Christian Matthiessen On Jim Martin's Context As Connotative Semiotic

Christian Matthiessen wrote to Sysfling on 18 Jun 2019 at 01:32:

…In a way, the textual metafunction is the most fragile of the metafunctions — the one most likely to be influenced by the observer, so it is absolutely essential to base observations and analyses on naturally occurring examples in context — in their textual environment [co-text] and in their context in the sense of connotative semiotic (Martin, 1992). …

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin's (1992) 'connotative semiotic' — which mistakes the content plane of a connotative semiotic for a connotative semiotic — is his stratification of context as genre and register.  As demonstrated in great detail here (context), here (genre) and here (register), Martin's model is not only inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory, but also inconsistent with the meanings of the terms 'context', 'genre' and 'register'.

For example, Martin models varieties of language, register and genre (text type), not as sub-potentials or instance types of language, but as semiotic systems other than language: the context that is realised by language.  Nevertheless, inconsistent with this, Martin claims that instances of context are text, that is: language rather than context.  But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  For more details, see the clarifying critiques here.

For Ruqaiya Hasan's critique of Martin's model of context, see The Conception Of Context In Text in

Fries, Peter H. and Gregory, Michael (1995) DISCOURSE IN SOCIETY: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVES: Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday Norwood: Ablex (pp183-283).

The place of register and text type (genre) in the architecture of SFL theory is identified by Halliday's instantiation/stratification matrix:

An elaboration of this matrix can be found in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384):

Christian Matthiessen On 'In Particular'

After Annabelle Lukin wrote to sys-func and sysfling on 16 Nov 2018 at 09:06:

Can anyone help me out? …

8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

… What kind of Adjunct is "in particular"??

Christian Matthiessen responded on sysfling on 17 Nov 2018 (received at 19:33):

It’s not an Adjunct; it modifies “when”; cf.:

8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~ 

in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes,
8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

But if placed as if it were an Adjunct, it has a different sense, e.g.:

8(1) The Court shall, in particular, have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~

Or of course:

in particular, 8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~

So it modifies when, just as other adverbs such as particularly, exactly, just can do. This possibility is mentioned in IFG 4 p. 423, Section 6.2.3, but it’s very brief.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the question here is one of constituency.  Is in particular a constituent of a clause, as Lukin assumes, or a constituent of a conjunction group, in particular when, as Matthiessen argues?

The instance in question involves two clauses:

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes 
2. in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

(Cf. the exemplifying agnate: The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes for example when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes)

If in particular modifies when, then it cannot be moved around the clause, whereas if in particular is a constituent of the clause, it can be moved.  As the following agnates demonstrate, in particular can be moved around the clause, and so is a constituent of the clause, not a constituent of the conjunction group:

• when, in particular, committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes
• when committed, in particular, as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes
• when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular

The flaw in Matthiessen's argument is that, although he locates in particular in the second clause (modifying when), his argument against it being a clause constituent assumes that it is part of the first clause.