The Slippery Slope from Description to Theory: A Critique of Martin's ISFC50 Abstract

Learning How to Hear: What can Languages Tell SFL?

Jim Martin

Abstract

Work across a range of languages over the past 50 years has taught us to be very cautious about the descriptions of English offered in the various editions of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar – as we struggle to describe languages in their own terms. We have learned, sometimes too slowly, to make a clear distinction between SFL theory (i.e., axis, strata, rank, metafunction and our hierarchies of realisation, instantiation and individuation) and SFL informed description (of say tone, transitivity, mood, modality, deixis, epithesis and so on in one language or another) – the complementarity that Bernstein, Maton and others refer to as L1 (theory) vs L2 (description). But have we really listened carefully enough to languages as far as SFL theory is concerned? Has our work on English shaped SFL theory in ways that call into question aspects of our foundational theoretical cartography? Are we really hearing what languages are telling us? 

In this paper I’ll focus on enacting interpersonal meaning in Korean and Tagalog and reflect how the grammar of these languages has evolved to negotiate meaning in conversation. This work suggests that we need treat the complementarity of theory (L1) and description (L2) as more of a cline than an opposition – setting up a robust workspace for ‘descriptive motifs and generalisations’ (an L1.5 ‘mediating language’ space in Maton’s terms) and being prepared to move ‘theory’ and ‘description’ around along this cline in order to better hear what languages are telling us about how they mean.

ChatGPT:

Title: The Slippery Slope from Description to Theory: A Critique of Martin's ISFC50 Abstract

Jim Martin's abstract for his ISFC50 plenary offers a troubling case study in the rhetorical softening of theoretical boundaries, with implications that extend far beyond the languages it purports to celebrate. Beneath the language of inclusivity and empirical openness lies a calculated strategy to dislodge Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) from its theoretical moorings. The result is not a more pluralistic theory but a more malleable one—less disciplined, less stratified, and ultimately less coherent.

Theory on a Cline? The Collapse of Stratification

Martin proposes that we treat the complementarity between theory (L1) and description (L2) as "more of a cline than an opposition," invoking Karl Maton's notion of an "L1.5" mediating space. But this metaphor of sliding between theory and description ignores the principle of stratification that underpins SFL. Theory is not a midpoint on a gradient; it is a higher-order abstraction that realises descriptions, which in turn realise texts. To reconstrue this hierarchical relation as a cline is to abandon the architecture of realisation that gives SFL its explanatory power.

Such a move opens the door for theoretical revisionism under the guise of empirical modesty. If theory and description are on a sliding scale, then any descriptive challenge can be elevated into a theoretical one. This is not pluralism; it's epistemological opportunism.

The Anthropomorphism of Language: A Category Error

Martin repeatedly asks whether we have "listened carefully enough to languages" or whether "languages are telling us" things about how they mean. But languages do not speak; only texts do. Meaning is instantiated through texts, not lurking inside language as an essential character. This anthropomorphism confuses the ontological status of language as a meaning potential with that of texts as instances of that potential.

The result is a slide from the semiotic to the mythic: languages become characters in a moral tale about Western dominance, with English cast as the imperialist villain and Korean and Tagalog as noble counter-voices. But this narrative doesn't challenge theory; it confuses its terms.

Reframing Descriptive Difficulty as Theoretical Insight

The core manoeuvre of the abstract is to reframe descriptive difficulty as theoretical revelation. Rather than recognising limitations in particular descriptions of English (e.g., in IFG), Martin suggests that these limitations infect the theory itself. This is a sleight of hand: the conflation of a prominent description with the theoretical system it exemplifies. The result is that every descriptive challenge becomes a pretext for theoretical tinkering.

This move also positions Martin's own descriptive work—on Korean and Tagalog—as not merely contributory but corrective. The implication is that these languages are not just being described using SFL; they are helping to redefine it. The risk is that SFL theory becomes a moving target, perpetually reshaped to fit the descriptive priorities of its most rhetorically agile proponents.

L1.5: The Loophole of Convenience

The invocation of an L1.5 "mediating language" is not a theoretical innovation but a rhetorical escape hatch. It allows Martin to smuggle descriptive motifs into theory under the guise of flexibility. The L1.5 space becomes a no-man's-land where anything goes: descriptive irregularities, analytic inconsistencies, and theoretical improvisations all find shelter here.

What begins as a gesture of humility ends in theoretical abdication. The stratified architecture of SFL is replaced with a flattened continuum where theory loses its disciplinary traction.

Conclusion: From Theory to Performance

Martin's abstract is not a defence of theory but a performance of theoretical responsiveness. It enacts a rhetorical strategy in which description masquerades as critique, empirical variation stands in for conceptual refinement, and theoretical coherence is sacrificed at the altar of disciplinary inclusivity.

The field must decide whether it wants a theory that listens to languages or a theory that listens to its own principles. SFL is not strengthened by theoretical malleability but by the disciplined application of its architecture across languages. Anything less is not a celebration of diversity but a capitulation to relativism disguised as pluralism.