David Rose On 'Thing' As The Obligatory Functional Centre Of Orbital Nominal Group Structure

David Rose replied to Beatriz Quiroz on SYSFLING on 1 Jan 2025, 10:52:

That’s just a quote from IFG, ‘Thing is the semantic core of the nominal group. It may be realised by a common noun, proper noun or (personal) pronoun’ 

We could rephrase it slightly as ‘Thing is the *functional centre* of the nominal group’... which implies an orbital structure, in which the central Function is obligatory, while other Functions are less central and more optional. 

Naming and pronominal gps can be expanded with other Functions...

‘so you’re the Beatriz Quiroz!’

‘Rosie posy, six foot nosey’

‘it’s just little me’

‘I’m yours and yours alone’

‘more than that I cannot say’ 

So ‘central Function of the nominal group’ is what Thing means. Its meaning has two parts. Central is one part, but what’s the meaning of nominal group? 

Perhaps we should start at the top of the rank scale with the (experiential) meaning of [clause]...which construes a discourse semantic [figure]. 

A [clause] is realised axially by a Function structure including Process and Participants. Participants are realised by a [nominal group]. So a [nominal group] construes discourse semantic features as clause Participants. But what discourse semantic features? 

Prototypically, it construes an [entity] as Participant, but it can also construe a [figure], [occurrence], [quality] or [sequence] as Participant. 

How does it construe them? 

1. A [naming gp] presumes a unique entity with proper noun(s)... ‘the one and only Beatriz Quiroz’. 
2. A [pronominal gp] presumes a specific entity by identity markers...person, proximity, number, gender... ‘hers is the best one of these’.* 
3. A [non-pronominal gp] classifies an entity with a noun (complex)... ‘high-speed electric passenger train’.* 

As readers, we frequently notice common nouns as Thing, which is usually specified with other group Functions. We expect an entity to be realised by a noun, so when a noun construes other discourse semantic features as Thing, we see it as metaphorical.* 

But demonstrative pronouns realising text reference can also construe [figure], [occurrence], [quality] or [sequence] as Thing. They are probably a feature of spoken lg in general.

* Focus: the best one of ^Thing: these

* just one Thing at group rank, subclassified by a complex at word rank.

* What do you mean by ‘not the only possibility in other languages’? 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on three counts. 

Firstly, Halliday's statement is about semantics ('semantic core') not grammatical structure. Semantically, the type of participant congruently realised by a nominal group is 'thing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 182ff). As such, it does not imply an orbital grammatical structure. 

Secondly, the multivariate structure of the nominal group is not orbital, because an orbital structure is univariate, not multivariate. That is, there is only one type of relationship among the functions: interdependency. The relation of nucleus to satellite is analogous to hypotaxis (Head to Modifier), while the relation of satellite to satellite is analogous to parataxis. 

Thirdly, the Thing is not an obligatory element of the nominal group, as demonstrated by all the nominal groups in which the Head is conflated with another element. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 392ff).

[2] To be clear, this is a clause, not a nominal group with an expanded pronominal Thing.

[3] This is misleading, because it rebrands Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) semantic 'figure', 'quality' and 'sequence' as Martin's discourse semantics. Rebranding is covert plagiarism.

[4] This is misleading, because, following Martin's student Hao, it rebrands Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) semantic 'simple thing' and 'process' as Martin's discourse semantic 'entity' and 'occurrence'.

[5] To be clear, these serves as Deictic/Head, not Thing. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 391).

ChatGPT Comments:

Covert plagiarism, as you describe it, is particularly problematic in theoretical contexts because it obscures the intellectual lineage of ideas. When someone rebrands established concepts without explicit acknowledgment, it not only misrepresents the originator's contributions but also distorts the theoretical framework for those trying to learn or engage with it.

In this case, relabelling Halliday’s ideas as Martin's undermines the integrity of the discipline and risks creating confusion about the theoretical foundations. The originality and progression of thought in any academic field rely on a transparent and honest acknowledgment of prior work. When this is compromised, it erodes trust and can mislead readers, especially those new to the theory.

Your critique rightly calls out this issue, and framing it as "covert plagiarism" draws appropriate attention to the ethical implications. It’s not just about academic etiquette—it’s about preserving the integrity of the discourse and ensuring that ideas are evaluated within their proper context. Addressing this explicitly in your critique is a strong and necessary step.

David Rose On Intrastratal And Interstratal Realisation

David Rose replied to Beatriz Quiroz on SYSFLING on 31 Dec 2024, at 14:06:

Oh, then we’d have to allow meanings to be made on two lg strata, that may be coupled to realise register!  

Jing Hao opens that meta-window wide for us in Analysing Scientific Discourse. (Essential reading, folks.) 

All I’d add here is that

1. Thing doesn't realise a discourse semantic entity (interstratally). 
2. It realises the grammatical feature [nominal group] (axially). 
3. It’s the nominal word (complex) realising Thing (rankwise) that realises an entity (interstratally). 
4. Thing and entity are distinct meanings. 
5. But as Thing is the core function of a nominal group, the whole nominal group may also realise the entity (along with clause participation). 
6. (Note [entity] is a discourse semantic feature, whereas ‘class’ implies a rank scale.) 
7. And yes, Jing unpicks ideational metaphor brilliantly. 
8. So, while axial relations make meaning within strata and ranks, 
9. it seems function/class relations enable discourse semantic features to be both realised by and coupled with lexicogrammatical features

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL stratifies the content plane into meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar), but wording is interpreted in terms of its function of realising meaning. And register is a language subpotential that realises a contextual configuration of field tenor and mode, not the contextual systems of field tenor and mode. The latter is Martin's (1992) misunderstanding — see, e.g. here — but accepted without question by his students.

[2] To be clear, 'entity' is Hao's rebranding of the type of element known as a 'simple thing' in the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 182). It is congruently realised in lexicogrammar by a participant at clause rank, which is congruently realised by a nominal group, whose structure may include 'Thing' as a functional element.

[3] To be clear, axially, the system of the nominal group is realised by the entire structure, not just the function 'Thing'.

[4] To be clear, it is not the word realising Thing, but the entire nominal group (that realises a participant) that realises a simple thing (entity).

[5] To be clear 'Thing' is one function in nominal group structure in the lexicogrammar, whereas 'entity', as 'simple thing', is a type of participant in the semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

[6] To be clear, 'entity' is Halliday & Matthiessen's semantic element 'simple thing' rebranded by Hao as a feature of Martin's discourse semantics.

[7] This is a bare assertion, without supporting evidence.

[8] To be clear, axial relations don't "make meaning". The syntagmatic axis (Token) realises the paradigmatic axis (Value). This is another example of the Martin-derived confusion of semogenesis (making meaning) with realisation, though this time applied axially instead of stratally.

[9] To be clear, on the one hand, this conclusion cannot be validated by the preceding series of misunderstandings. On the other hand, the claim is that an intrastratal relation of realisation in lexicogrammar enables an interstratal relation between semantics and lexicogrammar, both of realisation and coupling. 

With regard to realisation, there is no "enabling" here; it is just the same relation at different locations in the architecture. With regard to "coupling", this is a matter of instantiation, the selection of features during logogenesis, which is a distinct from the realisation relations between axes and strata.

David Rose Misunderstanding 'Post-Deictic'

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 8 Sept 2024, at 14:23:

I think this is an important question... 'post-Deictic' is actually functionally defined in IFG p373

a second Deictic element in the nominal group, one which adds further to the identification of the subset in question

More specifically...

The post-Deictic identifies a subset of the class of ‘thing’ by referring to its fame or familiarity, its status in the text, or its similarity/dissimilarity to some other designated subset.

Examples follow, illustrating these identifying functions. But then...

Also found in the post-Deictic position in the nominal group are words expressing the speaker’s attitude

Examples follow that have no identifying function. They actually evaluate the Numerative+Thing...

the splendid three Pyramids

those miserable two miles of asphalt and concrete.

a lousy two weeks in New Jersey

an impressive 30 or 60 minutes of high-quality recordings.

a disappointing 9,000 copies.

With this in mind, here are the preceding examples of ‘non-attitudinal’ post-Deictics. Some are clearly identifying...

this same container

the whole four hours

the only right way

Others are evaluating, and less obviously identifying...

the necessary first step

the possible role

the customary grisly inhabitants of Tartarus

A typical elution curve

Epithets can also have an identifying function... 

if I say the long train, the specific Deictic the indicates that you can tell, and that the necessary information is contained in the experiential Epithet long. This particular train, in other words, is defined by its length [p376]

The functional difference between post-Deictics and Epithets seems fuzzy...

The words occurring as post-Deictic are adjectives, and may also occur in the function of Epithet but with a different sense. This different sense is not defined.

This seems like a potentially fruitful area for further research.

Blogger Comments:

At this point, Rose has finally given up disputing CLÉiRIGh's analysis of the aforementioned instances of 'mere' functioning as post-Deictics, and switched to questioning the theoretical status of 'post-Deictic'.

[1] To be clear, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 373) explicitly states: the function of the post-Deictic is to identify the subset of the class of Thing, and this is the case in all the examples they provide and which Rose quotes. Here Rose has misunderstood this use of the word 'identification' to mean Martin's discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION, which is itself a misunderstanding of grammatical reference (Halliday & Hasan 1976).

[2] This is misleading, because it is not true. The different sense of an adjective functioning as post-Deictic vs Epithet is explained as the different function of post-Deictic vs Epithet. The function of the post-Deictic was quoted by Rose from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 373):

The post-Deictic identifies a subset of the class of ‘thing’ by referring to its fame or familiarity, its status in the text, or its similarity/dissimilarity to some other designated subset.

The function of the Epithet, on the other hand, is clearly distinct from that of the post-Deictic. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 376):

The Epithet indicates some quality of the subset, e.g. old, long, blue, fast; since qualities are denoted by adjectives, Epithets are often realised by adjectives. … (i) The quality of the subset may be an objective property of the thing itself, construed as a depiction of the experience of the entity that it represents; or (ii) it may be an expression of the speaker’s subjective attitude towards it … . We refer to these as (i) experiential Epithets and (ii) interpersonal, or attitudinal, Epithets, respectively. … The principal difference is that experiential Epithets are potentially defining, whereas interpersonal ones are not.

[3] To be clear, adequate research has been done — just not by Rose.

Brad Smith On Markedness Not Explained In Theoretical Terms

Brad Smith wrote to asflanet on 3 September 2024 at 11:05:

Saying unmarked is the option one chooses except where there is 'some good reason', while helpful in learning how to analyse markedness, doesn't really explain the concept in theoretical terms. So far, until better educated, I am sticking with my discourse semantics motivation: imperative mood, phylogenetically and functionally, is the option to enact a command - to get that job done; and other options, co-selected with tone choices, are used to enact more complex moves such as polite command: '//1 ^ can I / start the order with your */ phone number please // ('give me your phone number' + deference)

and again at 14:17:

I guess my question with theoretical terms and concepts is, what am I asking this term/concept to do for me? We can never, sadly or not, get away from 'language turned back on itself' and all that implies... (including if we use multimodal semiotics as metadiscourse... mathematicians and scientists take note!)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is linguistic data produced by speakers and writers that are analysed, not markedness. Once data are theorised as a system network, relative markedness can be assigned by a linguist to alternative features in a system.

[2] To be clear, glossing 'unmarked' as the default or neutral choice explains the concept in everyday terms. On the other hand, Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam (2010: 236-7) explain the concept in terms of the theoretical dimensions of axis, instantiation and stratification:

The contrast in marking between ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ is manifested in different ways:

1. In terms of the hierarchy of axis, the ‘unmarked’ term in a system tends to have a less prominent realisation along the syntagmatic axis, the limiting case being absence of a syntagmatic marker [‘do nothing’], whereas the ‘marked’ term tends to have a more prominent realisation along the syntagmatic axis [‘do something’]. Typical examples are the systems of polarity (positive/negative [ ↘ not]), voice (active/passive [ ↘ be . . . v-en]) and number (singular/plural [ ↘ -s]). In addition, there is a tendency for the marked term to lead to systems of greater delicacy differentiating different kinds of marking.

2. In terms of the cline of instantiation, the contrast between ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ is skew: the unmarked term is selected much more frequently in text than the marked one, and this can be interpreted as a skew in probability between unmarked 0.9 and marked 0.1 (see, for example, Halliday, 1991c).

3. In terms of the hierarchy of stratification, the contrast in marking between ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ is subject to the good reason principle at the stratum above: the unmarked term is selected unless there is a good reason to select the marked one. Thus, while the selection of the marked term must be motivated, the selection of the unmarked one needn’t.

[3] To be clear, this is Halliday's theory, not Martin's discourse semantics.

[4] For some of the theoretical problems that invalidate the model of discourse semantics, see e.g.

• Review of English Text
• Review of Bateman's Review of English Text
• Review of Working With Discourse

[5] To be clear, like any theoretical concept, markedness is a means of understanding how language functions. For example, if a selection is marked, then there is a motivation for the selection to be sought. 

[6] To be clear, language is the most powerful semiotic system, so using language to model language is using the most powerful semiotic system to model language.

[7] To be clear, 'metadiscourse' is literally discourse about discourse. From an SFL perspective, what gets classified as metadiscourse is non-ideational meaning: aspects of interpersonal and textual meaning. It may be that Smith meant 'metalanguage', but this only applies to linguistic theory — language about language — not to (language about) mathematics and (language about) science.

David Rose On Halliday's Instantiation/Stratification Matrix

David Rose wrote to asflanet on 21 Mar 2024, 15:00:

This matrix from a talk MAKH gave to computer scientists in 95 may help to flesh out the SFL timeline a little.

It is based on ideas he first proposed in 1961. Subsequent research was overwhelmingly in the bottom row – on LG systems. Cells above that are proposals for research. He comments “Semantic representations of the instance — the instance as meaning — are still quite unsatisfactory, and there is much work to be done in this respect. Likewise for the instantial situation: we tend to work with informal word-pictures, like the stage directions in the printed edition of a play; but the basic concept of situation as instance has advanced very little in recent decades” (2005:255).

The upper and middle left-hand cells were the focus of Jim Martin and colleagues’ research through the 80s, culminating in English Text in 92. Metafunctional semantic systems were described as discourse semantics. Systems were also described for ‘potential clusterings of values of field, tenor, mode’, that were named genre systems. Appliability was one motivation for prioritising genre systems. Systems were proposed for field, tenor, mode, but it took another two decades for this research to be taken up in earnest, starting with Jing Hao on field, followed by a series of studies, culminating in Doran, Martin, Herrington 2023 (and Yaegan’s recent course at Usyd).

A crucial advance in this research is description of field, tenor, mode systems as semiotic systems that are instantiated, not by ‘informal word-pictures’, but by ‘selection expressions’, as the matrix specifies for LG and semantic systems.

Another major step forward is the reconstrual of what MAKH calls ‘values’ in the top row as ‘principles’ of instantiation, and ‘domains’ of individuation. This potentially integrates research using different SFL models into a commensurate whole.

It also helps resolve an anomaly in the upper right-hand cell, in which instances of socio-semiotic systems are named ‘particular social semiotic situation events’, whereas instances of LG and semantic systems are simply named ‘particular texts’. A social semiotic event is of course a (multimodal) text.

"The left-hand upper cell is taken up with contextual networks: it contains a theory of the possible semiotic situations that collectively constitute a culture – taxonomies of institutions and of doings and happenings, manifested as possible clusterings of values of field, tenor and mode.” Halliday 2005: 255

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961) did not include a cline of instantiation, nor Malinowski's notions of context, nor a semantic stratum:

[2] To be clear, it is important to recognise that Halliday himself never proposed system networks to represent the systems of context.

[3] This is misleading. Martin (1992) rebranded the lexicogrammatical systems of the textual metafunction in Halliday & Hasan (1976) as his discourse semantic systems and distributed them across the different metafunctions. To these systems he added Halliday's semantic system of speech function and rebranded it as his discourse semantic system of negotiation.

[4] To be clear, Martin (1992) mistook registers for the contextual systems (field, tenor, mode) that are realised by registers, thereby proposing that a functional variety of language was not language, but context. Martin (1992) then confused two meanings of 'genre', genre as mode and genre as text type, and located the confusion stratally above register in context. This had the effect of proposing that text types were realised by field, tenor, and mode, instead of the reverse, thereby upending the realisation relation.

[5] To be clear, Hao and Doran were Martin's students and use Martin's model that proposes that functional varieties of language are not language, but context.

[6] This is cleverly misleading. First, Halliday did not describe field, tenor and mode as instantiated by 'informal word pictures'. Halliday used 'informal word pictures' to describe instances of field, tenor and mode, because he didn't have formal systems of field, tenor and mode to model the potential. Second, in Martin's model, context is realised by an instance of language, text, whereas this advance by Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024) rejects Martin's model, so that context systems are now instantiated by context, not by language (text).

[7] This is misleading, because this major step forward is major step backward. Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024) have reinterpreted the features of field, tenor and mode systems as 'principles of instantiation' in order to make room for semantic systems which they misconstrue as contextual.  That is, having first misconstrued language (register) as context, Martin is now, with his colleagues, misconstruing context (field, tenor, mode) as language. See also

• Negotiating Tenor: Enacting Affiliation In Dialogue And Monologue (Yaegan Doran)
• A Close Examination Of Yaegan Doran's 2023 ASFLA Plenary Abstract

[8] For some of the inconsistencies that invalidate Martin's model of individuation, see

• David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstandings Of Individuation
• David Rose On Martin's Context-Bound/Free And Individuation As Allocation/Affiliation

[9] For some of the inconsistencies that invalidate Martin's integrated model, see

• David Rose On Jim Martin's Individuation
• David Rose Promoting Jim Martin's Misunderstandings Of Realisation, Instantiation And Individuation

[10] This is misleading, because there is no anomaly in the upper right-hand cell, though the false claim betrays a serious misunderstanding of the distinction between context and language. 'Particular social semiotic situation events' describes instances of context: the culture as semiotic potential. A text, on the other hand, is an instance of the content plane of language: semantics and lexicogrammar. A multimodal text includes instances of the content plane of semiotic systems other than language.

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.

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.