On Process^Medium Motivating Collocation

Bateman (1998: 18-9):

The lexicogrammatical realisation of nuclear relations has previously been the concern of treatments of transitivity and, as far as their discourse function has been concerned, has been treated under collocation. In English Text, however,

“[a]n attempt will be made to unpack these relations ... in order to identify more precisely the semantic relations involved. What this amounts to is a foray into the discourse semantics of experiential grammar, which is in itself a daunting task. It is however an essential one, since the lexical relations under consideration here cannot be explained simply by appealing to grammatical structure.’’ [p309] 

Martin shows this by examples such as the following:

Ben serves. That’s his fifth ace of the match. 

where the particular collocation is not within a single grammatical unit, but is nevertheless strongly motivated by the nuclear configuration of ‘serving aces’ available for tennis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the source of Martin's nuclear relations is Halliday's (1985: 149) ergative model of clause transitivity.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  Here Bateman is accepting without question Martin's  unsourced claim (p309):

In previous approaches to lexical cohesion, nuclear relations have been handled under the heading collocation.

Given that lexical cohesion is a non-structural system of the textual metafunction, and that the ergative model within transitivity is a structural system of the experiential metafunction, any treatment of clause ergativity under collocation would be a serious misunderstanding of both systems.

What is true is that transitivity structures can be used to identify the type of expansion relation between lexical items related cohesively by collocation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 649).

[3] This is hardly surprising, given that collocation, like all types of lexical cohesion, is not a system of the clause.

[4] To be clear, Martin's example (p309) is:

Ben serves. That’s his fifth ace of the match.

The claim here is that lexical collocation of serves and ace is motivated by the clause nucleus (Process/Medium) of grammatical structure ('serving aces').   The immediate problem with this explanation is that 'serving aces' is Process^Range: process, not Process^Medium.

Moreover, since an 'ace' is a type of 'serve', the lexically cohesive relation between them is hyponymy, and it is this that actually accounts for the tendency of the lexical items 'serves' and 'ace' to co-occur.

On Martin's Taxonomic Relations Systems

Bateman (1998: 18):

Taxonomic relations are better understood than both configuration-based, or nuclear, relations and activity-sequence relations. They include traditional lexical relationships such as hyponymy, hyperonymy, cohyponomy, etc. Martin suggests that the taxonomic relations appear to be used to generate/define particular field-specific taxonomies [e.g., p295--6]. They also each have typical structural realisations in the lexicogrammar, involving Classifiers, Pre-Classifiers (that kind of, this sort of), ... as well as structures such as ‘class of noun’, ‘brand of car’, ‘genre of text’, etc. The sequence of networks given in Figures 5.10, 5.16--5.18, 5.20 and 5.21 provides a detailed network for taxonomic lexical relations, with several examples of the distinct kind of lexicogrammatical patterns that they employ for their realisation. For English Text, these also set out a detailed classification system for kinds of cohesive ties that may be found in text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin confuses the non-structural use of lexical relations to create textual cohesion with structural grammatical relations in the construal of experience, and relocates his confusion from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.  The primary theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal.

[2] Martin's Figure 5.10, on lexical relations, a system proposed for the discourse semantic stratum, is actually concerned with the stratum below (lexicogrammar) and composed of features purported to be of the stratum above (contextual field: activity sequences).  As might be expected, given these confusions, the network features neither an entry condition nor any realisation statements.

[3] These are more delicate elaborations of the system presented in Figure 5.10, and so embody the same theoretical confusions and inconsistencies.

[4] This is misleading.  The networks do not provide "examples of the distinct kind of lexicogrammatical patterns that they employ for their realisation", they merely provide instances that exemplify relation types, such as tenor-sax for the feature hyponymy.  Moreover, the examples are misleadingly presented by Martin as if they were realisation statements — which accounts for Bateman's misleading interpretation.

[5] To be clear, cohesive ties are non-structural textual relations at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin, in contrast, rebrands lexical cohesion as a structural experiential system, IDEATION, at the level of discourse semantics.

On Martin Locating Some Lexical Taxonomies Outside Language

Bateman (1998: 17):

This naturally leads to a consideration of lexical cohesion: both stratificational and systemic work on cohesion posit cohesive ties between lexical items that include classifications such as ‘same item repeated’, ‘synonym or near synonym’, ‘superordinate’, ‘general term’, ‘collocation’ or ‘same co-occurrence group’ [p286-7]. However, these relations are often difficult or impossible to ascertain without also considering the field of discourse, despite the fact that, as Martin notes, discussions of lexical cohesion have typically defocused this issue. Martin suggests as a possible solution the following:

“One way of keeping the grammar neutral would be to locate specialised taxonomies in the register variable field, allowing the grammar to focus on field neutral oppositions. This would mean for example that the similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geology could be brought out in lexicogrammar and the differences between them in field taxonomies.’’ [p289] 

Thus the ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ alternations are to be considered as taxonomies, that are neutral with respect to field, and particular ‘lexical sets’ [p290]. These serve as realisations of discourse semantic lexical relations, which in turn serve as realisations of the field specific taxonomies of register.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, ascertaining lexical relations is a problem for the text analyst, not for the speaker of the text.  On the other hand, the claim is manifestly untrue, since even the most field-ignorant text analyst can ascertain such relations by consulting a thesaurus (± dictionary); see also Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4).

[2] To be clear, this issue does not feature in discussions of lexical cohesion because it only arises through Martin's misunderstanding of SFL theory in general, and lexical cohesion in particular; see further below.

[3] To be clear, the 'similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geography' is formal, not functional.  In Systemic Functional terms, the two uses of the form are specified by different bundles of lexicogrammatical features.  That is, the "problem" only arises because Martin gives priority to form over function.

Martin's solution to his imaginary problem is to separate lexical taxonomies by two strata, leaving "field-neutral" lexical taxonomies within the lexicogrammar and moving "field-specific" lexical taxonomies to context (field), which is not even language, let alone semantics.  

Leaving aside the absurdity of locating words outside language, in SFL terms, as explained in the previous post, Martin misunderstands a difference along the cline of instantiation (potential vs sub-potential) as a difference in symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar vs context), with the sub-potential ("field-specific") construed as two levels of symbolic abstraction above the potential ("field-neutral"), despite lexical taxonomies, as the term suggests, being on the same level of symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar).

[4] Here again Bateman follows Martin in confusing lexical items (as the realisations of lexicogrammatical features) with the relations between lexical items that provide cohesion in a text.

[5] To be clear, Martin (p290) uses the term 'lexical sets' for collocation patterns.  However, in SFL theory, 'lexical set' is opposed to 'collocation'. That is, it describes the types of lexical cohesion in which the nature of the relation is paradigmatic (repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy). However, Martin misapplies the term to the opposite type of lexical cohesion, collocation, in which the nature of the relation is syntagmatic.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644).

[6] To be clear, Martin's proposal (Table 5.2 below) is that field-specific taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of context are realised by cohesive lexical relations at the level of discourse semantics, that are realised by field neutral taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of lexicogrammar.

Table 5.2. Lexical relations across planes and strata

Context	Language
	DISCOURSE SEMANTICS	LEXICOGRAMMAR
field specific taxonomies	lexical relations (cohesion)	field neutral taxonomies (as delicate grammar) collocation patterns (lexical sets)

Given all of the above, it is fair to say that neither Martin nor Bateman have sufficient understanding of the principles on which the architecture of SFL theory is constructed.

For more detailed argument on these matters, see:

• Confusing Textual Cohesion With Experiential Delicacy
• Relocating Lexis Outside Language
• Misconstruing Semantics As Context

On Martin's Notion Of Register-Independent Lexical Relations

Bateman (1998: 17):

The starting point for his model of IDEATION is given by the basic premises of English Text’s framework. Martin is attempting to set out a statement of the discourse semantic function of a variety of lexicogrammatical phenomena: however, due to their positioning in the linguistic system, both this discourse semantics and the lexicogrammar should be largely register-independent. The question that ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ has to address therefore becomes the following: what kind of account of lexical relations is it possible to build into the lexicogrammar, given that this must be neutral with respect to register (or at least to field within register)?

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  As already explained, Martin has merely taken models of lexicogrammatical phenomena, theorised by Halliday ± Hasan, and rebranded his misunderstanding of them as discourse semantic.  For example, Martin does not set up discourse semantic systems that specify congruent realisations in lexicogrammar, by which metaphorical realisations can be compared.

[2] In terms of Martin's model, where register is misunderstood as context, this misunderstands stratification; in terms of SFL theory, this misunderstands instantiation.

In terms of Martin's model, discourse semantics (realised in lexicogrammar) realises register.  That is, they are different levels of symbolic abstraction and, as such, are not "independent" of one another.  On this model discourse semantics construes register.

In terms of SFL theory, where register is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, each register is a functional variety of semantics and lexicogrammar.  That is, the systems of semantics and lexicogrammar provide the overall potential of which each register is a sub-potential.  So, theorising a semantic system means theorising the overall system, of which all registers are variants.

[3] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (lexical items as the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical systems) with relations between lexical items, which, in SFL theory, function cohesively, creating texture.

[4] Here Bateman echoes Martin's confusion between context (field) and register.  On Martin's model, a variety of language, register, is not language, but what is realised by language.  This is analogous to claiming that a variety of bird, such as magpie, is not a bird, but what is realised by a bird.  For detailed arguments on the internal inconsistencies of Martin's model of 'stratified context', see here (register) or here (context).

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.

On Martin's Assessment Of Rhetorical Structure Theory

Bateman (1998: 15):

Finally, Martin also carries out here a detailed comparison of conjunctive relations and Mann and Thompson’s (RST: 1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory, one of the most widely used approaches currently taken to the analysis of extended texts. Martin comes to the conclusion that RST treats text as a finished product, whereas his own conjunctive relation approach emphasises more the dynamic, unfolding nature of text. He therefore predicts that RST might be more appropriate when the mode of a text is written, whereas conjunctive relations might favour spoken language [p264]; although there do appear to be some general properties of texts that RST-type structures do not as yet handle.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's assessment of Rhetorical Structure Theory does not survive close scrutiny, as demonstrated by the clarifying critiques at Criticising Others For Not Making The Same Mistakes.

[2] To be clear, Martin's conclusion is based on his own theoretical misunderstandings; see the clarifying critiques at Confusing Textual Relations With Logogenesis and Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis.

On Misunderstood Expansion Relations

Bateman (1998: 14-5):

Individual conjunctive relations are described by a selection of features from the appropriate discourse semantic network of this region and the corresponding discourse structure is shown using an extended form of the ‘reference chain’ notation developed in the preceding chapter. Additional requirements for representing conjunctive relations, however, are that scoping plays an important role — i.e., a given conjunctive relation can relate groups of messages—and that both internal and external relations may hold simultaneously. How these are captured is shown in the following example of the notation Martin proposes [p237; ex. 4.187].

(j) a. Ben was unlucky.
    b. He had to take steroids for his injured hamstring
    c. and then they introduced more sophisticated tests.

As with reference chains, the particular relationships at issue are drawn from the labels defined in the conjunctive relation system networks, and these are written alongside the linking dependency relation. In addition, internal conjunctive relations are written to the left of the list of messages, and external relations are written to the right. Therefore this Conjunctive Relation ‘reticulum’ shows that the ‘internal cause’ of message (j.a) is both (j.b) and (j.c), while these latter messages are also related both by external (temporal) ‘succession’ and by ‘addition’. The reticulum also states whether the relations are realised explicitly in the text or not; thus the succession and addition relations are explicitly present (then and and respectively in (j.c)), while the cause relation is not explicitly present.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the cohesive conjunction relation between the clause simplex (j.a) and the following clause complex (j.b, j.c) is not implicit cause, but implicit elaboration.  The elaborating relation can be demonstrated by making the implicit relation explicit, as in:

• Ben was unlucky. For instance, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (elaboration: apposition: exemplifying);
• Ben was unlucky. In particular, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (elaboration: clarification: particularising);
• Ben was unlucky. In short, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (elaboration: clarification: summative).

Conversely, a causal interpretation can be falsified by making a causal relation explicit, as in:

• Ben was unlucky. Therefore, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (cause);
• Ben was unlucky. In consequence, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (cause: result);
• Ben was unlucky. For that reason, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (cause: reason).

As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 622) advise:

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the structural relation between clause (j.b) and clause (j.c) is not temporal succession and addition, but paratactic temporal enhancement.  That is, Martin mistakes a tactic relation (parataxis, marked by and) for a logico-semantic relation (addition).

∞

Misunderstandings and misapplications of expansion, like those above, occur throughout Martin's chapter on logical relations, as demonstrated in detail here.  The effect of such misunderstandings is to create incongruent relations between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

On Martin's Text Analysis And The Differences Between Identification And Negotiation

Bateman (1998: 12):

The chapter concludes with detailed analyses of two longer texts, both drawn from earlier research into the development of children’s narrative, a brief discussion of the relation between the circumstances of location and manner and discourse identification, and an orienting summary of the differences between IDENTIFICATION and NEGOTIATION as discussed in the previous chapter.

Blogger Comments:

[1] For some of the serious problems with Martin's analyses of texts [3:88] and [3:89], unnoticed by Bateman, see:

• The Analysis Of Text [3:88]: An Attempt To Hide A Theoretical Inconsistency
• Eight Problems With Martin's Six Notes To His Analysis Of Text [3:88]
• Eight Problems With Martin's Nine Notes To His Analysis Of Text [3:89]

[2] For 19 of the problems with Martin's 2-page discussion, unnoticed by Bateman, see:

• Confusing Circumstances Of Location With Demonstrative Reference Items
• Mistaking Manner For Extent And Confusing Circumstances With Comparative Reference Items

[3] For some of the theoretical misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the "orienting summary", unnoticed by Bateman, see:

• Metafunctional Inconsistencies
• Some Of The Theoretical Problems With Participant As The Entry Condition To The System Of Identification
• Misconstruing 'Multivariate' & Metafunctional Inconsistencies (1)
• Misconstruing 'Multivariate' & Metafunctional Inconsistencies (2)
• Martin's Insight That Interruptions Depend On There Being Something To Interrupt
• The Commonality Of Reference Structures And Negotiation Structures

On "Martin's" Instantial Reference

Bateman (1998: 12):

Two interesting further features of the analyses supported are the recognition of instantial reference [p144], where distinct reference chains may be brought together: ‘but he did not realise that it was his frog’, and some special properties of generic chains where the referring expressions refer to generic rather than specific entities [p103 and p145].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, unknown to Bateman, Martin's 'instantial reference' is his misunderstanding of Hasan's (1984, 1985) 'instantial semblance', which is a type of lexical cohesion, not grammatical reference.  See A Misleading Analysis Of "Instantial Reference".

[2] To be clear, there is no conjoining of reference chains in the sample text ([3:84]).  Martin's false claim, accepted without question by Bateman, derives from confusing grammatical reference with lexical cohesion.  See A Misleading Analysis Of "Instantial Reference".

[3]  To be clear, Martin (1992: 103) defines the distinction between generic and specific reference distinction as: 

Generic reference is selected when the whole of some experiential class of participants is at stake rather than a specific manifestation of that class …

That is, though Martin labels the distinction as the elaborating relation of delicacy (generic vs specific), the definition confuses part-whole relations ('whole') with token-type relations ('manifestation of a class'), the former, the extending relation of composition, the latter, an elaborating relation of instantiation.  See The Re-Initiation Of Generic Reference Chains.