Misrepresenting Fries On Method Of Development

Bateman (1998: 20):

Several examples of this kind of integration and its contribution to textuality are given. In general, the resource of grammatical metaphor is used to ensure that textually appropriate meanings are placed in lexicogrammatically supportive positions. Thus, in order to obtain desired unmarked Theme selections, it may be necessary to select grammatically incongruent realisations for the messages to be expressed so that the participant to become Theme may also legitimately be Subject [p435]. And, in turn, the requirement that particular Themes be selected as marked or unmarked comes from the discourse semantic motivation of achieving a particular method of development as investigated predominantly by Fries (e.g., 1983).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, all of this is Martin reporting Fries (1981), not Martin, and it only applies to method of development — not to cohesive harmony, modal responsibility or point.

[2] This is misleading. Fries' work (1981) on method of development, is couched theoretically consistently, that is: in terms of lexicogrammar, not in terms of Martin's discourse semantics, and "motivations" for Theme selection are textual, not discourse semantic.  This latter misunderstanding confuses metafunction with stratum.

On "Martin's" Cohesive Harmony, Method Of Development, Modal Responsibility, And Point

Bateman (1998: 20):

Martin explores four particular interaction patterns in depth in this chapter: cohesive harmony, method of development, modal responsibility, and point. For each he shows how the kinds of integration of meanings from different metafunctions is not a task that can be left to the lexicogrammar alone; it is also essential for discourse semantics to provide an organising framework.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of cohesive harmony derives from Hasan (1989/1985: 94).  For some of Martin's misunderstandings (and misrepresentations) of Hasan's cohesive harmony, see the clarifying critiques here.

[2] To be clear, the notion of method of development derives from Fries (1981).  For some of Martin's misunderstandings in using Fries' method of development, see the clarifying critiques here.

[3] To be clear, the notion of modal responsibility derives from Halliday (1985: 76).  For some Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's modal responsibility, see the clarifying critiques here.

[4] To be clear, the notion of point derives from Fries (1981).  For some of Martin's misunderstandings in using Fries' point, see the clarifying critiques here and here.

[5] To be clear, it is language that integrates meaning.  The architecture of SFL theory specifies the precise ways in which meanings are related to each other in this integration.

[6] To be clear, discourse semantics cannot "provide an organising framework" if it is theorised on the basis of multiple misunderstandings and riddled with internal inconsistencies, as demonstrated in great detail here.

On CONJUNCTION And IDEATION Interactions As Definitive For The Notion Of Texture

Bateman (1998: 20):

And, in chapter 6, Martin sets out a preliminary attempt to explore the interaction and co-operation between different strata and regions in the construction of meaning. Martin gives examples of interdependencies and some of the very few attempts to explore these— for example, Hoey’s (1983) investigation of the relationship between phenomena assigned by English Text to the CONJUNCTION and IDEATION regions. These patterns of interaction Martin suggests are definitive for the notion of texture — that distinguishing property of any text that differentiates it from a set of unrelated sentences and which derives from “the fact that it functions as a unity with respect to its environment’’ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:2).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the sources of Martin's CONJUNCTION and IDEATION, Halliday & Hasan's (1976) cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion, do contribute to texture, because texture is created by the textual metafunction, and systems of cohesion are systems of the textual metafunction (op. cit.: 27).

However, Martin misinterprets these textual systems as systems of the ideational metafunction — logical (CONJUNCTION) and experiential (IDEATION) — and ideational systems are not concerned with texture, but with construing experience.

This fundamental misunderstanding further undermines Martin's chapter on texture.

On Martin's Assumption Of Modularity

Bateman (1998: 19-20):

4. Inter-relationships between modules of the account 

Having set out a substantial areas of discourse semantics, Martin turns in the final part of the book to one of the automatic consequences of a ‘modular’ approach to description and explanation: that is, it is necessary to suggest the ways in which the distinct modules cooperate in order to together produce the properties of texts that are to be accounted for. Chapter 6 [pp381-492] therefore explores an area that is even newer and more experimental than those of the previous chapters, although fore-shadowed there by virtue of the assumption of modularity. As Martin writes:

“within discourse semantics, the ways in which systems co-operate in the process of making text [are] much less well understood.... A more explicit account of this co-operation is clearly an urgent research goal.’’ [p391]

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, SFL theory is not a modular theory; its architecture is dimensional, not modular. Halliday & Webster (2009: 231):

In SFL language is described, or “modelled”, in terms of several dimensions, or parameters, which taken together define the “architecture” of language. These are 

• (i) the hierarchy of strata (context, semantics, lexicogrammar, phonology, phonetics; related by realisation); 
• (ii) the hierarchy of rank (e.g. clause, phrase/group, word, morpheme; related by composition); 
• (iii) the cline of instantiation (system to instance); 
• (iv) the cline of delicacy (least delicate to most delicate, or grossest to finest); 
• (v) the opposition of axis (paradigmatic and syntagmatic); 
• (vi) the organisation by metafunction (ideational (experiential, logical), interpersonal, textual).

To take one example, to conceive of strata of symbolic abstraction as interacting modules is analogous to conceiving of a word and its definition as interacting modules, or of conceiving of a green traffic light and its meaning 'go' as interacting modules.

Martin's misunderstanding of SFL theory as modular undermines the foundation of his Chapter 6, though this is by no means the only problem, as will be seen, and as already demonstrated here.

On Martin's Notion Of Congruent And Incongruent Lexical Items

Bateman (1998: 19):

Also considered in this chapter are how particular message parts, although they serve as the semantic expression of particular field-stratum ‘participants’, may or may not be realised by single lexical items (congruent and noncongruent realisations): e.g. ‘champion’ and ‘tournament winner’ — again suggesting some of the value of maintaining stratification and providing one important difference with Hasan’s own extension of the position in Halliday and Hasan (1976): cohesive harmony [p372].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'message part' is Martin's unit of IDEATION, described (p293) as 'the discourse semantic unit underlying lexical item'.  Martin's claim is that it is congruently realised as one lexical item and incongruently realised as more than one lexical item.  This means, in terms of SFL theory, champion would be a non-metaphorical realisation, whereas tournament winner would be a metaphorical realisation.  (A genuine example of lexical metaphor would be construing the champion as a 'dynamo'.)  For further evidence that Martin does not understand (in)congruence, see here; for further evidence that Martin does not understand lexicogrammatical metaphor, see here.

[2] To be clear, the semantic expression of a "field stratum participant" is meaning that realises one of the speakers producing a text — but this is not what Martin means.  As previously explained, Martin confuses field (context) with the ideational meaning that realises it (semantics), and confuses context (the culture as semiotic system) with register (a sub-potential of language).  The theoretical inconsistencies are thus in terms of stratification and instantiation.

[3] To be clear, it wasn't Martin who stratified the content plane, but Halliday, though the naïve reader could be forgiven for thinking it was Martin's idea, given his presentation (e.g. pp14-21).  As demonstrated by the misunderstandings identified above in [1], the "in/congruent" realisations of Martin's 'message part' do not demonstrate "the value of maintaining stratification".

[4] Here Bateman is merely parroting Martin's claims (p372) without question.  To be clear, Hasan's (1985: 94) cohesive harmony is concerned with the harmony between the 'outputs' of two metafunctions, the textual and the experiential, at the level of lexicogrammar:

The output of the textual function are the chains and the interactions; the outputs of the experiential function at the rank of clause and group is what the interaction is built upon. Thus cohesive harmony is an account of how the two functions find their expression in one significant whole.

That is, where Hasan's model is concerned with harmony between the textual and experiential metafunctions, Martin's model, in rebranding lexical cohesion as an experiential system, is concerned with confusing the textual and experiential metafunctions.

For more details on Martin's misunderstandings of cohesive harmony, see the clarifying critiques here.