David Rose Misrepresenting The Appliability Of Models

David Rose wrote to sys-func on 2/8/22 at 14:35:

A third difference is in appliability of the models. As classification of types is the focus of the message/clause semantic (MS) model, a major application has been classifying types of discourse, by their frequencies of message/clause types. … 

As structuring of texts is the focus of the discourse semantic (DS) model, applications have been in various fields requiring text analysis. ...

In terms of which model is more ‘correct’ (theory as rule)...

MS expects direct grammatical realisations for each semantic feature

DS expects discourse structures realising each discourse semantic feature.

In terms of which model is more appliable (theory as resource)...

MS can classify discourse types statistically from large corpora

DS can explain discourse varieties by contrastive analysis of texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'classifying types' is the systemic approach to theorising language as meaning potential.

[2] To be clear, 'classifying types of discourse' is the identification of different sub-potentials — registers — of the overall potential, each of which is distinguished by the probabilities of feature selection, with these probabilities being instantiated as frequencies of feature selections in texts. The explanatory potential of this approach is not available in Martin's model, because he misconstrues register as the systems of context that language realises.

[3] To be clear, if the structuring of texts is the focus of Martin's discourse semantic model, then it is inconsistent with the fundamental functional principle of SFL Theory of giving priority to the view 'from above'. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49) explain for the lexicogrammatical stratum:

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features (for an early statement, see Halliday, 1966a). Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation…).

[4] This is misleading. Text analysis can be carried out regardless of whether the focus is on structure (Martin) or on system (SFL). Focusing on structure provides writing templates for teachers; focusing on system provides a systematic way of relating functional varieties of language in terms of specific speaker choices.

[5] These confuse assessments of models (correct, appliable) with epistemological stances (theory as rule/resource). To be clear, Formal Linguistics models language as 'rule', whereas SFL models language as 'resource'.

[6] This is misleading. Rose is again using Hasan (1983) to falsely claim that Halliday's model does not feature semantic structures. See

• David Rose On The Absence Of Semantic Structures In Halliday's Model

[7] To be clear, discourse semantics may "expect" discourse structures realising each discourse semantic feature, but it certainly does not specify them; see Martin (1992) or Martin & Rose (2007). The one apparent exception to this, NEGOTIATION, Martin's rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION, does not coherently specify the range of structures it claims, See, for example:

• Problems With The Exchange Structure NEGOTIATION System
• Problems With The Authors' Negotiation System Network