Some Of The Theoretical Inconsistencies In Modelling Genre As Realised By Register

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 296):

The other factor interacting with mode is genre staging, since one of the story's early stages is more abstract than the rest of the text. To explore this, we'll have to move from register (field, tenor and mode) to genre. Martin & Rose (2008) treat genre as a recurrent configuration of meanings, which phases field, mode and tenor variables together into stages which enact its social purpose.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin's 'genre' conflates text type (register viewed from the instance pole), rhetorical mode (textual context) and semantic structure (of a text type that realises a rhetorical mode). This is why the authors relate (rhetorical) mode to genre staging (semantic structure).

[2] To be clear, Martin (1992: 390, 488) misunderstands the dimensions of SFL Theory as interacting modules:

6.1.3 Modularity and interaction

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification, and within strata, metafunction. …

The problem addressed is a fund[a]mental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

[3] To be clear, this is a non-sequitur, deriving from the previously noted confusion of mode, the role played by language in a situation, with the ideational abstraction in the text that realises a situation.

[4] To be clear, to put it most simply, Martin (1992) distinguishes functional varieties of language (register/text type) from language. This is analogous to distinguishing functional varieties of cattle (dairy vs beef) from cattle.

More technically, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin (1992) mistakes the two perspectives (register vs text type) on the midpoint of the cline of instantiation of language for two strata of the context that is realised by language. This also entails treating subpotentials (diatypic varieties) of language for full potentials (stratal systems).

In the case of register, Martin (1992) confused register with the configuration of field tenor and mode features of the situation type that the register realises. In the case of genre, Martin (1992) confused text type with the rhetorical mode of the situation type that the text type realises, and mistakes the semantic structure of such variants as genre structure (at the higher stratum of context).

If these theoretical confusions weren't enough, Martin (1992: 495) also identifies the instantial relation between culture and situation with the realisation relation between his strata of genre and register:

The tension between these two perspectives will be resolved in this chapter by including in the interp[r]etation of context two communication planes, genre (context of culture) and register (context of situation), with register functioning as the expression form of genre, at the same time as language functions as the expression form of register.

[5] To be clear, by stratifying context as genre and register, Martin (1992) incongruously models systems of genre (text type conflated with rhetorical mode) as a higher level of symbolic abstraction that is realised by his systems of register, which, in SFL Theory, are the contextual systems of (i) what the text is about (field), (ii) who is taking part (tenor), and (iii) the role played by language (mode).

On the other hand, the formulation by Martin & Rose (2008) 

genre as a recurrent configuration of meanings, which phases field, mode and tenor variables together into stages which enact its social purpose

does not distinguish genre and register as different levels of symbolic abstraction. Instead, they present genre, field, mode, tenor, semantic structure and social purpose (rhetorical mode) as being of the same level of symbolic abstraction, wherein genre "phases" register into semantic structures which "enact" social purpose (rhetorical mode).

Confusing Ideational Context (Field) With Ideational Content (Language) [2]

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 294):

As we have illustrated above, analysing clause complexes (grammar) in tandem with conjunctive relations (discourse semantics) is a good way of exploring activity sequences. To analyse each step in these sequences more closely we need to look at transitivity (from both transitive and ergative perspectives). And to understand participant relations we need to look at nominal group structure (Epithet, Classifier, Thing in particular), relational clauses (identifying and attributive), and relationships of hyponymy (class/subclass) and meronymy (part/whole) between nominal groups. We looked at FitzSimons' field in all these ways, in order to bring more fully to consciousness the senses in which he was concerned with the leisure activity of going to the beach in relation to the semi-professional activities of the Australian surf lifesaving movement.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'conjunctive relations' are lexicogrammatical, one of the systems of textual cohesion, first theorised by Halliday & Hasan (1976), and included in all editions of IFG. Martin's discourse system, on the other hand, is a confusion of their cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction) and Halliday's clause complexing (logical metafunction) which is misunderstood and relocated from lexicogrammar. Evidence here (Martin 1992) and here (Martin & Rose 2007).

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, analysing clause complexes and conjunctive relations is analysing the content of a text, whereas exploring activity sequences, here, is exploring the context of the text, its field, not the content of the text itself. In Martin & Rose (2007), on the other hand, activity sequences are interpreted as experiential semantics. See, for example:

• Activity Sequences: A Cornucopia Of Theoretical Inconsistencies

[3] This further demonstrates the authors' confusion of contextual field with the ideational content of the text.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the field of a text is 'what is going on' and 'what it is about'. The 'culturally recognised practice and its concerns' in this instance is the writing of a newspaper column about the 'Black Sunday' incident of Sunday, 6 February, 1938.

[5] This is misleading. Surf life saving in Australia has always been a volunteer movement, since its beginnings in 1907. The life savers at Bondi Beach in 1938 were volunteers, not "semi-professional".

Confusing Ideational Context (Field) With Ideational Content (Language) [1]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 294):

Field focuses our attention on the institutional context of a text – including domestic, work and leisure activities. A field can be defined as a set of activity sequences defining participation in a specific walk of life – for example doing the rounds, writing stories, attending staff meetings, reading newspapers, viewing current affairs programs on TV etc. as a print media journalist. Each step in each of these activity sequences consists of configurations of participants, processes and circumstances. And each participating entity, human or non-human, abstract or concrete, is organised within each field into distinctive taxonomies – of both subclassification ('is a kind of ') and composition ('is a part of').

Blogger Comments:

[1] This metaphor is potentially misleading. Field does not "focus our attention". Field is the ideational dimension of culture that is both realised and intellectually constructed (construed) by language and parallel semiotic systems.

[2] To be clear, for Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 320), 'field' means 

the field of activity and subject matter with which the text is concerned ('what's going on, and what is it about?' … The field is thus the culturally recognised repertoires of social practices and concerns …

expressed by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33) as:

what’s going on in the situation: (i) the nature of the social and semiotic activity; and (ii) the domain of experience this activity relates to (the ‘subject matter’ or ‘topic’)

[3] As previously mentioned, Martin has variously located 'activity sequences' at the level of context in field (Martin 1992) and at the level of discourse semantics in his experiential system of IDEATION (Martin & Rose 2007). This reflects Martin's inability to distinguish cultural context from language and its varieties (register, text type), which follows from his inability to understand stratification as levels of symbolic abstraction, rather than as interacting modules (Martin 1992: 390, 488). 

The chief source of his confusion seems to be between field in the sense of what the text is about, in terms of social concerns, and the ideational content of the text itself. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407) diplomatically put it:

[Martin's] "field" corresponds to what has been discussed here in terms of ideational semantic networks in the ideation base.

[4] To be clear, this nicely demonstrates Martin's confusion between field (e.g. the social practice that the newspaper columnist Peter FitzSimons is engaged in) and the ideational content of a text (participants, processes and circumstances in the newspaper article).

The Difference Between Martin's 'Activity Sequence' And Halliday's 'Sequence'

  Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 283-4):

Both effective and middle clauses interact with the temporal relations discussed above to construct the activity sequences comprising a disaster and rescue operation of this kind. A transitive perspective on what happened is presented in Table 7.3 below. The experiential grammar builds the figures (participant, process and circumstance configurations) which constitute the predictable sequences the story recounts. Once the waves roll in, there are no surprises, which accounts for the absence of external concessive relations in FitzSimon's article. For more on ideational semantics in relation to field, see Working with Discourse Chapter 3.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, clauses don't "interact" with temporal relations; temporal is one type of enhancing relation, structural or cohesive, between clauses.

[2] To be clear, Martin's 'activity sequence' is theoretically distinct from Halliday's 'sequence'. In Halliday's semantics (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 49), a sequence (of figures) is the ideational phenomenon that is congruently realised grammatically by a clause complex (logical metafunction). 

In Martin's model, an activity sequence is variously construed as a unit of field, misconstrued as register, misconstrued as context (Martin 1992), evidence here, or as an experiential unit of discourse semantics (Martin & Rose 2007), distinct from the logical system of conjunction; evidence here.

[3] To be clear, 'figure' is not a discourse semantic unit (Martin 1992; Martin & Rose 2007), but a phenomenon in Halliday's ideational semantics that is congruently realised grammatically as a clause (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 49).

[4] This confuses supposed reader reactions (surprise) to events in the text with the author's (FitzSimons') use of logical relations (concessive). On the one hand, what happened after the waves rolled in was surprising to this reader. On the other hand, the author simply chose not to use any concessive logical relations, such as although everyone was surprised by the sudden horror of the unfolding events, the rescue operation began almost immediately. 

[5] For a close examination of the experiential discourse semantics in Working with Discourse Chapter 3, see the clarifying critiques here.

Misrepresenting Temporal Relations In A Text

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 279-80, 281):

As we might expect, successive (then, now, finally, after) and simultaneous (as, with) temporal conjunctions are used to time events; but there are many implicit temporal links with events connected 'neutrally' by simple juxtaposition, and, or the dependency of non-finite clauses on finite ones. The text, as do stories in general, thus takes advantage of field based understandings, in this case of what happens when big waves hit a beach and a rescue operation gets underway – a reasonable expectation in an article composed for beach-savvy Sydneysiders.

We can also note that many of these relations obtain between clauses inside clause complexes, and others between clause complexes – since successive and simultaneous temporal relations can be realised in either way. For example, the same phrase and then functions both within and between clause complexes during the waves' attack above, highlighting the borders of a purely grammatical approach to logical relations:

^ And then another wave hit, ||

^ and then another. |||

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because here the authors misunderstand with as marking a temporal (enhancing) relation, instead of an additive (extending) relation, despite having previously correctly identified it as extension in Table 7.1.

[2] This is misleading. Firstly, simple juxtaposition does not express an implicit temporal relation, as demonstrated by all the juxtaposed clauses that are not related temporally. Secondly, the only temporal relations marked by and are those marked by and then, and these are all 'explicit temporal links'. Thirdly, the dependency of non-finite clauses, in itself, does not mark a temporal relation, and in this text, as Table 7.1 shows, none of the dependent non-finite clauses are temporally related to their dominant clause.

[3] To be clear, the (second-order) field of this particular situation, the subject matter, is construed by the text itself. The text explicitly describes 'what happens when big waves hit a beach and a rescue operation gets underway'.

[4] To be clear, temporal relations that obtain within clause complexes are structural relations and function logically, whereas temporal relations that obtain between clause complexes are cohesive relations and function textually. This distinction is lost in Martin's discourse semantic model.

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [1]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

The incursion proper begins with a marked Theme highlighting the sound of the first wave, and an unmarked Theme introducing the wave itself. Subsequently, the waves are unmarked Theme in every ranking clause. Alongside explicit unmarked Themes we've added boxes for Themes that have been ellipsed in non-finite and paratactic extending clauses; these missing Subjects all refer to the waves as well. In this respect, English is operating here like many languages that use an unmarked Theme to establish an orientation to a field and then don't mention Theme again until this orientation needs to be reinforced or changed (Caffarel et al. 2004).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here the marked Theme is misanalysed for constituency; the embedded clause serving as Qualifier includes the conjunction like:

with a roar [[like a Bondi tram running amok]].

[2] This is misleading. Since this clause has a marked Theme, the Subject/Actor is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). 

[3] This is misleading. Ellipsed Subjects are not unmarked Themes. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of these elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

[4] To be clear, the ellipsis of the Subject signals continuity — see [3] — and its textual function is cohesive.

[5] To be clear, Martin's field, which he misconstrues as the ideational dimension of register, misconstrued as context, actually corresponds to ideational semantics in SFL Theory. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407):

Thematic spaces in an ideational semantic network can be seen as a model of the systemic understanding of Theme and method of development articulated by Martin, where “field” corresponds to what has been discussed here in terms of ideational semantic networks in the ideation base.