On The Structural Description Of Identification: Reference Chains

Bateman (1998: 11):

For the structural description of IDENTIFICATION Martin turns directly to a covariate dependency structure for constructing reference chains.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Two thoughts that didn't occur to Bateman here are:

• even though grammatical reference is not a structural system, Martin models its semantic counterpart, IDENTIFICATION, as structural;
• Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION does not include any realisation statements that specify the structure of its unit, the participant (cf. systems of the clause).

[2] One thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that the notion of 'covariate structure' derives from Lemke (1985), who later (Lemke 1989) conceded that it is not a type of structure.  Martin lists Lemke (1989) in his list of references.  A second thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that, in SFL theory, dependency is a tactic relation between logically related forms (clauses, groups, etc.), not a relation of the textual metafunction between reference item and referent.

[3] A thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin's (1992) notion of 'reference chain' derives from Hasan's (1985/9: 83-5) notion of 'cohesive chain', which she applies to reference, ellipsis–&–substitution and lexical cohesion.

On Martin's Argument For Stratification

Bateman (1998: 11):

Some discourse semantic options are also realised by a range of grammatical elements, sometimes simultaneously. Generalisations such as these are also difficult to capture within the grammar alone—cf. Figure 3.13 and Martin’s (1997) own critical discussion of the DEIXIS system as suggested as a grammatical system by Halliday. Martin therefore concludes that the relationship between his networks for IDENTIFICATION and those for the nominal group lexicogrammar are indeed more reminiscent of inter-stratal relationships than of intra-stratal relationships since they clearly display ‘interlocking diversification’ (Lockwood, 1972), thus supporting the stratification.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the one hand, discourse semantic options, by definition, cannot be "captured within the grammar alone", since they are not grammatical options; semantics (meaning) and grammar (wording) are distinct levels of symbolic abstraction.  On the other hand, generalisation is modelled in SFL theory by the dimension of delicacy, not stratification.

[2] See the critique of Figure 3.13 here and of the argument Martin makes of it here.

[3] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin, in purporting to model 'reference as semantic choice' confuses the interpersonal deixis of the nominal group with the textual reference of non-structural cohesion, which is why he mistakenly "stratifies" the semantics of reference with regard to nominal group structure.

[4] Here Bateman reveals that, like Martin, he does not understand that the hierarchy of stratification is built on the principle of symbolic abstraction, whereby strata are related by the intensive identifying process of realisation.

On Martin's Claim That Discourse Semantics Can Turn Non-Participant Meanings Into Things By Referring To Them

Bateman (1998: 11): 

In addition, parallel to the grammar’s being able to turn non-participant meanings into participant-like ones through processes such as nominalisation, the discourse semantics can also turn non-participant meaning into ‘things’ by referring to pieces of text (e.g., who told you that, I can’t believe that).

Blogger Comments:

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

1. Martin confuses the textual metafunction ('referring to pieces of text') with the ideational metafunction (construing non-participants as participants);
2. Martin confuses the textual cohesive function of that (anaphoric demonstrative co-reference) with its experiential clause structure functions (Verbiage/Phenomenon participants);
3. Textual reference does not "turn non-participant meaning into things";
4. Textual reference is a lexicogrammatical system.

For a critique of Martin's misunderstandings in this regard, see

• Confusing IdeationalConstrual With Textual Reference, and 
• Confusing Metafunctions And ConfusingTypes Of Cohesion.

On "Non-Referential" Nominal Groups

Bateman (1998: 11): 

Illustrations of these non-referential nominal groups include structural it, idioms, negation, and realisations for a range of grammatical functions such as Attribute, Range, Extent, and possessive Deictics.  There are also cases that Martin describes as “taking a single participant and splitting it in two’’ [p133], e.g., the top of the mountain where some facet of the whole is focused upon. The table on p134 sets out an overview of these kinds of incongruences in terms of the mismatch in participants and grammatical units.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's "non-referential nominal groups" are said to be 'non-referential' in the sense of not (ideationally) denoting meanings transcendent of semiotic systems.  In SFL theory, nominal groups do not (textually) refer, and the reference items within them, and within adverbial groups, do not function as such as structural elements of the group.

[2] See Martin's misunderstandings on structural it here.

[3] See Martin's misunderstandings on idioms here.

[4] See Martin's misunderstandings on negation here.

[5] See Martin's misunderstandings on Attribute here.

[6] See Martin's misunderstandings on Range here and here.

[7] See Martin's misunderstandings on Extent here.

[8] See Martin's misunderstandings on possessive Deictics here.

[9] See Martin's misunderstandings on Facet expressions here and here.

[10] See the critique of the table here.

[11] To be clear, in SFL theory, the term 'incongruence' refers to grammatical metaphor (where wordings are not congruent with meanings).  Grammatical metaphor is a genuine motivation for the stratal distinction between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar).  However, Martin's examples are not cases of grammatical metaphor, if only because there are no congruent realisations with which to contrast them.  Moreover, if they had been cases of grammatical metaphor, Martin's argument would involve using ideational metaphor to justify a stratification of textual systems (discourse semantic IDENTIFICATION vs lexicogrammatical reference).