On Martin’s Willingness To Speculate

Bateman (1998: 25):

Concerning a precursor to the model presented in English Text, Martin wrote:

“... one needs a model of text in context—of discourse in relation to grammar and lexis and to those semiotic systems which language itself realises. This takes us far beyond anything we can be sure of, into the realms of wild speculation perhaps. Nevertheless, some kind of model has to be set up if we are to progress; so here, with apologies, is my current best guess at how it all fits together.’’ (Martin, 1985:249) 

English Text takes that initial ‘best guess’ considerably further and apologies are now no longer due. Because of Martin’s willingness to speculate, the book places us all in a better position to make the next round of best guesses. This attitude of ongoing inquiry, of building tools and models to address fundamental issues in the functions and roles of language and not resting content within the boundaries of existing possibilities for theoretical description, follows fully in the Hallidayan tradition of relating language to social context in as linguistically responsible and explicit fashion as possible.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Amusingly, here Bateman concedes that apologies are due for Martin's initial 'best guess'.

[2] This is very misleading indeed, because it is the direct opposite of what is true.  On the one hand, Martin's speculations are merely his misinterpretations of Halliday and Hasan's ideas, rebranded as his systems on his stratum of discourse semantics, as previously explained on this blog, and argued in detail here.

On the other hand, English Text does not "place us all in a better position" — least of all for making guesses — because the misunderstandings on which it is based represent a step backward from his source material, and undermine the chances of new students forming a coherent and deep understanding of SFL theory.

[3] This is very misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true.  Martin's "attitude of ongoing inquiry" is merely his attempt to misrepresent himself as a genuinely innovative theorist.  The "tools and models" he builds do not address fundamental issues in the functions and rôles of language because, being misunderstandings, they are inconsistent with the theory in which they are situated.  The "tools and models" that do address these issues are those of the original works that Martin has misunderstood.

Moreover, given the above, "the boundaries of existing possibilities for theoretical description" that Martin has crossed are the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance, and of theoretical consistency and inconsistency, and as such, Martin's work does not follow "fully in the Hallidayan tradition of relating language to social context in as linguistically responsible and explicit fashion as possible".

In reviewing Martin's work positively, while demonstrably not understanding it or being able to critique it in theoretical terms, Bateman has merely exacerbated the damage done by Martin's publication. 

On The Breadth And Systematic Interrelationships In 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 25): 

One of the difficulties in approaching English Text is at the same time one of the principal reasons for making the effort—that is, its breadth. Work in the complex area of discourse organisation and function typically achieves a fragmentary view at best, focusing in on particular areas and phenomena. English Text goes beyond this, presenting both detail and systematic interrelationships that successfully evoke a feel for the semantics of discourse and its realisation in lexicogrammatical patterns as a complex interacting whole.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading.  Martin's model of discourse semantics is largely confined to the textual metafunction, and only part of that.  This is because Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are misunderstandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical cohesion, rebranded and misrepresented as semantic stratum systems of three different metafunctions.  (The one exception is NEGOTIATION, which is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION.)

[2] This is very misleading.  Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION do not specify how their paradigmatic features are realised syntagmatically, and do not specify how they are realised at the level of lexicogrammar.  Moreover, due to Martin's misunderstanding of theoretical concepts, the model creates mismatches between semantics and lexicogrammar, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

[3] Given all the misunderstandings that invalidate Martin's model, it is not true to claim that it evokes even a feeling for such matters successfully.

∞

The arguments that constitute the evidence for all the above claims can be read here.

On Praising English Text

Bateman (1998: 25): 

Both differences reinforce the central role that discourse plays in the construction of a comprehensive semantics that can fully motivate functional differences found in the lexicogrammar. Indeed, any brand of functional linguistics considers it self-evident that the deployment of grammatical and lexical phenomena in texts (written or spoken) is to be explained by considering the communicative and/or social purposes involved. Less self-evident is the fact that it is not a priori clear how particular groupings of grammatical and lexical phenomena are to be isolated for purposes of explanation: Until the relevant ‘comparison sets’ are known, the functional alternations operating can scarcely be recognised, let alone analysed or explained. English Text therefore provides a detailed characterisation of those comparison sets that supports a richly integrating view of the discourse functions involved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, it is the grammar that plays the central rôle in "the construction of a comprehensive semantics".  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 22) put it:

Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created …

'Discourse', on the other hand, refers to 'the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts' (Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512), and it is the textual metafunction that creates discourse.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 528): 

The “textual” metafunction is the name we give to the systematic resources a language must have for creating discourse: for ensuring that each instance of text makes contact with its environment. The “environment” includes both the context of situation and other instances of text.

In reinterpreting Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual systems of cohesion as semantic systems, Martin has confused a metafunction (textual) with a level of symbolic abstraction (semantics).

[2] In terms of SFL theory, this has the relation backwards.  It is not the semantics that motivates "functional differences found in lexicogrammar" but the lexicogrammar that creates the functional differences at the level of semantics.

Moreover, Halliday's (1984) paper On The Ineffability Of Grammatical Categories argues that semantics can only be validly theorised by encoding semantic values by reference to grammatical tokens, at the same time explaining why the grammar cannot be validly theorised by decoding grammatical tokens by reference to semantic values.

[3] To be clear, on the one hand, it is the architecture of SFL grammatics that provides an explanation of grammatical and lexical phenomena.  On the other hand, explanation in SFL does not involve isolating grammatical and lexical phenomena, but determining the relations between them.  SFL is a relational theory, not a modular one.

[4] To be clear, this obfuscatory reference to experimental procedure ('comparison sets') only reinforces the fact that Bateman does not understand the hierarchy of stratification in SFL theory, wherein semantics and grammar are different levels of symbolic abstraction, which only disagree in the case of grammatical metaphor.

[5] To be clear, the use of therefore here is misleading, since this conclusion is not entailed by the propositions that precede it.  Moreover, as the clarifying critiques on this blog and the blog reviewing English Text demonstrate, this is manifestly untrue.  Martin has merely taken Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammar of textual cohesion, misunderstood it, mixed it up with other sources, also misunderstood, and rebranded the confusion as his model of discourse semantics.

On Martin's "Metafunctionally Diversified" Discourse Semantics

Bateman (1998: 24-5): 

And second, a very different kind of semantics needs to be pursued when a ‘metafunctionally diverse’ grammar is assumed. For non-metafunctionally diverse grammars, i.e., grammars which foreground basic predicate-argument structures, and which downgrade alternations such as diatheses, constructions of textual prominence, interpersonal evaluations and speech functions, the semantics resulting is skewed towards experiential, propositional content. In contrast, a ‘metafunctionally broad’ grammar—such as IFG—attempts to foreground equally the distinct kinds of meanings made in grammar; and, hence, Martin’s semantics as an abstraction made on the basis of such a grammar is naturally a discourse semantics, ranging over textual, interpersonal, as well as ideational areas.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, 'propositional content' is interpersonal, not experiential.

[2] Here Bateman assumes that the 'natural' relation between lexicogrammar and semantics in SFL theory guarantees that Martin's discourse semantics will be metafunctionally diversified like the grammar, whereas such an outcome actually rests on the ability of the theorist to understand and consistently apply the theory.  As previously demonstrated over and over on this blog, and in far more detail here, this is certainly not the case.

For example, Martin takes Halliday & Hasan's (1976) four types of cohesion, all textual in metafunction and lexicogrammatical in terms of symbolic abstraction, and distributes them across three different metafunctions at a higher (unjustified) level of symbolic abstraction (discourse semantics):

• reference and ellipsis–&–substitution (textual lexicogrammar) are rebranded IDENTIFICATION (textual discourse semantics),
• cohesive conjunction (textual lexicogrammar) is rebranded CONJUNCTION (logical discourse semantics), and
• lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) is rebranded IDEATION (experiential discourse semantics).

Moreover, there are metafunctional confusions within each of these systems:

• textual IDENTIFICATION confuses textual reference with interpersonal deixis and ideational denotation;
• logical CONJUNCTION confuses (non-structural) textual conjunction with (structural) logical complexing; and
• experiential IDEATION confuses textual lexical cohesion with logical relations between experiential elements of grammatical structures.