symbolic abstraction than semantics.

[2] This false inference derives from Martin's earlier false claim (see here) that Hasan associates obligatory elements of text structure with field (p546). For Hasan (1985/9: 62), the obligatory elements of text structure are the elements that define the genre (text type).

[3] This is a false inference in that it blurs important distinctions between the theoretical dimensions of axis, stratification and instantiation:

• The relation between structure (syntagmatic axis) and system (paradigmatic axis) is realisation; semantic structure realises semantic system.
• The relation between semantic stratum systems and context stratum systems is realisation, not equivalence.
• Different text structures are a matter of registerial (text type/genre) variation at the level of semantics.

[4] Martin (1985) is thus challenging his own misinterpretation of Hasan.

[5] The proposal here is to model registerial (text type/generic) variation in semantic structure as a system network at the level of context.  The confusion here is thus along two dimensions simultaneously:

• the cline of instantiation: system (potential) vs register (subpotential);
• stratification: context vs semantics.

[6] Ventola's network models registerial variation (service encounters) as a system network with semantic structure specified by realisation rules activated by the selection of features.  That is, it models subpotentials (registers) as potential (system) and specifies semantic structure as its realisation.

The network is thus inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory in that it posits a midway point on the cline of instantiation (subpotential) as the systemic potential that specifies semantic structure.  According to the architecture of SFL theory, the systems that specify semantic structure are the systems of the semantic stratum (axially) and context (stratally).

Misinterpreting Pike

Martin (1992: 548-9):

Halliday (1978, 1979) associates different types of structural realisation with different metafunctions. … In addition Halliday points out the correlation between these different metafunctional perspectives on realisation and Pike's work on particle, wave and field. … Halliday correlates constituency realisation with the particulate perspective, culminative realisation with wave theory and prosodic realisation with field.  The last of these correlations seems to be stretching a point since for Pike field theory is not so much concerned with non-discrete realisations as with "intersecting properties of experience" that "cluster into bundles of simultaneous characteristics which together make up the patterns" of experience (Pike 1982: 13); Pike sums up his perspectives when introducing field as follows:

We have discussed the way in which elements can be viewed by themselves as particles, or as waves smearing into some kind of continuum whose prominent parts make up nuclei.  Now we turn to sets of relationships which occur when units are linked to one another by their presence in some larger system.  A total set of relationships and of units in these relationships we call a field.  (1982: 30)

The component of systemic theory which would appear to correspond most closely to this articulation of field is system, not prosody.  For this reason the discussion will be pursued here at the level of genre under the headings of particle, prosody and wave.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Significantly, Martin's model of discourse structure is inconsistent with the SFL association of metafunction and structure type.  On the one hand:

• the structure of the logical system, conjunction, is modelled as messages (particles) related by types of expansion, and
• the structure of the experiential system, ideation, is modelled as lexical strings of message parts (particles),

but on the other:

• the structure of the interpersonal system, negotiation, is modelled as constituency (particles) — exchange and move — rather than as prosody, and
• the structure of the textual system, identification, is modelled as reference chains of participants (particles), rather than as wave.

[2] While it is true that Pike's notion of field does not correlate with the notion of prosody, it is not true that it correlates with the notion of system in SFL theory.  Martin has simply misinterpreted Pike's notion of 'system' as Halliday's notion of 'system'.  Pike is concerned with complementary perspectives on a sequence of items; that is, in SFL terms: syntagmatic, not paradigmatic relations.  Pike (1993):

The observer can choose to look at a sequence of items as if they were separate, in order to talk about phonemes, words, etc., but he also needs to be able to talk about them in terms of fusion, and he doesn't understand them ultimately unless he sees them in relation to a patterned system. Hence particle, wave, and field.

[3] Halliday (1977, 1978: 188) uses the term 'prosodic' rather than 'field' in relating types of grammatical structure to metafunctions.  Martin (1992) is merely following Halliday while implying otherwise.

The consideration of structure types with regard to genre suggests that text type is about to be confused with semantic structure.

[4] Having introduced Halliday's association of structure types with metafunctions, Martin will now consider the structure types in relation to genre, a stratal system that he does not differentiate in terms of metafunction. 

The Reason For Separating Field & Genre

Martin (1992: 547):

The reason for separating field and genre as far as obligatory elements of text structure are concerned is to maintain inter-relationships among activity sequences and inter-relationships among text structures as distinct patterns of agnation regardless of mode …

Blogger Comment:

Translating into SFL theory, this becomes:

The reason for separating the ideational dimension of context (field) and text type (genre), 

as far as Hasan's obligatory elements of text structure are concerned, 

is to maintain 

inter-relationships among semantic structures viewed from below (Barthes) 

and interrelationships between semantic structures viewed from above (Hasan)

as distinct patterns of agnation, 

regardless of whether the rôle of language is ancillary or constitutive of the cultural context.

See the most recent posts for relevant critiques.

This all derives from Martin interpreting field as activity sequences and genres as social processes.  A legitimate theoretical reason for separating field and genre is that field is context, not language, whereas genre is language, a type of text, not context.

Inferring Invalidly From Misconstruals Of Semantic Structure As Field And Genre

Martin (1992: 547):

More to the point is the fact that Hasan's elements of structure at times collapse several nuclei in Barthes's sequence: Identification for example in Hasan's appointment making covers Barthes's telephone ringing, picking up the receiver and speaking.  At the same time, Hasan's elements may expand one of Barthes's nuclei, as Identification ^ Application ^ Offer ^ Confirmation do for Barthes's speaking in potentially the same genre (although Barthes could of course have recognised a micro-sequence here).  The point of these differences is that Hasan is placing boundaries at just those points where they are linguistically manifested, implying that the same sequences might be involved in very different genres (cf. Barthes's opposition of histoire and discours).  A telephone call in a modern nursery tale for example might just be one of a number of acts comprising the Initiating Event (which for Hasan continues until the expectation set up by its main act is frustrated); in appointment making on the other hand the call itself needs to be broken down into the genre's structural formula.

This suggests that where language is constitutive of what is going on (mode) the relationship between activity sequence (field) and text structure may be quite divergent (genre); where language is ancillary on the other hand, there may be little difference between the two.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously pointed out, both Barthes and Hasan are modelling the semantic structure of texts, with Barthes taking the view 'from below' and Hasan taking the view 'from above'.

[2] All structural boundaries in texts are "linguistically manifested".

[3] This is a non-sequitur, since the placement of structural boundaries says nothing about the incidence of specific structures in other text types.  However, on the other hand, it is trivially true that the same sequence, in the sense of both Barthes and SFL, can occur across many text types.

[4] Martin previously misrepresented this distinction, which Barthes took from the Russian Formalists (see here).  Histoire (fabula) refers to the raw material of a story, whereas discours (syuzhet) refers to the way the story is organised.  The inclusion of this distinction here is thus irrelevant.

[5] The preceding discussion suggests nothing at all about the relationship between activity sequence and text structure varying according to mode, because the two are different perspectives on semantic structure (see [1]).  Moreover, it says less than nothing about field and genre, since activity sequence isn't field, and text structure isn't genre.

Confusing First And Second Orders Of Experience

Martin (1992: 546-7):

In this connection it is useful to compare three of Barthes's examples of sequences with three of Hasan's examples of text structure (only her obligatory elements will be considered here):

sequences (Barthes 1966/1977):

‘telephone call’:

telephone ringing ^ picking up the receiver ^ speaking ^ putting down the receiver (1966/1977: 101)

“having a drink”:

order a drink ^ obtain it ^ drink it ^ pay for it (1966/1977: 101)

“offering a cigarette”:

offering ^ accepting ^ smoking ^ lighting (1966/1977: 102)

text structures (Hasan 1977, 1984, 1985/9):

“medical appointment making”:

Identification ^ Application ^ Offer ^ Confirmation (1977: 233)

“service encounter”:

Sale request ^ Sale compliance ^ Sale ^ Purchase ^ Purchase closure (1985/1989: 60)

“nursery tale”:

Initiating event ^ Sequent event ^ Final event (1984: 80)

At a glance it might appear that Barthes is analysing action whereas Hasan is analysing text (cf. Barthes's telephone call and Hasan's appointment making).  But the opposition is by no means as simple as this.  Most of Barthes's nuclei involve interlocutors speaking, and those which do not are easy to render linguistically in narration (as they have been in Barthes's own account).  So a simple opposition between verbal and non-verbal action will not do.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Both Barthes and Hasan are analysing texts, instances of language, at the level of semantics.  The difference between them, in terms of SFL theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014), is that Barthes approach is more "bottom-up", staying close to the sequences of figures that are realised grammatically as clauses, whereas Hasan's approach is more "top-down", viewing from context.

[2] The interlocutors in Barthes' data are characters in narrative texts.  That is, they are verbal projections of the writer.  The confusion here is in terms of orders of experience: first-order (writers, speakers, readers, listeners etc.) vs second-order (characters in stories etc.).

Misconstruing Activity Sequence (Semantics) As Field And Schematic Structure (Semantics) As Genre

Martin (1992: 546):

Hasan's association of obligatory elements of text structure with field makes it critical to consider the relationship between activity sequence (field) and schematic structure (genre) here.

Blogger Comment:

[1] For Hasan (1985/9: 62), the obligatory elements of text structure are the elements that define the genre (text type):

So, by implication, the obligatory elements define the genre to which a text belongs;

[2] This is a non-sequitur; see [1] and [3].

[3] One problem here is that activity sequence is not field and schematic structure is not genre.

An activity sequence is a semantic construal of experience, whether a mental construal of visual experience or a verbal construal in a spoken or written text.  Field, on the other hand, is 'what is going on' and the subject matter when interlocutors are speaking to each other.  The confusion is along the stratal dimension: semantics (activity sequence) vs context (field).

Schematic structure is the structure of a text as a semantic unit.  Genre, on the other hand, is text type — that is, register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  The confusion is along the dimension of instantiation: potential (semantic) vs subpotential (genre).

In short, in purporting to consider the relationship between field and genre, Martin is actually considering the relation between two ways of construing semantic units.  This will be borne out in the following blog posts.

This, like so many other confusions identified here, demonstrates the serious pitfalls of misunderstanding 'all strata make meaning' (semogenesis) as all strata are levels of linguistic meaning.

Some Of The Problems With Register and Genre As Semiotic Planes

Martin (1992: 546):

The general issue of distinguishing register and genre as semiotic planes was introduced in 7.1.2 above.

Blogger Comment:

Some of the theoretical inconsistencies arising from misconstruing types of language (register/genre) as culture (context) rather than language were previously identified on this blog at:

Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context

Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context

Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum

Two Problems With The Second Justification For A Genre Stratum

Eight Problems With The Third Justification For A Genre Stratum

Two Problems With The Fourth Justification For A Genre Stratum

Two Problems With The Fifth Justification For A Genre Stratum

Internal Inconsistency

Martin (1992: 546):

There is also the danger that the more domestic fields be misinterpreted as natural theories of experience with the more technical ones treated as semiotic construals of reality.  This is not the case — all fields are semiotically constructed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Cf Martin (1992: 545):

domestic taxonomies deal with the 'natural' order of things — the common sense construction of experience.

[2] Cf Martin (1992: 545), where "linguistically constructed" fields are contrasted with fields that are not so constructed:

The linguistically constructed taxonomies of humanities, social science, and science are the ones that are most appropriately referred to as technical since they function as distillations of common sense or less technical experience into uncommon sense classifications of the world.

∞

It would appear that Martin is here incorporating feedback he received on earlier drafts, but failing to connect the feedback with the implications of what he had written.

Metafunctional Inconsistency

Martin (1992: 545-6):

Any such scaling of fields with respect to degree of specialisation and technicality, alongside the scaling of oral and written (especially metaphorical) modes this implies, runs the risk of being misinterpreted as valuing different fields in different ways.  This kind of ranking should not be read into the networks at the level of field.  However it is obvious that fields are valued in different ways and so ranked by all cultures: in Australia, for example, being young, non-anglo, working class or female vastly restricts the meaning potential human cultures otherwise afford.  Discourses of generation, gender, ethnicity and class channel subjects in very different ways according to the coding orientations they enjoy.  It is the responsibility of the plane of ideology to make the nature of this channeling clear, deconstructing the momentum and inherent contradictions which allow it to evolve.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Alongside the mode system distinction of oral vs written (textual metafunction), Martin includes the distinction of oral vs written transmission in his discussion and system of field (ideational metafunction).

[2] This is misleading.  It is not any mode that is metaphorical.  Instead, the language of some modes may deploy more grammatical metaphor than the language of other modes.  For example, ceteris paribus, there is typically more use of ideational metaphor in the language of written mode than in the language of spoken mode.

[3] This simplistic analysis is falsified, for example, by the considerable number of young, non-"Anglo", female and formerly working class academics in Australian universities.  Compare also the 'coding orientation' of the present blogger, whose ancestral lines include Irish, German, Jewish and Australian indigenous, and who comes from a family where the father laboured as an employee on factory floors and building sites.

[4] The model of the plane of ideology (pp573-88) will be assessed in terms of how well it meets this responsibility.

Confusing Experience With Construals Of Experience

Martin (1992: 545):

The linguistically constructed [field] taxonomies of humanities, social science, and science are the ones that are most appropriately referred to as technical since they function as distillations of common sense or less technical experience into uncommon sense classifications of the world.

Blogger Comments:

[1] All field taxonomies are "linguistically constructed", and in two senses.  On the one hand, field is construed by language; that is, during logogenesis, the language that realises a given contextual field intellectually constructs that field.  On the other hand, field taxonomies are linguistic construals of experience.

[2] This confuses field (context) with the language that realises field.  The confusion is thus along the dimension of stratification (symbolic identity).

[3] The nominal group 'commonsense or less technical experience' confuses experience with commonsense construals of experience.

Misconstruing Field Taxonomies As Classifications Of Personnel & Semiotic Objects

Martin (1992: 545):

The distinctive [field] taxonomies of public administration are also pragmatic, but tend to organise people (or better, subjects) rather than things (e.g. classification of personnel), and writing (e.g. files, legislation, minutes, manuals, etc.) rather than experience.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that taxonomic classifications of such fields tend to "organise" subjects — as exemplified by a classification of personnel — rather than things.  On the other hand, in SFL theory, field refers to 'what's going on' in terms of the culture when language is used.

[2] The claim here is that taxonomic classifications of such fields tend to "organise" writing — or more accurately: semiotic objects, as exemplified by files, legislation, minutes, manuals, etc. — rather than experience.  On the other hand, in SFL theory, field refers to 'what's going on' in terms of the culture when language is used.

(It might be noted that the contrast between semiotic objects and experience is the contrast between construals of experience and experience.)

Confusing Orders Of Experience

Martin (1992: 545):

The distinctive [field] taxonomies of recreation and trades tend to be utilitarian in focus, organising in large part the special equipment and tools required and the Mediums they operate on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Equipment and tools are parts of the material setting, not the semiotic context.  This confuses orders of experience.

[2] This construes tools and equipment, rather than people, as the Agents of such Processes.

Confusing Field And Language

Martin (1992: 545):

As far as [field] taxonomies are concerned, domestic taxonomies deal with the 'natural' order of things — the common sense construction of experience.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, a field taxonomy is a classification of the types of fields in a culture that are realised by language and its attendant semiotic systems.

[2] To be clear, no field taxonomy deals with the 'natural' order of things.  On the one hand, a field taxonomy models the ideational dimension of culture as a semiotic system.  On the other, it is the ideational dimension of the language that construes experience. This confusion is thus stratificational.

[3] It is very misleading to equate the commonsense construal experience — i.e. those that don't employ ideational metaphor — with the 'natural' order of things (scare quotes notwithstanding).  On the other hand, the language that realises the field of quantum physics depends heavily on ideational metaphor, is very uncommonsense, and yet construes the physical order of Nature.