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.

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

Bateman (1998: 2):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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