David Rose On Focus As Phonology And Jim Martin's Fastidiousness

David Rose replied to Rob Spence on asflanet on 20 Feb 2024, at 12:31:

I think you’ll find the term ‘focus’ is used in phonology for the name of a system information focus, whose features are realised by relations between the Tonic function and lexicogrammar. (More hill than ditch ;-) Focus isn’t used as a function term.

I think you’ll also find that Jim has always been fastidiously careful about distinguishing terms between strata, which I guess he learnt from Michael (all those years ago), and has been teaching others, as the canon has proliferated (all these years since).

He is also fastidiously careful about acknowledging those whose work he and colleagues are building on. How to show respect for others is nicely modelled in current work on register systems, carefully framed in relation to that of Halliday (53 refs), Hasan (42), Carmel Cloran, Cate Poynton and others...

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, INFORMATION is a system of lexicogrammar, not phonology. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 115):

… the system of INFORMATION. This is a system not of the clause, but of a separate grammatical unit, the information unit (cf. Halliday, 1967a, 1967/8; Halliday & Greaves, 2008: Section 5.1). The information unit is a unit that is parallel to the clause and the other units belonging to the same rank scale as the clause.

The misunderstanding of INFORMATION as phonology can be sourced to Martin (1992: 384, 401).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, 'focus' refers to the lexicogrammatical element of structure that is realised by tonic prominence (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 116). Halliday (1992: 371):

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Martin uses the most of the terms from lexicogrammatical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976) in rebranding it as his discourse semantics. Evidence here.

[4] To be clear, Martin (hypocritically) criticises Halliday for 'not distinguishing terms between strata'. Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 232):

… confusion invited by the use of grammatical terminology for semantic description in several SFL publications, particularly those dealing with grammatical metaphor (e.g. Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999).

But, in any case, the objection is based on a misunderstanding. A functional grammar interprets grammatical form in terms of its function, which is to realise meaning. In grammatical metaphor, the meaning of a grammatical form is incongruent with the meaning being realised. It is the use of meaning terminology on both strata that enables the systematic description of grammatical metaphor. And, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 237) point out:

Of course, what we are recognising here as two distinct constructions, the semantic and the grammatical, never had or could have had any existence the one prior to the other; they are our analytic representation of the overall semioticising of experience — how experience is construed into meaning. If the congruent form had been the only form of construal, we would probably not have needed to think of semantics and grammar as two separate strata: they would be merely two facets of the content plane, interpreted on the one hand as function and on the other as form.

[5] For the motivation behind this theological term for what in science would be called 'the standard theory', see The Culture Of 'Faith' In The SFL Community.

[6] This misleads through what it omits. It is true that Martin generally acknowledges his sources, though he doesn't always acknowledge that an idea comes from his source rather than himself. Evidence here. But more importantly, having acknowledged his sources, Martin then renames their ideas so that all future references will be to his work and not theirs, thereby giving himself credit for the ideas of others. See for example, here (Martin 1992) and here (Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna 2022).

[7] To be clear, Martin named these scholars because they provided the source of his ideas. Martin then rebranded 'register' as his stratum of context, so all references to register by his readership refer to his model rather than Halliday's original model. Moreover, Martin's model of register is full of self-contradictions. For example, his register is context, not language, despite register being a functional variety of language (cf. beef and dairy cattle not being categorised as 'cattle'); and though it is context, not language, it is instantiated as text, which is language, not context. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Mick O'Donnell On 'That Means'

Mick Donnell replied to Emma Vale on asflanet on 16 October at 22:50:

Be careful when saying:

you could take out the 'that means' and experientially the clause means the same thing, hence my suggestion that 'that means' is redundant

Just because it does not serve an experiential function does not mean it it redundant. It serves a logical function, and removing it loses the logical connectivity of ideas.

Shooshi says that "that means" is not conjunction but rather reference, and that is true if looked at in terms of grammar. But discoursally, "that means" is one discoursal strategy to link one clause to another as a consequence. For instance, would you take the following two clauses as saying the same thing:

The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun,

that means that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away.

The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun.

Consequently, the Southern hemisphere is tilting away

For me, this is a case where a semantic relation between two processes can be mapped onto lexicogrammar in distinct ways.

And getting back to your example, the fact that "consequently" can be dropped without affecting the experiential meaning of the second clause does not mean "consequently" is redundant, just that it serves a logical not experiential function.

Blogger Comments:

 To be clear, the two clause complexes under discussion are:

When the Northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun that means that it is summer in the Northern hemisphere.

And because the northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun that means that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away.

[1] Importantly, the inclusion of that means that is the student's step towards mastering grammatical metaphor. See Tilting Towards Grammatical Metaphor. Removing this wording makes the clause complexes more congruent:

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The wording that means serves the experiential functions Token and Process: relational: identifying: intensive: sign. The logical relation between the clauses in each complex is marked by the conjunction of the dependent clause: when (temporal) and because (cause: reason).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The reference is made by that, not that means.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The two wordings are not saying the same thing. The first pair of clauses (not a complex) are related by cohesive reference (that) and do not express the meaning 'consequence', whereas the second pair of clauses are related by cohesive conjunction and do express the meaning 'consequence'.

Agnate wordings of the first pairing include:

• The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun; that indicates that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away.
• The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun; that suggests that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away.
• The northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun; that implies that the Southern hemisphere is tilting away.

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 269).

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The conjunctive Adjunct consequently, which does not feature in the original example under discussion, functions textually, not logically, since it marks a relation of cohesive conjunction.

∞

See also:

The Promotion Of Anti-Intellectualism In The SFL Community
Mick O'Donnell Falsely Accusing The Sys-Func Moderator Of Misogyny.

David Rose Confusing Determination With Reference

David Rose replied to Kieran McGillicuddy on Sysfling on 18/9/23 at 22:08:

You could start solving this problem by distinguishing lexicogrammatical from discourse semantic functions. The term Deictic denotes a function in a function structure at group rank... +Thing;+Deictic. It is realised at word rank by various classes of items.

Halliday starts his definition of Deictic functions of ‘the’ below on LG criteria, as specific, determinative

But then he switches to DS criteria to distinguish its function more delicately, from the functions of demonstrative and possessive determiners (as discussed with Bea on sysfling 9-10 September).

It’s not wrong, but doesn't make the switch explicit. In fact these delicate distinctions couple features from DS identification and LG deixis systems. Here’s parts of both... 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, this is misleading, because it is untrue. See:

David Rose Misconstruing Discourse Semantic Systems As More Delicate Grammatical Systems

David Rose Misunderstanding Delicacy And Instantiation

[2] To be clear, as demonstrated here, Martin's (1992) discourse semantic system of identification is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical system of reference, which, among other things, confuses cohesive reference with nominal group determination. Rose here repeats that confusion in juxtaposing a reference system with a nominal group determination system as if reference and nominal group determination were the same function.

David Rose Misrepresenting How Martin's Approach to SFL Differs From Halliday's and Hasan's

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 17/9/23 at 8:53:

Returning briefly to Attia’s question...

How does Martin Approach to SFL is Different from Halliday and Hasan?

To understand its [Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English] relation to Martin’s work in SFL, the place to start is his English Text. ... ET extends the descriptions in CiE...CiE describes structures of discourse, which ET extends to systems and structures

CiE focuses on textual structuring, termed ‘cohesion’, which ET extends to structures across all metafunctions 

CiE describes roles of grammar features in discourse structures, which ET extends as features in discourse semantic systems realised as features in grammar systems 

CiE’s relates textual structuring of discourse to the contextual variables of mode and field as ‘coherence’, which ET extends by describing systems of mode, field and tenor that are realised by discourse semantic structures in each metafunction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the question was about the different approaches to SFL, but Rose has reduced it to a question about the differences between cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976) and discourse semantics (Martin 1992).

[2] To be clear, Martin (1992) takes the original, groundbreaking work of Halliday & Hasan (1976) as his source material and rebrands their lexicogrammatical systems of cohesion as his own systems of discourse semantics.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Hasan (1976) is concerned with non-structural lexicogrammatical resources of cohesion. 

[4] This is very misleading. Of Martin's 49 discourse semantic system networks, across four metafunctions, only 4 specify structural realisations, and all of these are confined to the interpersonal metafunction.

[5] To be clear, this is true, and in doing so, Martin creates theoretical inconsistencies by rebranding the textual lexicogrammatical systems of cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion as ideational discourse semantic systems of ideation (experiential) and conjunction/connexion (logical).

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Hasan (1976) is concerned with non-structural lexicogrammatical resources of cohesion, not with discourse structures.

[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Not one of Martin's 49 discourse semantic system networks, across four metafunctions, specifies how discourse semantic features are realised as features in grammar systems.

[8] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Hasan (1976) has no discussion of coherence. The notion of coherence first appeared in Hasan (1984), and it does not involve relating text structure to field and/or mode. See, for example, Hasan (1989/1985: 93-4) for the linguistic correlates of variation in coherence.

[9] This is seriously misleading in several ways. First, since Halliday & Hasan (1976) has no discussion of coherence, and coherence does not involve relating text structure to field and/or mode, Martin (1992) did not extend that model. Second, mode, field and tenor (style) were first formulated by Halliday in Halliday et al (1964), not Martin (1992). Third, Martin (1992) does not specify how mode, field and tenor are realised by discourse semantic systems, let alone structures.

∞

See also

The Practice Of Public Bluffing In The SFL Community.

David Rose Negatively Appreciating The Deployment Of Logic

David Rose Positively Judging 'Being Wrong'

Mick O'Donnell On The Differences In Martin's Model

Mick O'Donnell replied to Attia Rasool on Sysling on 16/9/23 at 19:39:

My take on the differences in Martin's model:

1. What Halliday called "context of situation" was renamed as "Register" in the Martin approach. In the Halliday model, a register is "a variety of language, corresponding to a variety of situation", so is basically the language pattern appropriate to a context of situation. Martin lifted the term up to apply to the situation, not to the language used in the situation.

2. Martin and others (Rothery, Christie, etc.) added in a level of Genre above context of situation. As Annabelle said, this change was never adopted by Halliday, Hasan, and their followers. But it has proved popular in the area of Language Education, where it has proved useful to have individual genres existing as names in the theory, while in Halliday's approach, what a genre exists as a set of contextual features scattered across Field, Tenor and Mode (except since Matthiessen 2015 where terms like expounding, reporting, recreating, etc. are covered under Field).

3. Halliday's "Semantic" stratum is largely (but not entirely) a level of meaningful abstraction over the clause (or clause complex). Martin's "Discourse Semantics" has been described as "grammar above the clause", e.g., capturing patterns which don't respect the borders of clauses, e.g., reference, evaluation, logical relations, exchange, etc. Neither characterisation is totally true, but there is definitely a difference in orientation here. And certainly Hasan's work explored deeply patterns outside the clause (she introduced the notion of cohesion, cohesive harmony, schematic structure etc.)

4. Semantics was not highly specified by Halliday himself, and those who followed have proposed different components to the semantics. Most share some kind of Experiential and Logical semantics, and Speech Function as part of an Exchange semantics, some form of Thematic Progression, and Cohesion resources. The nature of these descriptions varies though, Hasan's "message semantics" takes a different turn that Eggin's (in the Martin camp) speech function network. And approaches to cohesive resources, while a common base in Hasan's work, varies in the way it is applied. Martin's model adds in other areas of semantics, e.g., Martin and White added in attitudinal, engagement and graduation models (part of Appraisal). And other components as well.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin (1992) rebranded Halliday's context — from potential to instance — as register. Context of situation is merely an instance of context. Despite modelling register as context instead of language, an instance of Martin's register is nevertheless an instance of language: a text. This inconsistency is exacerbated by Martin's acknowledgement that instantiation does not cross stratal boundaries (such as from context to the strata of language.

[2] To be clear, in Halliday's model, register is a subpotential of language, a point of variation at the midway point on the cline of instantiation between potential and instance. As such, it realises context at a point of variation at the midway point on the cline of instantiation between potential and instance: a situation type. Because situation is an instance of context, it is realised by an instance of language: text, not register.

[3] To be clear, this is a serious misunderstanding of the stratification of levels of symbolic abstraction. Locating genres, as text types, above context is misconstruing varieties of language as not being language and as more abstract than culture.

[4] To be clear, Martin's notion of genre is unwittingly scattered over various dimensions of SFL theory. As text type, genre is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. The types of genre are categories within rhetorical mode, context, and the stages of genres are semantic structures of text types.

[5] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 604) outline the explanatory advantages that motivate modelling semantics at a low level of abstraction above the grammar:

But in modelling the semantic system we face a choice: namely, how far "above" the grammar we should try to push it. Since the decision has to be made with reference to the grammar, this is equivalent to asking how abstract the theoretical constructs are going to be. We have chosen to locate ourselves at a low point on the scale of abstraction, keeping the semantics and the grammar always within hailing distance. There were various reasons for this.  

First, we wanted to show the grammar at work in construing experience; since we are proposing this as an alternative to cognitive theories, with an "ideation base" rather than a "knowledge base", we need to posit categories such that their construal in the lexicogrammar is explicit.  

Secondly, we wanted to present the grammar as "natural", not arbitrary; this is an essential aspect of the evolution of language from a primary semiotic such as that of human infants.  

Thirdly, we wanted to explain the vast expansion of the meaning potential that takes place through grammatical metaphor; this depends on the initial congruence between grammatical and semantic categories.

But in any case, it is not really possible to produce a more abstract model of semantics until the less abstract model has been developed first. One has to be able to renew connection with the grammar.

[6] To be clear, "patterns which don't respect the borders of clauses" are modelled in terms of cohesion in SFL Theory (Halliday & Hasan 1976). Martin (1992) rebranded these lexicogrammatical systems as his discourse semantic systems, rebranding reference and ellipsis-&-substitution as identification, lexical cohesion as ideation, and cohesive conjunction as conjunction (later connexion).

[7] To be clear, reference, evaluation, logical relations and exchange are all Halliday, not Martin. But see [10] below.

[8] This is misleading because it is untrue. See, for example, the 618-pages of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999). 

[9] This is potentially misleading, since speech function is Halliday, not Martin.

[10] The systems of APPRAISAL differ from all the other discourse semantic systems in that they were developed through the collective efforts of Martin's colleagues and PhD students, with a first, early version of the key subsystem of ATTITUDE set out in 1994 by Iedema, Feez and White in their monograph, Media Literacy. Martin is possibly often regarded as the founder of the theory on the basis of references he made to APPRAISAL in a 1997 paper ("Analysing Genre: Functional Parameters") and/or his fuller treatment in his 2000 paper ""Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English". (The 1997 chapter presented an account of the sub-system of APPRECIATION, which was also developed through collaboration, most notably through Rothery's work on visual arts education.) However, key elements of what is now the widely referenced version of the theory were first presented in White's 1998 PhD thesis and then in White's 2002 paper, "The Language of Evaluation and Stance" (Handbook of Pragmatics.)". The version of the theory now most widely deployed in textual analysis was outlined in Martin and White's 2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. It includes accounts of the following sub-systems: AFFECT (drawing on earlier work by Martin), JUDGEMENT (collaboration by Martin, Iedema, Feez and White), APPRECIATION (collaboration by Martin and Rothery), ENGAGEMENT (from White's 1998 PhD thesis), GRADUATION (White and Martin collaboration).

David Rose On There Being No Important Differences Between Martin And Halliday & Hasan

David Rose replied to Attia Rasool on SYSFLING on 16 Sept 2023 at 09:32:

There are no important differences between Martin’s, Halliday’s and Hasan’s approaches in SFL. Halliday’s major contribution was developing SFL theory in the process of describing lexicogrammar and intonation through the 1960-70s. He and Hasan used the work on lexicogrammar to describe structures of discourse as ‘cohesion’ in 1976. Hasan was also trained as a sociologist. She and Halliday both used the work on lexicogrammar to interpret aspects of social contexts in their later work.

Martin used Halliday’s and Hasan’s work on lexicogrammar and discourse to describe discourse semantic systems. His foundational English Text (1992) explains carefully how this work builds on their research. It should be read closely by anyone interested in SFL.

Martin also extended SFL theory to social context, describing field, tenor and mode as semiotic systems, realised in language, and genre as a semiotic system realised in field, tenor and mode. This work has been widely applied to research in education and other fields.

Martin and colleagues then built on Kress and van Leeuwen’s work on images to describe other modalities as semiotic systems. Martin and colleagues have also integrated Halliday’s, Hasan’s and others’ research on ‘users’ and ‘uses’ of language, as individuation and instantiation.

Work on individuation helps to understand various alignments within the SFL community in terms of affiliation, or bonding around icons. As the founder of the field, Halliday has been iconised, so that SFL work beyond his was sometimes seen as too different and less legitimate. This is not the view of younger generations.

Measured objectively, by far the most influential figures in SFL have been Halliday with [almost 200,000] citations, and Martin with almost 100,000 citations. Other leaders in SFL have only a fraction of these followers.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed, because there are very many important irreconcilable differences, all deriving from Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's theory. See some of the evidence at:

Review of Martin (1992)
Review of Bateman (1998)
Review of Martin & Rose (2007)
Review of Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010)
Review of Martin (2013)
Review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019)
Review of Martin & Doran (2023)

[2] This is potentially misleading. Halliday's "major contribution" was to actually formulate SFL theory, developing it, in the 1970s, from his 1960s theory, Scale & Category Grammar. The integration of all the dimensions that the theory assigns to language is Halliday's work. Without Halliday, SFL Theory does not exist; without Martin, it does. 

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Hasan (1976) theorises the lexicogrammatical systems of cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction. Later, Martin (1992) rebranded his misunderstandings of their non-structural systems as his structural systems of discourse semantics. See the evidence at Review of Martin (1992).

[4] This is potentially misleading. In the 1960s, Hasan worked at the Sociolinguistic Research Centre with Basil Bernstein.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Hasan did not interpret context in terms of the lexicogrammar. Halliday used Hjelmslev's notion of a connotative semiotic to stratify context in relation to language, and projected the notion of metafunction onto context as the systems of field, tenor and mode.

[6] For the closest of all readings of Martin (1992), see  Review of Martin (1992).

[7] This is very misleading indeed, because it credits Martin with Halliday's work. It was Halliday who modelled context in terms of field, tenor and mode. Martin's "contribution" was to misunderstand context (the culture as semiotic system) as register (a diatypic variety of language). See the evidence at Review of Martin (1992).

[8] To be clear, Martin's genre is a confusion of text type (register viewed from the instance pole), mode (textual context) and semantics not organised by metafunction. It unwittingly proposes that stages of a narrative ("genre"), for example, are realised by the relative social status of the speaker and addressee (tenor). See the evidence here, here and here.

[9] For some of the misunderstandings in Martin's work on pictorial semiosis, see here (Working With Discourse) and here (Deploying Functional Grammar). For theoretical and ethical problems with "Martin's" work on "paralanguage", see Martin's Model Of Paralanguage.

[10] To be clear, Martin does not understand instantiation; evidence here, here and here. And as previously explained, Martin's model of individuation incongruously maps a meronymic taxonomy (affiliation) onto a hyponymic taxonomy (individuation). See the previous post David Rose On Martin's Context-Bound/Free And Individuation As Allocation/Affiliation.

[11] See The Tactics Of The Disciplinarian Head Of The Martin Faith Community.

[12] To be clear, here Rose implies that Martin's work has been rejected because it is too different or less legitimate, rather than because it is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and itself. See also The Culture Of 'Faith' In The SFL Community.

[13] To be clear, here Rose is talking of Martin's former and current students.

[14] To be clear, this confuses quantity (citations) with quality (theoretical integrity). The most reliable interpreter of Halliday, by far, is Christian Matthiessen. A meticulous review of his 700+ page book, Lexicogrammatical Cartography, warranted only 41 critiques.

[15] See The Culture Of 'Faith' In The SFL Community.

David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstandings

David Rose replied to Beatriz Quiroz on Sysfling on 9 Sept 2023 at 18:50:

ET explains...

Blogger Comments:

From Mistaking Numeratives And Epithets For Reference Items at English Text: System And Structure:

Martin (1992: 113): 

For selective Deictics the basic distinction has to do with selection on the basis of order, as realised through ordinative Numeratives and selection on the basis of quality, as realised through superlative Epithets.  Order is realised through ordinal numerals (first, second, third, etc.) or position in time and space (e.g. next, last, final, ultimate, penultimate etc.).  Quality is realised through superlative adjectives, where these are not simply attitudinal; note that in He made the dumbest moves the superlative morphology is not phoric if the dumbest moves simply means 'some very dumb moves worth exclaiming about'.  The opposition between order and quality is illustrated in [3:35]:

[3:35]          Which one will we take?

ORDER            — The next one/the last one/the penultimate one etc.

QUALITY         — The biggest one/the flattest one/the reddest one etc.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the mistaking of nominal group deixis (interpersonal metafunction realised structurally) for reference (textual metafunction realised non-structurally), and the rebranding of the grammatical misunderstanding as discourse semantics.

[2] This continues the mistaking of the construal of experience as participants realised by nominal groups (experiential metafunction) with the cohesive resource of reference (textual metafunction), and the rebranding of the grammatical misunderstanding as discourse semantics.

[3] The claim here is that order is realised by position in time and space.  On the one hand, this presents a definition as an interstratal relation; on the other hand, it reverses the levels of abstraction in the definition such that the Token ('order') is realised by the Value ('position in time and space').

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, all of these function as ordinative Numerative; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 375).

[5] Note that 'superlative' means expressing the highest or very high degree of a quality, and that, in SFL theory, superlatives do not function as reference items, since they do not present an identity as recoverable.

David Rose Misunderstanding Delicacy And Instantiation

David Rose replied to Beatriz Quiroz on Sysfling on 9 Sept 2023 at 18:50:

The more delicate a system, the more instantial it is, so the more it couples features from multiple systems, eg DEIXIS and IDENTIFICATION

The IFG discussion of DEIXIS is interesting as it shifts back and forth between LG and DS

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. It is the whole system, along the dimension of delicacy, that is located on the cline of instantiation from potential to subpotential/instance type to instance. Clearly, the more delicate system of attributive and identifying process types, for example, is not more "instantial" than the system that includes material and mental process types. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 219).

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 327):

Instantiation is the relation between the system and the instance. When we shift attention along this scale, we are moving between the potential that is embodied in any stratum and the deployment of that potential in instances on the same stratum (between the climate and the weather, to use the analogy from our illustration below). Again, this move can be made at any degree of delicacy. 

Delicacy is the relation between the most general features and the most specific. When we shift attention from, say, 'recreation' to 'hockey' at the level (stratum) of context, or from 'syllable' to long open nasal syllable' to /pã:/ in phonology, we are moving in delicacy. Again, we can do this at any point along the instantiation scale.

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue. The number of co-selected ("coupled") features from different systems does not increase down the cline of instantiation. What is true is that the co-selection of features differs at points of variation along the cline of instantiation. That is, registers (subpotentials) differ from one another in which features are co-selected; texts (instances) differ from one another in which features are co-selected.

[3] To be clear, DEIXIS is a system of the nominal group, whereas IDENTIFICATION is Martin's misunderstanding of REFERENCE — Halliday & Hasan's system of grammatical cohesion — relocated to his stratum of discourse semantics and rebranded as his own system. Evidence here.

[4] This is misleading because it is untrue. Unsurprisingly, the discussion of DEIXIS in IFG is only concerned with Halliday's lexicogrammar, not Martin's discourse semantics. This deception is merely an attempt to legitimate Martin's model by incorporating it into Halliday's exposition of the grammar.

David Rose Misrepresenting Cohesion (Halliday & Hasan) As Discourse Semantics (Martin)

David Rose replied to Robyn Fawcett (again posing as Dmytro Poremskyi) on Sysfling on 15 Aug 2023, at 20:10:

Check out Halliday & Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English for detailed discussion of substitution and ellipsis... very different explanation — as discourse semantic resources rather than grammatical constraints.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is not true. Halliday & Hasan (1976) was concerned with lexicogrammatical cohesion, not discourse semantics. Martin (1992) took Halliday & Hasan (1976) as his source and rebranded their lexicogrammatical cohesion as his own discourse semantics. Here Rose is participating in that deception.

David Rose On Why Language Needs A Stratified Content Plane

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 28 Mar, 2023 at 9:11:

The way GPT ‘reads’ and ‘writes’ text as probabilistic strings of tokens highlights the question of why language needs a stratified content plane. It sounds something like dynamic processes of DS, as foreshadowed by Firth’s notion of ‘mutual expectancy’. The multiple ‘levels’ of its design could enable it to simultaneously predict and review appropriate structures at several scales and various functions, e.g. figures and figure sequences, lexical strings, reference chains, method of development, evaluation prosodies, exchange roles... [just *predicting structures* not making meanings as persona semiotica].

But lang requires these various scales of DS processes to be (re)organised in local processes of LG. Why?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is not that language "needs" a stratified content plane, but that, on the SFL model, a stratified content plane is what distinguishes language from other socio-semiotic systems.

[2] To be clear, here Rose is merely promoting Martin's discourse semantics, which confuses Halliday's textual grammar (lexical cohesion, reference etc.), Fries' textual grammar (method of development), Halliday's ideational semantics (figures and sequences), inter alia.

More importantly, the dynamics of one stratum, discourse semantics, are irrelevant to the stratification of content, because stratification is the relation between levels of abstraction, and so what stratification affords is the decoupling of congruent relations between strata to open up the enormous semogenic potential of grammatical metaphor. Moreover, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 237) point out:

If the congruent form had been the only form of construal, we would probably not have needed to think of semantics and grammar as two separate strata: they would be merely two facets of the content plane, interpreted on the one hand as function and on the other as form.

[3] This is misleading. Martin's discourse semantics is not organised into 'multiple levels' and 'several various scales'.

[4] On the one hand, this misunderstands the relation between strata, and on the other hand, it is very misleading. Semantics and lexicogrammar constitute different levels of symbolic abstraction, so the lower level (Token) is not a local reorganisation of the higher level (Value): the lower level (lexicogrammar) is a realisation of the higher level (semantics). 

In all of Martin's work, which Rose continually promotes, there is a failure to understand strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction. For example, Martin (1992) misunderstands strata as modules (of the same level of abstraction), and confuses stratification with semogenesis ('all strata make meaning').

The reason why this is misleading is that it presents Halliday's lexicogrammar as a "reorganisation" of Martin's discourse semantics, whereas, in terms of theorising, Martin's discourse semantics is a reorganisation of Halliday's lexicogrammar (cohesion) and semantics (speech function). 

David Rose On "Tonic Focus" As A Probe For Markedness

David Rose replied to Dongbing Zhang on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, at 15:21:

Ah, but isn’t the probe for markedness tonic focus? (Themes underlined)...

unmarked

// those who have guns have them lègally //

marked

equative

// those who have gùns // are the ones who have them lègally //

predicated

// it is those who have gùns // who have them lègally //

So the textual function of the Qualifier is IDENTIFICATION rather than PERIODICITY. Back to Bea’s questions, those is esphoric to the embedded Attribute have guns and them is anaphoric to guns (per ET).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "tonic focus" is not the probe for markedness. Tonic prominence is the phonological realisation of the focus of New information. An unmarked Theme can be realised by tonic prominence, making it New as well as unmarked Theme.

[2] As a spoken reading reveals, the most likely first tonic in these instances is hàve, not gùns, making the possessing of guns the focus of New information, which is consistent with the issue at stake.

[3] To be clear, the Theme in this thematic equative construction is unmarked, because it conflates with the Subject in a declarative clause:

[4] To be clear, this non-sequitur is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. The Qualifier in question is who have guns. IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammatical system of reference as his discourse semantic system, and PERIODICITY is Martin's rebranding of writing pedagogy ('Topic Sentence' etc.) mixed with Halliday's grammatical systems of THEME and INFORMATION.

In terms of SFL Theory, textually, the Qualifier is the referent of a demonstrative reference item (those, the) in the same nominal group, and has the status of Given or New information in an unmarked Theme:

[5] This is essentially true, except for the misleading omission of the very important fact that the analysis actually derives from Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976). The only contribution of English Text (Martin 1992) was to relabel Halliday & Hasan 'structural cataphora' as Martin's 'esphora' — a term adapted from Ellis (1971). It is very misleading indeed to credit Martin with Halliday & Hasan's original ideas.

David Rose Misrepresenting Ruqaiya Hasan's Research

David Rose replied to Geoff Williams on sys-func on 24/6/22 at 11:06: 

Could we describe as two of the most influential pedagogic applications of her research: One oriented to social analysis, using message semantics to demonstrate statistically the class basis of pedagogic codes, including your research in early literacy. And the other oriented to discourse analysis, with cohesion and schematic structure laying a foundation for discourse semantics and genre, that ultimately led to genre pedagogy?

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Rose suggests that the value of Hasan's work is merely that it led to Martin's work. That is, for Rose, the value of Hasan's original research on lexicogrammatical cohesion and Generic Structure Potential is simply that Martin was able to rework it to derive his models of discourse semantics and genre pedagogy.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, 'schematic structure' is Martin — e.g. Martin (1992: 505) — not Hasan. For Hasan's critique of Martin's 'schematic structure' — and genre — see her The Conception Of Context In Text (1995).

David Rose Falsely Implying That Ruqaiya Hasan Endorsed Martin's Model

David Rose replied to Mick O'Donnell on sys-func on 21/6/22 at 13:54: 

Affiliationally (!), it’s flattering to be called the Martin-Rose model, but you’d have to add a lot more names with hyphens. JRM just tried to give me a leg up as a co-author, as a good teacher does (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999, 2004). It would be more accurate to call it the Hasan-Martin model, as so much of it is built on her work. ET mentions her 197 times, with 15 of her publications cited.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the proportionalities here are

Rose : Martin ::

Matthiessen : Halliday

[2] This is very misleading indeed. What is true is that Martin rebranded Hasan's work on cohesion — principally Halliday & Hasan (1976) — as his own model of discourse semantics. What is not true is that Martin's derived model is consistent with Hasan's original work, and what is emphatically not true, is that Hasan endorsed Martin's misunderstandings of her work.

With regard to Martin's model that confuses language varieties with context, Hasan wrote a protracted piece that identified the problems with Martin's approach. See:

Hasan, R. 1995. The Conception of Context in Text. In P. H. Fries & M. Gregory (eds.), Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives, Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday, 183-283. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

David Rose On Inexplicit Realisations And Lexis

David Rose replied to Mick O'Donnell on sys-func on 21/6/22 at 12:26:

… So how do we model field elements that are not explicitly realised in a text? That is so complex that SFL has avoided trying to describe lexical items, beyond their very general relations, as ‘sets’ vs systems, as delicate grammar, and as lexical relations in discourse.

It’s long worried me, as I would like to describe how we learn to read (comprehend written texts), and that can’t be done without tackling lexis.

In this paper on reading metaphor I’ve suggested we technicalise the term connote for these kinds of relations.

Rose, D. (2021). Reading metaphor: Symbolising, connoting and abducing meanings. Linguistics and Education, 64, 100932.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, what Rose, following Martin, regards as 'field' is ideational semantics in SFL Theory. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407):

… Martin, where"field" corresponds to what has been discussed here in terms of ideational semantic networks in the ideation base …

[2] To be clear, this is a matter of inexplicit realisations of semantic features being instantiated in a text.

[3] To be clear, this is not simply a matter of lexis. A lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate grammatical features, just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the phonological features [voiced, bilabial, stop]. Modelling this phenomenon systemically entails identifying the system, with the choice of in/explicit realisation, that has been instantiated in the text (data).

[4] To be clear, lexis as most delicate grammar means that lexical items are specified by the most delicate grammatical features, and lexical sets are the paradigmatic organisation of the lexical items thus specified. 'Lexical relations in discourse', on the other hand, is the use of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between lexical items to create textual cohesion. In Rose's source, Martin (1992), the notion of lexis as most delicate grammar is confused with lexical cohesion; evidence here.

[5] To be clear, Rose does not understand the SFL notion of 'lexical item'. See, for example:

• Misconstruing (Abridged) Grammatical Structures As Lexical Items
• Mistaking (Partial) Grammatical Units For Lexical Items

[6] To be clear, Rose does not understand the SFL notion of 'metaphor'. See, for example:

• Foreshadowing Misunderstandings Of Grammatical Metaphor
• Reducing All Grammatical Metaphor To Elemental Metaphor
• Misunderstanding Ideational Metaphor
• Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor
• Misrepresenting Elemental Ideational Metaphor As Logical Metaphor
• Misunderstanding Ideational Metaphor

David Rose Seriously Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan (1976)

David Rose wrote to sys-func on 16/6/22 at 9:47:

It would be interesting to know why he stuck with the same stratal model, of semantics without discourse, and context without systems, despite JRM’s 1992 massive empirical description of these strata’s systems.

Particularly so, as he and RH made it abundantly clear in Cohesion in English in 1976, that the ‘cohesive’ resources they describe are discourse semantic systems, e.g...

‘The concept of cohesion is set up to account for relations in discourse... what is in question is the set of meaning relations which function in this way: the semantic resources which are drawn on for the purpose of creating text.’

They also made explicit the stratal relation between these systems and LG...

‘The means of expressing these various types of cohesion are, as we have seen, drawn from a number of areas of the lexicogrammatical system, which have in common merely the fact that they contribute to the realisation of cohesion.’

They had begun to flesh out the semantic stratum as discourse semantic systems, as he had done for LG and PH. But Cohesion in English was written as a basic introduction to the resources, without describing the systems. The imbalance in research and theory between LG and DS ‘cohesion’ systems is stark in Table 1 below. However CinE then became the point of departure and constant reference for JRM’s metafunctional description of the systems in English Text.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the short answer as to why Halliday "stuck with his own stratal model", rather than adopt Martin's, is that Halliday understood his own model, whereas Martin never has (evidence here).

[2] These claims are misleading, because they are untrue. Firstly, Halliday's semantics is not "without discourse"; like all strata, it is a means of theorising and analysing discourse. For Halliday (2008: 78):

“discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while
“text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

Secondly, Halliday's context is not "without systems"; like all strata, it is modelled as a cline from system to instance.

[3] This is very misleading. On the one hand, Martin's "massive empirical description" involved confusing context with functional varieties of language: register and genre (in the sense of 'text type' rather than 'mode'). And on the other hand, there are no genre systems in Martin (1992). See Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems.

[4] This is very misleading. On the one hand, 'discourse' here refers to the data to be modelled, not to a discourse semantic stratum. On the other hand, the systems that realise cohesion are located on the lexicogrammatical stratum. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 6):

Cohesion is a semantic relation. But, like all components of the semantic system, it is realised through the lexicogrammatical system; and it is at this point that the distinction can be drawn. Some forms of cohesion are realised through the grammar, and others through the vocabulary. … We can refer therefore to grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion.

This is also made plain in the second quote that Rose presents above, though he misunderstands the stratal location of the systems.

[5] This is very misleading indeed. The function of Table 1 is to locate cohesion in the overall model: within the textual metafunction on the lexicogrammatical stratum. The fact that Rose has removed the title of the table which makes this plain, suggests that this is a deliberate act of (self-)deception. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 29):

[6] This is misleading. The sense in which Halliday & Hasan (1976) is the 'point of departure' for Martin (1992) is that Martin misunderstood their systems, relocated them from textual lexicogrammar to different metafunctions on his stratum of discourse semantics, and rebranded them as his own systems; evidence here.

David Rose On The Ontogenetic Stratification Of Content And Context

 David Rose wrote to sys-func on 6/6/22 at 13:43:

If we look at his examples of Nigel’s protolanguage, each microfunctional utterance is a simple sign, initiating or responding, as David K quotes below. The mother-tongue examples are then multi-move texts. The Phase II breakthrough of recombining tones with ‘words’ enables multi-move exchanges of knowledge as well as action. It is a simultaneous breakthrough into the metafunctions of grammar and discourse semantics. This is not foregrounded in MAKH’s discussion, as his systems focus on cataloguing nascent grammatical features. But it is apparent in the examples. The disassociation and recombination of content and expression planes enables the bifurcation of the content plane into grammar and discourse. It also enables the bifurcation of the context plane into register and genre.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Rose is presenting his argument that the semantics that emerges in the ontogenetic move into tri-stratal language is the discourse semantics of Martin, not the semantics of Halliday. The argument rests on the unstated assumption that initiating and responding moves in multi-move exchanges is consistent with Martin's discourse semantics, but not with Halliday's semantics. This, of course, is untrue. Halliday models this through the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION, and Martin's discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION is merely Halliday's system misunderstood and rebranded as Martin's model. The evidence for this assessment is available here (English Text) and here (Working With Discourse).

[2] This is misleading. Kellogg's quote from Halliday (1974) says nothing whatsoever about initiating and responding with "microfunctional signs" in protolanguage. It concerned with the transition stage (II) between protolanguage (I) and language (III):

"There is, with Nigel, a discontinuity in the expression, as well as, of course, the discontinuity that arises from the introduction of a third level of coding into the system. But there is no discontinuity in the content. The social functions that have determined the protolanguage--satisfying immediate needs, controlling people's behaviour, being 'together', expressing the uniqueness of the self, exploring the world of the non-self and creating a world in the imagination — all these evolve gradually and naturally into the social contexts and situation types that we characterise as semiotic structures; and the semantic system, the meaning potential that derives from these functions, evolve likewise. The progressive approximation of the child's meanings to those of the adult through interaction with and reinforcement by older speakers, begins before these meanings are (necessarily) realised through the words and structures of the adult language, and continues without interruption. Without this continuity, the semantic system could not function effectively in the transmission of the social system from the adult to the child."

("A sociosemiotic perspective on language development", in Collected Works of MAKH Vol. 4, p. 109)

[3] This is misleading. It is not true that Halliday failed to detect discourse semantics because he was focused on the grammar. As his publications on ontogenesis confirm, he was concerned with both lexicogrammatical form and its function of realising meaning — and necessarily so, since he claims that 'the two originate as one'. Headings in the article cited by Kellogg, A Sociosemiotic Perspective On Language Development (Halliday 1974), include:

2 A Functional Semantics

3 Meaning And The Environment

5 Lexicogrammatical And Semantic Structures

Moreover, with the exception of NEGOTIATION (rebranded SPEECH FUNCTION), the discourse semantic systems in Martin (1992) are not semantic, but rebrandings of the lexicogrammatical systems of REFERENCE (confused with DEIXIS), LEXICAL COHESION (confused with clause nuclearity) and COHESIVE CONJUNCTION (confused with CLAUSE COMPLEXING). The evidence for this assessment is available here.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, this a bare assertion, unsupported by argument, and on the other hand, it misrepresents Halliday's research. Halliday (2004 [1993]: 336-7) identifies the dissociation of associated variables as one of three semogenic strategies that become available after the content plane has become stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar. And it is semantics, not discourse semantics that emerges in the "bifurcation of content", for reasons that include those provided in [1] and [3] above.

[5] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by argument, a mere statement of belief. Moreover, Martin's model of context is invalidated by multiple self-contradictions. For example, Martin's model of stratification asserts that functional varieties of language, register and genre, are context not language. This is analogous to claiming that functional varieties of cattle, beef vs dairy, say, are not cattle.

And, as previously explained, Martin's model mistakes the content plane of a connotative semiotic for the entire connotative semiotic, and fills this connotative with varieties of a denotative semiotic. That's three interlocking inconsistencies. Or, most abstractly, Martin's model mistakes a token–type relation (instantiation) for a value–token relation (realisation).

Adding to these multiple levels of confusion and inconsistency, Martin's model also misconstrues the instantiation relation, at the level of context, between culture and situation as a realisation relation between genre and register. Martin (1992: 495):

The tension between these two perspectives will be resolved in this chapter by including in the interpretation 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.