On Martin's Argument For "Stratifying Identification With Respect To Nominal Group Structure"

Bateman (1998: 11): 

These phenomena generally revolve again around cases of noncongruent relationships between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. This was one of the general motivations for stratifying lexicogrammar and discourse semantics given in Chapter 1. ‘Noncongruent’ realisations involve Halliday’s notion of grammatical metaphor, whereby the lexicogrammar ‘repackages’ the information it expresses in diverse ways, as “variation in the expression of a given meaning’’ (IFG: p342). Applying this to IDENTIFICATION meanings, then, Martin claims [p129] that while all participants (semantic) are realised through nominal groups, it is not the case that all nominal groups realise participants.

Blogger Comments:

Here Bateman is reporting on Martin's theoretical justifications for stratifying his discourse semantic system of the textual metafunction, IDENTIFICATION, "with respect to nominal group structure".  Here are some of the thoughts that didn't occur to Bateman:

1. In order to demonstrate that the system of IDENTIFICATION is located on a higher stratum than the system of reference, Martin is looking at what he claims to be noncongruent (metaphorical) relations between units: between the proposed unstructured unit of IDENTIFICATION, the participant — the entry condition of IDENTIFICATION system Martin (1992: 129) — and the syntagmatic structure of a unit of form on the grammatical rank scale, the nominal group; and this despite the fact that the system of reference is not realised by any structure, let alone that of the nominal group.
2. Although purporting to be providing examples of incongruent (metaphorical) realisations of participants, Martin instead provides examples of mismatches between participants and nominal groups, which, if true, would be categorical, not metaphorical.
3. In purporting to provide examples of incongruent relations between participants and nominal groups, Martin, if correct, would be providing examples of ideational metaphor.  That is, Martin is purporting to use ideational metaphor to justify a stratal relation between systems of the textual metafunction (Martin glosses IDENTIFICATION as 'reference as semantic choice').  As previously explained, Martin's notion of 'participant' results from confusing the referent ('the participant tracked') with the system of referral.

On Martin's Identification Networks

Bateman (1998: 10-1):

Up until this point, it is not immediately obvious perhaps that the networks he presents are in fact discourse semantic and not grammatical: they certainly look rather similar to grammar systems for the nominal group that have been presented elsewhere. The example realisations given are also often single lexicalisations of structural elements of the nominal group, which reinforces the appearance of a grammatical statement rather than a discourse semantic one.  But Martin takes up this question explicitly and considers in closer detail a number of phenomena that favour the stratification that he claims holds between the discourse semantic networks and the networks of the nominal group within the lexicogrammar proper.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, Martin's identification networks (Figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9) bear no resemblance to nominal group systems, as a comparison with the following network (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) demonstrates:

On the other hand, nominal group systems are irrelevant to the semantics of grammatical reference since reference is not a system of the nominal group.  As previously explained, Martin's focus on the nominal group derives, in part, from his confusion of the interpersonal deixis of the nominal group with the cohesive system of textual reference and, in part, from his confusion of ideational denotation with textual reference.

[2] To be clear, Martin's argument is concerned with "stratifying" IDENTIFICATION 'with respect to nominal group structure'.  That is, Martin "stratifies" a discourse semantic system with respect to a grammatical structure, instead of a grammatical system, where the grammatical structure does not realise the semantic counterpart of grammatical reference.

For the arguments on which these criticisms are made, see the detailed examination of Martin's chapter on IDENTIFICATION here.

On The Goal And Focus Of Martin's Chapter On Identification

Bateman (1998: 10):

In contrast to his starting point with grammatical systems in Chapter 2, here he begins with text: and, in particular, a brief text written by a 7 year old illustrating various discourse semantic deficiencies (with respect to the adult language) in the construction and selection of its nominal groups — most particularly, problems in signalling recoverability. It is clear that the child has grasped the options that the grammatical system makes available and so the problems strongly suggest that the remaining difficulties are of a semantic nature. The precise details of the semantic discourse options motivating the textually appropriate selection of primarily nominal group grammatical options is then the goal of the chapter. “The focus will be on how English is structured to refer to participants, not simply on how it is used to do so.’’ [p95]

Blogger Comments:

[1] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that the child's 'problems in signalling recoverability' are not problems of reference in the child's text, but problems in Martin's analysis of the reference in the child's text.  See Misunderstanding The Use Of Reference In A Child's Text.

[2] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that, because grammatical reference is not a system of the nominal group, its semantic counterpart, IDENTIFICATION, is not realised by features of nominal group systems.  Moreover, Martin's IDENTIFICATION system takes 'participant' as it entry condition, but its features do not elaborate the participant (cf. clause systems), but instead elaborate potential relations between participants.

[3] Some of the thoughts that didn't occur to Bateman here are that:

• grammatical reference is not a structural system;
• participants are not the only potential referents;
• participants are clause rank experiential functions;
• Martin's "structures" are not structures of units, but relations between units;
• Martin's 'referring to participants' is ideational denotation, not textual reference.

On Martin's 'Identification'

Bateman (1998: 10):

Chapter 3 on IDENTIFICATION [pp93–157] considers the role of nominal groups in the construction of text; it is well known that nominal groups do more than just pick out entities in the ‘world’, the many possibilities for forming nominal groups involve a range of ‘text-building’ devices, most of which have been described grammatically in Halliday and Hasan (1976). Martin turns here to their semantic description, emphasising the perspective of reference as a semantic choice of the speaker.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's focus on nominal groups in his chapter on 'reference as semantic choice' arises from several serious misunderstandings of the SFL model of textual reference.

Most broadly, Martin confuses Halliday & Hasan's textual reference with Frege's reference (bedeutung), which is concerned with reference to meanings held to be transcendent of language.  On the one hand, this is ideational denotation, not textual reference, which is why an experiential category, participant — realised by a nominal group — is the unit and entry condition to the textual system of IDENTIFICATION.  On the other hand, Frege's reference is inconsistent with SFL theory, since the latter holds that all meaning is confined to semiotic systems (immanent).

Related to this, Martin confuses identifiability — 'the textual status at issue in the system of reference' (Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 623) — with identification, in the ideational sense, which is why the chapter is concerned participant identification and the tracking of participants (realised by nominal groups).

Related to this, Martin mistakes the non-structural (cohesive) system of reference to be a system that is realised in the nominal group structure.  He does this by confusing textual reference with a genuine system of the nominal group, interpersonal deixis.  To be clear, reference items appear in two grammatical domains, nominal group and adverbial group, but their reference function is not an element of group structure.

[2] Here Bateman uncritically follows Martin.  To be clear, in SFL theory, nominal groups do not "pick out" entities in the 'world', since this the transcendent view of meaning exemplified by Frege's reference (bedeutung).

[3] Here Bateman follows Martin in confusing the structurally realised systems of the nominal group with the non-structural (cohesive) systems whose grammatical domains include the nominal group.

[4] This is true.  Martin's work derives from Halliday & Hasan (1976), but misunderstands it, relocates it to his stratum of discourse semantics (misunderstood as a 'module'), and rebrands the relocated misunderstandings as his system of IDENTIFICATION.