tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76781911446401213162024-03-19T09:07:25.965+11:00Thoughts That Didn't Occur …… to John A. Bateman in his review (1998) of James R. Martin's 'English Text' (1992)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-2947199610444253292024-03-19T09:06:00.000+11:002024-03-19T09:06:53.545+11:00Most Pageviews by Country<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMTRw3agHnO6oZ6WYuni_HsOXlKNeGz1F5tnQU_JnFEqLmTR0bBtuCK2AHgHBZLzfof2fUeEPh-_vc3IlsSzM2kz4seYgmDMJxQhmGA6wL7Ojb7ysazZXokG0bCprM_fOP-sNMe52y-mLJtFW5PEMESZWImvx0VPSYoQWX8wAhHfqSQ4RzrBxKBIVPA_SV/s1458/Screenshot%202024-03-19%20at%209.05.50%20am.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1458" data-original-width="1346" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMTRw3agHnO6oZ6WYuni_HsOXlKNeGz1F5tnQU_JnFEqLmTR0bBtuCK2AHgHBZLzfof2fUeEPh-_vc3IlsSzM2kz4seYgmDMJxQhmGA6wL7Ojb7ysazZXokG0bCprM_fOP-sNMe52y-mLJtFW5PEMESZWImvx0VPSYoQWX8wAhHfqSQ4RzrBxKBIVPA_SV/w590-h640/Screenshot%202024-03-19%20at%209.05.50%20am.png" width="590" /></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-63543450226988680672019-03-17T00:00:00.000+11:002019-04-04T08:58:57.046+11:00On English Text Being An Enormously Valuable Contribution To The Field<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 26):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
If one goes searching for ‘holes’, then holes there are enough — <span style="color: magenta;">indeed, </span><span style="color: magenta;">Martin already draws explicit attention to most of them himself</span>, in some cases pointing to significant possibilities for further development. For <i>English Text</i>, however, it is the pattern of the fabric of discourse semantics as a whole, and how that pattern can be uncovered, that counts. <span style="color: red;">This is already an enormously valuable contribution to the field. </span>Moreover, with the richly exemplified and detailed introductions to the areas discussed in the book, <span style="color: red;">the questions raised by <i>English Text</i> establish entire research directions in functional and other linguistics for the coming decade, encouraging combinations and interactions of areas that had previously not been at all evident. The book thus provides not only a crucial text book for students but a substantial research agenda for the semantics of discourse for some time to come.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[1]</span> To be clear, Martin, like Bateman, is completely oblivious to the theoretical inconsistencies that arise from his misunderstandings of Halliday's and Hasan's work, as set out in detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[2]</span> To be clear, what is "already an enormously valuable contribution to the field" is the original research work carried out by Halliday and Hasan on <span style="font-size: x-small;">SPEECH FUNCTION</span> and <span style="font-size: x-small;">COHESION</span> that Martin has merely misunderstood and rebranded as his own systems of <span style="font-size: x-small;">NEGOTIATION</span>, <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span>, <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> and <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span>, as previously explained on this blog.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By not bothering to check the provenance of "Martin's" ideas, and not being able to assess their consistency with(in) SFL theory, Bateman has witlessly colluded with Martin to defraud an academic community and waste the research potential of generations of students.</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-25349526558996020712019-03-10T00:00:00.000+11:002019-03-10T00:00:00.305+11:00On CONJUNCTION And The Relationship Between Genre, Register And The Linguistic System<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 25-6):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
For all its complexity, I have used chapters of the book with few problems with students of varying experience — including those new to linguistics; I have also used positions in the book as the starting point for further linguistic research (particularly in the area of <span style="color: red; font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span>: cf. Bateman and Rondhuis, 1996) and for the design of computational models of the generation of texts (particularly here <span style="color: magenta;">the relationship between genre, register and the linguistic system</span>: cf. Bateman and Teich, 1995). Each such investigation has drawn close attention to areas where the proposals of <i>English Text</i> may need to be extended, refined, and perhaps changed; but without the starting point provided by English Text that work would not have been possible.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> As set out in great detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%204%3A%20conjunction%20%26%20continuity" target="_blank">here</a>, <b>Martin's</b> logical <b>discourse semantic</b> system of <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> is a confusion of two of <b>Halliday's</b> <b>lexicogrammatical</b> systems:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">expansion manifested as cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction), and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">expansion manifested as relations between units in complexes (logical metafunction).</li>
</ul>
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Moreover, Martin creates (non-metaphorical) mismatches between semantics and grammar by</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>not organising his system on the basis of the three most general types of expansion, elaboration, extension and enhancement,</li>
<li>misunderstanding and misapplying types of expansion, especially concession,</li>
<li>misunderstanding the distinction between internal and external expansion relation, and</li>
<li>omitting projection entirely from the logical potential of discourse semantics.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> As set out in great detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%207%3A%20context" target="_blank">here</a>, Martin misunderstands "the relationship between genre, register and the language system". For example, Martin</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>misunderstands varieties of language (register/genre) as culture instead of language,</li>
<li>misunderstands cultural dimensions (field/tenor/mode) as register dimensions,</li>
<li>misunderstands sub-systems (register/genre) as systems,</li>
<li>misunderstands two perspectives on the same phenomenon (register/genre) as different levels of symbolic abstraction (strata),</li>
<li>misunderstands genre as more abstract than the cultural dimensions (field/tenor/mode) realised by language, and</li>
<li>misunderstands instances of context (situations) as instances of language (texts).</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In SFL theory, register and genre (text type) are two perspectives on the one point of variation of linguistic content on the cline of instantiation, midway between system and instance:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLZ_jU3_umhb31FZiFYFWZHxb6JFPsHWFAibLSau8WmZyB_Zl2zJjxwOLQD8CbmiwIeUkmRi4PK3DVe72jF-FQk4pNU3ZwuCO55Pga8Hhk9AuxwRpTyQP1psI07W5FtBTUK1o1-MOn8989/s1600/instantiationstratificationmatrix.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLZ_jU3_umhb31FZiFYFWZHxb6JFPsHWFAibLSau8WmZyB_Zl2zJjxwOLQD8CbmiwIeUkmRi4PK3DVe72jF-FQk4pNU3ZwuCO55Pga8Hhk9AuxwRpTyQP1psI07W5FtBTUK1o1-MOn8989/s1600/instantiationstratificationmatrix.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-13933883880719828822019-03-03T00:00:00.000+11:002019-03-03T00:00:01.144+11:00On The Questions And Possibilities That Martin’s Approach Opens Up<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 25):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
It also requires, as with many things, an appropriate attitude when working with the book: <i>English Text</i> is clearly at its best when engaged with, rather than considered passively as a (potential) source of wisdom. <span style="color: red;">Certainly, one of the most important aspects of the book is exactly the kinds of questions that it raises. When an attitude is adopted that foregrounds the questions and possibilities Martin’s approach opens up, the results are almost always beneficial.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As demonstrated on this blog, and in more detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>, the kinds of questions and possibilities that Martin's approach in <i>English Text</i> opens up arise from deep misunderstandings of the global dimensions of SFL theory: stratification (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/stratification" target="_blank">here</a>), instantiation (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/instantiation" target="_blank">here</a>) and metafunction (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/metafunction" target="_blank">here</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Moreover, any theoretical value in Martin's work lies in the original works that he has misunderstood and rebranded as his own:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Halliday's semantic <span style="font-size: x-small;">SPEECH FUNCTION</span> (rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic <span style="font-size: x-small;">NEGOTIATION</span>);</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Halliday & Hasan's grammatical <span style="font-size: x-small;">REFERENCE</span> (rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span>);</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Halliday & Hasan's grammatical <span style="font-size: x-small;">ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION</span> (also rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span>);</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Halliday & Hasan's grammatical cohesive <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> (reinterpreted as Martin's discourse semantic <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span>, now rebranded as <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONNEXION</span>); and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Halliday & Hasan's <span style="font-size: x-small;">LEXICAL COHESION</span> (rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span>).</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Bateman has demonstrated in his review of Martin's <i>English Text</i>, he has not bothered to check the provenance of its content, nor has he been able to identify any of the wealth of theoretical inconsistencies that arise from Martin's misinterpretations. In recommending Martin's work, Bateman has done a great disservice to the academic community.</div>
<br />
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-17831539741630103892019-02-24T00:00:00.000+11:002019-03-01T13:46:12.385+11:00On Martin’s Willingness To Speculate<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 25):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Concerning a precursor to the model presented in <i>English Text</i>, Martin wrote:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">“... one needs a model of text in context—of discourse in relation to grammar and lexis and to those semiotic systems which language itself realises. This takes us far beyond anything we can be sure of, into the realms of wild speculation perhaps. Nevertheless, some kind of model has to be set up if we are to progress; so here, with apologies, is my current best guess at how it all fits together.’’ (Martin, 1985:249) </span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><i>English Text</i> takes that initial ‘best guess’ considerably further and apologies are now no longer due.</span> <span style="color: #674ea7;">Because of Martin’s willingness to speculate, the book places us all in a better position to make the next round of best guesses.</span> <span style="color: #45818e;">This attitude of ongoing inquiry, of building tools and models to address fundamental issues in the functions and roles of language and not resting content within the boundaries of existing possibilities for theoretical description, follows fully in the Hallidayan tradition of relating language to social context in as linguistically responsible and explicit fashion as possible.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[1]</span> Amusingly, here Bateman concedes that apologies <b><i>are</i></b> due for Martin's initial 'best guess'.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">[2]</span> This is very misleading indeed, because it is the direct opposite of what is true. On the one hand, Martin's speculations are merely his misinterpretations of Halliday and Hasan's ideas, rebranded as his systems on his stratum of discourse semantics, as previously explained on this blog, and argued in detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, <i>English Text</i> does not "place us all in a better position" — least of all for making <b>guesses</b> — because the misunderstandings on which it is based represent a step backward from his source material, and undermine the chances of new students forming a coherent and deep understanding of SFL theory.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #45818e;">[3]</span> This is very misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true. Martin's "attitude of ongoing inquiry" is merely his attempt to misrepresent himself as a genuinely innovative theorist. The "tools and models" he builds do not address fundamental issues in the functions and rôles of language because, being misunderstandings, they are inconsistent with the theory in which they are situated. The "tools and models" that <i style="font-weight: bold;">do</i> address these issues are those of the original works that Martin has misunderstood.<br />
<br />
Moreover, given the above, "the boundaries of existing possibilities for theoretical description" that Martin has crossed are the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance, and of theoretical consistency and inconsistency, and as such, Martin's work does <b><i>not</i></b> follow "fully in the Hallidayan tradition of relating language to social context in as linguistically responsible and explicit fashion as possible".<br />
<br />
In reviewing Martin's work positively, while demonstrably not understanding it or being able to critique it in theoretical terms, Bateman has merely exacerbated the damage done by Martin's publication. </div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-31632650364168638192019-02-17T00:00:00.000+11:002019-02-17T00:00:05.913+11:00On The Breadth And Systematic Interrelationships In 'English Text'<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 25): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
One of the difficulties in approaching <i>English Text</i> is at the same time one of the principal reasons for making the effort—that is, its <span style="color: magenta;">breadth</span>. Work in the complex area of discourse organisation and function typically achieves a fragmentary view at best, focusing in on particular areas and phenomena. <span style="color: red;"><i>English Text</i> goes beyond this, presenting both detail and systematic interrelationships </span><span style="color: #ea9999;">that successfully evoke a feel for the semantics of discourse</span><span style="color: red;"> and its realisation in lexicogrammatical patterns as a complex interacting whole.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[1]</span> This is very misleading. Martin's model of discourse semantics is largely confined to the <b>textual</b> metafunction, and only <b>part</b> of that. This is because Martin's systems of <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span>, <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> and <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> are misunderstandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) <b>lexicogrammatical</b> cohesion, rebranded and misrepresented as <b>semantic</b> stratum systems of <b>three different metafunctions</b>. (The one exception is <span style="font-size: x-small;">NEGOTIATION</span>, which is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's interpersonal semantic system of <span style="font-size: x-small;">SPEECH FUNCTION</span>.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[2]</span> This is very misleading. Martin's systems of <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span>, <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> and <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> do <b><i>not</i></b> specify how their paradigmatic features are realised <b>syntagmatically</b>, and do <b><i>not</i></b> specify how they are realised at the level of <b>lexicogrammar</b>. Moreover, due to Martin's misunderstanding of theoretical concepts, the model creates mismatches between semantics and lexicogrammar, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #ea9999;">[3]</span> Given all the misunderstandings that invalidate Martin's model, it is not true to claim that it evokes even a <b><i>feeling</i></b> for such matters successfully.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
∞</div>
<br />
The arguments that constitute the evidence for all the above claims can be read <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-75559472328875674272019-02-10T00:00:00.000+11:002019-02-10T22:12:41.528+11:00On Praising English Text<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 25): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Both differences reinforce <span style="color: magenta;">the central role that discourse plays in the construction of a comprehensive semantics </span><span style="color: #a64d79;">that can fully motivate functional differences found in the lexicogrammar.</span> Indeed, any brand of functional linguistics considers it self-evident that the deployment of grammatical and lexical phenomena in texts (written or spoken) is to be explained by considering the communicative and/or social purposes involved. <span style="color: #3d85c6;">Less self-evident is the fact that it is not <i>a priori</i> clear how particular groupings of grammatical and lexical phenomena are to be isolated for purposes of explanation:</span> <span style="color: #674ea7;">Until the relevant ‘comparison sets’ are known, the functional alternations operating can scarcely be recognised, let alone analysed or explained.</span> <span style="color: red;"><i>English Text</i> therefore provides a detailed characterisation of those comparison sets that supports a richly integrating view of the discourse functions involved.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[1]</span> To be clear, in SFL theory, it is the <b><i>grammar</i></b> that plays the central rôle in "the construction of a comprehensive semantics". As <span style="text-align: justify;">Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 22) put it:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created …</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Discourse', on the other hand, refers to 'the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts' (Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512), and it is the textual metafunction that creates discourse.<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"> </span>Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 528): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
The “textual” metafunction is the name we give to the systematic resources a language must have for creating discourse: for ensuring that each instance of text makes contact with its environment. The “environment” includes both the context of situation and other instances of text.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In reinterpreting Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual systems of cohesion as semantic systems, Martin has confused a metafunction (textual) with a level of symbolic abstraction (semantics).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[2]</span> In terms of SFL theory, this has the relation backwards. It is <b><i>not</i></b> the <b>semantics</b> that motivates "functional differences found in <b>lexicogrammar</b>" but the <b>lexicogrammar</b> that creates the functional differences at the level of <b>semantics</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Moreover, Halliday's (1984) paper <i>On The Ineffability Of Grammatical Categories</i> argues that semantics can only be validly theorised by encoding semantic values by reference to grammatical tokens, at the same time explaining why the grammar cannot be validly theorised by decoding grammatical tokens by reference to semantic values.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[3]</span> To be clear, on the one hand, it is the architecture of SFL grammatics that provides an explanation of grammatical and lexical phenomena. On the other hand, explanation in SFL does not involve <b>isolating</b> grammatical and lexical phenomena, but determining the <b>relations</b> between them. SFL is a <b>relational</b> theory, not a <b>modular</b> one.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #674ea7;">[4]</span> To be clear, this obfuscatory reference to experimental procedure ('comparison sets') only reinforces the fact that Bateman does not understand the hierarchy of stratification in SFL theory, wherein semantics and grammar are different levels of symbolic abstraction, which only disagree in the case of grammatical metaphor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[5]</span> To be clear, the use of <i>therefore</i> here is misleading, since this conclusion is not entailed by the propositions that precede it. Moreover, as the clarifying critiques on this blog and <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">the blog reviewing <i>English Text</i></a> demonstrate, this is manifestly untrue. Martin has merely taken Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammar of textual cohesion, misunderstood it, mixed it up with other sources, also misunderstood, and rebranded the confusion as his model of discourse semantics.</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-31659258447944736842019-02-03T00:00:00.000+11:002019-02-03T00:00:05.559+11:00On Martin's "Metafunctionally Diversified" Discourse Semantics<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 24-5): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
And second, a very different kind of semantics needs to be pursued when a ‘metafunctionally diverse’ grammar is assumed. For non-metafunctionally diverse grammars, i.e., grammars which foreground basic predicate-argument structures, and which downgrade alternations such as diatheses, constructions of textual prominence, interpersonal evaluations and speech functions, the semantics resulting is skewed towards <span style="color: #3d85c6;">experiential, propositional content</span>. In contrast, a ‘metafunctionally broad’ grammar—such as IFG—attempts to foreground equally the distinct kinds of meanings made in grammar; <span style="color: red;">and, hence, Martin’s semantics as an abstraction made on the basis of such a grammar is naturally a discourse semantics, ranging over textual, interpersonal, as well as ideational areas.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[1]</span> To be clear, in SFL theory, 'propositional content' is interpersonal, not experiential.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[2]</span> Here Bateman assumes that the 'natural' relation between lexicogrammar and semantics in SFL theory guarantees that Martin's discourse semantics will be metafunctionally diversified like the grammar, whereas such an outcome actually rests on the ability of the theorist to understand and consistently apply the theory. As previously demonstrated over and over on this blog, and in far more detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>, this is certainly not the case.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, Martin takes Halliday & Hasan's (1976) four types of cohesion, all textual in metafunction and lexicogrammatical in terms of symbolic abstraction, and distributes them across three different metafunctions at a higher (unjustified) level of symbolic abstraction (discourse semantics):</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>reference and ellipsis–&–substitution (textual lexicogrammar) are rebranded <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span> (textual discourse semantics),</li>
<li>cohesive conjunction (<b>textual</b> lexicogrammar) is rebranded <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> (<b>logical</b> discourse semantics), and</li>
<li>lexical cohesion (<b>textual</b> lexicogrammar) is rebranded <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> (<b>experiential</b> discourse semantics).</li>
</ul>
<div>
Moreover, there are metafunctional confusions within each of these systems:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><b>textual</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"> IDENTIFICATION </span>confuses <b>textual</b> reference with <b>interpersonal</b> deixis and <b>ideational</b> denotation;</li>
<li><b>logical</b> <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION </span>confuses (non-structural) <b>textual</b> conjunction with (structural) <b>logical</b> complexing; and</li>
<li><b>experiential</b> <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION </span>confuses <b>textual</b> lexical cohesion with <b>logical</b> relations between experiential elements of grammatical structures.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-32426893583713423292019-01-27T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-27T00:00:00.579+11:00On The Importance Of Martin's Stratification For Grammatical Metaphor<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 24): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Two essential differences between these approaches [cognitive linguistics and mainstream syntax] and that pursued by Martin are, however, the following. <span style="color: magenta;">First, for Martin both the strata involved contribute ‘meaning’—the lexicogrammar is not a passive, automatic reflex of semantics but itself also contributes meaning as was maintained in the original Firthian tradition out of which systemic-functional linguistics has grown.</span> <span style="color: red;">This is of particular importance when we come to consider the role and function of ‘grammatical metaphor’</span>: i.e., what happens when the semantic and grammatical options taken up are not congruent. For Halliday (and thus Martin) a significant part of the power of language comes from the ability to cross-code grammar and semantics: <span style="color: magenta;">grammar does not slavishly follow semantics</span>, once a sufficient degree of language use sophistication has been achieved by a language user, <span style="color: #cc0000;">the natural meanings of grammar can be used to construct extended semantic configurations</span>: <span style="color: #e06666;">the best discussed example of this being, of course, nominalisation</span>. Here a semantic event is turned into a ‘thing’ that can be modified, counted, compared, tracked across discourse, etc. <span style="color: #a64d79;">Adoption of an ‘incongruent’ realisation for a semantic configuration thus necessarily adds further meanings to that configuration, since the incongruent realisation itself has (discourse) semantic consequences.</span> <span style="color: #3d85c6;">This follows straightforwardly from a basic premise of the approach: i.e., that grammar and semantics stand in a natural relationship;</span> <span style="color: #45818e;">the patterns of grammar are recapitulations of the patterns of semantics (and vice versa).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[1]</span> Unknown to Bateman, Martin's notion that 'all strata make meaning' confuses <b>stratification</b> (all strata) with <b>semogenesis</b> (make meaning); see, for example, <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/confusing-semogenesis-and-stratification.html" target="_blank">Confusing Semogenesis And Stratification</a> or <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/misconstruing-stratification_29.html" target="_blank">Misconstruing Stratification</a>. This is one of the contributing factors to Martin locating (varieties of) <b>language</b>, register and genre, in <b>context</b>. Moreover, lexicogrammar is neither 'active' nor 'passive' with regard to semantics; the two strata are <b>two perspectives on the same phenomenon</b>, linguistic content, at <b>different levels of symbolic abstraction</b>. That is why the relation between them is one of intensive symbolic <b>identity</b> (realisation).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[2]</span> To be clear, Martin's discourse semantics undermines the notion of grammatical metaphor by not providing congruent realisations of its systems by which metaphorical realisations can be recognised as incongruent. Moreover Martin creates mismatches between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar — e.g. <a href="https://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%204%3A%20conjunction%20%26%20continuity" target="_blank">conjunctive relations</a> — even in the absence of metaphor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">[3]</span> This seriously misunderstands grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor does not involve using the grammar to construct 'extended semantic configurations'. On the contrary, in ideational metaphor, for example, an 'extended semantic configuration' such a <b>sequence</b> is realised <b>more compactly</b> as a <b>clause</b> instead of a clause complex.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[4]</span> To be clear, Martin does not understand grammatical metaphor (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/grammatical%20metaphor" target="_blank">here</a>) and his meagre discussion of it is largely confined to nominalisation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[5]</span> This misunderstands grammatical metaphor. The reason grammatical metaphor 'adds further <b>meanings</b>' is that it is the <b>junction</b> or <b>fusion</b> of the meanings of both the congruent and incongruent realisations; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 243-4, 272, 278, 283, 287). Any discourse semantic "consequences" are a separate matter.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[6]</span> To be clear, this is Halliday, not Martin.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #45818e;">[7]</span> To be clear, in SFL theory, the <b>patterns</b> of grammar and semantics are patterns of <b>instantiation</b> during <b>logogenesis</b>, and the relation between them is <b>realisation</b>, not "recapitulation" (restatement, reiteration, repetition etc.). Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between <b>instantiation</b> (patterns) and <b>syntagmatic relations</b> (structural or cohesive). See, for example, <a href="https://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/05/confusing-instantiation-with.html" target="_blank">Confusing Instantiation With The Syntagmatic Axis</a>.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-36881309781764203872019-01-20T00:00:00.002+11:002023-03-07T09:32:08.602+11:00On "Martin's" Solidary Relationship Between Grammar And Semantics<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 24): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Moreover, in certain respects, <span style="color: red;">the approach in <i>English Text</i> also becomes more easily reconcilable, or at least, comparable, with many other approaches to grammar and semantics. Indeed, the position of a </span><span style="color: magenta;">solidary</span><span style="color: red;">, natural relationship between grammar and semantics has now become almost standard in many linguistic traditions</span>: cognitive linguistics motivates linguistic forms on the basis of their ‘underlying’ cognitive structures (e.g., Langacker, 1987, Wierzbicka, 1988), the examination of ‘alternations’ in mainstream syntax posits semantic classes that explain differences in susceptibilities to undergo the various alternations in available constructions (Levin, 1993), even logical syntax has had syntax falling out of semantic structures for some time (e.g., Montague, 1974).</blockquote>
<br />
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> This is very misleading. The natural relationship between grammar and semantics is how SFL (Halliday 1985: xvii) models language. Here Bateman gives the false impression that this is Martin's innovation — aided by Martin's Figure 1.12 (p20):</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><blockquote><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7_yfxqoJNs9smhACouJjptz5hMHGkJX6Q1vDPz5Z-a6qIjjXTo9QcY2tDn3vfg_TbanvfrrJ3N-XtO6nhyphenhyphends2f1CdHuhWYJ2DRPivTyps1SN5ikfFsJhvEZtsxsFLOeLLA9TcWW4hc_JK/s632/Fig+1.12.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="632" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7_yfxqoJNs9smhACouJjptz5hMHGkJX6Q1vDPz5Z-a6qIjjXTo9QcY2tDn3vfg_TbanvfrrJ3N-XtO6nhyphenhyphends2f1CdHuhWYJ2DRPivTyps1SN5ikfFsJhvEZtsxsFLOeLLA9TcWW4hc_JK/w400-h138/Fig+1.12.png" width="400" /></a></blockquote></div><div>
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> To be clear, the term 'solidary' actually means:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
(<b>of a group or community</b>) characterised by solidarity or coincidence of interests.<br />e.g. <i>a sociable and solidary regiment of some strength and purpose</i></blockquote>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-23175434638482887102019-01-13T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-16T12:42:15.246+11:00On The Theoretical Value Of Martin's Stratification Of The Content Plane<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 23-4):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">The availability of the two strata, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics, is presented as beneficial in most areas that Martin addresses.</span> <span style="color: #e06666;">The value of stratification, and of allowing the description to range across two (or more) strata, is argued in all of the areas that Martin addresses in <i>English Text</i>.</span> <span style="color: magenta;">The ability to distinguish systematically between a semantic unit and a range of possible grammatical units or patterns of such units is of fundamental importance</span>—particularly given the very richly elaborated view of grammar assumed. <span style="color: red;">Opening up the realisational relation between a semantic description and a grammatical description significantly empowers grammatical metaphor as an explanatory device.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[1]</span> This is misleading to the extent that it gives the false impression that the stratification of the content plane into lexicogrammar and semantics is Martin's proposal rather than Halliday's (whose considerably prior notion of grammatical metaphor depends on such a stratification).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[2]</span> To be clear, Martin argues for the value of <b><i>his</i></b> stratification because it allows him to create his own "module" within SFL theory by rebranding his misunderstandings of others' work as his own systems:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>negotiation</b> is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's <b>speech function</b>;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>identification</b> is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's <b>grammatical reference</b> (and <b>ellipsis-&-substitution</b>);</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>conjunction</b> is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's <b>grammatical conjunction</b>; and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>ideation</b> is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's <b>lexical cohesion</b>.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Martin's argument for stratification, however, presented in Chapter 1, does not survive close scrutiny; see, for example, <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-argument-for-discourse-semantic.html" target="_blank">Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In brief, Martin provides three motivations for his stratification:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">semantic motifs</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">grammatical metaphor</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">cohesion</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of the three, only grammatical metaphor motivates a distinct semantic stratum, but this is Halliday's argument, not Martin's, and it does not motivate a specifically <b>discourse</b> semantics. Moreover, Martin misunderstands grammatical metaphor (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/grammatical%20metaphor" target="_blank">here</a>), and reinterprets it as a process, a "texturing interface" (p401) between his discourse semantic systems and lexicogrammar (ellipsis-&substitution, Theme and collocation), thereby undermining his own argument for it as a motivation for stratification.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of semantic motifs, Martin proposes (p16) setting up an attitude network to generalise what he sees as commonalities between <b>some</b> mental, behavioural and relational clauses. For some of the misunderstandings involved, see <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/semantic-motifs-as-motivation-for.html" target="_blank">The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification</a>. Even so, no mention of semantic motifs is made beyond Chapter 1, and Martin's experiential system, ideation, does not address the points he raises — which is hardly surprising, given that it is a rebranding of a <b>textual</b> grammatical system, lexical cohesion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding cohesion as a motivation for stratification, Martin's argument involves misrepresenting the source of his ideas: Halliday & Hasan's (1976) model of cohesion. See, for example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/misrepresenting-cohesion.html">Misrepresenting Cohesion</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/misrepresenting-domain-of-cohesion.html">Misrepresenting The Domain Of Cohesion</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/misconstruing-cohesion-within-sentence.html">Misconstruing 'Cohesion Within The Sentence'</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/not-recognising-continuity-between.html">Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: magenta;">[3]</span> To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic units are:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">exchange and move (interpersonal system of negotiation)</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>participant</b> (textual system of <b>identification</b> — i.e. rebranded cohesive reference etc.)</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>message</b> (logical system of <b>conjunction</b> — i.e. rebranded cohesive conjunction), and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>message part</b> (experiential system of <b>ideation</b> — i.e. rebranded lexical cohesion).</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problems here are with Martin's rebranding of cohesive systems. Most importantly, because Martin treats these non-structural systems as structural, the units he proposes are not units with internal structure, but units that relate to other units. This creates an inconsistency in the meaning of unit, since all other units in SFL theory are units with internal structure. So these discourse semantic units are not units in the same sense as lexicogrammatical units, such as clause, phrase and group.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Martin's naming of units further reveals his theoretical misunderstandings. For example, the use of an <b>experiential</b> category, participant, for a <b>textual</b> system, identification, is consistent with his misunderstanding of <b>textual</b> reference with <b>ideational</b> denotation, as explained elsewhere on this blog. On the other hand, Martin's use of <b>textual</b> categories, message and message part, for <b>ideational</b> systems, conjunction and ideation, is inconsistent with his own theorising, but (metafunctionally) consistent with the source of his ideas, the <b>textual</b> systems of cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion. Moreover, in naming the two message and message part, Martin misrepresents a relation of <b>interdependency</b> as one of <b>composition</b> (whole-part).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[4]</span> This is very misleading indeed. Firstly, as already mentioned, Martin does not understand grammatical metaphor (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/grammatical%20metaphor" target="_blank">here</a>). Secondly, Martin does <b><i>not</i></b> open up "the realisational relation between a semantic description and a grammatical description" since he provides no realisation statements that relate his discourse semantic systems to lexicogrammatical systems. Thirdly, because Martin does not specify congruent lexicogrammatical realisations of his discourse semantic systems, he provides no means of identifying congruent vs metaphorical realisations using his model. That is, if anything, Martin's model undermines grammatical metaphor rather than "empowering" it — the direct opposite of Bateman's claim.</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style><style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-60635976492712119332019-01-06T00:00:00.001+11:002019-01-15T13:08:36.389+11:00On Martin’s Explicit Modularisation Of The Linguistic System<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 23):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The lack of neighbouring occupants at both more and less abstract levels of description with respect to ‘grammar’ has in the past allowed provided enough space for accounts of grammar to drift in both directions: thus we have, on the one hand, <span style="color: #45818e;">Hudson (e.g., Hudson, 1976) moving grammar to be less abstract, more form-bound</span> and, on the other, <span style="color: #a64d79;">Fawcett declaring that his system networks are in fact the semantic description of sentences, clauses, dialogues, etc.</span>—<span style="color: #e06666;">syntax as such being restricted to the realisation statements</span>. <span style="color: magenta;">Martin’s explicit modularisation of the linguistic system into closely related but distinct strata places more overall constraint on the model presented.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #45818e;">[1]</span> To be clear, a grammar that takes <b>form</b> as its point of departure is not a <b>functional</b> grammar, in the systemic functional sense.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[2]</span> To be clear, Fawcett misinterprets Halliday's grammatical networks as semantic in order to claim the level of form for his own model. For evidence that Fawcett misinterprets Halliday, see the clarifying critiques <a href="http://cardiff-grammar.blogspot.com/search/label/misrepresentation" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[3]</span> Strictly speaking, in Fawcett's (2000) confused model (Figure 4, below), <b>realisation statements</b> are presented as <b>potential</b> at the level of form, and the <b>structures</b> that <b><i>realise</i></b> them are presented as <b>instance</b> at the level of form.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu1XlhE0VBBKCLzZsdU5ySv5pveYLMs4vpAixaKPUBcnqd9f2q81t4OG_YCZcCFPoufIQmI9gmu2PqUwWH-dq_aPNH0KuilENvQoh_uqeV1So-b_0Ya4tRIhrrm7yMdMfp0XiEcm_mpxKk/s1600/Figure+4.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu1XlhE0VBBKCLzZsdU5ySv5pveYLMs4vpAixaKPUBcnqd9f2q81t4OG_YCZcCFPoufIQmI9gmu2PqUwWH-dq_aPNH0KuilENvQoh_uqeV1So-b_0Ya4tRIhrrm7yMdMfp0XiEcm_mpxKk/s320/Figure+4.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[4]</span> To be clear, Martin's "modularisation of the linguistic system", like Fawcett's, is a serious misunderstanding of the <b>dimensional</b> architecture of SFL theory, and so leads to the serious misunderstandings found in their models (as demonstrated <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a> for Martin, and <a href="http://cardiff-grammar.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a> for Fawcett). Halliday & Webster (2009: 231):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
In SFL language is described, or “modelled”, in terms of several dimensions, or parameters, which taken together define the “architecture” of language. These are<br /><blockquote>
(i) the hierarchy of strata (context, semantics, lexicogrammar, phonology, phonetics; related by realisation);<br />(ii) the hierarchy of rank (e.g. clause, phrase/group, word, morpheme; related by composition);<br />(iii) the cline of instantiation (system to instance);<br />(iv) the cline of delicacy (least delicate to most delicate, or grossest to finest);<br />(v) the opposition of axis (paradigmatic and syntagmatic);<br />(vi) the organisation by metafunction (ideational (experiential, logical), interpersonal, textual).</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See also:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/12/misconstruing-stratification-and_26.html">Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/12/misunderstanding-stratification-begging.html">Misunderstanding Stratification</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/04/misconstruing-sfl-as-modular-model-of.html">Misconstruing Strata As Modules</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-88532038051754879402018-12-30T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-14T16:21:30.555+11:00On Martin's Controversial Move To Explicitly Consider Semantics<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 23):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">It is also certainly not the case that Martin’s approach is uncontroversial, even within his own functional tradition.</span><span style="color: #e06666;"> </span><span style="color: #a64d79;">The need for a move to explicitly consider semantics </span><span style="color: magenta;">has sometimes been downplayed</span><span style="color: magenta;">,</span><span style="color: #3d85c6;"> aided in part by the rich functional semantic flavour that permeates grammatical descriptions such as that found in Halliday’s IFG;</span> <span style="color: red;">here “the grammar is infused with meaning, and a stratal distinction between grammar and semantics systematically blurred.’’[p33].</span> </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[1]</span> Here Bateman again frames the matter in terms of agreement among linguists instead of in terms of theoretical validity. The distinction between agreement and validity is encapsulated in the following cartoon of B. Kliban:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTaUWTaz_ihgXtSqOd9xdkrn4h1JrGbULUeRUhYDYOGZHGDIto93qSIukMwv23nIacchg8PEHf78wSRDnG2ZJsrfIXTGVnJSEgLKPWRMpMAa8ypI1gNGMByknqBZGyMeDN_tP7LSlZfhyphenhyphen7/s1600/bkunicorn.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTaUWTaz_ihgXtSqOd9xdkrn4h1JrGbULUeRUhYDYOGZHGDIto93qSIukMwv23nIacchg8PEHf78wSRDnG2ZJsrfIXTGVnJSEgLKPWRMpMAa8ypI1gNGMByknqBZGyMeDN_tP7LSlZfhyphenhyphen7/s640/bkunicorn.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[2]</span> This is potentially misleading, since Martin does not "explicitly consider semantics", because his discourse semantics, as previously explained, is merely a combination of Halliday's textual <b>lexicogrammar</b> (rebranded <b>cohesion</b> systems) and Halliday's <b>previously theorised</b> semantic system (rebranded <b>speech function</b>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[3]</span> To be clear, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49) explain:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a ‘semanticky’ kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[4]</span> This quote from Martin demonstrates his misunderstanding of stratification, which is also encompassed in his mantra 'all strata make meaning', which confuses <b>stratification</b> ('all strata') with <b>semogenesis</b> ('make meaning'), and leads him to interpret every stratum as a stratum of meaning. See, for example, <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/misrepresenting-stratification.html" target="_blank">Misrepresenting Stratification</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be clear, SFL theory distinguishes between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar), principally because the distinction is essential for the systematic understanding of grammatical metaphor.</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style><br />
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-language:EN-AU;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-language:EN-AU;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-28159825754926098112018-12-23T00:00:00.001+11:002019-01-13T13:23:26.608+11:00On The Substantive Content Of Martin's English Text<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 23):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Concerning the substantive content of the book, <span style="color: red;">it is not possible that one would agree with all of the claims and analyses that Martin makes, nor with all aspects of the methodology, </span><span style="color: #a64d79;">and some unclarities are introduced by the very position developed. For example, since now so much work is being done in the discourse semantics, there are probably ramifications for how a lexicogrammar should be organised:</span> <span style="color: magenta;">in Chapter 3, Martin notes his earlier critique of Halliday’s <span style="font-size: x-small;">DEIXIS</span> network in lexicogrammar,</span> <span style="color: #cc0000;">and in Chapter 5 the restriction of lexis as most delicate grammar to field-neutral oppositions is clearly a strong constraint.</span> But there is little discussion of this in the book; it is generally stated that <span style="color: #e06666;">the account is compatible with Halliday and Matthiessen’s descriptions, which may be broadly the case.</span> <span style="color: #45818e;">But particular differences in description may well be necessary.</span> However, given that the focus of <i>English Text</i> is primarily on the discourse semantic stratum, this omission is probably quite justified.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> To be clear, it is not a matter whether linguists agree about Martin's theorising, but whether Martin's theorising agrees with data and with the rest of the theory in which it is situated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[2]</span> To be clear, Martin's discourse semantics, apart from his rebranding of speech function, is rebranded lexicogrammar (<b>textual</b> cohesion):</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span> is rebranded <b>cohesive reference </b>and<b> ellipsis-&substitution</b>, misunderstood, and confused with <b>ideational</b> denotation and with <b>interpersonal</b> deixis of the <b>nominal group</b>, inter alia (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%203%3A%20identification" target="_blank">here</a>);</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> is rebranded <b>lexical cohesion</b>, misunderstood as <b>experiential</b> in metafunction, and confused with <b>lexis</b> as most delicate <b>grammar</b> and with misunderstood <b>logical</b> relations between ergative functions of the <b>clause</b>, inter alia (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%205%3A%20ideation" target="_blank">here</a>); and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> is rebranded <b>cohesive conjunction</b>, misunderstood as <b>logical</b> in metafunction, and confused with misunderstood logical relations between <b>clauses</b> in <b>clause complexes</b> (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%204%3A%20conjunction%20%26%20continuity" target="_blank">here</a>).</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[3]</span> To be clear, Martin confuses the <b>interpersonal</b> <b>deictic</b> function of determiners in the nominal group with the <b>textual reference</b> function of determiners in non-structural cohesion (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/deixis" target="_blank">here</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">[4]</span> To be clear, Martin's proposal (pp289-90) is to locate "field-neutral" <b>lexical</b> taxonomies in lexicogrammar and "field-specific" <b>lexical</b> taxonomies <b>outside language</b> at the level of <b>context</b> (misunderstood as register) — with <b>lexical</b> relations at the level between them, discourse <b>semantics</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In terms of stratification, the proposal locates lexicogrammatical phenomena at three levels of symbolic abstraction, one of them outside language. In terms of realisation, the proposals are that:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">field-specific lexical taxonomies are realised in lexical relations, and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">lexical relations are realised in field-neutral taxonomies</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or, taking metaredundancy into account, <b>field-specific lexical taxonomies</b> <b>are realised</b> in the realisation of lexical relations <b>in field-neutral taxonomies</b>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[5]</span> To be clear, Martin's account is not even broadly "compatible with Halliday & Matthiessen's descriptions"; it violates the theoretical architecture and misunderstands its basic concepts (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #45818e;">[6]</span> To be clear, the difference between modelling semantics and lexicogrammar is the level of <b>symbolic abstraction</b>, meaning or wording, that the theorising is concerned with. A model of semantics specifies the systems of meaning that are realised in wording; a model of lexicogrammar specifies the systems of wording that realise meaning.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-68098991368362963952018-12-16T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-12T10:09:10.850+11:00On Martin's System Of Nuclear Relations<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 22-3):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">Even I</span> am not quite sure about <span style="color: red;">Figure 5.23</span>, which sets out the subtypes of nuclear lexical relations in <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span>: <span style="color: red;">It could be </span>a summary overview of the material or<span style="color: red;"> a very interesting hypothesis about the relationship between the semantic region of <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> and its lexicogrammatical realisation. I suspect the latter,</span> <span style="color: magenta;">but this interpretation is certainly missed in, for example, Tucker’s (1998) review of approaches to lexis, Martin’s included. Tucker criticises Martin for not giving details of lexicogrammatical realisation,</span><span style="color: #e06666;"> </span><span style="color: red;">whereas the details of Figure 5.23 are very precise in the particular grammatical environments called for.</span> <span style="color: #e06666;">Martin may well have intended these possible alternative interpretations;</span> <span style="color: #3d85c6;">they certainly invite close consideration of the nature and form of a linguistic description!</span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">These superficial difficulties can all, by and large, be unravelled or contextualised by close reading,</span> <span style="color: #a64d79;">but for the student who is perhaps still struggling with the overall map of the system, the difficulty is an unnecessary overhead.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">[1]</span> As this blog demonstrates, Bateman's "modest" use of <i>even I</i> (thematised counter-expectancy: exceeding) is entirely unwarranted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[2]</span> To be clear, Martin's Figure 5.23, <i>Nuclear Relations In English</i>, is the system network for nuclear relations, one of the more delicate systems of <i>Lexical Relations In English </i>(Figure 5.10), and so, in that sense, it is a "summary overview of the material".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason why Figure 5.23 is <b><i>not</i></b> "a very interesting hypothesis about the relationship between the semantic region of <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> and its lexicogrammatical realisation" is that it does not specify how any of its features are realised grammatically.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One reason why Bateman was fooled, in this respect, is that Martin falsely presents examples — <i>chase + cat, her + cat, </i>etc<i> </i>— in the form of realisation statements.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another reason why Bateman was fooled, in this respect, is that the network presents a view of what is purported to be a semantic system from the perspective of the view from below, lexicogrammar, as demonstrated by the "discourse semantic" features [clausal], [verbal], [nominal]. The view from below is the opposite perspective of that taken in theorising in SFL.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this regard, Bateman has mistaken a network of grammatical features for the grammatical realisations of a discourse semantic system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The irony, of course, is that, in modelling lexical relations, Martin's system is a proposal for a lexicogrammatical system. It's just that neither Martin nor Bateman realises it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[3]</span> As the argument in <span style="color: red;">[2]</span> demonstrates, Tucker was entirely justified in criticising "Martin for not giving details of lexicogrammatical realisation".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[4]</span> Strictly speaking, these are <b><i>not</i></b> <b>alternative</b> interpretations, since the system in Figure 5.23 is presented by Martin as both, "a summary overview of the material" and as a discourse semantic system realised in lexicogrammar.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[5]</span> This is true.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[6]</span> To be clear, "superficial difficulties" such as those identified in <span style="color: red;">[2]</span> are more accurately described as serious theoretical inconsistencies, which <b><i>even</i></b> Bateman's close reading failed to identify.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-89689527338833885812018-12-09T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-11T15:08:35.691+11:00On Martin's Use Of System Networks<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 22):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
An example of one of the more superficial presentational problems is the ready use made of system networks for a number of different purposes as well as for linguistic descriptions at all of the strata treated in the book — i.e., lexicogrammar, discourse semantic, register, and genre. It is as a consequence not always immediately clear at what level of description a particular <span style="color: #e06666;">system network</span> is being presented—thus Figure 2.2 is for <span style="font-size: x-small;">MOOD</span> (i.e., from the lexicogrammar) while <span style="color: magenta;">the figure following, Figure 2.3, is speech function (i.e., from the discourse semantics)</span>; similarly, <span style="color: #3d85c6;">Figure 5.10 is a discourse semantic network</span>, whereas <span style="color: #e06666;">Figures 5.11 and 5.12</span> are drawn from the field component of register and Figures 5.3–5.9 from the lexicogrammar. Sometimes, it is not even clear if a network is part of the intended linguistic description at all; some networks are simply presenting overviews of the material introduced in the book: e.g., <span style="color: #e06666;">Figure 1.16</span>’s overview of types of linguistic structure, or <span style="color: #e06666;">Figure 3.10</span>’s summary of types of phoricity <span style="color: #a64d79;">(although these latter can then always, of course, be considered as field-specific taxonomies defining the technical terms involved as set out in the chapter on <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span>: they are not earmarked as such in the text however)</span>.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[1]</span> Bateman's confusion in this regard stems from the fact that Martin uses the system network schema both for genuine system networks and for simple classifying taxonomies (e.g. Figures 1.16, 3.10, 5.11, 5.12). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> To be clear, Halliday's <b>speech function</b> is a genuine <b>semantic</b> system — one that can be realised congruently or metaphorically in a grammatical system of the same metafunction (mood) — rather than Martin's rebranding of <b>textual</b> grammatical systems (cohesion) as <b>discourse</b> semantic systems of various metafunctions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[3]</span> To be clear, Martin's Figure 5.10 presents relations between <b>lexical</b> items (lexicogrammar) as a discourse <b>semantic</b> system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[4]</span> To be clear, the fact that these latter taxonomies are not identified in the text by Martin as taxonomies specific to the field of discourse semantics demonstrates that Martin did not realise that they could be interpreted as such in terms of his own model.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-47750059369201997082018-12-02T00:00:00.001+11:002019-01-16T22:54:35.050+11:00On Subsequent Works Relating Genre To Grammar<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 22):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Fortunately, some of the discussions of <i>English Text</i> and the work out of which <i>English Text</i> has grown have already started making their way into introductory text books in systemic functional linguistics, of which there have recently been a number of important publications. Eggins (1994), for example, assumes the <i>English Text</i> model as the basic starting point for her introduction, while <span style="color: red;">notions of genre and its relation to grammar are explicitly introduced and summarised</span> in both Gerot and Wignall (1994) and, <span style="color: red;">in more detail, Butt, Fahey Spinks and Yallop (1995)</span>. This orientation gives students a clear additional reason and motivation for learning the intricacies of grammatical description, for only then is one in a good position to search out genre. They will also help substantially when beginning to comes to terms with <i>English Text</i> itself.</blockquote>
<br />
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is potentially misleading. Unlike Martin's students Eggins and Wignell, Butt et al. (1995) do <b><i>not</i></b> build on Martin's model of genre, but on that of Martin's source, Hasan, distinguishing, for example, between <b>context</b> (4, 7) on the one hand, and <b>genre</b> as text type on the other (8-14).</div>
<div class="mod about" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; color: black; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 25px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br />
<section style="border: 0px; display: block; font: inherit; margin: 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</section></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-14495995086361282852018-11-25T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-10T13:54:36.844+11:00On Martin's Model And Critical Discourse Analysis <div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 21):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">And, even if the reader is not yet ready to follow Martin’s proposal that <i>English Text</i> is to be read “(in part) in the context of projects oriented to de-naturalising hegemonic discourses and, ..., facilitating intervention in the political process’’[p2], one essential lesson that remains is that socially, culturally, and ideologically informed discussions should, and now can, be linguistically responsible. No critical discourse can really stand without such a model in place. It should in fact no longer be acceptable for such discussions to omit linguistic detail; any such omission compromises the exactitude of the discussion and raises the likelihood that what is being discussed is more opinion than empirical result. This should also have substantial pedagogical implications within discourse theory and critical discourse. Without proficiency in the tools necessary to become linguistically responsible, an analysis cannot aim at being so. Blunt tools yield rough analyses.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be clear, as demonstrated in great detail <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>, Martin's <b>discourse semantics</b> is largely Halliday & Hasan's lexicogrammatical cohesion, misunderstood, rebranded and relocated to his module of discourse semantics. Martin's <b>context</b> consists of <b>language </b>varieties, register and genre — misunderstood as different levels of symbolic abstraction — and <b>ideology</b> misunderstood as Bernstein's <b>coding orientations</b>. For these reasons, and more, the tools Martin provides for discourse analysis are demonstrably "without proficiency" and "blunt".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be clear, it is the <b>source</b> of Martin's discourse semantics, Halliday's model of <b>lexicogrammar</b>, that provides the tools of "linguistically responsible" text analysis. As Halliday (1985: xvi-xvii) argues:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
The current preoccupation is with discourse analysis, or 'text linguistics'; and it has sometimes been assumed that this can be carried on without grammar — or even that it is somehow an alternative to grammar. But this is an illusion. A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an analysis at all, but simply a running commentary on a text … the exercise remains a private one in which one explanation is as good or as bad as another.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one. But meanings are realised through wordings; and without a theory of wordings — that is, a grammar — there is no way of making explicit one's interpretation of the meaning of a text.</blockquote>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-35346190988715850992018-11-18T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-10T10:06:34.280+11:00On Required Extensions Of Genre Theory<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 21):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Martin himself draws attention to some of the ways in which the theory will have to be extended, including</span> <span style="color: red;">the move from genre ‘agnation’ (i.e., organisation into system networks)</span> <span style="color: red;">to</span> <span style="color: #3d85c6;">genre topology</span>, <span style="color: magenta;">and</span> <span style="color: magenta;">the tension between synoptic (language as product) and dynamic accounts</span>.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> On the one hand, this misunderstands genre agnation, since genre agnation is concerned with systemic relations between genres in a genre taxonomy, not with agnation in system networks that model genre as potential. On the other hand, this is misleading, since Martin provides neither a taxonomy of genres nor a system network of genre potential to "move from" in extending the theory.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[2]</span> To be clear, a genre topology would represent the degrees of relatedness between different genres. In SFL theory, where genre means text type — that is: register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — the degree of relatedness between text types is measured by the relative frequencies of shared <b>semantic</b> and <b>lexicogrammatical</b> features.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[3]</span> As previously demonstrated, Martin misunderstands the synoptic vs dynamic distinction, with his 'synoptic' corresponding to syntagmatic structure and his 'dynamic' to instantiation in logogenesis. In relation to genre, this distinction arises in his application of metafunctional structure types — particle, prosody and wave — to genre (pp548-60), despite the fact that his genre, contrary to SFL theory, is <b><i>not</i></b> theorised on the basis of the three metafunctions.</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-47150784579562041022018-11-11T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-09T17:01:33.335+11:00Endorsing Martin's Model Of Context By Means Of A Logical Fallacy<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 21):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">The stratified model of context argued for by Martin in this chapter has now been extensively applied in a range of </span><span style="color: magenta;">social contexts</span><span style="color: #a64d79;">, ranging across the original areas of application in education to various institutionalised discourse situations. Some of the more recent work building on the approach is given in Christie and Martin (1997). This work shows that,</span> although the formulation of accounts of genre may have now moved on in various directions, <span style="color: red;">and the original model may have been subject to criticism from several perspectives,</span> <span style="color: red;">this does little to detract from the scope and perspective found in Chapter 7.</span> <span style="color: #e06666;">It is only with the kind of explicit modelling and interrelationships posited in the chapter—no matter how the phenomena addressed come eventually to be modelled—that any attempt to understand the social functions of language can really be made.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[1]</span> As an argument for the validity of Martin's misunderstanding of context as varieties of language (register/genre) and coding orientations ("ideology"), Bateman here deploys the logical fallacy known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" target="_blank">argumentum ad populum</a>, which concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> To be clear, these "<b>social</b> contexts" in which Martin's model has been used are, on Martin's model, those of ideology, genre and register.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[3]</span> To be clear, criticisms from perspectives such as <b>theoretical consistency</b> and <b>internal consistency</b> do <b><i>much</i></b> "to detract from the scope and perspective found in Chapter 7".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e06666;">[4]</span> To be clear, in terms of <b>explicitness</b>, Martin provides no system networks for either genre or ideology, and none of his networks include realisation statements that specify structure at their own level, or preselected features at the stratum below.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In terms of <b>interrelatedness</b>, Martin misunderstands the principle of stratification (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/stratification" target="_blank">here</a>), and misunderstands the realisational relation between strata (evidence <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/realisation" target="_blank">here</a>).</div>
<br />
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-63690889776523296142018-11-04T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-08T13:43:54.163+11:00On Bakhtin, Genre And Stratified Context<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 21):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #45818e;">Explicit reference is made at the outset of the chapter [p494] to the very compatible work of Bakhtin (e.g,. 1986).</span> However, combined with the previous chapters on discourse semantics and the presumption of an explicit and extensive lexicogrammar, <span style="color: #3d85c6;">the model of genre presented in this chapter certainly goes beyond any other account proposed previously in terms of its linguistic basis</span> <span style="color: #674ea7;">and </span><span style="color: #674ea7;">ability both to draw linguistic consequences from the abstract descriptions of register, genre and ideology</span> <span style="color: #674ea7;">and, conversely, to use linguistic data to motivate such abstract descriptions.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #45818e;">[1]</span> What Bateman neglects to tell the reader here is that Martin misunderstands the work of Bakhtin; see, for example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/05/misunderstanding-bakhtins-dialogic-and.html">Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/misconstruing-heteroglossia-and.html">Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/misunderstanding-semantic-variation-and.html">Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[2]</span> To be clear, the significant previous work on genre is Martin's source, Hasan, who models genre in terms consistent with SFL theory. Moreover, Martin misunderstands Hasan's (1989: 64) <b>Generic Structure Potential</b>, which models <b>semantic</b> structure of specific genres, as the structure realising a system of <b>genre</b> (misunderstood as <b>culture</b> instead of <b>language</b>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #674ea7;">[3]</span> As previously explained, Martin's context — stratified as register, genre and ideology — is theorised on the basis of fundamental misunderstandings of SFL theory, and, as such, is riddled with internal inconsistencies. See also, for example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-invalidity-of-argument-for-register.html">Why The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata Is Invalid</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-invalidity-of-argument-for-stratum.html">Why The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology Is Invalid</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-55930542129799472532018-10-28T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-07T14:28:06.764+11:00On Martin's Register And Ideology<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 21):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Networks are set out for each of <span style="color: red;">the three main metafunctional regions of register — ‘mode’, ‘tenor’ and ‘field’</span> — and <span style="color: magenta;">collections of lexicogrammatical realisations for these alternatives are also proposed</span>. <span style="color: #3d85c6;">This provides a ‘semiotic’ view on context</span> and <span style="color: #a64d79;">context’s construction of many aspects of our reality</span> and provides the ground for the book’s concluding sections on <span style="color: #cc0000;">the stratum of ideology, again construed semiotically as a means of relating distinct genres and their use across a culture</span>.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> To be clear, in SFL theory, mode, tenor and field are the metafunctional dimensions of the <b>culture</b> as semiotic system. These systems of culture are <b>realised</b> in the systems of language. Different registers of language realise different configurations of features of these systems of culture. As previously explained, Martin confuses these systems of <b>culture</b> (context) with the <b>sub</b>-systems of the <b>language</b> that realise them (registers).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> This is misleading. On the one hand, even on Martin's model, systems of mode, tenor and field should specify realisations in discourse semantics, not lexicogrammar, and on the other hand, not one of Martin's "register" networks features any realisation statements, discourse semantic or otherwise.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[3]</span> Here Bateman is accepting Martin's claim without question. Context was conceived by Halliday as a <b>semiotic</b> system. Martin, however, repeatedly misinterprets Halliday's context as material; see, for example:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/confusing-context-with-co-text-and.html" target="_blank">Confusing Context With Co-Text And Material Setting</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/05/confusing-material-setting-and-context.html" target="_blank">Confusing Material Setting And Context Of Situation</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/05/misunderstanding-material-vs-semiotic.html" target="_blank">Misunderstanding Orders Of Experience</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/05/misconstruing-context-as-co-text-and.html" target="_blank">Misconstruing Context As Language And Material Setting Instead Of Culture</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/04/blurring-context-and-material-setting.html" target="_blank">Blurring Context And Material Setting</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/05/blurring-distinctions.html" target="_blank">Blurring Distinctions</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/04/self-contradiction.html" target="_blank">Self-Contradiction</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/08/confusing-orders-of-experience.html" target="_blank">Confusing Orders Of Experience</a></li>
</ul>
<div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[4]</span> Here Bateman confuses the <b>construal of experience as ideational meaning</b> ("reality") with the <b>culture construed by the linguistic system</b> (context).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">[5]</span> Here Bateman fails to notice that Martin misinterprets Bernstein's coding orientation as ideology. See, for example:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/preparing-to-misconstrue-bernsteins.html" target="_blank">Preparing To Misconstrue Bernstein's Codes As Ideology</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/misconstruing-bernsteins-coding.html" target="_blank">Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/discursive-power-and-evolutionarily.html" target="_blank">Discursive Power And The Evolutionarily Necessary Resolution Of Semiotic Tension Through Dynamic Openness</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/addressing-central-problem-in-marxist.html" target="_blank">Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-invalidity-of-argument-for-stratum.html" target="_blank">Why The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology Is Invalid</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-58336964012295985672018-10-21T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-07T07:11:41.466+11:00On Modelling Context As Register And Genre<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 20-1):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, in Chapter 7 [pp493-590], <span style="color: red;">Martin presents in detail the motivations for the proposal set out in, for example, Martin (1985) and Ventola (1988) that ‘context’ best be modelled as consisting of two distinct strata: register and genre. Both of these are then realised in the less abstract ‘plane’ of language</span> consisting, as we have seen, of three strata: <span style="color: magenta;">discourse</span> semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology. The chapter thus draws together results from many years of inquiry into <span style="color: #cc0000;">the social situatedness of the linguistic system</span> and the detail and examples given serve as a very useful introduction to the area and its points of debate.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> To be clear, not just in SFL theory, '<b>register</b>' refers to a functional variety of language, and '<b>genre</b>' refers to a type of text. In SFL, these are theorised as two views on the same phenomenon:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">language as register is language as genre (text type) viewed from the <b>system</b> pole of the cline of <b>instantiation</b>, whereas</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">language as genre (text type) is language as register viewed from the <b>instance</b> pole of the cline of <b>instantiation</b>.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The place of register/genre (text type) in the architecture of SFL theory is identified in the following matrix:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUMiP3oyJy5k7_lmasEKexxMlGzZBebbCIbcCJ2_5lTLNTY4orQbZi85BtlOYIyWMwYrzzKotuyklMlZEuZb7Sc4cwVjMnW8KRpt3vUjiRMogo8KAdYUDYsWO8CYWnY94Sft79Q1-qDSAk/s1600/instantiationstratificationmatrix.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUMiP3oyJy5k7_lmasEKexxMlGzZBebbCIbcCJ2_5lTLNTY4orQbZi85BtlOYIyWMwYrzzKotuyklMlZEuZb7Sc4cwVjMnW8KRpt3vUjiRMogo8KAdYUDYsWO8CYWnY94Sft79Q1-qDSAk/s640/instantiationstratificationmatrix.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Martin's proposal is to relocate register/genre (text type) from the content plane of <b>language</b> to cultural <b>context</b> and from <b>subsystem/instance type</b> to <b>system</b>. In terms of SFL theory, this creates inconsistencies in terms of both stratification and instantiation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In simple terms, Martin's proposal is that <b>varieties/types of language</b> are <b><i>not</i> language</b>, but the culture that language realises. This is analogous to proposing that <b>varieties/types of birds</b> are <b><i>not</i></b> <b>birds</b>, but something more abstract than birds.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be clear, in Martin's model, <b>texts</b> <b><i>cannot</i></b> be instances of register or genre, since texts are instances of <b>language</b>, <b><i>not</i></b> <b>context</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Martin's notion of register, see the 82 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/register" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Martin's notion of genre, see the 67 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/genre" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Martin's notion of context, see the 172 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/context" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The absurdities entailed by Martin's stratified context demonstrate that neither Martin nor Bateman — nor anyone else who uses Martin's model — understands either stratification or instantiation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Martin's model misunderstands and rebrands Halliday & Hasan's <b>non-structural textual lexicogrammar</b>, the systems of cohesion, as <b>structural discourse semantics</b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>reference and ellipsis–&–substitution as <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDENTIFICATION</span> (textual),</li>
<li>cohesive conjunction as <span style="font-size: x-small;">CONJUNCTION</span> (<b>logical</b>), and</li>
<li>lexical cohesion as <span style="font-size: x-small;">IDEATION</span> (<b>experiential</b>).</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #cc0000;">[3]</span> To be clear, Martin proposes that the <b>linguistic system</b> is <b><i>socially</i></b> situated in (varieties of) the <b>linguistic system</b> (register and genre).</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-87003907664000512472018-10-14T00:00:00.000+11:002019-01-06T13:15:27.792+11:00On Macro-Theme, Hyper-Theme, Hyper-New And Macro-New<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 20):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Martin also proposes here some valuable additions: particularly in the area of text structure, with the text-scale structurings of hyper- and macro-themes and their complementary elements: hyper- and macro-new [see Figure 6.12, p456],</span> <span style="color: magenta;">and in contrasts between static and process views of texts.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[1]</span> To be clear, Martin's terms are rebrandings of terms from <b>writing pedagogy</b>:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">macro-Theme is a rebranding of <b>introductory paragraph</b>,</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">hyper-Theme (a term taken from Daneš and misunderstood) is a rebranding of <b>topic sentence</b>,</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">hyper-New is a rebranding of <b>paragraph summary</b>, and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">macro-New is a rebranding of <b>text summary</b>.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is why writing pedagogues believe "Martin's" ideas are a valuable resource. However, advising people how to write is not modelling language, and spoken language is not planned and organised on the basis of effective writing strategies. But these are, by no means, the only problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of <b>macro-Theme</b> see the 16 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/macro-theme" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of <b>hyper-Theme</b> see the 16 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/hyper-theme" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of <b>hyper-New</b> see the 8 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/hyper-new" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of <b>macro-New</b> see the 11 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/macro-new" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[2]</span> To be clear, Martin's "contrasts between static and process views of texts" essentially confuse syntagmatic realisation ("static") with the process of instantiation in logogenesis ("dynamic"). This misunderstanding pervades Martin's text; see, for example:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/05/confusing-instantiation-with.html">Confusing Instantiation With The Syntagmatic Axis</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/06/spurious-use-of-system-and-process.html">Confusing Instantiation With Axial And Stratal Realisation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2015/08/confusing-semantic-relations-with.html" style="text-align: justify;" target="_blank">Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/02/invalid-reasoning-concealed-by.html" style="text-align: justify;" target="_blank">A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/2016/09/misrepresenting-martin-1992.html" style="text-align: justify;" target="_blank">Misrepresenting Martin (1992)</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7678191144640121316.post-66812999165761029932018-10-07T00:00:00.000+10:002019-01-05T16:23:17.971+11:00On Modal Responsibility<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman (1998: 20):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">The selection of Subjects in a text, however, is also not devoid of textual consequences.</span> <span style="color: #a64d79;">Those message parts selected as Subjects</span> <span style="color: red;">serve to construct the ‘modal responsibility’ attributed by a text, and both of these</span> interact with particular patterns of conjunctive relations, of lexical chains, and of modalities and <span style="color: magenta;">appraisals</span>. <span style="color: #674ea7;">Working through the examples given in this chapter is a very good way of getting a clearer sense of the work done by the descriptions presented in the previous chapters.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Blogger Comments</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[1]</span> To be clear, it is the selection of <b>Theme</b> — conflated with Subject or another function — that has <b>textual</b> "consequences".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #a64d79;">[2]</span> To be clear, Martin's 'message part' is an <b>experiential</b> unit, whereas Subject is an <b>interpersonal</b> function.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[3]</span> To be clear, modal responsibility is the <b><i>function</i></b> of the Subject of a <b>clause</b> as theorised by <b>Halliday</b> (1985: 76). For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's concept of modal responsibility, see the 19 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/modal%20responsibility" target="_blank">here</a>. For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Subject, see the 13 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/subject" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: magenta;">[4]</span> To be clear, there is nothing on <b>appraisal</b> in Martin (1992) — which is hardly surprising, given that Appraisal Theory only emerged as an integrated theory later in the PhD research of Peter White. For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Appraisal Theory, see the 52 clarifying critiques <a href="https://workingwithdiscourse.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%202" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #674ea7;">[5]</span> Working through the examples in this chapter should have alerted Bateman to the problems in this chapter (as well as those of previous chapters). For some of the misunderstandings that undermine the theoretical validity of this chapter, see the 121 clarifying critiques <a href="http://discourse-semantics.blogspot.com/search/label/chapter%206%3A%20texture" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0