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.
[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment