On Covariate "Structures"

Bateman (1998: 6):

The principal kinds of structure so far investigated for grammar are multivariate constituency structures and univariate dependency structures. … Martin then establishes that there are relationships between elements at a discourse level which do not fit these categories developed for grammar. There appear to be at least two kinds of additional relationship, both heralded by the notion of cohesive ties: phoric relationships, where one element is ‘presumed’ by another, and expectant relationships, where two (or more) items are ‘mutually expectant’. The former is illustrated in reference chains such as a robot—the android—it—it—...; the latter in lexical strings such as manoeuvring— crossing—separated—tacking—veered—...[p364]. Both kinds are termed covariate (cf. Lemke, 1985), which distinguishes them as a group from the previously considered grammatical structural relationships. Most of the kinds of discourse structure discussed later in the book draw on covariate structures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Of the multivariate structures, only those of the experiential metafunction are said to be based on constituency.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451, 85):

… the relationships among the elements in a multivariate structure can be characterised as segmental from an experiential point of view but as prosodic from an interpersonal point of view and as culminative from a textual one.

[2] This is very misleading. Martin does not establish this, he merely asserts it — without defining what he means by structure. More importantly, the reason why these 'relationships between elements' do not fit the structure types developed for the grammar is that they are not structures. Martin relocates the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction, cohesion, from the grammatical stratum to the semantic stratum, rebrands them, and distributes them across the metafunctions. This results in theoretical inconsistencies in terms of structure, stratification and metafunction; see Inconsistencies In The Notion Of 'Discourse Semantic Structure'.

[3] This theoretical use of 'expectancy' can be found in Barthes (1966/1977: 101-4), but Martin uses it in his model of discourse semantics without acknowledging the source.  At the symposium to honour the late Ruqaiya Hasan, Martin falsely accused Hasan of not acknowledging Mitchell as one of her sources (evidence here).

[4] Here Bateman uncritically accepts Martin's misinterpretation of cohesive reference, which confuses the referents with the resource for referring.  This confusion leads to problems in distinguishing reference chains (Halliday & Hasan's grammatical reference) from lexical strings (Halliday & Hasan's lexical cohesion).  See "One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique" and The Problem Of Overlapping Lexical Strings And Reference Chains.

[5] Lemke (1988: 159) reinterprets his 'covariate structure' as a structuring principle, rather than a kind of structure:

My own 'covariate structure' (Lemke 1985), which includes Halliday's univariate type, is for the case of homogeneous relations of co-classed units, and should perhaps be called a 'structuring principle' rather than a kind of structure.

Martin includes Lemke (1988) in his list of references (1992: 603).

Confusing Axial Realisation With Instantiation And Logogenesis

Bateman (1998: 5-6):

Showing how this works in detail is then the task taken up in the second part of the book, where, for several distinct regions of discourse semantics, Martin attempts to provide both paradigmatic and syntagmatic semantic descriptions and to show how these relate, i.e., how the semantic potential captured by the paradigmatic options described is actualised in unfolding discourse structures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  In SFL theory, the relation between the paradigmatic axis (system) and the syntagmatic axis (structure) is realisation.  Martin provides no realisation statements in his discourse semantic systems that specify how options are realised structurally.

[2] In SFL theory, the relation between 'potential' and 'actualised' is one of instantiation.  In using these terms to describe the realisation relation between system and structure, Bateman is uncritically repeating the error in Martin (1992: 4), as critiqued here.

[3] This repeats Martin's confusion of logogenesis — the unfolding of the text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — with syntagmatic structure.  This further compounds the error of mistaking axial realisation for instantiation.  See also John Bateman Misunderstanding Realisation And Instantiation.

On Martin's Distinction Between Grammar And Cohesion

Bateman (1998: 5):

The existence of a distinct, more abstract stratum of semantic description leaves Martin free to explore meanings whose realisations span both structural (i.e., lexicogrammatical) and nonstructural (i.e., ‘cohesive’) realisations, and to consider these as available, discourse motivated alternatives that may be systematically related. It provides a principled basis for capturing precisely those commonalities and regularities that fall outside the remit of grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The implication here is misleading.  The stratification of content in SFL theory precedes Martin's (1992) proposal, and can even be found explicitly stated in the work that Martin takes as his point of departure: Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 5). 

[2] In SFL theory, the distinction between structural and nonstructural realisations is a distinction within the resources of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin's misrepresentation of this as a distinction between lexicogrammar and cohesion serves his purpose of relocating cohesion from grammar to semantics, as explained here.

[3] As demonstrated in previous posts, Martin's argument for proposing a discourse semantic stratum is invalid — as summarised here — and the model is inconsistent in terms of the principles of metafunction and stratification.  As such, it is entirely false of Bateman to claim that "it provides a principled basis for capturing precisely those commonalities and regularities that fall outside the remit of grammar."

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On System And Structure

Bateman (1998: 5):

Describing any linguistic unit within the systemic-functional framework that Martin adopts consists of providing both a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic description. … Applying this mode of description to texts allows Martin to claim that a text holds together precisely because of the discourse semantic options that have been taken up. These options have manifestations in particular discourse structures, which in turn find systematic re-expression in particular patterns of lexical and grammatical material.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, a text "holds together" through the instantiation of choices in the systems of the textual metafunction across all strata.  As previously explained, in relocating Halliday's textual systems to logical and experiential semantics, Martin has mistaken a metafunction (textual) for a stratum (level of symbolic abstraction).

[2] This is very misleading.  The system networks devised by Martin do not provide any realisation statements that specify how discourse semantic choices are realised in discourse semantic structures.

[3] This misunderstands the architecture of SFL theory.  There is no sequencing in realisation relations between axes or between strata.  The identifying relation between them is intensive (elaborating), not circumstantial (enhancing: temporal).

[4] This is very misleading.  The system networks devised by Martin do not provide any realisation statements that specify how discourse semantic choices are realised in the lexicogrammar.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) As Expanding On The Textual Meanings Of Halliday & Hasan (1976)

Bateman (1998: 4):

In taking on the task of describing this more abstract semantic unit, Martin attempts to get behind the system that would motivate the appearance of particular cohesive links in text, thereby expanding considerably on the very general kinds of meanings discussed formerly for cohesive ties in Cohesion in English itself (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976, Chapter 7).

Blogger Comments:

Bateman's claim here is that Martin attempts to provide the systems behind the instantiation of cohesion in text.  This is very misleading.  What Martin actually does is

1. take three of Halliday & Hasan's four types of cohesion: reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion, 
2. relocate them from lexicogrammar to semantics (rebranded as discourse semantics), 
3. misunderstand them, 
4. rebrand two of the misunderstandings as identification (reference) and ideation (lexical cohesion), and 
5. relocate two of the misunderstandings in terms of metafunction: conjunction from textual to logical, and lexical cohesion ("ideation") from textual to experiential.

The effect of all this is to create an internally inconsistent model that is inconsistent with the theoretical architecture of SFL theory, and this is why any claim that doing so equates to 'expanding considerably on the very general kinds of meanings discussed formerly for cohesive ties in Cohesion in English itself' is a very serious misrepresentation of the work under review.