On "The Continuity Between Structural And Non-Structural Resources" As Exemplifying "The Boundaries Of Grammatical Description"

Bateman (1998: 3-4):

For Halliday and Hasan, then, cohesive ties are present whenever one linguistic element is interpreted by reference to another, regardless of distance and structural relationship. But this, as Martin points out, “fails to bring out the continuity between the structural ... and non-structural ... resources.’’ [p19] Both (c) and (d), for example, appear to share that aspect of their textuality concerned with the temporal relation expressed.

(c) As soon as the Vogon began his poem, Ford yawned.

(d) The Vogon began his poem. Immediately Ford yawned.

However, (c) is an example of grammatical dependency (taxis within a single grammatical clause complex), whereas (d) illustrates a nonstructural, nongrammatical relationship between two sentences (a cohesive tie).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Bateman follows Martin in misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan, who are explicit about the "continuity" between these structural and non-structural resources. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 227):

There is a range of different structural guises in which the relations that we are here calling CONJUNCTIVE may appear. These relations constitute a highly generalised component within the semantic system, with reflexes spread throughout the language, taking various forms; and their cohesive potential derives from this source. Because they represent very general relations that may be associated with different threads of meaning at different places in the fabric of language, it follows that when they are expressed on their own, unaccompanied by other explicit connecting factors, they have a highly cohesive effect.

Halliday & Hasan (1976: 227-8) even use a temporal relation to exemplify this:

Let us take as an example the relation already mentioned above, that of succession in time. This appears in many different realisations, according to the other semantic patterns with which it is associated. It may first of all, be embodied in a predication, as in [5:1a]; here the verb follow means 'occur subsequently in time'. Note that the same relation can be expressed, still as a predication but with the terms reversed, by making the verb passive, or using a different verb precede. Secondly, the relation of succession in time can he expressed as a minor predication; that is, it may be realised prepositionally, as in [5:1b]. Again the relationship could be viewed from either direction, with before instead of after. 

Thirdly, time sequence may be expressed as a relationship between predications, with one clause being shown as dependent on another by means of a conjunction as in [5:1c]; sometimes, but not in all instances, the same words may occur both as conjunction and as preposition. Finally, in [5:1d], we have two separate sentences. Here there is no structural relationship at all; but the two parts are still linked by the same logical relations of succession in time.

[5:1]  a. A snowstorm followed the battle. (The battle was followed by a snowstorm.)

         b. After the battle. there was a snowstorm.

         c. After they had fought a battle, it snowed.

         d. They fought a battle. Afterwards, it snowed.

Contrast the following: 

[5:1) a'. A snowstorm preceded the battle.

        b'. Before the battle, there had been a snowstorm.

        c'. Before they fought a battle, it had snowed.

        d'. They fought a battle. Previously, it had snowed.

In (d) and (d'), the relation of sequence in time is expressed by an adverb, functioning as Adjunct, and occurring initially in the second sentence. Here the time relation is now the only explicit form of connection between the two events, which in the other examples are linked also by various structural relationships. The time sequence has now become a cohesive agent, and it is this, the semantic relation in its cohesive function, that we are referring to as CONJUNCTION.

Moreover, it will be seen later — as demonstrated elsewhere — that Martin misunderstands and misapplies expansion relations, both, in the analysis of textual cohesion (conjunction), and in the analysis of logical relations between clauses, and in doing so, creates "discontinuities" out of the "continuities" in the theorising of Halliday & Hasan.

[2] Here Bateman repeats Martin's misunderstanding in distinguishing cohesion from grammar.  In SFL theory, cohesion is the non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, and there are two broad types: grammatical and lexical.  The cohesion in (d) is grammatical (conjunction).

On Grammatical Metaphor As Exemplifying "The Boundaries Of Grammatical Description"

Bateman (1998: 3):

Similar arguments are brought with respect to Halliday’s notion of ‘grammatical metaphor’ (cf. IFG: Chapter 10) as well as Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) standard work Cohesion in English.

Blogger Comments:

There are three serious shortcomings in Martin's argument that Bateman does not address here (or elsewhere).

1. Halliday's model of grammatical metaphor presupposes two levels of symbolic abstraction on the content plane, and is the main reason Halliday gives for stratifying content into semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording); see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 237).  That is, the argument is not Martin's, and it does not justify a specifically discourse semantics.
2. Martin's argument uses misunderstandings of grammatical metaphor; see Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor.
3. Having raised grammatical metaphor as a motivation for a discourse semantic stratum, Martin does not go on to provide the congruent relations between strata by which to distinguish metaphorical (incongruent) relations.

On Semantic Motifs As Exemplifying "The Boundaries Of Grammatical Description"

Bateman (1998: 3):

The first example of reaching the boundaries of grammatical description that Martin discusses is the existence of ‘semantic motifs’ whose diversification in grammatical realisation goes beyond that which any grammar (even one such as IFG) should reasonably be required to cover. Patterns such as the following [p16] suggest that there are systematic choices available to the linguistic system for manipulating the grammatical potential (and its natural semantics) as it is employed in any text.

(a) Ford is smiling because Trillian arrived.

It pleases Ford that Trillian has arrived.

Ford is happy that Trillian has arrived. 

(b) Ford is frowning because Trillian has left.
It disturbs Ford that Trillian has left.
Ford is unhappy that Trillian has left.

The three sentences of both (a) and (b) range across what IFG describes as ‘behavioural’, ‘mental’, and ‘relational’ type clauses respectively. The grammar places these clause types in opposition: each involves a distinct ‘syndrome’ of grammatical constructions and phenomena and structurally they are quite diverse; here, however, they appear to stand as alternatives for, in some respects, semantically similar messages. Where, Martin asks, is this semantic commonality in apparent grammatical diversity to be located?

Blogger Comments:

What Martin (1992: 16) actually argues is as follows:

Following Halliday (1985), the first clause in each set is behavioural, the second mental and the third relational — fundamentally different process types. At the same time, all three clauses construct a relatively uniform, and not unfamiliar disposition for Ford. One way to generalise across these various realisations of the same disposition is to stratify the content plane, setting up an attitude network realised across process types (with realisations extending into other areas of the grammar as well; for example, adverbial and nominal groups). 

There are two major theoretical confusions here.

1. Martin uses generalisation as a justification for a higher level of symbolic abstraction.  This confuses one dimension of the theory, the scale of delicacy, with a distinct dimension of the theory, the hierarchy of stratification.
2. Martin proposes setting up an attitude network at the level of discourse semantics to be realised by process types at the level of lexicogrammar.  That is, Martin presents an incongruent (metaphorical) inter-stratal relation as a justification for strata in a congruent relation.

Moreover, despite using the notion of 'semantic motifs' as a justification for his discourse semantic stratum, Martin nowhere attempts to set up 'an attitude network realised across process types'.

See also The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification.

On "The Regularities That Grammar Cannot Capture"

Bateman (1998: 3):

Martin therefore takes pains to position English Text as building explicitly on the broadest approach to the functional description of English grammar currently available, i.e., that set out at length in Halliday’s IFG and elaborated further systemically in Matthiessen’s (1995) Lexicogrammatical Cartography. Martin then considers where such an account — already, as he describes in this chapter, somewhat ‘extravagent’ [sic] in the dimensions of organisation that it provides — itself necessarily ‘runs out of steam’ when we turn to the distinctive phenomena of text and discourse. The regularities that grammar cannot capture then provide the point of departure for those regularities that a distinct discourse semantics may be in a better position to describe and explain.

Blogger Comments:

The claim that the grammar "runs out of steam" is Martin's (1992:16):

Extravagant as systemic functional grammars are, they do run out of steam.  Three of their limitations will now be reviewed.

The three "limitations" that Martin identifies then become the justification for his proposed stratum of discourse semantics.  These are:

1. semantic motifs (p16)
2. grammatical metaphor (pp16-7)
3. cohesion (pp17-9)

The first notion, 'semantic motifs', refers to generalisations across some instances of some process types. However, this does not provide support for a higher stratum of symbolic abstraction, because generalisation is not abstraction.  In SFL theory, this type of generalisation is modelled in terms of delicacy.  Martin's 'semantic motifs' is actually an argument for a more general system of process types, not a higher stratum.

It can be noted that Martin, having introduced the notion of 'semantic motifs' as a rationâle for discourse semantics, promptly forgets about it; that is, it is not addressed in his chapter on experiential semantics (termed 'ideation'), or anywhere else. 

For a more detailed critique, see The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification.

The second notion, grammatical metaphor, on the other hand, does provide a justification for a higher level of symbolic abstraction.  However, this merely justifies a semantic stratum, in general, not a specifically discourse semantics.  Looking at the way Martin words his discussion, the reader could be forgiven for thinking that this argument is Martin's insight, and that Martin is the first to propose a stratification of the content plane.  The insight and the proposal were originally, of course, Halliday's.

It can be noted that Martin, in any case, misunderstands the notion of grammatical metaphor, as demonstrated, for this specific discussion, at Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor, and more generally throughout the entire publication here.

The third notion, cohesion, refers to the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction on the stratum of lexicogrammar.  Martin's focus is on conjunctive cohesion, and the fact that this, like clause complexing, involves the deployment of expansion relations.  According to Martin (p19), setting up a discourse semantic stratum 'will permit generalisations to be made across structural and non-structural textual relations.

The confusions here are manifold.  Firstly, the argument again confuses generalisation with abstraction, and so does not support the notion of a higher stratum — discourse semantic or otherwise.  Secondly, the generalisation ignores the distinction between metafunctions: textual (conjunction) and logical (clause complexing), and between non-structural (conjunction) and structural (clause complexing) relations.  See also Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion.

In the course of his argument, Martin misrepresents Halliday and Hasan's work on cohesion, as demonstrated in the following critiques:

• Misrepresenting Cohesion
• Misrepresenting The Domain Of Cohesion
• Misconstruing 'Cohesion Within The Sentence'

For a summary critique of Martin's three arguments, see Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid.

On The Basic Aim Of Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 2):

The basic aim of the book, as presented in Chapter 1, is to show and explain the systematicity and regularities that allow sequences of grammatical units to be construed as texts. The book seeks to enable its readers to “relate any English text to the context in which it is used’’[p1].

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (1992: 1) explains the aim of the book as follows:

Its aim is to provide a comprehensive set of discourse analyses which can be used to relate any English text to the context in which it is used. … Like Cohesion in English, English Text uses systemic functional grammar to ask questions about text structure, and complements the grammar by developing additional analyses which focus on the text rather than the clause.  Cohesion in English organises the division of labour as the opposition between grammar and cohesion (between structural and non-structural resources for meaning).  English Text organises this division of labour in a different way — stratally, as an opposition between grammar and semantics (between clause oriented and text oriented resources for meaning).

Some of the thoughts that didn't occur to Bateman are:

1. Contrary to Bateman's implication, Martin does not provide realisation statements that relate his discourse semantic "systematicity and regularities" to lexicogrammatical systems or structures;
2. It is the textual metafunction only — and at all linguistic strata, not just semantics — that is concerned with relating a text to its context;
3. Martin misinterprets the distinction between the structural and non-structural (cohesive) resources of the textual metafunction at the lexicogrammatical stratum as an opposition between grammar (in general) and cohesion;
4. Martin takes the non-structural (cohesive) resources of the textual metafunction at the lexicogrammatical stratum and relocates them at a higher level of abstraction, discourse semantics, without providing supporting argument as to how and why they are more abstract; and
5. Martin relocates the non-structural (cohesive) resources of the textual metafunction across the metafunctions, such that lexical cohesion is misinterpreted as experiential (and structural), and cohesive conjunction is misinterpreted as logical (and structural).

See here for more on Martin's "division of labour". In short, Martin (1992) misconstrues a metafunction, the textual, for a level of symbolic abstraction, discourse semantics.

On Chapters 6 & 7 Of Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 2):

Then, the final part, consisting of chapters 6 and 7, considers some significant and highly suggestive issues that arise when relating distinct levels of description.  Chapter 6 shows some of the ways in which options selected from phonology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics are woven together systematically to create and enhance a text’s texture and Chapter 7 closes the book with an extended consideration of the placement of the entire linguistic system discussed in the previous six chapters within its social context and situation of use. This latter chapter raises important issues concerning the definition and interconnections of text types, genres, registerial selections and ideology.

Blogger Comments:

The positive appreciation here (significant, important) is entirely unjustified by the quality of the theorising under review.

[1] In SFL theory, the relation between levels of description is one of realisation, which is an intensive identifying relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction.  Chapters 6 and 7 of Martin (1992) are inconsistent with this stratal model because Martin mistakes the strata along this dimension for "interacting modules" (p390).  This fundamental misunderstanding invalidates the basis of the theorisation in chapters 6 and 7, and leads to deep and widespread theoretical inconsistencies, as demonstrated here (chapter 6) and here (chapter 7).

[2] Chapter 6 of Martin (1992) takes cohesive harmony (Hasan 1985), modal responsibility (Halliday 1985) and method of development and point (Fries 1981), misunderstands each — see cohesive harmony, modal responsibility, method of development, point — and reconstrues them as "interaction patterns" (p393) between strata (misconceived as modules).  Much of the chapter confuses writing pedagogy with linguistic theory, rebranding the terms 'introductory paragraph', 'topic sentence', 'paragraph summary' and 'text summary' as 'macro-Theme', 'hyper-Theme', 'hyper-New' and 'macro-New', respectively.  This also involves misunderstanding the original notion of hyper-Theme (Daneš 1974).

[3] Martin (1992: 384, 393) misconstrues the lexicogrammatical system of information (content plane) as phonology (expression plane).  For Martin's misunderstandings and false claims about phonology, see the critiques here.

[4] In SFL theory, the term 'texture' refers to the quality of being a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 2), which is achieved through the textual metafunction, not through interaction patterns between stratal modules across various metafunctions — each of the latter also misconceived by Martin as a module.

[5] Martin's model of social context is misconstrued as language varieties, misconstrued as modules; see [6] below.  In SFL theory, context is construed as the culture as a semiotic system.

[6] Chapter 7 of Martin (1992) takes register (Halliday) and genre (Hasan) and misconstrues them as strata of context (each misconstrued as a module) as opposed to language.  That is, it takes functional varieties of language, and models them as more abstract than language.  This is analogous to claiming that lorikeets are not varieties of bird — and so, not even birds — but are more symbolically abstract than birds.

In SFL theory, register and genre are two views of the same phenomenon, located as a midway point on the cline of instantiation, with register the view from the system pole, and genre the view from the instance pole.

On Chapters 2-5 Of Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 2):

The second part, consisting of chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5, forms the main body of the book; each chapter addresses a single area of discourse semantics in depth, setting out both the internal details of that area and their often quite varied lexicogrammatical consequences.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it is untrue.  Martin (1992) does not set out the lexicogrammatical "consequences" of discourse semantic systems.  Martin's concern is the discourse semantic systems themselves, not their lexicogrammatical "consequences".

Bateman's use of "consequences" demonstrates that he does not understand that the principle underlying stratification is a form of intensive identity (symbolic abstraction).  Being intensive, the relation between strata is elaborating, not circumstantial (enhancing: consequence).  In theory, discourse semantic systems have lexicogrammatical realisations, not lexicogrammatical consequences.  Martin (1992) does not provide interstratal realisation statements, in the discourse semantic systems he invented.

See also John Bateman Misunderstanding Stratification And Realisation.

(Martin's theory of discourse semantics has no consequences for the SFL theory of lexicogrammar to the extent that it misunderstands the dimensions and principles of SFL theory.)

On Chapter 1 Of Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 2):

The book is organised into 7 chapters, which, for the purpose of this review, I will distribute among three parts. The first part, chapter 1, introduces the basic premises and position of the book, arguing for both the existence of a distinct level of discourse semantics and the approach adopted for uncovering its details.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin provides three motivations for a stratum of discourse semantics: 'semantic motifs', grammatical metaphor and conjunctive cohesion.  Of these, only grammatical metaphor provides a genuine motivation for the stratification of the content plane, though it does not justify a 'discourse' semantics, merely a stratum of semantics, which is Halliday's prior proposal.

Martin's understanding of 'semantic motifs' does not justify a higher level of abstraction because it confuses generalisation (delicacy) with symbolic abstraction (stratification), as explained in more detail at The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification.

Martin's understanding of conjunctive cohesion does not justify a higher level of abstraction because it confuses the deployment of structural expansion relations by the logical metafunction in unit complexes with the deployment of non-structural expansion relations by the textual metafunction.  See Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion.

For a critique of Martin's three reasons for proposing a discourse semantic stratum, see Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid.

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue.  Martin does not provide an argument in support of the approach he adopts in uncovering the details of a discourse semantic stratum.  For a detailed critique of Martin's chapter 1, see here.

Moreover, Martin's approach to modelling discourse semantics is to take Halliday's systems of cohesion, non-structural resources of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar, misunderstand them, and rebrand the misunderstandings as his own systems of discourse semantics.

• The (textual) grammatical systems of reference and substitution–&–ellipsis are rebranded as the (textual) discourse semantic system of identification;
• the (textual) grammatical system of conjunction (& continuity) is rebranded as the (logical) discourse semantic system of conjunction (& continuity); and
• the (textual) system of lexical cohesion is rebranded as the (experiential) discourse semantic system of ideation.

In the latter two cases, there is thus the additional confusion of metafunctions. For the interpersonal metafunction, Martin rebrands Halliday's semantic system of speech function as his own discourse semantic system of negotiation.

On What Martin's 'English Text' Presents

Bateman (1998: 2):

English Text presents a single overarching framework within which functional motivations are offered for an unprecedented range of phenomena, often showing how quite distinct lexicogrammatical realisations must be considered as alternatives available for single classes of discourse functions. These discourse functions are themselves highly organised and structured; indeed, one of the main achievements of the book is to reveal a level of discourse semantics that turns out to be as richly structured and interrelated as grammar has been shown to be — particularly by the work in the functional tradition of, for example, Halliday, Fawcett, Matthiessen and Davidse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is precisely what English Text does not do. It does not show 'how quite distinct lexicogrammatical realisations must be considered as alternatives available for single classes of discourse functions'.  It does not even provide realisation statements in any of the discourse semantic networks.  Bateman has here accepted, without question, one of Martin's arguments for setting up a discourse semantic stratum, which Martin subsequently does not address in the rest of the book.  The theoretical misunderstandings that invalidate Martin's argument are outlined here.

[2] Here again Bateman accepts Martin's claims without question.  The "structures" that Martin sets up, which he terms 'co-variate' (following Lemke 1985), are the non-structural cohesive relations of the lexicogrammar, transposed to discourse semantics.  Unknown to Martin (1992), Lemke later (1988) acknowledged that his notion of co-variate structure was not a type of structure.  For details, see here; for critiques of Martin's notion of structure, more generally, see here.

[3] As demonstrated here, Fawcett continually misunderstands Halliday's theory, and misrepresents it in ways that favour his own position, while arguing by means of various types of logical fallacies (examples can be viewed here).

On The Purpose Of Bateman's Review Of Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 1-2):

In this review article, therefore, I seek to provide a bridge and a motivation for engaging with the book in depth. I also attempt to position somewhat the book’s concerns and possible applications; English Text should, for example, be required reading for any student concerned with the organisation of (particularly, but not exclusively, English) text or the functional motivation of lexicogrammatical phenomena. This can sometimes be difficult without appropriate support or introduction to the premises and methodology on which the book rests, but the effort involved is more than worthwhile. At the very least, an improved understanding of the sheer breadth and systematicity of the relations between discourse construction and lexicogrammatical phenomena would be hard to avoid. And this can only encourage a significant increase in the maturity and sophistication of the questions asked in and by text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Engaging with English Text in depth reveals that its theorising is based on misunderstandings of SFL theory, at macro and micro scales, and is inconsistent with itself, as demonstrated in great detail here.

[2] Because of its fundamental and pervasive misunderstandings of SFL theory, English Text should not be required reading for anyone seeking to understand SFL theory.

[3] English Text does not provide the functional motivation for lexicogrammatical phenomena.  Instead, Martin's model of discourse semantics takes the lexicogrammatical systems of cohesion, the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction, and relocates misunderstandings of them on a different stratum — with strata misconstrued as modules — and creates further theoretical inconsistencies by misinterpreting them as structural and distributing them among the four metafunctions, also misconstrued as modules.  None of the system networks introduced by Martin provide realisation statements that specify lexicogrammatical realisations.

[4] The premises on which English Text rests are misunderstandings of SFL theory, and the methodology on which English Text rests is largely taking Halliday's model of grammar, misunderstanding it, and then relabelling those misunderstandings as 'discourse semantics'.

[5] Given the above, the effort of engaging deeply with English Text is not worthwhile for anyone seeking to understand SFL theory.

[6] Given the above, English Text does not provide an improved understanding of 'the sheer breadth and systematicity of the relations between discourse construction and lexicogrammatical phenomena'.

[7] Given the above, English Text cannot 'encourage a significant increase in the maturity and sophistication of the questions asked in and by text analysis', as demonstrated by the absence of same in the 25 years since its publication.

On Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 1):

The study of the semantics of discourse has grown immensely over the past decade or so — approaches from ‘mainstream’ linguistics, formal semantics, pragmatics, educational linguistics, computational linguistics and many others have all placed increasing emphasis on their treatments of discourse. Researchers, students and teachers alike therefore no doubt scan eagerly the lists of newly published books and articles in the area. Which, curiously enough, could well be a pity, since they may just then miss what is one of the most significant books on the discourse functional motivation of linguistic phenomena to have appeared in the last decade: Martin’s English Text from 1992. …

The issues and approach set out in English Text are, if anything, even more relevant and appropriate today than they were 6 years ago, the potential consumers of its ideas wider and more needful not only of its insights but also of its questions.

Blogger Comments:

As this blog develops, it will be seen that Bateman uncritically accepts Martin's theorising — despite occasional appearances to the contrary — without checking the provenance of the ideas, and without examining the consistency of the theorising with Systemic Functional Linguistic theory or even the self-consistency of Martin's own theorising.

In the meantime, the 2,000+ thoughts that did not occur to Bateman in his review can be viewed at Martin's Discourse Semantics, Register & Genre.