On CONJUNCTION And The Relationship Between Genre, Register And The Linguistic System

Bateman (1998: 25-6):

For all its complexity, I have used chapters of the book with few problems with students of varying experience — including those new to linguistics; I have also used positions in the book as the starting point for further linguistic research (particularly in the area of CONJUNCTION: cf. Bateman and Rondhuis, 1996) and for the design of computational models of the generation of texts (particularly here the relationship between genre, register and the linguistic system: cf. Bateman and Teich, 1995). Each such investigation has drawn close attention to areas where the proposals of English Text may need to be extended, refined, and perhaps changed; but without the starting point provided by English Text that work would not have been possible.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As set out in great detail here, Martin's logical discourse semantic system of CONJUNCTION is a confusion of two of Halliday's lexicogrammatical systems:

• expansion manifested as cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction), and
• expansion manifested as relations between units in complexes (logical metafunction).

Moreover, Martin creates (non-metaphorical) mismatches between semantics and grammar by

• not organising his system on the basis of the three most general types of expansion, elaboration, extension and enhancement,
• misunderstanding and misapplying types of expansion, especially concession,
• misunderstanding the distinction between internal and external expansion relation, and
• omitting projection entirely from the logical potential of discourse semantics.

[2] As set out in great detail here, Martin misunderstands "the relationship between genre, register and the language system".  For example, Martin

• misunderstands varieties of language (register/genre) as culture instead of language,
• misunderstands cultural dimensions (field/tenor/mode) as register dimensions,
• misunderstands sub-systems (register/genre) as systems,
• misunderstands two perspectives on the same phenomenon (register/genre) as different levels of symbolic abstraction (strata),
• misunderstands genre as more abstract than the cultural dimensions (field/tenor/mode) realised by language, and
• misunderstands instances of context (situations) as instances of language (texts).

In SFL theory, register and genre (text type) are two perspectives on the one point of variation of linguistic content on the cline of instantiation, midway between system and instance:

On The Questions And Possibilities That Martin’s Approach Opens Up

Bateman (1998: 25):

It also requires, as with many things, an appropriate attitude when working with the book: English Text is clearly at its best when engaged with, rather than considered passively as a (potential) source of wisdom. Certainly, one of the most important aspects of the book is exactly the kinds of questions that it raises. When an attitude is adopted that foregrounds the questions and possibilities Martin’s approach opens up, the results are almost always beneficial.

Blogger Comments:

As demonstrated on this blog, and in more detail here, the kinds of questions and possibilities that Martin's approach in English Text opens up arise from deep misunderstandings of the global dimensions of SFL theory: stratification (evidence here), instantiation (evidence here) and metafunction (evidence here).

Moreover, any theoretical value in Martin's work lies in the original works that he has misunderstood and rebranded as his own:

• Halliday's semantic SPEECH FUNCTION (rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic NEGOTIATION);
• Halliday & Hasan's grammatical REFERENCE (rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic IDENTIFICATION);
• Halliday & Hasan's grammatical ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION (also rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic IDENTIFICATION);
• Halliday & Hasan's grammatical cohesive CONJUNCTION (reinterpreted as Martin's discourse semantic CONJUNCTION, now rebranded as CONNEXION); and
• Halliday & Hasan's LEXICAL COHESION (rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic IDEATION).

As Bateman has demonstrated in his review of Martin's English Text, he has not bothered to check the provenance of its content, nor has he been able to identify any of the wealth of theoretical inconsistencies that arise from Martin's misinterpretations. In recommending Martin's work, Bateman has done a great disservice to the academic community.

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 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 Martin's Controversial Move To Explicitly Consider Semantics

Bateman (1998: 23):

It is also certainly not the case that Martin’s approach is uncontroversial, even within his own functional tradition. The need for a move to explicitly consider semantics has sometimes been downplayed, aided in part by the rich functional semantic flavour that permeates grammatical descriptions such as that found in Halliday’s IFG; here “the grammar is infused with meaning, and a stratal distinction between grammar and semantics systematically blurred.’’[p33]. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Bateman again frames the matter in terms of agreement among linguists instead of in terms of theoretical validity.  The distinction between agreement and validity is encapsulated in the following cartoon of B. Kliban:

[2] This is potentially misleading, since Martin does not "explicitly consider semantics", because his discourse semantics, as previously explained, is merely a combination of Halliday's textual lexicogrammar (rebranded cohesion systems) and Halliday's previously theorised semantic system (rebranded speech function).

[3] To be clear, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49) explain:

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a ‘semanticky’ kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

[4] This quote from Martin demonstrates his misunderstanding of stratification, which is also encompassed in his mantra 'all strata make meaning', which confuses stratification ('all strata') with semogenesis ('make meaning'), and leads him to interpret every stratum as a stratum of meaning.  See, for example, Misrepresenting Stratification.

To be clear, SFL theory distinguishes between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar), principally because the distinction is essential for the systematic understanding of grammatical metaphor.

On The Substantive Content Of Martin's English Text

Bateman (1998: 23):

Concerning the substantive content of the book, it is not possible that one would agree with all of the claims and analyses that Martin makes, nor with all aspects of the methodology, and some unclarities are introduced by the very position developed. For example, since now so much work is being done in the discourse semantics, there are probably ramifications for how a lexicogrammar should be organised: in Chapter 3, Martin notes his earlier critique of Halliday’s DEIXIS network in lexicogrammar, and in Chapter 5 the restriction of lexis as most delicate grammar to field-neutral oppositions is clearly a strong constraint. But there is little discussion of this in the book; it is generally stated that the account is compatible with Halliday and Matthiessen’s descriptions, which may be broadly the case. But particular differences in description may well be necessary. However, given that the focus of English Text is primarily on the discourse semantic stratum, this omission is probably quite justified.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is not a matter whether linguists agree about Martin's theorising, but whether Martin's theorising agrees with data and with the rest of the theory in which it is situated.

[2] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantics, apart from his rebranding of speech function, is rebranded lexicogrammar (textual cohesion):

• IDENTIFICATION is rebranded cohesive reference and ellipsis-&substitution, misunderstood, and confused with ideational denotation and with interpersonal deixis of the nominal group, inter alia (evidence here);
• IDEATION is rebranded lexical cohesion, misunderstood as experiential in metafunction, and confused with lexis as most delicate grammar and with misunderstood logical relations between ergative functions of the clause, inter alia (evidence here); and
• CONJUNCTION is rebranded cohesive conjunction, misunderstood as logical in metafunction, and confused with misunderstood logical relations between clauses in clause complexes (evidence here).

[3] To be clear, Martin confuses the interpersonal deictic function of determiners in the nominal group with the textual reference function of determiners in non-structural cohesion (evidence here).

[4] To be clear, Martin's proposal (pp289-90) is to locate "field-neutral" lexical taxonomies in lexicogrammar and "field-specific" lexical taxonomies outside language at the level of context (misunderstood as register) — with lexical relations at the level between them, discourse semantics.  

In terms of stratification, the proposal locates lexicogrammatical phenomena at three levels of symbolic abstraction, one of them outside language.  In terms of realisation, the proposals are that:

• field-specific lexical taxonomies are realised in lexical relations, and
• lexical relations are realised in field-neutral taxonomies

Or, taking metaredundancy into account, field-specific lexical taxonomies are realised in the realisation of lexical relations in field-neutral taxonomies.

[5] To be clear, Martin's account is not even broadly "compatible with Halliday & Matthiessen's descriptions"; it violates the theoretical architecture and misunderstands its basic concepts (evidence here).

[6] To be clear, the difference between modelling semantics and lexicogrammar is the level of symbolic abstraction, meaning or wording, that the theorising is concerned with.  A model of semantics specifies the systems of meaning that are realised in wording; a model of lexicogrammar specifies the systems of wording that realise meaning.

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.

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 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 Questions Not Raised And Answers Not Given In Mistaking Conjunction For Expansion

Bateman (1998: 14):

Accepting these very different grammatical environments as realisations of a single semantic conjunctive relation (see Martin’s Figure 4.3, p170 for an overview) raises the central functional linguistic question of how each selection is to be motivated and related to its appropriate contexts of use. This naturally involves discussion of other areas of grammar and, more crucially, the semantics of those areas of grammar — e.g., the semantics of nominal groups (textual, referring, etc.), of verbal groups (e.g., phasal, modulation, temporal, etc.), and so on — thereby encouraging wider perspectives to be taken on the question. It also opens up the range of evidence that can be considered when formulating the contents of the discourse semantic systems: examples of the use of many distinct grammatical environments can all be taken into account in order to focus in on the semantics at issue rather than, as is more common (e.g., Knott and Dale, 1994), restricting attention to particular grammatical environments, such as ‘connectives’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, in SFL terms, Martin confuses expansion with conjunction; it is not that such grammatical environments are realisations of conjunction, but that cohesive conjunction is one of the grammatical environments manifesting expansion.

[2] To be clear, Martin’s Figure 4.3 presents grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — as a system network (with no entry condition).

[3] This is misleading. Martin nowhere deals with motivations for selecting grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — or how they are related their "appropriate contexts of use", which is why Bateman can supply no page references.

[4] This is misleading. Martin nowhere deals with the semantics of nominal or verbal groups in relation to grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — which is why Bateman can supply no page references.

[5] Here Bateman follows Martin in misrepresenting reference as a system of the nominal group, partly as a result of confusing interpersonal deixis of the nominal group with the non-structural system of textual reference.

[6] This is misleading. Martin nowhere deals with "the range of evidence that can be considered when formulating the contents of the discourse semantic systems" in relation to grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — which is why Bateman can supply no page references.

On Martin's Mistaking Different Manifestations Of Expansion For Different Realisations Of Conjunction

Bateman (1998: 13-4):

CONJUNCTION is then perhaps quite appropriately the discourse semantic region for which Martin discusses the most varied selection of possible lexicogrammatical realisations. Not only does he make sure to preserve the required continuity between congruent grammatical realisation in terms of clause complexes and cohesive realisations of conjunctive relations (as illustrated in examples (c-f) above), he also makes considerable use of the diverse grammatical metaphors available below the clause. Thus, the following variants can all be seen as alternative realisations of a single discourse semantic temporal relation between two semantic messages [pp168–169]:

We walk the ring with our dogs and then we just wait.
After we walk the ring with our dogs, we just wait.
Subsequent to walking the ring with our dogs, we just wait.
After our tour of the ring, we just wait.
Our tour of the ring is prior to our wait.
Our tour of the ring is before we wait.
Our tour of the ring is the antecedent of our wait.
Our tour of the ring precedes our wait.
The first thing we do is tour the ring with our dogs; the second thing we do is we wait. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's conjunction is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) conjunction, relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, and misunderstood as a structural logical system instead of a non-structural (cohesive) textual system.  The theoretical inconsistencies are both stratal and metafunctional.  To add to the confusion, Martin also relocates expansion relations between clauses from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, while ignoring projection relations; that is, the logico-semantic relation of projection is entirely absent from Martin's logical discourse semantics, with the consequence that projection systems in the lexicogrammar have no discourse semantic systems to realise.

To add further to the confusion, because Martin uses Halliday & Hasan (1976) as the source of his ideas, instead of Halliday (1985), his conjunction systems do not present elaboration, extension and enhancement as the most general types of relations, with the consequence that the stratal relation between discourse semantic and grammatical features are incongruent, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

To add further still to the confusion, Martin misunderstands and misapplies the types of expansion, including the distinction between internal and external relations, which he claims (wrongly) to be the 'main factor distinguishing Halliday's (1985) classification from that being developed here (1992: 182).

For the evidence on which all the above assessments are based, and much more, see the extensive clarifications and critiques here.

[2] To be clear, in "preserving the required continuity between congruent grammatical realisation in terms of clause complexes and cohesive realisations of conjunctive relations", Martin confuses expansion in the service of the logical metafunction (clause complexes) with expansion in the service of the textual metafunction (cohesive conjunction) and relocates the confusion from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.

[3] To be clear, this "considerable use" amounts to displaying a few example sentences on a single page (p169).

[4] To be clear, Martin confuses conjunction with the more general resource of expansion, of which conjunction is but one manifestation.  What these instances have in common is not conjunction, but the expansion category temporal enhancement.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 669) 'present a systematic and comprehensive summary of the different grammatical environments in which elaboration, extension and enhancement are manifested':

the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of (i) metafunction – textual (CONJUNCTION), logical (INTERDEPENDENCY; MODIFICATION) and experiential (CIRCUMSTANTIATION; PROCESS TYPE: relational), and (ii) rank – clause and group/phrase. …

From a grammatical point of view, the environments … are, of course, all different. But seen from above, from the vantage point of semantics, they are all agnate ways of construing expansion. Collectively they thus construe expansion as a semantic system. This means that for any given type of expansion we want to express, we have at our disposal a range of resources.

[5] To be clear, in SFL theory, a message is a textual unit at the level of semantics (cf. 'clause as message').  This is why cohesive conjunction, a grammatical resource of the textual metafunction, is concerned with conjoining messages.  In rebranding Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual grammar as his own logical discourse semantics, Martin also rebrands a textual unit as a logical unit.

On Martin's Misrepresentation Of Halliday & Hasan (1976)

Bateman (1998: 13):

Martin also attempts [p180] what he terms a “less materialist’’ and more semiotic interpretation of the internal/external division, drawing on the relationships between discourse semantics, register and genre that he sets out in Chapter 7; external relations then relate to ‘field’, the “institutional organisation of our culture’’, and internal relations relate to the ‘text genre’, the “organisation of text as it is formulated to construct our culture.’’ Conjunction is thus seen as the “most upward-looking’’ system in the discourse semantics and, as such, is suggested as a particularly useful place to start whenever the structure of a whole text is to be considered [p269].

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin's misrepresentation of the source of his ideas — Halliday & Hasan's distinction between internal and external conjunctive relations — as "materialist" derives from his own misunderstanding of their distinction.  Martin (1992: 180):

Internal relations in other words structure semiosis; external ones code the structure of the world.

As Halliday & Hasan (1976: 241) point out, it is both types of cohesive conjunction that create text, not merely internal conjunctive relations.  This is hardly surprising, given the fact that conjunction is a resource of the textual metafunction, rather than of the logical metafunction, and given the fact that the textual metafunction is concerned with 'semiotic reality' — 'reality in the form of meaning' — rather than with 'natural reality' (ideational metafunction) or 'intersubjective reality' (interpersonal metafunction); see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398).

[2] To be clear, Martin's reinterpretation of Halliday's context, the culture as a semiotic system, confuses culture with varieties of language, register and genre; see the clarifications and critiques of Martin's Chapter 7 here.  In SFL theory, language lies on the expression plane of context.

Significantly, it is Martin (1992: 33, 39-40, 122) who, in earlier chapters, adopts a "materialist perspective", confusing semiotic context with material setting.

[3] To be clear, Martin's proposal is to relate one type of conjunctive relation to the lower level of his model of context, and the other type of conjunctive relation the higher level of his model of context, skipping the lower level,

• where strata are misunderstood as interacting modules (p390), rather than levels of symbolic abstraction, and
• where the strata are varieties of language misunderstood as cultural context.

Moreover, Halliday's system of conjunction, a resource of the textual metafunction, is misunderstood by Martin as a logical system, and relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.

[4] This quoted glossing of 'field' is inconsistent with both SFL theory and Martin's own use of the term. In SFL theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the culture as semiotic system, whereas 'institution' refers to a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, namely sub-potentials of the culture as semiotic system (which are realised by sub-potentials of language: registers). In Martin's usage, on the other hand, 'field' usually refers, in SFL terms, to the ideational dimension of semantics: the domain that realises a contextual field. For Martin's misunderstandings and inconsistencies with regard to field, see the clarifications and critiques here.

[5] This quoted glossing of 'genre' is inconsistent with both SFL theory and Martin's own use of the term. In SFL theory, 'genre' is Hasan's (1985/9: 64) term for text type, which is, in turn, register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. In Martin's usage, 'genre' refers to context, whereas the organisation of text is the organisation of an instance of language, not context.

One possible source of Martin's confusion could be his misunderstanding of Hasan's (1985/9: 64) model of 'Generic Structure Potential', which is concerned with the potential semantic structure of texts according to type (genre).

[6] This quote from Martin, exemplifies his misunderstanding of strata as interacting modules, instead of as levels of symbolic abstraction. The relation between strata is an intensive identifying relation, with the lower stratum as Token and the higher stratum as Value; a Token does not "look up to" a Value — a Token realises a Value at a lower level of abstraction.

[7] To be clear, the original source of Martin's model, Halliday & Hasan's (1976) cohesive conjunction, is a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar. There are two significant reasons, then, from the perspective of SFL theory, why conjunction is not a model of text (semantic) structure:

• conjunction is not structural, and 
• conjunction is not semantic.

On Internal vs External Conjunctive Relations

Bateman (1998: 13):

Distinct networks are also presented for both the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976:241) guises of the logico-semantic relationships. This latter division is one that is now well-established in work on discourse connectives, although usually referred to under different terms (e.g., quite typically, ‘semantic’ for external, and ‘pragmatic’ for internal: cf. Sanders, 1997 and the further references there). Internal relations, according to Halliday and Hasan, are when conjunctive relations are used to create text; external relations are when the relations refer to some experiential ‘reality’ external to the text. An example of the distinction is the contrast in meanings involved in (i).

(i.a) He is out of breath because he has been running.

(i.b) He has been running because he is out of breath.

In (i.a) the consequential causal relationship is one external to the text: the cause of his being out of breath is that he had been running; in (i.b), however, the causal relationship is within the text itself, a paraphrase of the sentence would be:

The reason that I believe, and am telling you, that he has been running is that he is out of breath.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin (1992: 182) emphasises the centrality of the internal vs external distinction in his rebranding of Halliday's work:

The centrality of the internal/external distinction to an adequate account of the discourse semantics of logical relations is the main factor distinguishing Halliday's (1985) classification of expansion from that being developed here.

However, as demonstrated by the 50 clarifications and critiques here, Martin misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's (1976) distinction between internal and external conjunctive relations.

[2] Here Bateman, following Martin (1992: 180), also misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's distinction.  Both external and internal conjunctive relations are used to create text.  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 241):

The distinction between external and internal conjunctive relations, in textual cohesion, is made on the basis of the metafunctional distinction between experiential and interpersonal.  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 240):

[3] The use of 'refer' here demonstrates that Bateman takes a transcendent perspective on meaning, such that the meanings of language refer to meanings outside language.  This contradicts the perspective taken by SFL theory, which assumes that meaning is immanent, within semiotic systems like language, such that experience is construed as meaning.

[4] Here Bateman, following Martin (1992: 180), misunderstands the external/internal distinction to mean external/internal to the text; see [3].  To be clear, both types of conjunctive relation are internal to the text.  For Halliday & Hasan (1976: 240), the external/internal distinction means external/internal to the communication situation:

On The Logic Of English Text

Bateman (1998: 12-3):

Chapter 4 [pp159--270] turns to develop the ‘logic’ of English Text in terms of CONJUNCTION and CONTINUITY. This is the resource by which semantic messages are combined into larger complex messages, and through which messages are related to previously expressed messages as a text or dialogue unfolds. This is a rich and complex component of the discourse semantics and is essential for any adequate analysis of how texts ‘hang together’. System network classifications are given corresponding to all the major areas of ‘conjunctive cohesion’ discussed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), including subregions of addition, comparison, temporality and consequence, as well as further areas of CONTINUITY.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "Martin's" CONJUNCTION and CONTINUITY are Halliday & Hasan's (1976) cohesive CONJUNCTION and CONTINUITY relocated from (non-structural) textual lexicogrammar to Martin's (structural) logical discourse semantics.  The theoretical inconsistencies created are thus both metafunctional and stratal.

[2] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that, though he has described a resource of the textual metafunction (relations between messages), Martin's model rebrands his relocation of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) model as a resource of the logical metafunction. 

[3] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that this "rich and complex" resource was theorised by Halliday & Hasan (1976) as a component of the lexicogrammar.

[4] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin's model is not theorised in terms of the three most general types of expansion: elaboration, extension and enhancement (Halliday 1985).  This creates mismatches between discourse semantic and grammatical descriptions, such that relations between the two are incongruent, without being metaphorical.

[5] The thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin's CONTINUITY mistakes

• mood Adjuncts of temporality for continuity items,
• mood Adjuncts of intensity for continuity items,
• substitution for continuity,
• circumstantial Adjuncts for continuity items.

For the detailed arguments on which all of the above assessments are made, see the clarifications and critiques here.

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 The Type Of Structure And Direction Of Dependency For Discourse Systems

Bateman (1998: 8):

Table 5.21 [p332] also sets out for each type of semantic structure the direction of dependencies typically found among its covariately related units. We can therefore see that each region, and hence each chapter, discusses its own particular ‘discourse structural’ configurations and the system network of alternatives that gives rise to those configurations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Table 5.21 provides very little differentiation of "discourse structures":

Table 5.21. Type of structure and direction of dependency for discourse systems

	STRUCTURE	DIRECTION OF DEPENDENCY
NEGOTIATION	multivariate & covariate	prospective & retrospective
IDENTIFICATION	covariate	retrospective (occasionally cataphoric)
CONJUNCTION	covariate	retrospective (occasionally cataphoric)
IDEATION	covariate	prospective & retrospective

[2] This is misleading.  Martin's system networks provide no realisation rules that specify structural realisations.

Favourably Misrepresenting Martin's Discourse Structures

Bateman (1998: 7-8):

These diverse discourse structures are developed in detail and with copious examples in their own particular chapters, but a number of useful overview tables are also given towards the end of Chapter 5. For example, the semantic units participating in discourse structures are summarised in Table 5.18 [p325] thus:

Table 5.18. Discourse semantics: units proposed in English Text
interpersonal	textual	ideational: logical	experiential
exchange
move		message
	participant		message part

As within the grammar, different labellings are proposed within each metafunction. That is: the region of NEGOTIATION, which is concerned with the interpersonal construction of text as an unfolding ‘exchange’, links together discourse ‘moves’; the region of CONJUNCTION, which is concerned with how meanings are combined together to form larger ‘logically’ related meanings, links ‘messages’; the region of IDENTIFICATION, concerned with establishing reference to discourse entities, links ‘participants’; and the region of IDEATION, concerned with ‘the company that words keep’, links ‘message parts’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The term 'diverse' here is misleading.  Martin (1992: 331) describes all his structures as covariate, with the addition of multivariate structure in the case of his interpersonal meaning; see previous post.  Importantly, 'covariate' (Lemke 1985) is not a type of structure, as later acknowledged by Lemke (1988: 159) himself.

[2] The notion of 'units participating in discourse structures' conceals an inconsistency in Martin's structure types, deriving from his confusing structured units with units in a relation.  To be clear, Martin's interpersonal units are structured units, like the clause in the grammar, whereas the units of Martin's other metafunctions are units in relations to other units, like Halliday's cohesive relations that Martin has misunderstood, rebranded and relocated, stratally and metafunctionally, from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.

[3] This echoes Martin's confusing of the realisation relation between system (negotiation) and structure (exchange), on the one hand, with the instantiation of potential in logogenesis (unfolding of text), on the other.  See, for example, Confusing Realisation And Instantiantion.

[4] The use of 'links' here continues the concealment of the inconsistencies in Martin's notion of structure, as identified above in [2].  The relation between 'exchange' and 'move' is one of constituency: an exchange consists of moves.  The notion of NEGOTIATION "linking" moves falsely construes interpersonal structure as consistent with

• CONJUNCTION "linking" messages, 
• IDENTIFICATION "linking" messages, and
• IDEATION "linking" message parts.

The notion of 'links' is consistent with the notion of 'cohesive ties': the non-structural relations in the systems of cohesion that Martin has rebranded, relocated and misunderstood as discourse semantic structural relations.