My only interest is to understand relations between the models, which I suggested below may be complementary.The MESSAGE system was quoted from Hasan 1983, in your paper with RH, Geoff and Carmel, that I promoted as ‘a useful history and synopsis’. I thought it was interesting to see how the MESSAGE and MOOD features presented as bijective differ in their systemic valeur, and how the MESSAGE features presage later developments.The NEGOTIATION system wasn’t published until 1992, extensively credited to Margaret Berry. The APPRAISAL system was published a decade later. So it was impossible to know in 1983 that the features described as MESSAGE options were also features in NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL systems. So certainly not a re-run.On the other hand, the whole of discourse semantics is extensively credited to RH, including 197 mentions in ET. …
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. What Rose actually claimed (here) was that Hasan's semantic system attempted to synthesise the complementarity of two discourse semantic systems:
In sum, the MESSAGE system attempts to synthesise the complementarity of two discourse semantic systems, NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated here, Hasan's network allows for multiple grammatical realisations of a semantic feature.
[3] To be clear, the source of Berry's model, as well as Martin's rebranding of it as his discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION, is Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION.
[4] To be clear, if there are any "reruns", they are necessarily in the later discourse semantic systems.
[5] This is misleading. What is true is that Cohesion in English (Halliday & Hasan 1976) is the data that Martin (1992) uses to theorise his discourse semantics, rebranding their REFERENCE as his IDENTIFICATION, their LEXICAL COHESION as his IDEATION, and their cohesive CONJUNCTION as his CONJUNCTION (now CONNEXION); evidence here. Given this, it is hardly surprising that Hasan should be referenced in Martin (1992).
However, the term 'credited' here is potentially misleading. See, for example:
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Speech Function
- Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan On Reference
- Misidentifying The Main Differences Between Martin And Hasan
- Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
- Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion
- "One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique"
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Cohesive Harmony
- Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
- Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
- Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure
- Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source
- Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source
- Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies
- Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
- Misrepresenting Hasan
