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).

Trying To Make The Data Fit The Theory

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 295):

Solidarity is also inter-modally construed – imagically, mateship is emphasised, as he faces us directly, in his casual dress, looking us in the eye with a smile.  Verbally the bonds have more to do with regional pride in the accomplishments of the Bondi Boys; graduation dramatises events, positioning us to appreciate all the more the historical significance of the rescue. FitzSimons' elegiac tones confirm us in the heritage he shares.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is simply trying to make the data fit the theory. Firstly, no argument has been offered as to why a photograph of a smiling man, in casual dress, looking at the camera should enhance a relation of mateship with male and female viewers of the photograph. Consider a similar picture of a politician being viewed by people who disapprove of him. 

Secondly, since the authors associate solidarity with 'horizontal' relations, this claim contradicts their previous claim that the text presents the columnist as authoritative, thereby placing him in a 'vertical' (power) relation with the reader.

[2] To be clear, experiential meaning is construed (language as reflection); interpersonal meaning is enacted (language as action).

[3] Here the authors have again switched from the meanings instantiated in the text to what are claimed to be its effects on the reader.

[4] To be clear, 'elegiac' means mournful or sorrowful. A read of FitzSimons' text reveals that its tone is not mournful or sorrowful. Moreover, this assessment is also inconsistent with the authors' previous observations (p289):

So instead of highlighting the emotional reactions of people, or their character, FitzSimons invites us to share attitudes to things (both concrete, like the ocean, and abstract, like history). …

For FitzSimons then it is the significance of the moment that matters, not directly the character or emotional reactions of the lifesavers or the people they rescue. In this respect, his stance is more that of a historian than narrator, since in narrative proper we typically use both inscribed affect and judgement to engage reader/listeners in our tale.

Misrepresenting Tenor And Misunderstanding Power And Solidarity

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 295):

Tenor is concerned with the kind of relationship FitzSimons constructs with his readers. Its key dimensions are power and solidarity. Power is concerned with hierarchical social relations, solidarity with horizontal ones. As far as power is concerned, FitzSimons' position is an authoritative one – he writes for us to read and we read what he writes. The only real say we have is a yet to be realised one, solicited in his invitation to e-mail him with suggestions for historical anecdotes he might use. As we have seen, FitzSimons' authority is enhanced inter-modally – verbally through his blue coloured by-line in the text's macro-Theme and imagically through his Ideal/New position above the image of the beach.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33) explain the interpersonal dimension of context as follows:

tenor – who is taking part in the situation: (i) the roles played by those taking part in the socio-semiotic activity – (1) institutional roles, (2) status roles (power, either equal or unequal), (3) contact roles (familiarity, ranging from strangers to intimates) and (4) sociometric roles (affect, either neutral or charged, positively or negatively); and (ii) the values that the interactants imbue the domain with (either neutral or loaded, positively or negatively)

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, power is but one system of tenor, and it distinguishes between equal ("horizontal") and unequal ("vertical") status. Relations of solidarity, contrary to the authors' claim, can obtain both between those of equal status ("horizontally") and between those of unequal status ("vertically") — the latter demonstrated by the solidarity between Martin (high status) and his students (low status).

[3] This is misleading, because it confuses dialogic role (writer vs reader) with interpersonal status (unequal vs equal). Clearly, it is not the role of writer that confers higher status in an exchange, as demonstrated by texts written by job applicants.

[4] This is misleading, because neither of these claims about authority have been previously argued for. That is, no argument has been offered as to why a by-line expressed in the colour blue should enhance the authority of the columnist, and no argument has been offered as to why the mere positioning of the columnist's name at the top of his newspaper column should enhance his authority. 

And, as previously explained, this usage of 'ideal' mistakes a construal of experience for textual status, and no argument has been offered as to why the name of the regular columnist should be interpreted as presented as New information.

Moreover, even in their own terms, the authors here have confused textual status (Ideal, New) with interpersonal status (power, authority).

Mood Metaphor

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 67):

As noted above in Section 1.2, speech functions such as statement, command and question have both congruent and metaphorical realisations. With metaphorical realisations the grammar works as a metaphor for the relevant meaning – as when an imperative like Tell me your name is used to question (to demand information):

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, such metaphorical grammatical realisations express two layers of meaning on the semantic stratum at once. For example, the imperative clause Tell me your name realises both a command and a question, with the command realising the question. See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 272, 289) on grammatical metaphor as semantic junction in which a metaphorical Token realises congruent Value, in the context of ideational metaphor. It is this junction of meanings that construes the tenor of the situation.