On The Need To Incorporate Martin's Discourse Semantics Into Semanticised Clause Systems

Fawcett (2010: 56):

As will perhaps be obvious, the position taken here is that the semanticisation of the system networks for TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on that constitute the meaning potential should incorporate many of the types of meaning covered in Martin's 'discourse semantics', so enabling the overall model of language to remain as it is in Figure 4 of Chapter 3, rather than becoming increasingly complex.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for the semantics of TRANSITIVITY, see Chapter 4 'Figures' in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 128-76), and the semantic system realised by MOOD is SPEECH FUNCTION.   This distinction between semantics and lexicogrammar provides the means of modelling grammatical metaphor systematically.  For the semantics of the textual metafunction, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-414).

[2] Here Fawcett again misconstrues 'meaning potential' (language as system) as the stratum of meaning (semantics) — a misunderstanding that supports his position.

[3] As demonstrated in great detail here, Martin's discourse semantics is based on misunderstandings of SFL theory at all scales and is wholly inconsistent with it.  Incorporating it into the semantic counterparts of grammatical systems would therefore severely compromise the theory overall.

[4] As previously demonstrated here (and in subsequent posts), Fawcett's Figure 4 ('The main components of a systemic functional grammar') is invalidated by internal inconsistencies arising from misunderstandings of the theoretical dimensions of realisation, instantiation, delicacy and axis.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) And Halliday & Hasan (1976) In A Footnote

Fawcett (2010: 56n):

The reason why the coverage in Cohesion in English was limited was not, of course, that the authors were unaware that other factors also contribute to the 'cohesion' of a text, but because they explicitly confined their goals in that work to covering those aspects of 'cohesion' that are not realised in structures — and Halliday takes the position that TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on are all meanings that are indeed realised in structures. (But see my discussion of the reasons for disagreeing with this view in Chapter 7.) Yet the fact is that TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc. can also contribute to the 'cohesion' of a text, as Martin (1992) clearly demonstrates. Perhaps one of the reasons for the popularity of Cohesion in English is the fact that its ideas can be applied to the analysis of texts without having a full understanding of the SFL approach to understanding language. The re[s]ult is that most studies of cohesion do only part of the job. This has in turn had an unfortunate effect on work in some areas where SFL can usefully be applied, such as psychiatric linguists, where the two major areas of study are cohesion and syntax (the latter being of the 'phrase-structure' type).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading and misrepresents Halliday & Hasan (1976: 7), who explicitly define their term 'cohesion' as only referring to non-structural text-forming resources:

In other words, a text typically extends beyond the range of structural relations, as these are normally conceived of.  But texts cohere; so cohesion within a text — texture — depends on something other than structure.  There are certain specifically text-forming relations which cannot be accounted for in terms of constituent structure; they are properties of the text as such, and not of any structural unit such as a clause or sentence.  Our use of the term COHESION refers specifically to these non-structural text-forming relations.

[2] See the critique of Chapter 7 for the misunderstandings on which  Fawcett's views are based.

[3] On the one hand, this is misleading because it gives the false impression that Fawcett uncovered something unacknowledged in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 6-7):

Structure is, of course, a unifying relation.  The parts of a sentence or a clause obviously 'cohere' with each other by virtue of the structure.  Hence they also display texture; the elements of any structure have, by definition, an internal unity which ensures that they all express part of a text. … In general, any unit which is structured hangs together so as to form text.  All grammatical units — sentences, clauses, groups, words — are internally 'cohesive' simply because they are structured.

On the other hand, it confuses the general notion of 'cohesive' with the technical term 'cohesion' that refers only to non-structural text-forming relations; see [1] above.

To be clear, Halliday (1994: 334) identifies the structural and non-structural resources of the textual metafunction — theme, information and cohesion — as the creators of texture:

 

[4] This is misleading because it misrepresents Martin (1992), in as much as Martin has nothing at all to say about these grammatical systems contributing to the cohesion of a text, as demonstrated here.

[5] These are bare assertions, unsupported by evidence, and based on misunderstandings of cohesion, including those outlined above.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992)

Fawcett (2010: 56):

However, the major effort to provide system networks that could function as the 'higher semantics' in the framework of the Sydney Grammar has been Martin's development of what he calls a "discourse semantics", as described in his valuable English Text (Martin 1992). Martin's theory of language constitutes a separate 'sub-dialect' of the Sydney Grammar that is significantly different from that of Hasan and indeed Halliday — but he too, like Hasan and Cloran, works on the assumption that his 'discourse semantic' system networks will be 'realised' by a grammar such as that of Halliday (1994) and Matthiessen (1995). However, even Martin's 620-page work does not provide a full coverage of the proposed higher level of system networks. This is understandable, both because of the size of the task and because the focus of English Text is not on the grammar as a whole, but on providing a much more complete coverage of the topic of 'cohesion' than the limited coverage in Halliday & Hasan's Cohesion in English (1976).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated here in meticulous detail, Martin (1992) is based on fatal misunderstandings of SFL theory across all scales.

[2] To be clear, the commonly used geographical description of Martin's misunderstandings of SFL theory is 'The Sydney School'.

[3] This is true.  Martin (1992) is not only 'significantly different' from Halliday's theory, but also, more importantly, wholly inconsistent with it, as demonstrated here.

[4] This is misleading.  Martin's networks provide no realisation statements that specify how discourse semantic features are realised in lexicogrammatical systems (evidence here).  Moreover, Martin (1992) misunderstands strata as modules (evidence here), and demonstrates that he does not understand the theoretical term 'realisation' (evidence here).

[5] This is an empty claim in the absence of a means of determining what would constitute "full coverage".

[6] This misunderstands both SFL theory and Martin (1992).  In SFL theory, cohesion is a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar.  As demonstrated here, Martin (1992) misunderstands these systems, rebrands them, distributes them across different metafunctions, and relocates them to the level of (discourse) semantics.

[7] This is misleading in as much as it falsely implies that Martin (1992) complements the description of Halliday & Hasan (1976) in a theoretically consistent way.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1984)

Fawcett (2010: 55-6):

In just one area of meaning Halliday provided a small "semantic" network which 'preselected' options in what has always been the rather 'form-centred' MOOD network (Halliday 1984:13). This little network for the semantics of MOOD only had eight pathways through it, but Hasan & Cloran (1990) and Hasan (1992) have developed very much fuller system networks which can be regarded as expansions of it for use in describing children's language, all within the Sydney Grammar framework.*

* See Fawcett (1999:247-9, 258-9) for a discussion of some of the differences between Halliday's 'grammatical' network for MOOD and my much richer MOOD network, which is explicitly at the level of semantics. See Fawcett (forthcoming a) for the full version of the computer-implemented network for MOOD (which replaces that in Fawcett 1980:103).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on at least four counts.  Firstly, the semantic network in Halliday (1984) is that of SPEECH FUNCTION (Figure 2):


Secondly, the semantic network is clearly distinguished from the grammatical system of MOOD (Figure 3):


Thirdly, the term 'preselected' does not appear in Halliday (1984).  Its use here serves to blur the distinction between the two networks.

Fourthly, the use of the term 'semantics of mood' and the avoidance of the term 'speech function' also serves to blur the distinction between the two networks.

The reason for these attempted deceptions is that the validity of Fawcett's model — the Cardiff Grammar — depends on the MOOD network being semantic, not grammatical.

[2] To be clear, what Fawcett refers to geographically as 'the Sydney Grammar framework' is Halliday's version of his own theory.

[3] A MOOD network at the level of semantics mistakes wording for meaning and, more importantly, is unable to account for grammatical metaphor, as when a command (speech function, semantics) is incongruently realised as an interrogative clause (mood, lexicogrammar).

[4] To be clear, Fawcett (forthcoming a) is Functional Semantics Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Meaning. London: Continuum, and it is still "forthcoming" 18 years after the first edition of this publicaton.