On The Importance Of Martin's Stratification For Grammatical Metaphor

Bateman (1998: 24): 

Two essential differences between these approaches [cognitive linguistics and mainstream syntax] and that pursued by Martin are, however, the following. First, for Martin both the strata involved contribute ‘meaning’—the lexicogrammar is not a passive, automatic reflex of semantics but itself also contributes meaning as was maintained in the original Firthian tradition out of which systemic-functional linguistics has grown. This is of particular importance when we come to consider the role and function of ‘grammatical metaphor’: i.e., what happens when the semantic and grammatical options taken up are not congruent. For Halliday (and thus Martin) a significant part of the power of language comes from the ability to cross-code grammar and semantics: grammar does not slavishly follow semantics, once a sufficient degree of language use sophistication has been achieved by a language user, the natural meanings of grammar can be used to construct extended semantic configurations: the best discussed example of this being, of course, nominalisation. Here a semantic event is turned into a ‘thing’ that can be modified, counted, compared, tracked across discourse, etc. Adoption of an ‘incongruent’ realisation for a semantic configuration thus necessarily adds further meanings to that configuration, since the incongruent realisation itself has (discourse) semantic consequences. This follows straightforwardly from a basic premise of the approach: i.e., that grammar and semantics stand in a natural relationship; the patterns of grammar are recapitulations of the patterns of semantics (and vice versa).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Unknown to Bateman, Martin's notion that 'all strata make meaning' confuses stratification (all strata) with semogenesis (make meaning); see, for example, Confusing Semogenesis And Stratification or Misconstruing Stratification.  This is one of the contributing factors to Martin locating (varieties of) language, register and genre, in context.  Moreover, lexicogrammar is neither 'active' nor 'passive' with regard to semantics; the two strata are two perspectives on the same phenomenon, linguistic content, at different levels of symbolic abstraction.  That is why the relation between them is one of intensive symbolic identity (realisation).

[2] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantics undermines the notion of grammatical metaphor by not providing congruent realisations of its systems by which metaphorical realisations can be recognised as incongruent.  Moreover Martin creates mismatches between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar — e.g. conjunctive relations — even in the absence of metaphor.

[3] This seriously misunderstands grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor does not involve using the grammar to construct 'extended semantic configurations'.  On the contrary, in ideational metaphor, for example, an 'extended semantic configuration' such a sequence is realised more compactly as a clause instead of a clause complex.

[4] To be clear, Martin does not understand grammatical metaphor (evidence here) and his meagre discussion of it is largely confined to nominalisation.

[5] This misunderstands grammatical metaphor.  The reason grammatical metaphor 'adds further meanings' is that it is the junction or fusion of the meanings of both the congruent and incongruent realisations; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 243-4, 272, 278, 283, 287).  Any discourse semantic "consequences" are a separate matter.

[6] To be clear, this is Halliday, not Martin.

[7] To be clear, in SFL theory, the patterns of grammar and semantics are patterns of instantiation during logogenesis, and the relation between them is realisation, not "recapitulation" (restatement, reiteration, repetition etc.). Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between instantiation (patterns) and syntagmatic relations (structural or cohesive).  See, for example, Confusing Instantiation With The Syntagmatic Axis.

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 Martin's Chapter 5: Ideation

Bateman (1998: 16):

The final chapter on discourse semantic regions, Chapter 5 [pp271--379], introduces the area of IDEATION, by which Martin means in the context of English Text, the “contribution made by open system items to discourse structure’’ [p271]— i.e., the role that lexis plays in creating and manipulating discourse structure and discourse coherence. This includes Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) notion of lexical cohesion and so critically involves many issues of ‘lexis’. Lexis is in any case a difficult and troubled area in systemic-functional accounts and Chapter 5 is probably one of the more difficult chapters of the book; the position taken on lexis and its description is sufficiently novel to pose difficulties should the reader’s map of the area not align sufficiently closely.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Bateman's use of the terms 'regions' and 'area' helps to disguise a fundamental theoretical inconsistency in Martin's model of discourse semantics.  The "regions" are systems organised according to the four metafunctions, but three of the systems, IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are all rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) systems of the textual metafunction — reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion — misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, Martin's experiential discourse semantic system of IDEATION is a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar), lexis as most delicate grammar (lexicogrammar), clause nuclearity (experiential lexicogrammar) and logical relations between clause transitivity functions (ideational lexicogrammar).  For the detailed evidence on which this assessment is based, see here.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, lexis — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate systems at the level of lexicogrammar — does not "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of discourse semantics.  The absurdity can be made more apparent by considering the analogous claim that phonemes — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate phonological systems — "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of lexicogrammar.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, coherence is achieved through the textual metafunction (e.g lexical cohesion), not the experiential metafunction (Martin's IDEATION).  Here Bateman has connected with the source of Martin's ideas (lexical cohesion), but failed to notice the metafunctional inconsistency in Martin's rebranding the original system as an experiential system.

[5] To be clear, lexis is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical systems as lexical items, whereas lexical cohesion involves relations between lexical items in the creation of texture.

[6] To be clear, lexis in SFL is not "a difficult and troubled area".  The principle itself is clear and theoretically consistent; the difficulty lies in developing lexicogrammatical networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 67) put it:

If we maintain the grammarian’s viewpoint all the way across the cline, lexis will be defined as grammar extended to the point of maximum delicacy. It would take at least a hundred volumes of the present size to extend the description of the grammar up to that point for any substantial portion of the vocabulary of English; and, as we have noted, the returns diminish the farther one proceeds.

[7] To be clear, the difficulty in Martin's Chapter Five, especially for the reader of average theoretical competence, lies in the multidimensional theoretical confusions that form its foundation.

Misrepresenting Martin's Conjunction In A Favourable Light

Bateman (1998: 15):

In the detailed description of the networks for each area, the individual relations introduced are each illustrated with substantial examples, together with a battery of tests for distinguishing between internal and external readings. Several extended texts are also presented as examples of analysis within the framework. The networks themselves usually contain several examples of the kind of lexical conjunction that would be selected congruently in the lexicogrammatical manifestation of the semantic relation indicated. The networks together can therefore also be seen as a rich semantic classification of the conjunctions of English; it would be very interesting and valuable to compare these classifications with those developed from different starting points (such as the corpus-based work of Knott and Dale mentioned above), as well as to attempt more exhaustive networks covering a still wider range of connectives. The networks themselves do not, however, yet carry sufficient information to allow the ‘generation’ of the structures that we see in the example analyses: but, given the general state of the art in representations of discourse structure, this is not too surprising. Nor does it impact particularly negatively on the use of the framework for discourse analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is patently untrue.  Martin provides no "battery of tests", he merely takes Halliday & Hasan's (1976) distinction, misunderstands it, and discusses the internal and external systems separately.  Bateman here shows little familiarity with the contents of Martin's chapter.

[2] To be clear, the networks include exemplifying conjunctions and conjunctive Adjuncts; they do not provide any realisation statements of how discourse systems are realised structurally (axis) or grammatically (stratification).

[3] To be clear, conjunction is grammatical, not lexical.  Bateman here confuses the functional system with the formal word class.

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, and argued elsewhere in detail, because Martin misunderstands and misapplies the categories of expansion, his discourse model is largely incongruent with the lexicogrammar, even in the absence of metaphor.

[5] Here Bateman misconstrues Martin's network of discourse functions as a semantic classification of forms (conjunctions).

[6] Here Bateman excuses the absence of realisation statements in Martin's systems (paradigmatic axis) on issues of representations of structure (syntagmatic axis); and this, despite having already described Martin's method of representing conjunctive structures.

To be clear, Martin's conjunction is a confusion of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) cohesive conjunction, which is not structural and textual, and the logical relations in clause complexes, both of which are lexicogrammatical systems.

[7] The lack of structural realisation statements in Martin's networks is consistent with the fact that conjunction is theorised on a misunderstanding: that conjunctive relations are structural rather than cohesive.  This, along with all the other theoretical misunderstandings, especially the misunderstanding of expansion categories, does indeed "impact particularly negatively on the use of the framework for discourse analysis".

On Martin's 'Synoptic Vs Dynamic' Distinction

Bateman (1998: 8):

There is also an important difference with respect to the status of text as ‘product’ or as ‘process’. Of the regions discussed only NEGOTIATION has a significantly developed ‘static’ component — hence the multivariate structure adopted for exchanges. The remainder are more dynamic and concerned with the unfolding of texts, giving a very different flavour to the discourse structures used. The dynamic aspect is also taken up at some length in the discussion of genre [pp550–557]. Reconciliation of these differing perspectives and structures remains an exciting area for future work, just as it does for lexicogrammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Bateman's wording conceals Martin's confusion of the realisation of system as (synoptic) structure with the (dynamic) instantiation of the system in logogenesis.  See for example:

• Confusing Realisation And Instantiantion
• Misconstruing Realisation And Instantiation

[2] This is misleading.  The difference lies in the different intellectual sources of Martin's theorising.  The system of NEGOTIATION is taken from the previous work of colleagues on (structural) interpersonal semantics, whereas the systems of IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are taken from the previous work of colleagues on (non-structural) textual lexicogrammar.

[3] This is misleading.  The discussion of 'dynamic perspectives' on genre is very brief (three paragraphs), and does little more than refer to Ventola's flowchart of a service encounter (Figure 7.22, pp554-5).

On Discourse Semantic System And Structure

Bateman (1998: 6-7):

With the basic premise and components in place, Chapter 1 thus sets the scene for an exciting investigation that the rest of the book can only begin. The second part of the book addresses particular areas of the discourse semantics in detail. For each area of discourse semantics addressed, Martin sets out both discourse semantic system networks, generally motivating these with examples, and discourse semantic structures.

Blogger Comment:

This is very misleading. Martin provides no realisation statements in his discourse semantic system networks that specify his discourse semantic "structures". Attempts to do so would have exposed the confusions in the model.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On System And Structure

Bateman (1998: 5):

Describing any linguistic unit within the systemic-functional framework that Martin adopts consists of providing both a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic description. … Applying this mode of description to texts allows Martin to claim that a text holds together precisely because of the discourse semantic options that have been taken up. These options have manifestations in particular discourse structures, which in turn find systematic re-expression in particular patterns of lexical and grammatical material.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, a text "holds together" through the instantiation of choices in the systems of the textual metafunction across all strata.  As previously explained, in relocating Halliday's textual systems to logical and experiential semantics, Martin has mistaken a metafunction (textual) for a stratum (level of symbolic abstraction).

[2] This is very misleading.  The system networks devised by Martin do not provide any realisation statements that specify how discourse semantic choices are realised in discourse semantic structures.

[3] This misunderstands the architecture of SFL theory.  There is no sequencing in realisation relations between axes or between strata.  The identifying relation between them is intensive (elaborating), not circumstantial (enhancing: temporal).

[4] This is very misleading.  The system networks devised by Martin do not provide any realisation statements that specify how discourse semantic choices are realised in the lexicogrammar.