On Determining The Unit Of Ideation

Bateman (1998: 18):

Martin then turns to the motivation and elaboration of these discourse semantic aspects of lexical relations, and again needs to address the question of units within IDEATION at the discourse semantic stratum. Here it is quickly made clear that collocation is not a sufficient motivation for defining units, since there is a gradient between idioms and non-idioms and Sinclair has gone so far as to maintain that mutual expectancy can be extended up to include entire texts. So, to counter this, Martin takes the constructs of field from register (discussed in more detail in Chapter 7: p497) as the basis of the units that are subject to lexical semantic relations [p297].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin is concerned with determining the unit of IDEATION, a structural system of experiential discourse semantics, which is his rebranding of his misunderstanding of lexical cohesion, a non-structural system of textual lexicogrammar.

Because the original system is non-structural, he is unable to identify a structural unit — i.e. a unit with internal function structure, such as all the units of lexicogrammar and phonology.  Moreover, because the original system is concerned with relating lexical items to each other, Martin's unit is essentially a rebranding of his misunderstanding of a lexical item, which he terms a 'message part'.

Adding further to the above confusions and theoretical inconsistencies, this unit of lexical relations is grammatical, not lexical, as demonstrated (pp292-3) by the types of message part: actions, people, places, things and qualities.

[2] To be clear, in order to identify his discourse semantic unit, Martin looks to field, the ideational dimension of cultural context, which he misunderstands as register.  This is further complicated by Martin confusing contextual field with the ideational semantics that realises it.

The number of theoretical confusions, and the confused relations between them, in this section of Martin's chapter, are difficult to untangle, but an attempt has been to do so in the following clarifying critiques:

• Inconsistencies Of Structure And Metafunction 
• Misconstruing The Difference Between Lexical Item And Grammatical Word 
• Confusing Register (Language) With Context (Culture)
• Confusing Context With Semantics 
• Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]
• Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [2]
• Misconstruing Experiential As A Constituent Of Logical 
• Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics 
• Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent 
• Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar

On Martin Locating Some Lexical Taxonomies Outside Language

Bateman (1998: 17):

This naturally leads to a consideration of lexical cohesion: both stratificational and systemic work on cohesion posit cohesive ties between lexical items that include classifications such as ‘same item repeated’, ‘synonym or near synonym’, ‘superordinate’, ‘general term’, ‘collocation’ or ‘same co-occurrence group’ [p286-7]. However, these relations are often difficult or impossible to ascertain without also considering the field of discourse, despite the fact that, as Martin notes, discussions of lexical cohesion have typically defocused this issue. Martin suggests as a possible solution the following:

“One way of keeping the grammar neutral would be to locate specialised taxonomies in the register variable field, allowing the grammar to focus on field neutral oppositions. This would mean for example that the similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geology could be brought out in lexicogrammar and the differences between them in field taxonomies.’’ [p289] 

Thus the ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ alternations are to be considered as taxonomies, that are neutral with respect to field, and particular ‘lexical sets’ [p290]. These serve as realisations of discourse semantic lexical relations, which in turn serve as realisations of the field specific taxonomies of register.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, ascertaining lexical relations is a problem for the text analyst, not for the speaker of the text.  On the other hand, the claim is manifestly untrue, since even the most field-ignorant text analyst can ascertain such relations by consulting a thesaurus (± dictionary); see also Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4).

[2] To be clear, this issue does not feature in discussions of lexical cohesion because it only arises through Martin's misunderstanding of SFL theory in general, and lexical cohesion in particular; see further below.

[3] To be clear, the 'similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geography' is formal, not functional.  In Systemic Functional terms, the two uses of the form are specified by different bundles of lexicogrammatical features.  That is, the "problem" only arises because Martin gives priority to form over function.

Martin's solution to his imaginary problem is to separate lexical taxonomies by two strata, leaving "field-neutral" lexical taxonomies within the lexicogrammar and moving "field-specific" lexical taxonomies to context (field), which is not even language, let alone semantics.  

Leaving aside the absurdity of locating words outside language, in SFL terms, as explained in the previous post, Martin misunderstands a difference along the cline of instantiation (potential vs sub-potential) as a difference in symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar vs context), with the sub-potential ("field-specific") construed as two levels of symbolic abstraction above the potential ("field-neutral"), despite lexical taxonomies, as the term suggests, being on the same level of symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar).

[4] Here again Bateman follows Martin in confusing lexical items (as the realisations of lexicogrammatical features) with the relations between lexical items that provide cohesion in a text.

[5] To be clear, Martin (p290) uses the term 'lexical sets' for collocation patterns.  However, in SFL theory, 'lexical set' is opposed to 'collocation'. That is, it describes the types of lexical cohesion in which the nature of the relation is paradigmatic (repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy). However, Martin misapplies the term to the opposite type of lexical cohesion, collocation, in which the nature of the relation is syntagmatic.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644).

[6] To be clear, Martin's proposal (Table 5.2 below) is that field-specific taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of context are realised by cohesive lexical relations at the level of discourse semantics, that are realised by field neutral taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of lexicogrammar.

Table 5.2. Lexical relations across planes and strata

Context	Language
	DISCOURSE SEMANTICS	LEXICOGRAMMAR
field specific taxonomies	lexical relations (cohesion)	field neutral taxonomies (as delicate grammar) collocation patterns (lexical sets)

Given all of the above, it is fair to say that neither Martin nor Bateman have sufficient understanding of the principles on which the architecture of SFL theory is constructed.

For more detailed argument on these matters, see:

• Confusing Textual Cohesion With Experiential Delicacy
• Relocating Lexis Outside Language
• Misconstruing Semantics As Context

On Martin's Notion Of Register-Independent Lexical Relations

Bateman (1998: 17):

The starting point for his model of IDEATION is given by the basic premises of English Text’s framework. Martin is attempting to set out a statement of the discourse semantic function of a variety of lexicogrammatical phenomena: however, due to their positioning in the linguistic system, both this discourse semantics and the lexicogrammar should be largely register-independent. The question that ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ has to address therefore becomes the following: what kind of account of lexical relations is it possible to build into the lexicogrammar, given that this must be neutral with respect to register (or at least to field within register)?

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  As already explained, Martin has merely taken models of lexicogrammatical phenomena, theorised by Halliday ± Hasan, and rebranded his misunderstanding of them as discourse semantic.  For example, Martin does not set up discourse semantic systems that specify congruent realisations in lexicogrammar, by which metaphorical realisations can be compared.

[2] In terms of Martin's model, where register is misunderstood as context, this misunderstands stratification; in terms of SFL theory, this misunderstands instantiation.

In terms of Martin's model, discourse semantics (realised in lexicogrammar) realises register.  That is, they are different levels of symbolic abstraction and, as such, are not "independent" of one another.  On this model discourse semantics construes register.

In terms of SFL theory, where register is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, each register is a functional variety of semantics and lexicogrammar.  That is, the systems of semantics and lexicogrammar provide the overall potential of which each register is a sub-potential.  So, theorising a semantic system means theorising the overall system, of which all registers are variants.

[3] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (lexical items as the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical systems) with relations between lexical items, which, in SFL theory, function cohesively, creating texture.

[4] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between context (field) and register.  On Martin's model, a variety of language, register, is not language, but what is realised by language.  This is analogous to claiming that a variety of bird, such as magpie, is not a bird, but what is realised by a bird.  For detailed arguments on the internal inconsistencies of Martin's model of 'stratified context', see here (register) or here (context).

On Martin's "Convincing" Use Of Ideation

Bateman (1998: 17):

He then turns to Sinclair’s (e.g, 1987) counter-position that collocation is in fact the better model to start from:

“collocation patterns may map more closely onto contextual ones than caution may have first led linguists to expect: ‘there is a great deal of overlap with semantics, and very little reason to posit an independent semantics for the purpose of text description’ (Sinclair, 1987:331).’’ [p277] 

Since the entire point of English Text is to provide an independent linguistic semantics that is primarily for the purposes of text description, Sinclair’s claim can be seen as something of a challenge — at least in the area of lexis and IDEATION. But, in direct answer to the challenge, Martin not only proposes a model of an independent discourse semantics for lexical relations but then provides several convincing examples of its use in text analysis, both alone in this chapter and, in the chapter following, in coordination with the other discourse semantic regions discussed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the source of "Martin's" model is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin relocates this model to his own discourse semantic stratum, misunderstands it as experiential rather than textual, confuses it with 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (and with clause nuclearity), and rebrands the confusion as his own system of IDEATION, all of which is demonstrated in great detail here.

[2] For some of the problems with Martin's text analyses, unnoticed by the 'convinced' Bateman, see:

• Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration
• Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
• Misconstruing Mode As Genre (1)
• Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause
• Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension
• Misconstruing Mode As Genre (2)

[3] For the cornucopia of theoretical misunderstandings in Martin's Chapter 6, see the evidence here.

On Martin Confusing Lexis With Lexical Cohesion

Bateman (1998: 16-7):

Rather than getting stuck in the potential quagmire of traditional discussions of the problems of lexis, however, Martin takes a refreshingly different slant in English Text and again comes up with some very suggestive results. After briefly mentioning the relative merits of thesaurus vs. dictionary organisations for lexical information and summarising Firth’s work on collocation, he cites the early ground-breaking work of Hasan (1987), illustrating Hasan’s approach with a further example of lexis as most delicate grammar in the area of relational processes in English.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's IDEATION is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar, misunderstood, relocated to discourse semantics, and rebranded as a structural discourse semantic system of the experiential metafunction.  The theoretical inconsistencies are thus stratal, metafunctional and syntagmatic (non-structural as structural).  Moreover, Martin confuses 

• lexical cohesion (the creation of texture through relations between lexical items) with 
• lexis as most delicate grammar (the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical features as lexical items).

And, as the terms 'lexical' and 'lexis' suggest, these are theorised in SFL theory as lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic.

[2] For some of Martin's misunderstandings in these matters, unnoticed by Bateman, see the clarifying critiques:

• Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Dictionary Definitions, and 
• Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Thesaurus.

[3] For some of Martin's misunderstandings in these matters, unnoticed by Bateman, see the clarifying critiques:

• Misconstruing Unassigned vs Assigned As Single vs Double Agency,
• Misrepresenting 'Semiotic',
• Misrepresenting The Directions Of Coding And Mistaking A Verbal Projection Nexus For An Identifying Clause,
• Falsely Claiming To Have Uniquely Classified Two Lexical Items, and
• Misconstruing The Agency Of Identifying Clauses.