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 Praising English Text

Bateman (1998: 25): 

Both differences reinforce the central role that discourse plays in the construction of a comprehensive semantics that can fully motivate functional differences found in the lexicogrammar. Indeed, any brand of functional linguistics considers it self-evident that the deployment of grammatical and lexical phenomena in texts (written or spoken) is to be explained by considering the communicative and/or social purposes involved. Less self-evident is the fact that it is not a priori clear how particular groupings of grammatical and lexical phenomena are to be isolated for purposes of explanation: Until the relevant ‘comparison sets’ are known, the functional alternations operating can scarcely be recognised, let alone analysed or explained. English Text therefore provides a detailed characterisation of those comparison sets that supports a richly integrating view of the discourse functions involved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, it is the grammar that plays the central rôle in "the construction of a comprehensive semantics".  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 22) put it:

Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created …

'Discourse', on the other hand, refers to 'the patterned forms of wording that constitute meaningful semiotic contexts' (Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 512), and it is the textual metafunction that creates discourse.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 528): 

The “textual” metafunction is the name we give to the systematic resources a language must have for creating discourse: for ensuring that each instance of text makes contact with its environment. The “environment” includes both the context of situation and other instances of text.

In reinterpreting Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual systems of cohesion as semantic systems, Martin has confused a metafunction (textual) with a level of symbolic abstraction (semantics).

[2] In terms of SFL theory, this has the relation backwards.  It is not the semantics that motivates "functional differences found in lexicogrammar" but the lexicogrammar that creates the functional differences at the level of semantics.

Moreover, Halliday's (1984) paper On The Ineffability Of Grammatical Categories argues that semantics can only be validly theorised by encoding semantic values by reference to grammatical tokens, at the same time explaining why the grammar cannot be validly theorised by decoding grammatical tokens by reference to semantic values.

[3] To be clear, on the one hand, it is the architecture of SFL grammatics that provides an explanation of grammatical and lexical phenomena.  On the other hand, explanation in SFL does not involve isolating grammatical and lexical phenomena, but determining the relations between them.  SFL is a relational theory, not a modular one.

[4] To be clear, this obfuscatory reference to experimental procedure ('comparison sets') only reinforces the fact that Bateman does not understand the hierarchy of stratification in SFL theory, wherein semantics and grammar are different levels of symbolic abstraction, which only disagree in the case of grammatical metaphor.

[5] To be clear, the use of therefore here is misleading, since this conclusion is not entailed by the propositions that precede it.  Moreover, as the clarifying critiques on this blog and the blog reviewing English Text demonstrate, this is manifestly untrue.  Martin has merely taken Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammar of textual cohesion, misunderstood it, mixed it up with other sources, also misunderstood, and rebranded the confusion as his model of discourse semantics.

On Martin's "Metafunctionally Diversified" Discourse Semantics

Bateman (1998: 24-5): 

And second, a very different kind of semantics needs to be pursued when a ‘metafunctionally diverse’ grammar is assumed. For non-metafunctionally diverse grammars, i.e., grammars which foreground basic predicate-argument structures, and which downgrade alternations such as diatheses, constructions of textual prominence, interpersonal evaluations and speech functions, the semantics resulting is skewed towards experiential, propositional content. In contrast, a ‘metafunctionally broad’ grammar—such as IFG—attempts to foreground equally the distinct kinds of meanings made in grammar; and, hence, Martin’s semantics as an abstraction made on the basis of such a grammar is naturally a discourse semantics, ranging over textual, interpersonal, as well as ideational areas.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, 'propositional content' is interpersonal, not experiential.

[2] Here Bateman assumes that the 'natural' relation between lexicogrammar and semantics in SFL theory guarantees that Martin's discourse semantics will be metafunctionally diversified like the grammar, whereas such an outcome actually rests on the ability of the theorist to understand and consistently apply the theory.  As previously demonstrated over and over on this blog, and in far more detail here, this is certainly not the case.

For example, Martin takes Halliday & Hasan's (1976) four types of cohesion, all textual in metafunction and lexicogrammatical in terms of symbolic abstraction, and distributes them across three different metafunctions at a higher (unjustified) level of symbolic abstraction (discourse semantics):

• reference and ellipsis–&–substitution (textual lexicogrammar) are rebranded IDENTIFICATION (textual discourse semantics),
• cohesive conjunction (textual lexicogrammar) is rebranded CONJUNCTION (logical discourse semantics), and
• lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) is rebranded IDEATION (experiential discourse semantics).

Moreover, there are metafunctional confusions within each of these systems:

• textual IDENTIFICATION confuses textual reference with interpersonal deixis and ideational denotation;
• logical CONJUNCTION confuses (non-structural) textual conjunction with (structural) logical complexing; and
• experiential IDEATION confuses textual lexical cohesion with logical relations between experiential elements of grammatical structures.

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 Use Of System Networks

Bateman (1998: 22):

An example of one of the more superficial presentational problems is the ready use made of system networks for a number of different purposes as well as for linguistic descriptions at all of the strata treated in the book — i.e., lexicogrammar, discourse semantic, register, and genre. It is as a consequence not always immediately clear at what level of description a particular system network is being presented—thus Figure 2.2 is for MOOD (i.e., from the lexicogrammar) while the figure following, Figure 2.3, is speech function (i.e., from the discourse semantics); similarly, Figure 5.10 is a discourse semantic network, whereas Figures 5.11 and 5.12 are drawn from the field component of register and Figures 5.3–5.9 from the lexicogrammar. Sometimes, it is not even clear if a network is part of the intended linguistic description at all; some networks are simply presenting overviews of the material introduced in the book: e.g., Figure 1.16’s overview of types of linguistic structure, or Figure 3.10’s summary of types of phoricity (although these latter can then always, of course, be considered as field-specific taxonomies defining the technical terms involved as set out in the chapter on IDEATION: they are not earmarked as such in the text however).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Bateman's confusion in this regard stems from the fact that Martin uses the system network schema both for genuine system networks and for simple classifying taxonomies (e.g. Figures 1.16, 3.10, 5.11, 5.12).  

[2] To be clear, Halliday's speech function is a genuine semantic system — one that can be realised congruently or metaphorically in a grammatical system of the same metafunction (mood) — rather than Martin's rebranding of textual grammatical systems (cohesion) as discourse semantic systems of various metafunctions.

[3] To be clear, Martin's Figure 5.10 presents relations between lexical items (lexicogrammar) as a discourse semantic system.

[4] To be clear, the fact that these latter taxonomies are not identified in the text by Martin as taxonomies specific to the field of discourse semantics demonstrates that Martin did not realise that they could be interpreted as such in terms of his own model.

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.

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 Modal Responsibility

Bateman (1998: 20):

The selection of Subjects in a text, however, is also not devoid of textual consequences. Those message parts selected as Subjects serve to construct the ‘modal responsibility’ attributed by a text, and both of these interact with particular patterns of conjunctive relations, of lexical chains, and of modalities and appraisals. Working through the examples given in this chapter is a very good way of getting a clearer sense of the work done by the descriptions presented in the previous chapters.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is the selection of Theme — conflated with Subject or another function — that has textual "consequences".

[2] To be clear, Martin's 'message part' is an experiential unit, whereas Subject is an interpersonal function.

[3] To be clear, modal responsibility is the function of the Subject of a clause as theorised by Halliday (1985: 76).  For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's concept of modal responsibility, see the 19 clarifying critiques here.  For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Subject, see the 13 clarifying critiques here.

[4] To be clear, there is nothing on appraisal in Martin (1992) — which is hardly surprising, given that Appraisal Theory only emerged as an integrated theory later in the PhD research of Peter White.  For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Appraisal Theory, see the 52 clarifying critiques here.

[5] Working through the examples in this chapter should have alerted Bateman to the problems in this chapter (as well as those of previous chapters).  For some of the misunderstandings that undermine the theoretical validity of this chapter, see the 121 clarifying critiques here.

Misrepresenting Fries On Method Of Development

Bateman (1998: 20):

Several examples of this kind of integration and its contribution to textuality are given. In general, the resource of grammatical metaphor is used to ensure that textually appropriate meanings are placed in lexicogrammatically supportive positions. Thus, in order to obtain desired unmarked Theme selections, it may be necessary to select grammatically incongruent realisations for the messages to be expressed so that the participant to become Theme may also legitimately be Subject [p435]. And, in turn, the requirement that particular Themes be selected as marked or unmarked comes from the discourse semantic motivation of achieving a particular method of development as investigated predominantly by Fries (e.g., 1983).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, all of this is Martin reporting Fries (1981), not Martin, and it only applies to method of development — not to cohesive harmony, modal responsibility or point.

[2] This is misleading. Fries' work (1981) on method of development, is couched theoretically consistently, that is: in terms of lexicogrammar, not in terms of Martin's discourse semantics, and "motivations" for Theme selection are textual, not discourse semantic.  This latter misunderstanding confuses metafunction with stratum.

On CONJUNCTION And IDEATION Interactions As Definitive For The Notion Of Texture

Bateman (1998: 20):

And, in chapter 6, Martin sets out a preliminary attempt to explore the interaction and co-operation between different strata and regions in the construction of meaning. Martin gives examples of interdependencies and some of the very few attempts to explore these— for example, Hoey’s (1983) investigation of the relationship between phenomena assigned by English Text to the CONJUNCTION and IDEATION regions. These patterns of interaction Martin suggests are definitive for the notion of texture — that distinguishing property of any text that differentiates it from a set of unrelated sentences and which derives from “the fact that it functions as a unity with respect to its environment’’ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:2).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the sources of Martin's CONJUNCTION and IDEATION, Halliday & Hasan's (1976) cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion, do contribute to texture, because texture is created by the textual metafunction, and systems of cohesion are systems of the textual metafunction (op. cit.: 27).

However, Martin misinterprets these textual systems as systems of the ideational metafunction — logical (CONJUNCTION) and experiential (IDEATION) — and ideational systems are not concerned with texture, but with construing experience.

This fundamental misunderstanding further undermines Martin's chapter on texture.

On Nuclearity And Expansion Relations

Bateman (1998: 19):

To unpack the relations underlying such cohesive ties, Martin uses the complexing relations set out by Halliday in IFG — elaboration, extension and enhancement — in order to provide an abstract classification. This then provides another perspective on notions of ‘peripherality’, and extends to net in participants and circumstances. A network of available options is given in Figure 5.23 with a substantial set of examples.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the expansion relations between lexical items (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 644) and the expansion relations between grammatical functions of the clause are distinct metafunctional manifestations of the 'fractal type' expansion, the former textual, the latter ideational.  Moreover, lexical items and grammatical functions are lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic.

[2] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic network is concerned with grammatical units (clause, verbal group, nominal group) and falsely presents the exemplifying instances as realisation statements.  More importantly, the network is based on multiple misapplications of expansion categories and grammatical structure.  This can be demonstrated by considering the table presented by Bateman:

• Process and Medium form the clause nucleus, and it is this that is related to other functions; i.e. the Medium does not extend the Process.
• The relation between frying and pan is enhancement (purpose), not elaboration.
• The nominal group frying fish is Classifier^Thing, not Epithet^Thing; Epithets can accept degrees of comparison or intensity (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 377), whereas Classifiers, like frying, cannot.
• The relation between frying and fish is elaboration, not extension, since Martin (p312) glosses it as 'a fish that is frying'.
• The relation between the Epithet difficult and Thing group is elaboration, not extension; the Epithet further specifies the Thing.
• The particle of a 'phrasal verb' is not a constituent of the verbal group, and so does not elaborate the Event of a verbal group.  The 'particle', is either a preposition group or adverbial group that realises a clause Adjunct.
• The wording try (to) shoot is a verbal group complex, not a verbal group.

This small sample gives some indication of the extent of misunderstandings of expansion and grammatical structure in Martin's model of "discourse semantic" nuclear relations.

On Process^Medium Motivating Collocation

Bateman (1998: 18-9):

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

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

Martin shows this by examples such as the following:

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Martin's Taxonomic Relations Systems

Bateman (1998: 18):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

On 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 Determining The Unit Of Ideation

Bateman (1998: 18):

Martin then turns to the motivation and elaboration of these discourse semantic aspects of lexical relations, and again needs to address the question of units within IDEATION at the discourse semantic stratum. Here it is quickly made clear that collocation is not a sufficient motivation for defining units, since there is a gradient between idioms and non-idioms and Sinclair has gone so far as to maintain that mutual expectancy can be extended up to include entire texts. So, to counter this, Martin takes the constructs of field from register (discussed in more detail in Chapter 7: p497) as the basis of the units that are subject to lexical semantic relations [p297].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin is concerned with determining the unit of IDEATION, a structural system of experiential discourse semantics, which is his rebranding of his misunderstanding of lexical cohesion, a non-structural system of textual lexicogrammar.

Because the original system is non-structural, he is unable to identify a structural unit — i.e. a unit with internal function structure, such as all the units of lexicogrammar and phonology.  Moreover, because the original system is concerned with relating lexical items to each other, Martin's unit is essentially a rebranding of his misunderstanding of a lexical item, which he terms a 'message part'.

Adding further to the above confusions and theoretical inconsistencies, this unit of lexical relations is grammatical, not lexical, as demonstrated (pp292-3) by the types of message part: actions, people, places, things and qualities.

[2] To be clear, in order to identify his discourse semantic unit, Martin looks to field, the ideational dimension of cultural context, which he misunderstands as register.  This is further complicated by Martin confusing contextual field with the ideational semantics that realises it.

The number of theoretical confusions, and the confused relations between them, in this section of Martin's chapter, are difficult to untangle, but an attempt has been to do so in the following clarifying critiques:

• Inconsistencies Of Structure And Metafunction 
• Misconstruing The Difference Between Lexical Item And Grammatical Word 
• Confusing Register (Language) With Context (Culture)
• Confusing Context With Semantics 
• Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]
• Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [2]
• Misconstruing Experiential As A Constituent Of Logical 
• Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics 
• Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent 
• Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar

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 Confusing Lexis With Lexical Cohesion

Bateman (1998: 16-7):

Rather than getting stuck in the potential quagmire of traditional discussions of the problems of lexis, however, Martin takes a refreshingly different slant in English Text and again comes up with some very suggestive results. After briefly mentioning the relative merits of thesaurus vs. dictionary organisations for lexical information and summarising Firth’s work on collocation, he cites the early ground-breaking work of Hasan (1987), illustrating Hasan’s approach with a further example of lexis as most delicate grammar in the area of relational processes in English.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's IDEATION is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar, misunderstood, relocated to discourse semantics, and rebranded as a structural discourse semantic system of the experiential metafunction.  The theoretical inconsistencies are thus stratal, metafunctional and syntagmatic (non-structural as structural).  Moreover, Martin confuses 

• lexical cohesion (the creation of texture through relations between lexical items) with 
• lexis as most delicate grammar (the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical features as lexical items).

And, as the terms 'lexical' and 'lexis' suggest, these are theorised in SFL theory as lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic.

[2] For some of Martin's misunderstandings in these matters, unnoticed by Bateman, see the clarifying critiques:

• Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Dictionary Definitions, and 
• Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Thesaurus.

[3] For some of Martin's misunderstandings in these matters, unnoticed by Bateman, see the clarifying critiques:

• Misconstruing Unassigned vs Assigned As Single vs Double Agency,
• Misrepresenting 'Semiotic',
• Misrepresenting The Directions Of Coding And Mistaking A Verbal Projection Nexus For An Identifying Clause,
• Falsely Claiming To Have Uniquely Classified Two Lexical Items, and
• Misconstruing The Agency Of Identifying Clauses.

On Martin's Chapter 5: Ideation

Bateman (1998: 16):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresenting Martin's Conjunction In A Favourable Light

Bateman (1998: 15):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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