On Martin's 'Explicit Stratification Of Lexicogrammar And Discourse Semantics'

Bateman (1998: 16): 

One of the few large-scale attempts to carry out a program of this kind is Fawcett’s COMMUNAL project (cf. Tucker, 1998); here, however, the rules of the game have been altered by Fawcett’s adoption of the system network to represent semantics rather than grammar, a position reminiscent of that given in, for example, Halliday (1978:132). Meaningful comparisons are also made more difficult by Fawcett’s explicit rejection of Martin’s (1987) call for a clear separation of networks where features are motivated on grammatical grounds and those where features are semantic: a position developed to its logical conclusion in English Text’s explicit stratification of lexicogrammar and discourse semantics.

Blogger Comments:

[1] For evidence that Fawcett does not understand the theoretical dimension of stratification, see the clarifying critiques here.

[2] To be clear, Halliday (1978: 131) writes:

Table 3 (p. 132) sets out the principal semantic systems arranged by function and rank, showing their functional location in the semantic system and their point of origin in the lexicogrammar.

[3] This is misleading.  As demonstrated here, Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical systems — reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion — misunderstood, and relocated to discourse semantics.

On Lexis And Functionally Motivated Syntagmatic Structure

Bateman (1998: 16):

Indeed, it is often claimed that lexis does not respect the organisational lines that a grammar would most naturally follow (cf., e.g., Wanner, 1997:154). If ‘dying’ and ‘kicking a bucket’, for example, are to be reached from the same point in a combined lexicogrammar, then difficult questions are raised about the kind of structural realisational consequences that a grammar may place on its less delicate features. If a lexical idiom can at any more delicate point in the grammar choose to ignore the natural functionally motivated syntagmatic structure expected at that point, then the grammar description is in danger of being severely compromised: the entire notion of a functionally motivated syntagmatic structure may be weakened considerably. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the euphemistic expression is 'kicking the bucket'.

[2] To be clear, such "difficult questions" are only raised by those who misunderstand SFL theory.  As a synonym for the lexical item 'die', 'kick the bucket' serves as a lexical item.  In this usage, it serves as the Process of a material clause:

Donald Trump	died	yesterday
	kicked the bucket
Medium Actor	Process: material	Location: time

That is, it does not have the same syntagmatic structure as the literal usage:

Donald Trump	kicked	the bucket	yesterday
Agent Actor	Process: material	Medium Goal	Location: time

One line of evidence for this distinction concerns agency and voice.  On this functional interpretation, the euphemistic instance is a middle clause, and so does not select for voice.  The literal instance, on the other hand, is an effective clause, and so does select for voice, as shown by its receptive agnate:

the bucket	was kicked	by Donald Trump	yesterday
Medium Goal	Process: material	Agent Actor	Location: time

In short, any claim that the euphemistic use of 'kick the bucket' has the same "natural functionally motivated syntagmatic structure" as the literal usage is without foundation.  Moreover, contrā SFL theory, it arises from prioritising the form of wording over its function.

[3] Here Bateman suggests that his taking a formal approach to syntagmatic structure undermines the notion of SFL syntagmatic structure as functionally motivated.

Misunderstanding Halliday's 'Lexis As Most Delicate Grammar'

Bateman (1998: 16): 

The basic statement of belief for systemic approaches to lexis is generally given in terms of Halliday’s (1961) ‘grammarian’s dream’, that is, lexis is to be seen as ‘most delicate grammar’. When sufficiently fine-grained lexicogrammatical distinctions have been drawn (including cross-classification along distinct metafunctional dimensions), then the realisational consequences of those distinctions will be in terms of particular lexical items, rather than in broader structural configurations. The ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ position is very attractive in its integration of lexical and grammatical phenomenon — an orientation in fact now shared by most modern linguistic approaches. However, its ‘subordination’ of the details of lexis to the broader organisation of grammar has not yet been shown to work in detail.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Bateman has digressed from reviewing Martin's Chapter 5 to discussing the notion of 'lexis as most delicate grammar', by which Halliday (2002 [1961]: 54) means:

The theoretical place of the move from grammar to lexis is therefore not a feature of rank but one of delicacy. It is defined theoretically as the place where increase in delicacy yields no further systems; this means that in description it is constantly shifting as delicacy increases. The grammarian’s dream is (and must be, such is the nature of grammar) of constant territorial expansion. He would like to turn the whole of linguistic form into grammar, hoping to show that lexis can be defined as “most delicate grammar”. The exit to lexis would then be closed, and all exponents ranged in systems.

[2] This misunderstanding is misleading.  Theoretically, lexicogrammatical networks specify both lexical items and grammatical structures (of units along the rank scale).

[3] To be clear, 'phenomenon' is the singular form; the plural form is 'phenomena'.

[4] This misunderstanding is misleading.  In SFL theory, the details of lexis are not "subordinated" to the broader organisation of the grammar; they are specified by the networks of lexicogrammar.  What is missing is the theoretical development of networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items, as previously explained.