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 Subsequent Works Relating Genre To Grammar

Bateman (1998: 22):

Fortunately, some of the discussions of English Text and the work out of which English Text has grown have already started making their way into introductory text books in systemic functional linguistics, of which there have recently been a number of important publications. Eggins (1994), for example, assumes the English Text model as the basic starting point for her introduction, while notions of genre and its relation to grammar are explicitly introduced and summarised in both Gerot and Wignall (1994) and, in more detail, Butt, Fahey Spinks and Yallop (1995). This orientation gives students a clear additional reason and motivation for learning the intricacies of grammatical description, for only then is one in a good position to search out genre. They will also help substantially when beginning to comes to terms with English Text itself.

Blogger Comments:

This is potentially misleading.  Unlike Martin's students Eggins and Wignell, Butt et al. (1995) do not build on Martin's model of genre, but on that of Martin's source, Hasan, distinguishing, for example, between context (4, 7) on the one hand, and genre as text type on the other (8-14).

On Martin's Model And Critical Discourse Analysis

Bateman (1998: 21):

And, even if the reader is not yet ready to follow Martin’s proposal that English Text is to be read “(in part) in the context of projects oriented to de-naturalising hegemonic discourses and, ..., facilitating intervention in the political process’’[p2], one essential lesson that remains is that socially, culturally, and ideologically informed discussions should, and now can, be linguistically responsible. No critical discourse can really stand without such a model in place. It should in fact no longer be acceptable for such discussions to omit linguistic detail; any such omission compromises the exactitude of the discussion and raises the likelihood that what is being discussed is more opinion than empirical result. This should also have substantial pedagogical implications within discourse theory and critical discourse. Without proficiency in the tools necessary to become linguistically responsible, an analysis cannot aim at being so. Blunt tools yield rough analyses.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, as demonstrated in great detail here, Martin's discourse semantics is largely Halliday & Hasan's lexicogrammatical cohesion, misunderstood, rebranded and relocated to his module of discourse semantics.  Martin's context consists of language varieties, register and genre — misunderstood as different levels of symbolic abstraction — and ideology misunderstood as Bernstein's coding orientations.  For these reasons, and more, the tools Martin provides for discourse analysis are  demonstrably "without proficiency" and "blunt".

To be clear, it is the source of Martin's discourse semantics, Halliday's model of lexicogrammar, that provides the tools of "linguistically responsible" text analysis.  As Halliday (1985: xvi-xvii) argues:

The current preoccupation is with discourse analysis, or 'text linguistics'; and it has sometimes been assumed that this can be carried on without grammar — or even that it is somehow an alternative to grammar.  But this is an illusion.  A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an analysis at all, but simply a running commentary on a text … the exercise remains a private one in which one explanation is as good or as bad as another.

A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one.  But meanings are realised through wordings; and without a theory of wordings — that is, a grammar — there is no way of making explicit one's interpretation of the meaning of a text.

On Required Extensions Of Genre Theory

Bateman (1998: 21):

Martin himself draws attention to some of the ways in which the theory will have to be extended, including the move from genre ‘agnation’ (i.e., organisation into system networks) to genre topology, and the tension between synoptic (language as product) and dynamic accounts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, this misunderstands genre agnation, since genre agnation is concerned with systemic relations between genres in a genre taxonomy, not with agnation in system networks that model genre as potential.  On the other hand, this is misleading, since Martin provides neither a taxonomy of genres nor a system network of genre potential to "move from" in extending the theory.

[2] To be clear, a genre topology would represent the degrees of relatedness between different genres.  In SFL theory, where genre means text type — that is: register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — the degree of relatedness between text types is measured by the relative frequencies of shared semantic and lexicogrammatical features.

[3] As previously demonstrated, Martin misunderstands the synoptic vs dynamic distinction, with  his 'synoptic' corresponding to syntagmatic structure and his 'dynamic' to instantiation in logogenesis.  In relation to genre, this distinction arises in his application of metafunctional structure types — particle, prosody and wave — to genre (pp548-60), despite the fact that his genre, contrary to SFL theory, is not theorised on the basis of the three metafunctions.

Endorsing Martin's Model Of Context By Means Of A Logical Fallacy

Bateman (1998: 21):

The stratified model of context argued for by Martin in this chapter has now been extensively applied in a range of social contexts, ranging across the original areas of application in education to various institutionalised discourse situations. Some of the more recent work building on the approach is given in Christie and Martin (1997). This work shows that, although the formulation of accounts of genre may have now moved on in various directions, and the original model may have been subject to criticism from several perspectives, this does little to detract from the scope and perspective found in Chapter 7. It is only with the kind of explicit modelling and interrelationships posited in the chapter—no matter how the phenomena addressed come eventually to be modelled—that any attempt to understand the social functions of language can really be made.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As an argument for the validity of Martin's misunderstanding of context as varieties of language (register/genre) and coding orientations ("ideology"), Bateman here deploys the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, which concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it.

[2] To be clear, these "social contexts" in which Martin's model has been used are, on Martin's model, those of ideology, genre and register.

[3] To be clear, criticisms from perspectives such as theoretical consistency and internal consistency do much "to detract from the scope and perspective found in Chapter 7".

[4] To be clear, in terms of explicitness, Martin provides no system networks for either genre or ideology, and none of his networks include realisation statements that specify structure at their own level, or preselected features at the stratum below.

In terms of interrelatedness, Martin misunderstands the principle of stratification (evidence here), and misunderstands the realisational relation between strata (evidence here).

On Bakhtin, Genre And Stratified Context

Bateman (1998: 21):

Explicit reference is made at the outset of the chapter [p494] to the very compatible work of Bakhtin (e.g,. 1986). However, combined with the previous chapters on discourse semantics and the presumption of an explicit and extensive lexicogrammar, the model of genre presented in this chapter certainly goes beyond any other account proposed previously in terms of its linguistic basis and ability both to draw linguistic consequences from the abstract descriptions of register, genre and ideology and, conversely, to use linguistic data to motivate such abstract descriptions.

Blogger Comments:

[1] What Bateman neglects to tell the reader here is that Martin misunderstands the work of Bakhtin; see, for example:

• Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'
• Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process
• Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin

[2] To be clear, the significant previous work on genre is Martin's source, Hasan, who models genre in terms consistent with SFL theory.  Moreover, Martin misunderstands Hasan's (1989: 64) Generic Structure Potential, which models semantic structure of specific genres, as the structure realising a system of genre (misunderstood as culture instead of language).

[3] As previously explained, Martin's context — stratified as register, genre and ideology — is theorised on the basis of fundamental misunderstandings of SFL theory, and, as such, is riddled with internal inconsistencies.  See also, for example:

• Why The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata Is Invalid
• Why The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology Is Invalid

On Martin's Register And Ideology

Bateman (1998: 21):

Networks are set out for each of the three main metafunctional regions of register — ‘mode’, ‘tenor’ and ‘field’ — and collections of lexicogrammatical realisations for these alternatives are also proposed. This provides a ‘semiotic’ view on context and context’s construction of many aspects of our reality and provides the ground for the book’s concluding sections on the stratum of ideology, again construed semiotically as a means of relating distinct genres and their use across a culture.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, mode, tenor and field are the metafunctional dimensions of the culture as semiotic system.  These systems of culture are realised in the systems of language.  Different registers of language realise different configurations of features of these systems of culture.  As previously explained, Martin confuses these systems of culture (context) with the sub-systems of the language that realise them (registers).

[2] This is misleading.  On the one hand, even on Martin's model, systems of mode, tenor and field should specify realisations in discourse semantics, not lexicogrammar, and on the other hand, not one of Martin's "register" networks features any realisation statements, discourse semantic or otherwise.

[3] Here Bateman is accepting Martin's claim without question.  Context was conceived by Halliday as a semiotic system.  Martin, however, repeatedly misinterprets Halliday's context as material; see, for example:

• Confusing Context With Co-Text And Material Setting
• Confusing Material Setting And Context Of Situation
• Misunderstanding Orders Of Experience
• Misconstruing Context As Language And Material Setting Instead Of Culture
• Blurring Context And Material Setting
• Blurring Distinctions
• Self-Contradiction
• Confusing Orders Of Experience

[4] Here Bateman confuses the construal of experience as ideational meaning ("reality") with the culture construed by the linguistic system (context).

[5] Here Bateman fails to notice that Martin misinterprets Bernstein's coding orientation as ideology.  See, for example:

• Preparing To Misconstrue Bernstein's Codes As Ideology
• Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology
• Discursive Power And The Evolutionarily Necessary Resolution Of Semiotic Tension Through Dynamic Openness
• Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level
• Why The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology Is Invalid

On Modelling Context As Register And Genre

Bateman (1998: 20-1):

Finally, in Chapter 7 [pp493-590], Martin presents in detail the motivations for the proposal set out in, for example, Martin (1985) and Ventola (1988) that ‘context’ best be modelled as consisting of two distinct strata: register and genre. Both of these are then realised in the less abstract ‘plane’ of language consisting, as we have seen, of three strata: discourse semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology. The chapter thus draws together results from many years of inquiry into the social situatedness of the linguistic system and the detail and examples given serve as a very useful introduction to the area and its points of debate.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, not just in SFL theory, 'register' refers to a functional variety of language, and 'genre' refers to a type of text.  In SFL, these are theorised as two views on the same phenomenon:

• language as register is language as genre (text type) viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation, whereas
• language as genre (text type) is language as register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

The place of register/genre (text type) in the architecture of SFL theory is identified in the following matrix:

Martin's proposal is to relocate register/genre (text type) from the content plane of language to cultural context and from subsystem/instance type to system.  In terms of SFL theory, this creates inconsistencies in terms of both stratification and instantiation.

In simple terms, Martin's proposal is that varieties/types of language are not language, but the culture that language realises.  This is analogous to proposing that varieties/types of birds are not birds, but something more abstract than birds.

To be clear, in Martin's model, texts cannot be instances of register or genre, since texts are instances of language, not context.

For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Martin's notion of register, see the 82 clarifying critiques here.
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Martin's notion of genre, see the 67 clarifying critiques here.
For some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Martin's notion of context, see the 172 clarifying critiques here.

The absurdities entailed by Martin's stratified context demonstrate that neither Martin nor Bateman  — nor anyone else who uses Martin's model — understands either stratification or instantiation.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Martin's model misunderstands and rebrands Halliday & Hasan's non-structural textual lexicogrammar, the systems of cohesion, as structural discourse semantics:

• reference and ellipsis–&–substitution as IDENTIFICATION (textual),
• cohesive conjunction as CONJUNCTION (logical), and
• lexical cohesion as IDEATION (experiential).

[3] To be clear, Martin proposes that the linguistic system is socially situated in (varieties of) the linguistic system (register and genre).

On Martin's Notion Of Congruent And Incongruent Lexical Items

Bateman (1998: 19):

Also considered in this chapter are how particular message parts, although they serve as the semantic expression of particular field-stratum ‘participants’, may or may not be realised by single lexical items (congruent and noncongruent realisations): e.g. ‘champion’ and ‘tournament winner’ — again suggesting some of the value of maintaining stratification and providing one important difference with Hasan’s own extension of the position in Halliday and Hasan (1976): cohesive harmony [p372].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'message part' is Martin's unit of IDEATION, described (p293) as 'the discourse semantic unit underlying lexical item'.  Martin's claim is that it is congruently realised as one lexical item and incongruently realised as more than one lexical item.  This means, in terms of SFL theory, champion would be a non-metaphorical realisation, whereas tournament winner would be a metaphorical realisation.  (A genuine example of lexical metaphor would be construing the champion as a 'dynamo'.)  For further evidence that Martin does not understand (in)congruence, see here; for further evidence that Martin does not understand lexicogrammatical metaphor, see here.

[2] To be clear, the semantic expression of a "field stratum participant" is meaning that realises one of the speakers producing a text — but this is not what Martin means.  As previously explained, Martin confuses field (context) with the ideational meaning that realises it (semantics), and confuses context (the culture as semiotic system) with register (a sub-potential of language).  The theoretical inconsistencies are thus in terms of stratification and instantiation.

[3] To be clear, it wasn't Martin who stratified the content plane, but Halliday, though the naïve reader could be forgiven for thinking it was Martin's idea, given his presentation (e.g. pp14-21).  As demonstrated by the misunderstandings identified above in [1], the "in/congruent" realisations of Martin's 'message part' do not demonstrate "the value of maintaining stratification".

[4] Here Bateman is merely parroting Martin's claims (p372) without question.  To be clear, Hasan's (1985: 94) cohesive harmony is concerned with the harmony between the 'outputs' of two metafunctions, the textual and the experiential, at the level of lexicogrammar:

The output of the textual function are the chains and the interactions; the outputs of the experiential function at the rank of clause and group is what the interaction is built upon. Thus cohesive harmony is an account of how the two functions find their expression in one significant whole.

That is, where Hasan's model is concerned with harmony between the textual and experiential metafunctions, Martin's model, in rebranding lexical cohesion as an experiential system, is concerned with confusing the textual and experiential metafunctions.

For more details on Martin's misunderstandings of cohesive harmony, see the clarifying critiques here.

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 Field Consisting Of Activity Sequences

Bateman (1998: 18):

Field consists of sequences of activities and their participants as these contribute to particular socially recognisable endeavours. The lexical relations in English are then presented as they relate to the three ‘ranks’ of the contextual structure of activity sequences, giving three primary delicacy distinctions: taxonomy, nuclear and activity. These Martin illustrates with respect to the field of tennis as follows [p293].

• TAXONOMY: part/whole relations among game-set-match 
• CONFIGURATION: (‘nuclear’) Agent-Process-Medium structures, e.g., player-serve-ball 
• ACTIVITY SEQUENCE: [player serve]--[opponent return]--[player volley]

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's (1992) notion of activity sequence confuses what is going on in terms of culture (context) with what is going on in a text (language).  For some of the many problems with the notion of activity sequence, see the 48 clarifying critiques here.

In contrast, in Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), activity sequence is relocated to discourse semantics as an experiential system, despite being concerned with expansion relations, like the "logical" discourse semantic system, conjunction.  For the problems that arise through this later relocation, see some of the clarifying critiques here.

[2] This misrepresents Martin (p292) who only regards activity sequences as contextual:

A given institution comprises a large number of different activity sequences, where these are realised linguistically through temporally ordered chains of Process and Medium and their attendant participant and circumstantial roles.

Bateman's confusion is understandable, however, since Martin here not only violates the SFL notion of strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction, he also violates his own misunderstanding of strata as different modules.

[3] This example of an activity sequence nicely illustrates the tangle of confusions in Martin's model.  To explain:

• if [player serve]--[opponent return]--[player volley] appears in a text, then it is not context (field), but linguistic content (semantics or lexicogrammar); but, on the other hand,

• if [player serve]--[opponent return]--[player volley] is what is going on in the cultural context, then it is realised by the language spoken by the tennis players while playing tennis — texts which Martin nowhere addresses.

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 "Convincing" Use Of Ideation

Bateman (1998: 17):

He then turns to Sinclair’s (e.g, 1987) counter-position that collocation is in fact the better model to start from:

“collocation patterns may map more closely onto contextual ones than caution may have first led linguists to expect: ‘there is a great deal of overlap with semantics, and very little reason to posit an independent semantics for the purpose of text description’ (Sinclair, 1987:331).’’ [p277] 

Since the entire point of English Text is to provide an independent linguistic semantics that is primarily for the purposes of text description, Sinclair’s claim can be seen as something of a challenge — at least in the area of lexis and IDEATION. But, in direct answer to the challenge, Martin not only proposes a model of an independent discourse semantics for lexical relations but then provides several convincing examples of its use in text analysis, both alone in this chapter and, in the chapter following, in coordination with the other discourse semantic regions discussed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the source of "Martin's" model is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin relocates this model to his own discourse semantic stratum, misunderstands it as experiential rather than textual, confuses it with 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (and with clause nuclearity), and rebrands the confusion as his own system of IDEATION, all of which is demonstrated in great detail here.

[2] For some of the problems with Martin's text analyses, unnoticed by the 'convinced' Bateman, see:

• Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration
• Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
• Misconstruing Mode As Genre (1)
• Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause
• Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension
• Misconstruing Mode As Genre (2)

[3] For the cornucopia of theoretical misunderstandings in Martin's Chapter 6, see the evidence here.

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.