On Nuclearity And Expansion Relations

Bateman (1998: 19):

To unpack the relations underlying such cohesive ties, Martin uses the complexing relations set out by Halliday in IFG — elaboration, extension and enhancement — in order to provide an abstract classification. This then provides another perspective on notions of ‘peripherality’, and extends to net in participants and circumstances. A network of available options is given in Figure 5.23 with a substantial set of examples.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the expansion relations between lexical items (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 644) and the expansion relations between grammatical functions of the clause are distinct metafunctional manifestations of the 'fractal type' expansion, the former textual, the latter ideational.  Moreover, lexical items and grammatical functions are lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic.

[2] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic network is concerned with grammatical units (clause, verbal group, nominal group) and falsely presents the exemplifying instances as realisation statements.  More importantly, the network is based on multiple misapplications of expansion categories and grammatical structure.  This can be demonstrated by considering the table presented by Bateman:

• Process and Medium form the clause nucleus, and it is this that is related to other functions; i.e. the Medium does not extend the Process.
• The relation between frying and pan is enhancement (purpose), not elaboration.
• The nominal group frying fish is Classifier^Thing, not Epithet^Thing; Epithets can accept degrees of comparison or intensity (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 377), whereas Classifiers, like frying, cannot.
• The relation between frying and fish is elaboration, not extension, since Martin (p312) glosses it as 'a fish that is frying'.
• The relation between the Epithet difficult and Thing group is elaboration, not extension; the Epithet further specifies the Thing.
• The particle of a 'phrasal verb' is not a constituent of the verbal group, and so does not elaborate the Event of a verbal group.  The 'particle', is either a preposition group or adverbial group that realises a clause Adjunct.
• The wording try (to) shoot is a verbal group complex, not a verbal group.

This small sample gives some indication of the extent of misunderstandings of expansion and grammatical structure in Martin's model of "discourse semantic" nuclear relations.

On Process^Medium Motivating Collocation

Bateman (1998: 18-9):

The lexicogrammatical realisation of nuclear relations has previously been the concern of treatments of transitivity and, as far as their discourse function has been concerned, has been treated under collocation. In English Text, however,

“[a]n attempt will be made to unpack these relations ... in order to identify more precisely the semantic relations involved. What this amounts to is a foray into the discourse semantics of experiential grammar, which is in itself a daunting task. It is however an essential one, since the lexical relations under consideration here cannot be explained simply by appealing to grammatical structure.’’ [p309] 

Martin shows this by examples such as the following:

Ben serves. That’s his fifth ace of the match. 

where the particular collocation is not within a single grammatical unit, but is nevertheless strongly motivated by the nuclear configuration of ‘serving aces’ available for tennis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the source of Martin's nuclear relations is Halliday's (1985: 149) ergative model of clause transitivity.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  Here Bateman is accepting without question Martin's  unsourced claim (p309):

In previous approaches to lexical cohesion, nuclear relations have been handled under the heading collocation.

Given that lexical cohesion is a non-structural system of the textual metafunction, and that the ergative model within transitivity is a structural system of the experiential metafunction, any treatment of clause ergativity under collocation would be a serious misunderstanding of both systems.

What is true is that transitivity structures can be used to identify the type of expansion relation between lexical items related cohesively by collocation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 649).

[3] This is hardly surprising, given that collocation, like all types of lexical cohesion, is not a system of the clause.

[4] To be clear, Martin's example (p309) is:

Ben serves. That’s his fifth ace of the match.

The claim here is that lexical collocation of serves and ace is motivated by the clause nucleus (Process/Medium) of grammatical structure ('serving aces').   The immediate problem with this explanation is that 'serving aces' is Process^Range: process, not Process^Medium.

Moreover, since an 'ace' is a type of 'serve', the lexically cohesive relation between them is hyponymy, and it is this that actually accounts for the tendency of the lexical items 'serves' and 'ace' to co-occur.

On Martin's Taxonomic Relations Systems

Bateman (1998: 18):

Taxonomic relations are better understood than both configuration-based, or nuclear, relations and activity-sequence relations. They include traditional lexical relationships such as hyponymy, hyperonymy, cohyponomy, etc. Martin suggests that the taxonomic relations appear to be used to generate/define particular field-specific taxonomies [e.g., p295--6]. They also each have typical structural realisations in the lexicogrammar, involving Classifiers, Pre-Classifiers (that kind of, this sort of), ... as well as structures such as ‘class of noun’, ‘brand of car’, ‘genre of text’, etc. The sequence of networks given in Figures 5.10, 5.16--5.18, 5.20 and 5.21 provides a detailed network for taxonomic lexical relations, with several examples of the distinct kind of lexicogrammatical patterns that they employ for their realisation. For English Text, these also set out a detailed classification system for kinds of cohesive ties that may be found in text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin confuses the non-structural use of lexical relations to create textual cohesion with structural grammatical relations in the construal of experience, and relocates his confusion from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.  The primary theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal.

[2] Martin's Figure 5.10, on lexical relations, a system proposed for the discourse semantic stratum, is actually concerned with the stratum below (lexicogrammar) and composed of features purported to be of the stratum above (contextual field: activity sequences).  As might be expected, given these confusions, the network features neither an entry condition nor any realisation statements.

[3] These are more delicate elaborations of the system presented in Figure 5.10, and so embody the same theoretical confusions and inconsistencies.

[4] This is misleading.  The networks do not provide "examples of the distinct kind of lexicogrammatical patterns that they employ for their realisation", they merely provide instances that exemplify relation types, such as tenor-sax for the feature hyponymy.  Moreover, the examples are misleadingly presented by Martin as if they were realisation statements — which accounts for Bateman's misleading interpretation.

[5] To be clear, cohesive ties are non-structural textual relations at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin, in contrast, rebrands lexical cohesion as a structural experiential system, IDEATION, at the level of discourse semantics.

On Field Consisting Of Activity Sequences

Bateman (1998: 18):

Field consists of sequences of activities and their participants as these contribute to particular socially recognisable endeavours. The lexical relations in English are then presented as they relate to the three ‘ranks’ of the contextual structure of activity sequences, giving three primary delicacy distinctions: taxonomy, nuclear and activity. These Martin illustrates with respect to the field of tennis as follows [p293].

• TAXONOMY: part/whole relations among game-set-match 
• CONFIGURATION: (‘nuclear’) Agent-Process-Medium structures, e.g., player-serve-ball 
• ACTIVITY SEQUENCE: [player serve]--[opponent return]--[player volley]

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's (1992) notion of activity sequence confuses what is going on in terms of culture (context) with what is going on in a text (language).  For some of the many problems with the notion of activity sequence, see the 48 clarifying critiques here.

In contrast, in Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), activity sequence is relocated to discourse semantics as an experiential system, despite being concerned with expansion relations, like the "logical" discourse semantic system, conjunction.  For the problems that arise through this later relocation, see some of the clarifying critiques here.

[2] This misrepresents Martin (p292) who only regards activity sequences as contextual:

A given institution comprises a large number of different activity sequences, where these are realised linguistically through temporally ordered chains of Process and Medium and their attendant participant and circumstantial roles.

Bateman's confusion is understandable, however, since Martin here not only violates the SFL notion of strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction, he also violates his own misunderstanding of strata as different modules.

[3] This example of an activity sequence nicely illustrates the tangle of confusions in Martin's model.  To explain:

• if [player serve]--[opponent return]--[player volley] appears in a text, then it is not context (field), but linguistic content (semantics or lexicogrammar); but, on the other hand,

• if [player serve]--[opponent return]--[player volley] is what is going on in the cultural context, then it is realised by the language spoken by the tennis players while playing tennis — texts which Martin nowhere addresses.