On The Theoretical Value Of Martin's Stratification Of The Content Plane

Bateman (1998: 23-4):

The availability of the two strata, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics, is presented as beneficial in most areas that Martin addresses. The value of stratification, and of allowing the description to range across two (or more) strata, is argued in all of the areas that Martin addresses in English Text. The ability to distinguish systematically between a semantic unit and a range of possible grammatical units or patterns of such units is of fundamental importance—particularly given the very richly elaborated view of grammar assumed. Opening up the realisational relation between a semantic description and a grammatical description significantly empowers grammatical metaphor as an explanatory device.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading to the extent that it gives the false impression that the stratification of the content plane into lexicogrammar and semantics is Martin's proposal rather than Halliday's (whose considerably prior notion of grammatical metaphor depends on such a stratification).

[2] To be clear, Martin argues for the value of his stratification because it allows him to create his own "module" within SFL theory by rebranding his misunderstandings of others' work as his own systems:

• negotiation is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's speech function;
• identification is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's grammatical reference (and ellipsis-&-substitution);
• conjunction is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's grammatical conjunction; and
• ideation is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's lexical cohesion.

Martin's argument for stratification, however, presented in Chapter 1, does not survive close scrutiny; see, for example, Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid.

In brief, Martin provides three motivations for his stratification:

• semantic motifs
• grammatical metaphor
• cohesion

Of the three, only grammatical metaphor motivates a distinct semantic stratum, but this is Halliday's argument, not Martin's, and it does not motivate a specifically discourse semantics. Moreover, Martin misunderstands grammatical metaphor (evidence here), and reinterprets it as a process, a "texturing interface" (p401) between his discourse semantic systems and lexicogrammar (ellipsis-&substitution, Theme and collocation), thereby undermining his own argument for it as a motivation for stratification.

Of semantic motifs, Martin proposes (p16) setting up an attitude network to generalise what he sees as commonalities between some mental, behavioural and relational clauses.  For some of the misunderstandings involved, see The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification.  Even so, no mention of semantic motifs is made beyond Chapter 1, and Martin's experiential system, ideation, does not address the points he raises — which is hardly surprising, given that it is a rebranding of a textual grammatical system, lexical cohesion.

Regarding cohesion as a motivation for stratification, Martin's argument involves misrepresenting the source of his ideas: Halliday & Hasan's (1976) model of cohesion.  See, for example:

• Misrepresenting Cohesion
• Misrepresenting The Domain Of Cohesion
• Misconstruing 'Cohesion Within The Sentence'
• Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion

[3] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic units are:

• exchange and move (interpersonal system of negotiation)
• participant (textual system of identification — i.e. rebranded cohesive reference etc.)
• message (logical system of conjunction — i.e. rebranded cohesive conjunction), and
• message part (experiential system of ideation — i.e. rebranded lexical cohesion).

The problems here are with Martin's rebranding of cohesive systems. Most importantly, because Martin treats these non-structural systems as structural, the units he proposes are not units with internal structure, but units that relate to other units. This creates an inconsistency in the meaning of unit, since all other units in SFL theory are units with internal structure. So these discourse semantic units are not units in the same sense as lexicogrammatical units, such as clause, phrase and group.

Martin's naming of units further reveals his theoretical misunderstandings.  For example, the use of an experiential category, participant, for a textual system, identification, is consistent with his misunderstanding of textual reference with ideational denotation, as explained elsewhere on this blog.  On the other hand, Martin's use of textual categories, message and message part, for ideational systems, conjunction and ideation, is inconsistent with his own theorising, but (metafunctionally) consistent with the source of his ideas, the textual systems of cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion.  Moreover, in naming the two message and message part, Martin misrepresents a relation of interdependency as one of composition (whole-part).

[4] This is very misleading indeed.  Firstly, as already mentioned, Martin does not understand grammatical metaphor (evidence here).  Secondly, Martin does not open up "the realisational relation between a semantic description and a grammatical description" since he provides no realisation statements that relate his discourse semantic systems to lexicogrammatical systems. Thirdly, because Martin does not specify congruent lexicogrammatical realisations of his discourse semantic systems, he provides no means of identifying congruent vs metaphorical realisations using his model.  That is, if anything, Martin's model undermines grammatical metaphor rather than "empowering" it — the direct opposite of Bateman's claim.

On Martin’s Explicit Modularisation Of The Linguistic System

Bateman (1998: 23):

The lack of neighbouring occupants at both more and less abstract levels of description with respect to ‘grammar’ has in the past allowed provided enough space for accounts of grammar to drift in both directions: thus we have, on the one hand, Hudson (e.g., Hudson, 1976) moving grammar to be less abstract, more form-bound and, on the other, Fawcett declaring that his system networks are in fact the semantic description of sentences, clauses, dialogues, etc.—syntax as such being restricted to the realisation statements. Martin’s explicit modularisation of the linguistic system into closely related but distinct strata places more overall constraint on the model presented.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a grammar that takes form as its point of departure is not a functional grammar, in the systemic functional sense.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett misinterprets Halliday's grammatical networks as semantic in order to claim the level of form for his own model.  For evidence that Fawcett misinterprets Halliday, see the clarifying critiques here.

[3] Strictly speaking, in Fawcett's (2000) confused model (Figure 4, below), realisation statements are presented as potential at the level of form, and the structures that realise them are presented as instance at the level of form.

 

[4] To be clear, Martin's "modularisation of the linguistic system", like Fawcett's, is a serious misunderstanding of the dimensional architecture of language proposed by SFL theory, and so leads to the serious misunderstandings found in their models (as demonstrated here for Martin, and here for Fawcett). 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).

See also:

• Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules
• Misunderstanding Stratification
• Misconstruing Strata As Modules

On Macro-Theme, Hyper-Theme, Hyper-New And Macro-New

Bateman (1998: 20):

Martin also proposes here some valuable additions: particularly in the area of text structure, with the text-scale structurings of hyper- and macro-themes and their complementary elements: hyper- and macro-new [see Figure 6.12, p456], and in contrasts between static and process views of texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's terms are rebrandings of terms from writing pedagogy:

• macro-Theme is a rebranding of introductory paragraph,
• hyper-Theme (a term taken from Daneš and misunderstood) is a rebranding of topic sentence,
• hyper-New is a rebranding of paragraph summary, and
• macro-New is a rebranding of text summary.

This is why writing pedagogues believe "Martin's" ideas are a valuable resource.  However, advising people how to write is not modelling language, and spoken language is not planned and organised on the basis of effective writing strategies.  But these are, by no means, the only problems.

For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of macro-Theme see the 16 clarifying critiques here.
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of hyper-Theme see the 16 clarifying critiques here.
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of hyper-New see the 8 clarifying critiques here.
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the notion of macro-New see the 11 clarifying critiques here.

[2] To be clear, Martin's "contrasts between static and process views of texts" essentially confuse syntagmatic realisation ("static") with the process of instantiation in logogenesis ("dynamic").  This misunderstanding pervades Martin's text; see, for example:

• Confusing Instantiation With The Syntagmatic Axis
• Confusing Instantiation With Axial And Stratal Realisation
• Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis
• A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises
• Misrepresenting Martin (1992)

On Modal Responsibility

Bateman (1998: 20):

The selection of Subjects in a text, however, is also not devoid of textual consequences. Those message parts selected as Subjects serve to construct the ‘modal responsibility’ attributed by a text, and both of these interact with particular patterns of conjunctive relations, of lexical chains, and of modalities and appraisals. Working through the examples given in this chapter is a very good way of getting a clearer sense of the work done by the descriptions presented in the previous chapters.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is the selection of Theme — conflated with Subject or another function — that has textual "consequences".

[2] To be clear, Martin's 'message part' is an experiential unit, whereas Subject is an interpersonal function.

[3] To be clear, modal responsibility is the function of the Subject of a clause as theorised by Halliday (1985: 76).  For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's concept of modal responsibility, see the 19 clarifying critiques here.  For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Subject, see the 13 clarifying critiques here.

[4] To be clear, there is nothing on appraisal in Martin (1992) — which is hardly surprising, given that Appraisal Theory only emerged as an integrated theory later in the PhD research of Peter White.  For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Appraisal Theory, see the 52 clarifying critiques here.

[5] Working through the examples in this chapter should have alerted Bateman to the problems in this chapter (as well as those of previous chapters).  For some of the misunderstandings that undermine the theoretical validity of this chapter, see the 121 clarifying critiques here.

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 Chapters 6 & 7 Of Martin's 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 2):

Then, the final part, consisting of chapters 6 and 7, considers some significant and highly suggestive issues that arise when relating distinct levels of description.  Chapter 6 shows some of the ways in which options selected from phonology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics are woven together systematically to create and enhance a text’s texture and Chapter 7 closes the book with an extended consideration of the placement of the entire linguistic system discussed in the previous six chapters within its social context and situation of use. This latter chapter raises important issues concerning the definition and interconnections of text types, genres, registerial selections and ideology.

Blogger Comments:

The positive appreciation here (significant, important) is entirely unjustified by the quality of the theorising under review.

[1] In SFL theory, the relation between levels of description is one of realisation, which is an intensive identifying relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction.  Chapters 6 and 7 of Martin (1992) are inconsistent with this stratal model because Martin mistakes the strata along this dimension for "interacting modules" (p390).  This fundamental misunderstanding invalidates the basis of the theorisation in chapters 6 and 7, and leads to deep and widespread theoretical inconsistencies, as demonstrated here (chapter 6) and here (chapter 7).

[2] Chapter 6 of Martin (1992) takes cohesive harmony (Hasan 1985), modal responsibility (Halliday 1985) and method of development and point (Fries 1981), misunderstands each — see cohesive harmony, modal responsibility, method of development, point — and reconstrues them as "interaction patterns" (p393) between strata (misconceived as modules).  Much of the chapter confuses writing pedagogy with linguistic theory, rebranding the terms 'introductory paragraph', 'topic sentence', 'paragraph summary' and 'text summary' as 'macro-Theme', 'hyper-Theme', 'hyper-New' and 'macro-New', respectively.  This also involves misunderstanding the original notion of hyper-Theme (Daneš 1974).

[3] Martin (1992: 384, 393) misconstrues the lexicogrammatical system of information (content plane) as phonology (expression plane).  For Martin's misunderstandings and false claims about phonology, see the critiques here.

[4] In SFL theory, the term 'texture' refers to the quality of being a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 2), which is achieved through the textual metafunction, not through interaction patterns between stratal modules across various metafunctions — each of the latter also misconceived by Martin as a module.

[5] Martin's model of social context is misconstrued as language varieties, misconstrued as modules; see [6] below.  In SFL theory, context is construed as the culture as a semiotic system.

[6] Chapter 7 of Martin (1992) takes register (Halliday) and genre (Hasan) and misconstrues them as strata of context (each misconstrued as a module) as opposed to language.  That is, it takes functional varieties of language, and models them as more abstract than language.  This is analogous to claiming that lorikeets are not varieties of bird — and so, not even birds — but are more symbolically abstract than birds.

In SFL theory, register and genre are two views of the same phenomenon, located as a midway point on the cline of instantiation, with register the view from the system pole, and genre the view from the instance pole.