Clause Types

The Culture Of The SFL Community Is Our Best Capital

Self-Assessment

"If there are any idiots in the room, will they please stand up" said the sarcastic teacher.

After a long silence, one freshman rose to his feet.

"Now then mister, why do you consider yourself an idiot?" enquired the teacher with a sneer.

"Well, actually I don't," said the student, "but I hate to see you standing up there all by yourself.

The Study Of Discourse (‘Text Linguistics’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 731):

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

The Word: Lexical Item vs Grammatical Rank

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568-9):

The folk notion of the “word” is really a conflation of two different abstractions, one lexical and one grammatical.

(i) Vocabulary (lexis): the word as lexical item, or "lexeme". This is construed as an isolate, a 'thing' that can be counted and sorted in (alphabetical) order. People "look for" words, they "put thoughts into" them, "put them into" or "take them out of another's", and nowadays they keep collections of words on their shelves or in their computers in the form of dictionaries. Specialist knowledge is thought of as a matter of terminology. The taxonomic organisation of vocabulary is less exposed: it is made explicit in Roget's Thesaurus, but is only implicit in a standard dictionary. Lexical taxonomy was the first area of language to be systematically studied by anthropologists, when they began to explore cultural knowledge as it is embodied in folk taxonomies of plants, animals, diseases and the like. 

(ii) Grammar: the word as one of the ranks in the grammatical system. This is, not surprisingly, where Western linguistic theory as we know it today began in classical times, with the study of words varying in form according to their case, number, aspect, person etc.. Word-based systems such as these do provide a way in to studying grammatical semantics: but the meanings they construe are always more complex than the categories that appear as formal variants, and grammarians have had to become aware of covert patterns.

Knowledge

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 3):

We contend that the conception of ‘knowledge’ as something that exists independently of language, and may then be coded or made manifest in language, is illusory. All knowledge is constituted in semiotic systems, with language as the most central; and all such representations of knowledge are constructed from language in the first place.

Multiplying Meaning

The Transitivity Of Bamboozlement

John Bateman wrote to sysfling on 2 November 2017 at 19:10:

One of the main points of these papers (derived from our 12 year collaborative research center on space ...) is to open up the 'space' (ha ha) between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions so that the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation is both made visible and constrained sufficiently so that it can be worked with productively.

This is a hypotactically elaborating clause complex, with the dependent clause enclosed within the main clause:

One of the main points of these papers	<< derived from our 12 year collaborative research center on space >>	is to open up the 'space' between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions so that the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation is both made visible and constrained sufficiently so that it can be worked with productively
	= β
α

Ranking α Clause

The ranking α clause has a lexical density of about 23, depending how it it measured.  It metaphorically construes an identity of purpose, wherein the Value (one of the main points of these papers) is encoded by reference to the Token (to open up the 'space' between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions so that the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation is both made visible and constrained sufficiently so that it can be worked with productively):

One of the main points of these papers	is	to open up the 'space' between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions so that the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation is both made visible and constrained sufficiently so that it can be worked with productively
Identified Value	Process	Identifier Token

The clause is marked for both voice (receptive) and direction of coding (encoding).

Identifier Token

The Identifier Token in this relation is realised as an embedded clause complex in which the main clause is hypotactically enhanced, first in terms of result — and this includes a nested paratactic extending nexus — and then in terms of purpose:

to open up the 'space' between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions	so that the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation is both made visible	and constrained sufficiently	so that it can be worked with productively
α	x β cause: result		x γ cause: purpose
	1	+ 2

Embedded α Clause

The α clause in the embedded complex serving as Identifier Token is a non-finite abstract material clause:

to open up	the 'space' between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions
Process	Goal

The Goal of this clause is realised by a nominal group in which the Thing is both metaphorical (circumstantial) and abstract:

the	'space'	between a grammatically-induced semantics and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions
Deictic	Thing	Qualifier

The Qualifier of this nominal group is realised by a prepositional phrase whose Range is realised by a paratactically extending nominal group complex:

between	a grammatically-induced semantics	and any contextualised use of involved grammatical constructions
Process	Range
	1	+ 2

The first nominal group construes a semantic theory as Thing and sub-classifies it as grammatically-induced:

a	grammatically-induced	semantics
Deictic	Classifier	Thing

The second nominal group metaphorically construes a process ('use') as Thing, which it sub-classifies as contextualised, and metaphorically construes the congruent medium of the process involved grammatical constructions as Qualifier:

any	contextualised	use	of involved grammatical constructions
Deictic	Classifier	Thing	Qualifier

The Qualifier of this nominal group is realised by a prepositional phrase:

of	involved grammatical constructions
Process	Range

The Range of this prepositional phrase is realised by a nominal group that sub-classifies constructions as grammatical, and identifies them as involved:

involved	grammatical	constructions
post-Deictic	Classifier	Thing

Embedded β1 Clause

The β1 clause in the embedded complex serving as Identifier Token is an attributive clause that assigns the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation to the set visible:

so that	the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation	is	both	made	visible
	Carrier	Process			Attribute

The Carrier is realised by a nominal group that metaphorically construes a quality as Thing:

the	enormous	flexibility	of ranges of interpretation
Deictic	Epithet	Thing	Qualifier

The Qualifier is realised by a prepositional phrase:

of	ranges of interpretation
Process	Range

The Range of this prepositional phrase is realised by a nominal group:

ranges	of interpretation
Thing	Qualifier

Embedded β2 Clause

The β2 clause in the embedded complex serving as Identifier Token has an ellipsed Mood element:

the enormous flexibility of ranges of interpretation	is constrained		sufficiently
Carrier	Process	Attribute	Manner: degree

Embedded γ Clause

The γ clause in the embedded complex serving as Identifier Token is a receptive material clause:

so that	it	can be worked with	productively
	Goal	Process	Manner: quality

Ranking β Clause

The ranking elaborating clause can be analysed as 

derived from	our 12 year collaborative research center on space
Process: circumstantial	Attribute

The Attribute is realised by the nominal group:

our	12 year	collaborative	research center	on space
Deictic	post-Deictic	Classifier	Thing	Qualifier

The Thing of the nominal group is realised by a word complex:

research	center
β	α

Conclusion

This is the wording of someone who expects not to be understood, the social function of which has been described by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 272):

So the more the extent of grammatical metaphor in a text, the more that text is loaded against the learner, and against anyone who is an outsider to the register in question. It becomes elitist discourse, in which the function of constructing knowledge goes together with the function of restricting access to that knowledge, making it impenetrable to all except those who have the means of admission to the inside, or the select group of those who are already there. 

It is this other potential that grammatical metaphor has, for making meaning that is obscure, arcane and exclusive, that makes it ideal as a mode of discourse for establishing and maintaining status, prestige and hierarchy, and to establish the paternalistic authority of a technocratic elite whose message is 'this is all too hard for you to understand; so leave the decision-making to us.

See also John Bateman Positively Judging Himself and John Bateman On "The 'Space' Between A Grammatically-Induced Semantics And Any Contextualised Use Of Involved Grammatical Constructions".

We don't understand.

He must be clever.

He must be right.

— Peter Hammill 'The Jargon King'

Leading To Earn

Meaning "Beyond" The Clause

Halliday & Hasan (1976: 10):

It will be clear from what has been said above that cohesion is not just another name for discourse structure.  Discourse structure is, as the name implies, a type of structure; the term is used to refer to the structure of some postulated unit higher than the sentence, for example the paragraph, or some larger entity such as an episode or topic unit.

Note that the units postulated by Martin (1992: 325, 385) for discourse semantic structure — move, participant, message, message part — are not 'higher than the sentence', and have no postulated internal structure.

As Halliday & Hasan (1976) theorised, on the SFL model, "meaning beyond the clause" is realised by the systems of cohesion, the non-structural resource of the textual metafunction.

Another Boy For 'R2L'

How To Distinguish Circumstance From Qualifier

Diagnostic: Thematicity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 270-1):

To differentiate them in analysis, we can apply textual probes: in principle, being an element of the clause, a circumstance is subject to all the different textual statuses brought about by theme, theme predication and theme identification. … In contrast, a Qualifier cannot on its own be given textual status in the clause since it is a constituent of a nominal group, not of the clause; so it can only be thematic together with the rest of the nominal group it is part of.

Vowel Movement

Be A Teacher [8]

Join The Dots

Be A Teacher [7]

Be A Teacher [6]

The Schooling Of Human Potential

Be A Teacher [5]

Be A Teacher [4]

An Analysis Of Jim Martin's Argument That Appraisal Theory Is Not A Theory

Martin (2017: 22):

In late 2012 I was approached by a very concerned research student who reported that some people were saying ‘Appraisal Theory’ wasn’t a theory at all, but just a description. To which I replied: “Yes, of course. That’s right. Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL) is the theory. APPRAISAL is a description of resources for evaluation in English”.

[Martin (2017) The Discourse Semantics of Attitudinal Relations: Continuing the Study of Lexis, Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 21, No 1, 22-47]

Blogger Comments:

A. Martin's argument can be broken down to two exchanges:

An anonymous student's report of anonymous others: 'Appraisal Theory' isn't a theory…
Martin: Systemic Functional Linguistics is the theory. 

An anonymous student's report of anonymous others: 'Appraisal Theory' isn't a theory…
Martin: APPRAISAL is a description of resources for evaluation in English..

Notice firstly that 'cause: reason' is entirely absent, both explicitly and implicitly, from both exchanges.  That is, neither exchange constitutes a reasoned argument.

Notice secondly that there are no explicit logico-semantic relations between Martin's replies and the anonymous claim.  That is, the reader is left to supply the implicit logico-semantic relation in both exchanges.

Notice thirdly that the implicit logico-semantic relation, in both cases, is 'extension: variation: replacive' (not X but Y).  That is, in both exchanges, Martin merely replaces one assertion with another.

In short, Martin has merely pontificated an opinion, unsupported by reasoning, and has disguised the lack of reasoning by leaving the logico-semantic relations implicit.

B. More shortcomings become evident, if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the implicit logico-semantic relation in both cases is one of 'cause: reason'.  This can be demonstrated by making the causal relation both explicit and structural:

1. 'Appraisal Theory' isn't a theory [because] Systemic Functional Linguistics is the theory.
2. 'Appraisal Theory' isn't a theory [because] APPRAISAL is a description of resources for evaluation in English.

The two reasons attributed to Martin for the exclusion of 'Appraisal Theory' from the set of theories can be considered in turn.

The argument in (1) is that because Systemic Functional Linguistics is the theory, 'Appraisal Theory' is not a theory.  It can be seen that the one does not logically entail the other since, even if Systemic Functional Linguistics is the theory, it does not logically exclude the possibility that 'Appraisal Theory' is a theory.  Such matters depend on how 'theory' is defined, and Martin provides no definition of the term, thereby providing no opportunity for its negotiation.

Incidentally, the strategic use of the here also plays a rôle, given its function; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 367):

The word the is a specific, determinative Deictic of a peculiar kind: it means ‘the subset in question is identifiable; but this will not tell you how to identify it – the information is somewhere around, where you can recover it’. … Hence the is usually accompanied by some other element that supplies the information required … . If there is no such information supplied, the subset in question will either be obvious from the situation, or else will have been referred to already in the discourse …

The argument in (2) is that because APPRAISAL is a description of resources for evaluation in English, 'Appraisal Theory' is not a theory.  Again, it can be seen that the one does not logically entail the other, since even if APPRAISAL is a description of resources for evaluation in English, it does not logically exclude the possibility that 'Appraisal Theory' is also a theory.  Again, such matters depend on how 'theory' is defined, and Martin provides no definition of the term, thereby providing no opportunity for its negotiation.

Two questions that might occur to any discourse analyst capable of critical thinking are:

1. What is at stake for Martin?
2. Why would he want his readers to believe that Appraisal Theory is not a theory?

Teacher vs Scholar

Be A Teacher [3]

Intellectual Impostures

Sokal & Bricmont's INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTURES (downloadable pdf file)

"Our aim is, quite simply, to denounce intellectual posturing and dishonesty, from wherever they come." (p14)

Be A Teacher [2]

The Fourth Type Of Linguist

It used to be said that there are three types of linguist:

• the ants, who patiently build, build, build;
• the crows, who just pick, pick, pick;
• the eagles, who soar on high, seeing further than all others.

But there is a fourth type:

• the cuckoos, who lay their productions in the nests of another theorist, thereby having them cared for as if legitimate offspring.

In biology, this is termed brood parasitism.

Be A Teacher [1]

The Textual Function Of Punctuation

Genre

Interpersonal Enactment Vs Ideational Construal

The Three "Dialects" Of Systemic Functional Arithmetic

1. The 2+2=3 "dialect"

2. The 2+2=4 "dialect"

3. The 2+2=5 "dialect"




I maintain that two and two would continue to make four,
in spite of the whine of the amateur for three,
or the cry of the critic for five.
 — James Whistler

How To Create A "Dialect" Of SFL

Step 1: Misunderstand Halliday's theory.

Step 2: Give the misunderstanding a geographical location.

Enacting Tenor

I am not arguing with you — I am telling you.
 — James Whistler

A Critical Examination Of Jim Martin's ISFC 2017 Plenary Abstract

James R Martin

University of Sydney

Martin Centre for Appliable Linguistics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

​The tyranny of metafunctions: transcending trinocularity in SFL

SFL is well known for its trinocular vision: three language strata (phonology, lexicogrammar, and discourse semantics), three metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal and textual) and three hierarchies (realisation, instantiation and individuation). And each trinity is a complementarity, not a partition – always already there; you can’t do meaning from any one perspective without the other two.

In this paper I will take the trinocularity of metafunction as point of departure, and consider its role in both enabling and disabling the evolution of SFL. I’ll begin with context, and issues arising with respect to modelling register and genre. I then turn to disciplinarity, and problems arising from a purely ideational view of knowledge structure. As a third step I’ll look at identity and the need for an [sic] transfunctional view of communion.

In conclusion I’ll comment on the way in which the centrality of metafunction to our conception of language has shaped the evolving architecture of the theory as a whole, as scholars expand the frontiers of social semiotics from the standpoint of SFL’s dialectic of theory and practice (i.e. appliable linguistics).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The reason Martin is attempting to demonise the metafunctions here, through such negative appraisals as 'tyranny' and 'disabling', is that his model of genre is not differentiated metafunctionally.  That is, this talk is, inter alia, an attempt rebrand one of the defects in his model as a strength.

[2] This is misleading.  The three language strata in SFL are phonology, lexicogrammar and semantics.  The stratum of discourse semantics is Martin's invention only, and it is theorised on multiple misunderstandings of the categories and scales of SFL theory, as demonstrated in great detail here.

[3] This misunderstands realisation.  Realisation is not a hierarchy.  Realisation is the relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction, and it obtains along several different dimensions of SFL theory; e.g. 

• between axes: syntagmatic structure realises paradigmatic system;
• between ranks: group/phrase rank syntagms (forms) realise clause rank function structures;
• between strata: lexicogrammar realises semantics; and
• within semantics: metaphorical meanings realise congruent meanings — see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 288) or here.

Note that Martin (1992) understands neither realisation nor instantiation, as demonstrated here (realisation) and here (instantiation).

[4] The reason Martin uses the word 'partition' here, instead of the more appropriate word 'module', is that his own model is theorised on his misunderstanding of SFL as a modular theory.  Martin (1992: 390):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification and, within strata, metafunction.

Martin (1992: 391):

Within discourse semantics, the ways in which systems co-operate in the process of making text is much less well understood. … A more explicit account of this co-operation is clearly an urgent research goal; English Text has been concerned not so much with addressing this goal as with making it addressable by proposing four relatively independent discourse modules to beg the question [sic] … . The point is that integrating meanings deriving from different metafunctions is not a task that can be left to lexicogrammar alone.

Martin (1992: 488):

In this chapter a brief sketch of some of the ways in which discourse semantics interacts with lexicogrammar and phonology has been presented. The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

As Halliday & Webster (2009: 231) point out, SFL is a dimensional theory, not a modular theory:

In SFL language is described, or “modelled”, in terms of several dimensions, or parameters, which taken together define the “architecture” of language. These are 

• (i) the hierarchy of strata (context, semantics, lexicogrammar, phonology, phonetics; related by realisation); 
• (ii) the hierarchy of rank (e.g. clause, phrase/group, word, morpheme; related by composition); 
• (iii) the cline of instantiation (system to instance); 
• (iv) the cline of delicacy (least delicate to most delicate, or grossest to finest); 
• (v) the opposition of axis (paradigmatic and syntagmatic); 
• (vi) the organisation by metafunction (ideational (experiential, logical), interpersonal, textual).

[5] This confuses language with linguistics.  We don't "do" meaning from metafunctional perspectives, but we can analyse it from one or all metafunctional perspectives, using a theory that models meaning in terms of metafunctions.

[6] This is misleading.  The context stratum in SFL construes the culture as a semiotic system.  The stratification of context into genre and register — i.e. context–specific varieties of language — is Martin's invention only, and it is theorised on multiple misunderstandings of the categories and scales of SFL theory, as demonstrated in great detail here (context), here (genre) and here (register).

[7] This is misleading. In SFL, knowledge is modelled as meaning, and meaning is modelled in terms of all three metafunctions. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: x):

… “understanding” something is transforming it into meaning, and to “know” is to have performed that transformation. There is a significant strand in the study of language […] whereby “knowledge” is modelled semiotically: that is, as system–&–process of meaning, in abstract terms which derive from the modelling of grammar.

The notion of a "purely ideational view of knowledge structure" is thus an example of the logical fallacy known as the attacking a strawman:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

This strawman necessarily has its origins in a misunderstanding of SFL theory by Martin himself.  One possibility would be that he has confused knowledge with field, the ideational dimension of the cultural context (misconstrued by Martin as register).  See here for some of the misunderstandings of field in Martin (1992).

[8] The interest in 'communion' here, as with Martin's previous work on affiliation, reflects Martin's true ideological position.  Bertrand Russell, in his History Of Western Philosophy (pp 21-2), identifies this, and explains why it is consistent with Martin's hostility to science, his interest in heroes, like Nelson Mandela (Martin & Rose 2007), his opposition to liberal humanism (Martin 1992: 587-8), and his treatment of students:

Throughout this long development, from 600 BC to the present day, philosophers have been divided into those who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them.  With this difference, others have been associated.  The disciplinarians have advocated some system of dogma, either old or new, and have therefore been compelled to be, in greater or lesser degree, hostile to science, since their dogmas could not be proved empirically.  They have almost invariably taught that happiness is not the good, but that ‘nobility’ or ‘heroism’ is to be preferred.  They have had a sympathy with irrational parts of human nature, since they have felt reason to be inimical to social cohesion.  The libertarians, on the other hand, with the exception of the extreme anarchists, have tended to be scientific, utilitarian, rationalistic, hostile to violent passion, and enemies of all the more profound forms of religion.  This conflict existed in Greece before the rise of what we recognise as philosophy, and is already quite explicit in the earliest Greek thought.  In changing forms, it has persisted down to the present day, and no doubt will persist for many ages to come.

Grammatical Analysis Is A Compromise Of Three Stratal Perspectives

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 504):

A stratified semiotic defines three perspectives, which (following the most familiar metaphor) we refer to as ‘from above’, ‘from roundabout’, and ‘from below’: looking at a given stratum from above means treating it as the expression of some content, looking at it from below means treating it as the content of some expression, while looking at it from roundabout means treating it in the context of (i.e. in relation to other features of) its own stratum.

Halliday (2008: 141):

When we are observing and investigating language, or any other semiotic system, our vision is essentially trinocular. We observe the phenomenon we want to explore — say, the lexicogrammar of language — from three points of vantage. We observe it from above, in terms of its function in various contexts. We observe it from below, in terms of its various modes of expression. And thirdly, we observe it from its own level: from within, or from round about, according to whether we are focussing on the whole or some of its parts.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 31):

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective. But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise.

Halliday (2008: 6):

The boundaries of any grammatical category are likely to be fuzzy […] — such indeterminacy is a general property of the grammar. The grammarian attempts to define each category as accurately as possible, looking at it from three different angles: its systemic environment (contrast with other term or terms in the system, and the relationship of that system to other systems); its meaning (proportionality in semantic terms), and its form. In other words, the grammarian adopts a “trinocular” perspective on the stratal hierarchy so that every category is viewed “from round about”, “from above” and “from below”. And since the views from these different angles often conflict, assigning instances to a particular category involves some degree of compromise, where criteria will depend on the purposes of the description.