David Rose Differentiating Grammatical Structures By Field, Mode And Tenor

David Rose wrote to asflanet on 24 Mar 2024, 08:45:

I’d kinda hoped it was obvious, a linguistic double entendre

But OK, it’s a pleasant Sunday morning exercise that someone may find useful, evaluating field, mode, tenor

The full arguments are in...

Martin, J. R., & Doran, Y. J. (2023). Structure markers: A subjacency duplex analysis. Language, Context and Text, 5(1), 16-48. 

This nom gp is ambiguous, with two different experiential interpretations. I offered three analyses...

1. Whose king’s hat? – counterexpectant interpretation

F: a traditional multivariate Hallidayan analysis of nom gp functions, but with all realising syntagms accounted for, using subj dupl labels, and possessive suffixes explicitly labelled as non-recursive #b

M: clearly displays each structure:syntagm cycle at each rank

T: authority of a ‘standard analysis’ plus, and it’s counterexpectantly funnier

2. Whose king’s hat?

F: a re-analysis of nom gp classifying function, as recursive subclassification at word rank, rather than multivariate group functions (Classifier Thing)

M: displays complementarity of subjacent and hypotactic word rank structures

T: more radical, but interesting, potentially inspiring further research

3. Whose hat? – expectant interpretation

F: more accurate than a ‘gamma beta alpha’ analysis, because this isn’t a hypotactic series. The Deictic is realised by an embedded nom gp [England’s king], which itself has a Deictic Thing structure

M: explicit syntagm labelling reveals this structuring

T: not as funny

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, field, mode and tenor do not distinguish these three analyses, because each analysis is in the same text of the same situation.

• The field is what's going on in the situation: linguistic analysis
• The mode is the role of language in the situation: dialogue on an email discussion list
• The tenor is who's taking part in the situation: linguists

None of Rose's "evaluations" bears the slightest resemblance to the field, mode and tenor of the situation of this text. See The Practice Of Public Bluffing In The SFL Community at What Lies Beneath.

[2] This is misleading because Martin & Doran (2023) does not provide any "full arguments" with respect to Rose's analyses. This can be verified by reading the review of Martin & Doran (2023):

Structure Markers: A Subjacency Duplex Analysis

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 The "Slippage" Between The 1961 And 1992 Models Of Language And Context

David Rose wrote to asflanet on 20 Mar 2024, at 16:19:

The slippage is between 1961 and 92 models of lg and context 

61...

Lg described as semiotic systems instantiated as text (after Saussure, Firth)

Context modelled as culture instantiated as situation (after Malinowski)

Situation modelled as instantial categories of field, tenor, mode (not described as semiotic systems) 

92...

Context modelled as semiotic systems instantiated as text (after Hjelmslev)

Text instantiates systems at all strata (no ‘situation’ outside of semiosis)

Doran, Martin, Herrington describe field, tenor, mode systems as ‘resources’

Earlier classification model incorporated as ‘principles’ of instantiation

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Scale and Category Grammar differed from SFL Theory in that it had no system networks, no metafunctions, no cline of instantiation, and the level between grammar and situation was called context, not semantics. The architecture of language proposed by Scale and Category Grammar (Halliday 1961) was as follows:

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue. Scale and Category Grammar ("the 1961 model") did not include a cline of instantiation.

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. In Scale and Category Grammar ("the 1961 model"), 'context' referred to the equivalent of semantics in SFL Theory, and 'situation' referred to the equivalent of context in SFL Theory.

[4] This is misleading because it is untrue. In Scale and Category Grammar ("the 1961 model"), there were no metafunctions, and so, no metafunctional categories of situation.

[5] This is misleading because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system, and field, tenor and mode constitute the projection of the metafunctions, modes of meaning, onto the culture as semiotic system.

[6] To be clear, this is the model of Martin (1992) in which Halliday's culture as semiotic system is mistakenly stratified into two perspectives on language variation: genre and register. In SFL Theory, genre, in the sense of text type, and register are at the midway point of the cline of instantiation: text type is register viewed from the instance pole, and register is text type viewed from the system pole of the cline.

[7] On the one hand, this is misleading because it falsely implies that Martin (1992) was the first to model context as semiotic. On the other hand, this is a self-contradiction, because text is an instance of language, whereas context is distinguished from language in Martin's stratification hierarchy.

[8] This is misleading because it is untrue. Hjelmslev did not model context as semiotic systems instantiated as text. Like Halliday before him, Martin used Hjelmslev's notion of a connotative semiotic as a semiotic that has a denotative semiotic, such as language, as its expression plane. Martin, however, misunderstood Hjelmslev on two counts. First, he mistook the content plane of the connotative semiotic, context, for the entire connotative semiotic. Then he mistook varieties of a denotative semiotic, genres and registers, for connotative semiotics.

[9] This repeats the self-contradiction of language (text) as an instance of non-language (context).

[10] This is misleading because it falsely claims that situation, as an instance of culture, is not modelled as semiotic, in Halliday's model.

[11] To be clear, in their model of field, tenor and mode as resources, Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 1) confuse context with semantics: 

In this paper, we review recent work in SFL which focuses on modelling register as a resource — reconceiving field as a resource for construing phenomena, tenor as a resource for negotiating social relations, and mode as a resource for composing texture. 

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

[12] To be clear, the proposal of Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 12) is to remove Poynton's CONTACT and STATUS from tenor systems to make way for their misinterpretation of tenor as interpersonal semantics:

Accordingly, we will propose below that these dimensions [of contact and status] be interpreted as principles of instantiation, rather than as tenor options within the realisation hierarchy.

David Rose Explaining Why "All We Have Is Text Analysis"

David Rose replied to John Bateman on Sysfling on 25 Mar 2023 at 14:24:

Re ‘purport’, I think this depends on one’s model of semiosis – whether ‘context’ is modelled systemically, or is conceived as lying outside semiotic systems. The latter view comes out e.g. in Serge’s observation...

we have a family of communicative situations which are reflected in specific genres

The former view holds that a genre *is* ‘a family of communicative situations’, that there is no dichotomy between text and situation. Or more technically, a genre is a feature in a semiotic system that is motivated by a set of structures at that stratum, that configure selections in field, tenor and mode systems.

That’s where I’m coming from when I say that all we have is text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in Hjelmslev's glossematics, 'purport' is located on both the content and expression planes of a semiotic, where it contrasts, in each case, with 'form' and 'substance'.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. In Halliday's systemic-functional model of language, where situation types are realised by registers/text types (genres), context is not conceived as lying outside semiotic systems. In this model, the culture is modelled as a semiotic system, and situations are instances of that semiotic system.

[3] To be clear, this is a self-contradictory misrepresentation of Martin's self-contradictory model of context. For example, Martin (1992: 495) aligns genre with context of culture, not situation:

The tension between these two perspectives will be resolved in this chapter by including in the interp[r]etation 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.

Moreover, in Martin's model, all strata, even context, are instantiated as text, despite the fact that texts are instances of language, and the fact that Martin distinguishes his context from language, despite each context stratum being a variety of language. So even in this confused model, there is a dichotomy between text and situation, since text is an instance of any stratum, and situation is the stratum of register (or as Rose would have it: genre).

[4] There are several problems here. First, because a genre is functional variety, it is not a system, but one subpotential of a system. Full systems, like those of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology are not functional varieties. 

Second, the notion that systems are motivated by structures, that is: from below, is contrary to the theoretical approach of SFL, where structures are "motivated" from above. For example, clause structure is interpreted from above: in terms of the meanings (Actor, Process etc.) that its constituents (nominal group, verbal group etc.) realise.

Third, the structures that are said to motivate genre systems (e.g. Orientation^Record) are not of that stratum, but of the semantic stratum, which is two strata below the genre stratum in Martin's model, since they describe the sequencing of meanings that are instantiated in text.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, configurations of field, tenor and mode characterise situation types that are realised by registers of language. Rose, however, here presents Martin's model, which confuses registers with the contexts they realise, and misunderstands semantic structures as structures of genre, with genre misunderstood as context instead of text type.

On this confused model, then, semantic structures are realised by contextual features, instead of the other way round, directly contradicting the meaning of 'realisation'.

[6] Indeed.

Mick O'Donnell On The Difference Between 'Should Not Fail To See' And 'Should See'

After Wendy Bowcher asked on Sysfling on 6 May 2021 at 19:15:

I am wondering why (semantically/contextually) the advertisers might chose to use the 'not fail to' form. Why not just use sentence (2) in the headline?

(1) EVERY MOTHER WHO VISITS THE SHOW SHOULD NOT FAIL TO SEE GLAXO EXHIBIT

(2) EVERY MOTHER WHO VISITS THE SHOW SHOULD SEE GLAXO EXHIBIT

Mick O'Donnell replied on Sysfling on 6 May 2021 at 20:32:

I think the real difference between the alternative wordings can be brought out by an alternative transitivity analysis:

In the first, the mother construes herself either as a failer or succeeder, depending which polarity she chooses to produce by her action.

In the second, she is a perceiver or a non-perceiver (or more in line with a material interpretation, a visitor or non-visitor):

Our society invests a lot more personal judgement in failure/success than it does in perceiving/ignoring (as Bradley commented, bring in the Appraisal angle).

Adding in "should", Australians are more likely to accept an admonition to succeed than an admonition to visit something. Admonitions are more acceptable when the recommended action is to the benefit of the addressee (e.g., imperatives are fine in a recipe but less so from student to teacher), and telling someone to success could be seen as working for their benefit).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the difference between the two wordings is that, in the first wording, should not fail to see, the Process is realised by a verbal group complex, and so by two Events, whereas in the second wording, should see, the Process is realised by a verbal group, and so by just one Event.

The verbal groups in the complex are related hypotactically, and the semantic relation between them is conation: trying and succeeding (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 572)

[2] To be clear, these are not alternative analyses of the original wordings; see [1]. Moreover, they are not consistent with SFL Theory, since the first misinterprets the secondary verbal group as part of the Goal, and the second misinterprets the mental clause as material (as if it were Mother visited something):

[3] To be clear, it is not the mother, but the speaker/writer, who construes experience as Mother, and construes her as an Actor of a material Process which was unsuccessful.

[4] To be clear, the mental interpretation of the clause, which forms one thread of O'Donnell's argument, is inconsistent with his analysis of the clause as material.

[5] To be clear, this is meant to explain why the advertisers chose the first wording over the second, but instead of making use of SFL Theory, it just makes generalisations about reader reactions.

Using SFL Theory, the use of should in both wordings can be explained by reference to context and semantics. In terms of context, the rhetorical mode of the text is one of exhortation, since its function is to urge readers to take a particular course of action. For Matthiessen (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 34), this (textual) mode is oriented to (interpersonal) tenor, rather than (ideational) field. The unmarked interpersonal semantic realisation of exhortation mode is the speech function 'command', and in both wordings, the command is realised metaphorically by a modulated declarative. This interpersonal metaphor is itself motivated by the tenor relations between advertiser and reader, including their relative status and contact.

Moreover, the rhetorical mode of exhortation also provides an explanation for why the first wording was used by the advertisers, since should not fail ramps up the exhortation to coercion: every mother who visits the show should not fail…, which might be taken to imply that readers would be failing their children as mothers if they were not to see (the) Glaxo exhibit.

Also relevant here is the double negative (grammatical not and lexical fail) of the primary verbal group, which might be taken as an emphasis of positive polarity.

See also (The) Glaxo Exhibit: Theme, Transitivity & Mood.

David Rose Crediting Jim Martin With Michæl Halliday's Ideas

David Rose replied to Ed McDonald on SYSFLING on 27 Aug 2020 at 10:01:

It’s also 6 decades since MAKH proposed ’solidary’ relations between metafunctions and field/tenor/mode as contextual dimensions (following Firth and Malinowski), and 3 decades since JRM proposed field/tenor/mode systems as connotative semiotics realised metafunctionally by language and other modalities (following Hjelmslev). The last decade has seen rapid progress in describing these ‘register’ systems and modalities, by rising stars like Jing Hao, Yaegan Doran, Erika Matruglio, Michelle Zappavigna ...

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue on several counts. Firstly, Halliday did not project the metafunctions onto context 6 decades ago, because metafunctions did not feature in Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961).

Secondly, Halliday did not project the metafunctions onto context 6 decades ago, because context, in the SFL sense, did not feature in Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961). Scale & Category Grammar was organised as follows:

Thirdly, Halliday did not follow Firth in projecting the metafunctions onto context 6 decades ago, because, although Halliday's Scale & Category did "follow" Firth in many respects, Firth died long before Halliday had theorised the metafunctions or context as the culture as semiotic system.

Fourthly, Halliday did not follow Malinowski in projecting the metafunctions onto context 6 decades ago, because Malinowski died long before Halliday had theorised the metafunctions. What is true is that Halliday later took Malinowski's notions of context of culture and context of situation and built them into his model of stratification, using Hjelmslev's notion of a connotative semiotic.

[2] This is very misleading indeed, because it falsely credits Martin with Halliday's work. Firstly, it was Halliday, not Martin (1992), who first proposed that the culture as semiotic system could be modelled, using Hjelmslev's ideas, as the content plane of a connotative semiotic, with language, a denotative semiotic, as its expression plane.

To be clear, for Hjelmslev, a connotative semiotic is a semiotic system that has a denotative semiotic system as its expression plane. Martin (1992), while claiming to be following Hjelmslev (p493), reduces the connotative semiotic to only its content plane, context, and models it as varieties of a denotative semiotic, register and genre, which on Hjelmslev's model, are located on the expression plane of the connotative semiotic.

[3] To be clear, since Martin misunderstands context systems (field, tenor, mode) as register (sub-potentials of language that realise context), any descriptions by these former students of Martin cannot be regarded as progress in the development of a coherent theory, however rapid.

∞

Postscript: Martin has not publicly corrected any of the false attributions credited to him by Rose.

Jim Martin On Lexical Density And "Reference"

Jim Martin wrote to sysfling on 12 March 2018 at 16:04:

The proportion of generic to specific reference as far as participant tracking is concerned is relevant, since with generic reference identity chains re-initiate more often, pushing up lexical density; I’m not sure, never having counted, but where the generic reference involves technical terms, this may push up the repetition and lexical density even further. 

Also, I don’t think the stylistic prescriptive taboo in English against repetition of lexical items holds for specialised or technical terms. 

In terms of mode, it is more sensitive to measure lexical density per ranking clause, rather than depend on context/function work ratios.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the distinction between generic and specific reference is not a distinction in the cohesive system of reference. It is Martin's (1992: 103-10) invention only, and forms a system within his IDENTIFICATION network. Martin's system of identification is his rebranding of Halliday's system of cohesive reference, which he misunderstands and relocates from (non-structural) lexicogrammar to (structural) discourse semantics. Martin's misunderstandings in this regard are identified in explanatory detail here.

In short, Martin confuses the textual system of referring with the experiential meanings of the referred to, the referents, as shown by the (unstructured) unit of this system, the participant.  This confusion also shows up in the distinction between generic and specific reference, where what is presented as a distinction of reference is actually a distinction in the referents.  Martin (1992: 103):

Generic reference is selected when the whole of some experiential class of participants is at stake rather than a specific manifestation of that class.

[2] Martin's 'participant tracking' derives from the notion of participant identification — introduced by the Hartford stratificationalists (Martin 1992: 95).  It is Martin's attempt to integrate their ideas with Halliday's notion of cohesive reference that leads to the confusion of the reference with the referent in Martin's model.  Martin's IDENTIFICATION is concerned with chains of instantial participants, and this naturally leads to confusion between reference chains of participants and lexical strings (documented here), the latter derived from Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's lexical cohesion (as demonstrated here).

[3] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by argument or data.  The claim is that chains of a class of participant (e.g. 'human') restart in a text more often than chains of a specific manifestation of a class (e.g. 'Donald Trump').  Readers are invited to test this claim for themselves.

[4] This is another bare assertion, unsupported by argument or data.  The claim is that the more often reference chains restart, the higher the lexical density.  It can be seen that the former does not necessarily entail the latter, since the number of lexical items per clause can be entirely independent of how often a chain of participants restarts.

More to the point, the critical factor in increasing lexical density is ideational metaphor.  Halliday (2008: 163):

This [ideational metaphor] is a designed, or at least semi-designed, extension of the “experiential” way of looking at phenomena. It suits the “crystalline”, written mode of being; and in particular, as already said, it suits the elaborated discourses of organised knowledge, because it is good to think with — it enables you to build well-ordered conceptual structures and to spin tangled skeins of reasoning. High lexical density is the price to be paid.

[5] This is speculation based on a non-sequitur.  See [4].

[6] This is another bare assertion, unsupported by argument or data.

[7] To be clear, Martin misconstrues mode as a dimension of register, rather than a dimension of context that is realised in texts, registers and language as a whole (the cline of instantiation).

[8] This is a false dichotomy.  Lexical density is a measure of the number of lexical items per ranking clause, and nothing else.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 727):

To measure lexical density, simply divide the number of lexical items by the number of ranking clauses.

John Bateman On The Interpersonal Metafunction In Mathematics

John Bateman wrote to sysfling on 24 February 2017 at 10:10 in reply to the query 'To what degree is TENOR important in mathematical discourse?':

one of the well known kinds of proofs for more advanced mathematics is 'proof by intimidation': sounds pretty interpersonal to me! :-) 

And as soon as you move down to educational contexts, you'll want to be hitting your tenor variables right. Since all metafunctions in less-grammaticised semiotic modes are in any case discourse interpretations, I'm sure you'll be able to find something... 

I'd be with Yaegan though in doubting that the technical resources employed in mathematics have any inherent interpersonal organisation, although certain variations,

'x(1-y)' compared to 'x times (1 - y)'

may move in that direction. But is that what you meant?

Blogger Comments:

[1] The use of the word 'down' here — from genre to tenor — indicates that Bateman is using Martin's (1992) model* in which genre and register are misconstrued as context strata instead of functional varieties of language (a point on the cline of instantiation).  For some of the many theoretical misunderstandings on which Martin's model is based, see the arguments here.

[2] The use of the word 'discourse' here — instead of 'semantics' or 'meaning' — indicates that Bateman is using Martin's (1992) model* of discourse semantics.  For some of the many theoretical misunderstandings on which Martin's model is based, see the arguments here.

[3] The typical mathematical equation is a proposition realised by a declarative clause, and structured as Subject^Finite/Predicator^Complement, whether realised in the graphology peculiar to the field of mathematics or in the unspecialised graphology (or phonology) of an individual language.  A sample structural analysis can be viewed here.  Proposals realised by imperative clauses are also used, and take the form exemplified by let x =3.

[4] The variation here is textual (mode), not interpersonal (tenor).

∞

* Postscript: A critical examination of Bateman's review of Martin (1992) will be the subject of a new blog: Thoughts That Didn't Occur.  At first glance, it appears that Bateman has failed to notice any of the 2000+ theoretical inconsistencies in Martin's work (identified here).

David Rose Confusing The Cultural Context Of Language With Language Variation

David Rose wrote to sys-func and sysfling list on 9 February 2017 at 17:39:

A genre is a recurrent configuration of register variation (field, tenor, mode)

Any instance of a genre will involve recognisable recurrent register configurations

That doesn't mean they recur with exactly the same elements, in exactly the same order

They can vary in field, in tenor, and in mode

John's examples of ‘routines’ are recurrent activity series, which are variations in field. … 

But the configuration is still recognisable to themselves and others as a genre
If it is not recognisable as an instance of one genre, then it must be another genre. 

This model of genre is developed from the work of Hasan, Gregory, Barthes and Bakhtin, that Annabelle’s quote touches on. The major innovation is that context is modelled as a semiotic plane, stratified as genre and register, and realised in language. In this model, what Hasan calls a ‘cultural practice’ is intrinsically a ‘semiotic act’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The confusions here are multidimensional and build on each other.  In short:

What Rose Says	What SFL Theory Says
A genre is a recurrent configuration of register variation (field, tenor, mode)	A genre is a type of text.  Genre is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.
	The field tenor and mode of a situation type (context) is realised by a register/genre (language)
Any instance of a genre will involve recognisable recurrent register configurations	An instance of a genre/register is a text.  A text realises the field, tenor and mode features of a situation (an instance of context).
That doesn't mean they recur with exactly the same elements, in exactly the same order They can vary in field, in tenor, and in mode	Variation in contextual configurations of field tenor and mode (situation types) is realised by variation in language (registers/genres)

[2] Martin's (1992) use of the term 'activity sequences' confuses what goes on in a text with what goes on in the environment of a text.  Evidence is provided here.

[3] Note that for Martin's model of genre as a system of context, rather than as a text type, an instance of a genre is an instance of context, not an instance of language.  That is, on this model, an instance of genre is not a text.

[4] This is very misleading, since it falsely claims that the modelling of context as semiotic is an innovation of Martin's model.  In SFL, context is the culture modelled as a semiotic system. As demonstrated on this blog and elsewhere, Martin's model confuses context with diatypic varieties of language (registers/genres).

David Rose Promoting Jim Martin's Misconstrual Of Context As Register (inter alia)

After Shooshi Dreyfus posted the following analysis to sysfling and sys-func on 19 February 2016 at 11:12 in which she asked about the final prepositional phrase:

Metals	are	an often-overlooked alternative to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels
Carrier	Process: attributive	Attribute

and Jing Fang offered the following analysis on sys-func at 11:55:

an	often-overlooked	alternative	to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels
Deictic	Qualifier1	Thing	Qualifier2

David Rose posted the following to both lists at 21:32:

This is a great example of complementarity of grammar and discourse semantics in construing register. 

In field, ‘metal' and 'liquid and gaseous solar fuels' are construed as members of a more general class (of what I have no idea). This classification is construed in discourse semantics by relating these lexical items as co-hyponyms. This relation is construed in the grammar 1) at clause rank by configuring ‘metal' as Carrier and the relation itself as a classifying Attribute ‘an alternative’ 2) at group rank by embedding 'liquid and gaseous solar fuels’ as a Qualifier of ‘an alternative’.

In tenor, the usage of metal is explicitly negatively appreciated as ‘often-overlooked’, and this appraisal is configured in grammar as an Epithet of ‘an alternative’. This is why the relation is configured as Thing, so it can be evaluated non-negotiably with an Epithet. Secondly, 'liquid and gaseous solar fuels’ are positively appreciated as ‘energy-dense’, again configured as Epithet (perhaps explaining why they are preferred to metal). 

In mode, the textual function of all this metaphorical re-construal is to present ‘metal’ as the topic and ‘often-overlooked alternative’ as the point the writer is making.
We could also interpret the field implications of the lexical item ‘often-overlooked’, and of configuring 'liquid and gaseous solar fuels’ as a Location.

To which Bradley Smith responded on both lists at 22:10:

… nice analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] By 'register' here, Rose means the SFL stratum of context (field, tenor and mode).  That is, he follows Martin in confusing the culture as a semiotic system (context) with a functional variety of language (register).  Martin's misunderstandings of register are explained here and his misunderstandings of context are explained here.  The misunderstanding is largely a confusion of stratification (context is more symbolically abstract that language) with instantiation (register is a subpotential of language).

[2] Here Rose confuses the ideational dimension of the context of situation (field) — which he misconstrues as register — with the ideational content of the text that realises the context of situation.

[3] Here Rose demonstrates that he doesn't understand the text, and that his analytical method provides him with no assistance.  In the lexicogrammar, on an attributive reading of the clause metals are construed as members of the class an often-overlooked alternative to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels. 

For the reason pointed out by Tom Bartlett, the clause can also be read as identifying. On an identifying reading, metals are identified as (an example of) an often-overlooked alternative to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels.

[4] In SFL theory, hyponymic relations are modelled as lexical cohesion, which along with grammatical cohesion, is a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction.  As the words 'lexical' and 'grammatical' imply, cohesion is a system located on the lexicogrammatical stratum.  The model Rose is promoting here is Martin's experiential discourse semantic system, (inconsistently) named ideation.  As demonstrated here, this model of experiential semantics is mainly a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual metafunction), lexis as most delicate grammar, and logical relations between elements of clause structure, mostly misapplied.

[5] At clause rank in the grammar, the relation is realised, appropriately enough, by the relational process.  On the attributive reading, a relation of intensive attribution obtains between the Carrier metals and the Attribute an often-overlooked alternative to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels.  On the identifying reading, a relation of intensive identity obtains between the Identified Token metals and the Identifier Value an often-overlooked alternative to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels.  On both readings, the logical relation between the participants, as realised by the Process, is one of elaboration.

[6] At group rank in the grammar, the Thing alternative is qualified by to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels.  Semantically, alternative is itself a quality of extension (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 211), as Jing Fang (more or less) pointed out.

[7] Here Rose confuses the interpersonal dimension of the context of situation (tenor) — which he misconstrues as register — with the interpersonal content of the text that realises the context of situation.

[8] Here Rose mistakes a Classifier for an Epithet.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 320):

Classifiers do not accept degrees of comparison or intensity … and they tend to be organised in mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets …

[9] Here Rose confuses the textual dimension of the context of situation (mode) — which he misconstrues as register — with the textual content of the text that realises the context of situation.

[10] Here Rose relocates Martin's discourse semantic system of 'point' into the context of situation (mode) — which he misconstrues as register.  In SFL theory, the issue here is one of information distribution.  The lexical density of the Complement suggests that the clause is likely to be co-extensive with (at least) two information units, with the first focus of New information on alternative and another on solar fuels.

[11] Here Rose misconstrues the Qualifier to energy-dense liquid and gaseous solar fuels as a Location, presumably on the basis of the minor Process to.  On the other hand, the field implications of the "lexical item" ‘often-overlooked’ may forever remain a mystery, at least to this reader of the single-clause text.

∞

For the benefit of those who don't understand what goes on in the Sydney SFL community — which appears to be most of the people in it — normally Rose uses any grammar question on the email lists as an excuse to promote Martin's discourse semantics.  However, here he is using a grammar question as an excuse to promote Martin's "register".

The reason for Rose's switch to promoting Martin's "register", on this occasion, is in order to help endorse Martin's claim, made two days before, at the symposium to honour the late Ruqaiya Hasan, that the model she used is flawed and that, therefore, everyone should be using his model instead. A recording of the session in which Martin misrepresented the deceased can be heard here.