On The Type Of Structure And Direction Of Dependency For Discourse Systems

Bateman (1998: 8):

Table 5.21 [p332] also sets out for each type of semantic structure the direction of dependencies typically found among its covariately related units. We can therefore see that each region, and hence each chapter, discusses its own particular ‘discourse structural’ configurations and the system network of alternatives that gives rise to those configurations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Table 5.21 provides very little differentiation of "discourse structures":

Table 5.21. Type of structure and direction of dependency for discourse systems

	STRUCTURE	DIRECTION OF DEPENDENCY
NEGOTIATION	multivariate & covariate	prospective & retrospective
IDENTIFICATION	covariate	retrospective (occasionally cataphoric)
CONJUNCTION	covariate	retrospective (occasionally cataphoric)
IDEATION	covariate	prospective & retrospective

[2] This is misleading.  Martin's system networks provide no realisation rules that specify structural realisations.

Favourably Misrepresenting Martin's Discourse Structures

Bateman (1998: 7-8):

These diverse discourse structures are developed in detail and with copious examples in their own particular chapters, but a number of useful overview tables are also given towards the end of Chapter 5. For example, the semantic units participating in discourse structures are summarised in Table 5.18 [p325] thus:

Table 5.18. Discourse semantics: units proposed in English Text
interpersonal	textual	ideational: logical	experiential
exchange
move		message
	participant		message part

As within the grammar, different labellings are proposed within each metafunction. That is: the region of NEGOTIATION, which is concerned with the interpersonal construction of text as an unfolding ‘exchange’, links together discourse ‘moves’; the region of CONJUNCTION, which is concerned with how meanings are combined together to form larger ‘logically’ related meanings, links ‘messages’; the region of IDENTIFICATION, concerned with establishing reference to discourse entities, links ‘participants’; and the region of IDEATION, concerned with ‘the company that words keep’, links ‘message parts’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The term 'diverse' here is misleading.  Martin (1992: 331) describes all his structures as covariate, with the addition of multivariate structure in the case of his interpersonal meaning; see previous post.  Importantly, 'covariate' (Lemke 1985) is not a type of structure, as later acknowledged by Lemke (1988: 159) himself.

[2] The notion of 'units participating in discourse structures' conceals an inconsistency in Martin's structure types, deriving from his confusing structured units with units in a relation.  To be clear, Martin's interpersonal units are structured units, like the clause in the grammar, whereas the units of Martin's other metafunctions are units in relations to other units, like Halliday's cohesive relations that Martin has misunderstood, rebranded and relocated, stratally and metafunctionally, from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.

[3] This echoes Martin's confusing of the realisation relation between system (negotiation) and structure (exchange), on the one hand, with the instantiation of potential in logogenesis (unfolding of text), on the other.  See, for example, Confusing Realisation And Instantiantion.

[4] The use of 'links' here continues the concealment of the inconsistencies in Martin's notion of structure, as identified above in [2].  The relation between 'exchange' and 'move' is one of constituency: an exchange consists of moves.  The notion of NEGOTIATION "linking" moves falsely construes interpersonal structure as consistent with

• CONJUNCTION "linking" messages, 
• IDENTIFICATION "linking" messages, and
• IDEATION "linking" message parts.

The notion of 'links' is consistent with the notion of 'cohesive ties': the non-structural relations in the systems of cohesion that Martin has rebranded, relocated and misunderstood as discourse semantic structural relations.

On Martin's Four Discourse Semantic Systems

Bateman (1998: 6-7):

The four regions of discourse semantics addressed in depth are NEGOTIATION, IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION. NEGOTIATION concerns those resources of discourse semantics that are responsible for the construction of dialogue and interaction. IDENTIFICATION captures the semantic resources for referring to and tracking discourse participants. CONJUNCTION develops the ‘logic’ of English text in terms of those resources by which semantic messages are combined into larger complex messages, and through which messages are related to previously expressed messages as a text or dialogue unfolds. And IDEATION attempts to motivate those systematic selections from groups of ‘related’ lexical items that bring about a text’s ‘lexical’ cohesion. Each of these therefore illustrates a distinct general kind of meaning carried in discourse and can be broadly allocated to a particular metafunction: NEGOTIATION is broadly interpersonal, IDENTIFICATION textual, CONJUNCTION logical, and IDEATION experiential. Consequently, as with grammar, it appears the case that diverse kinds of discourse structure may be usefully posited for each area.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in theoretical terms, these four are proposed systems of a proposed discourse semantic stratum.

[2] To be clear, this is the apt subtitle of the chapter on CONJUNCTION. For some of the violations of logic in this chapter, see the 103 critiques here.  Martin abandons the most general categories of expansion — elaboration, extension and enhancement — and because Martin's CONJUNCTION is a largely a rebranding, relocating and misunderstanding of Halliday's system of grammatical cohesion, it doesn't include the other major logico-semantic system, projection, at all. This undermines any systematic account of grammatical metaphor, even if it redefined less precisely as 'interstratal tension'.

[3] The use of 'broadly' here is an unjustified hedge.  Metafunctions are distinct perspectives on meaning, and Martin specifically assigns each of his systems to each of the metafunctions.

[4] The proposed unit of Martin's textual system of IDENTIFICATION is the experiential category 'participant'.  Martin's system is a rebranding, relocating and misunderstanding of Halliday's grammatical system of cohesive reference, as demonstrated here.

[5] Martin's logical system of CONJUNCTION is a confusion of the structural relations between clauses in complexes (logical metafunction) and non-structural cohesive conjunctive relations (textual metafuction).

[6] Martin's experiential system of IDEATION is a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual metafunction), and misunderstandings of 'lexis as most delicate grammar', inter alia, as demonstrated here.

[7] This is misleading.  As Martin (1992: 331) points out after describing all four of his discourse semantic systems:

All the discourse structures introduced to this point have been covariate ones, with the exception of the multivariate interpretation of the exchange introduced in Chapter 2. But even there the multivariate approach presented only a partial picture; covariate tracking and challenging structures had to be developed to fill out the picture. Lexical relations are also covariate structures — message parts depend semantically on each other, and depending message parts are themselves depended on.

That is, for the most part, the "diverse kinds of discourse structure…posited for each area" is the one kind, covariate — which was later repudiated as a structure type by its originator, Lemke, several years before Martin's publication, as previously shown.  For a critique of the above extract, see here.

On Discourse Semantic System And Structure

Bateman (1998: 6-7):

With the basic premise and components in place, Chapter 1 thus sets the scene for an exciting investigation that the rest of the book can only begin. The second part of the book addresses particular areas of the discourse semantics in detail. For each area of discourse semantics addressed, Martin sets out both discourse semantic system networks, generally motivating these with examples, and discourse semantic structures.

Blogger Comment:

This is very misleading. Martin provides no realisation statements in his discourse semantic system networks that specify his discourse semantic "structures". Attempts to do so would have exposed the confusions in the model.