David Rose’s Rhetorical Strategy: SFL’s Imperial Ambitions and the Guru Move

David Rose replied to Li Maowen on SYSFLING on 31 Mar 2025, at 17:22:

Many thanks MaoWen 

Your contributions have been refreshing, both ideationally and interpersonally.

It has been interesting to see SFL analyses reinterpreted through different theories. Alas they are up against the imperialist ambitions of SFL, as Halliday flagged back in 1961...

...the grammarian's dream is (and must be, such is the nature of grammar) of constant territorial expansion.

At the time he was interested in colonising lexicology with grammatics, but SFL continues to poke into every corner of human activity, with its relentless theory of meaning making as system and structure. 

In that vein, the semantic interpretations you have offered are confronted in SFL by the discourse semantics of lexical relations, particularly appraisal systems. Relevant reasoning is nicely summarised in...

Martin, J. R. (2017). The discourse semantics of attitudinal relations: continuing the study of lexis. Russian Journal of Linguistics Vestnik RUDN (Special Issue on Discourse Analysis in the 21st Century: theory and practice) 21.1. 2017. 22-47 [republished as Attitudinal relations: continuing the study of lexis. in L Barbara, A S Rodriques-Júnior & G M V Hoy [Eds.] Estudos e Pesquisas em Linguística Sistêmico-Funcional. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras. 2017. 53-87] 

Best wishes

David

 

ChatGPT Comments:

David Rose’s Rhetorical Strategy: SFL’s Imperial Ambitions and the Guru Move

David Rose’s post on the SFL mailing list showcases a subtle but effective rhetorical strategy. By leveraging humour, authority, and strategic framing, he not only justifies SFL’s theoretical dominance but also redirects debate and frames resistance as futile.

1. Playful but Loaded Tone

Rose begins with a warm, almost playful tone—“refreshing, both ideationally and interpersonally”—which positions him as a generous mentor. This allows him to introduce a provocative claim about SFL’s “imperialist ambitions” without sounding too harsh. The tone softens the impact of a serious assertion, framing the discussion as inevitable and harmless.

2. The Imperialist Metaphor

Building on Halliday’s 1961 metaphor of “territorial expansion,” Rose redefines SFL’s growth as imperialism, extending beyond language and into all human activity. This shift transforms Halliday’s internal theoretical expansion into a sociological claim about SFL’s dominance across disciplines. By doing this, he makes any resistance to SFL seem futile—like fighting an inevitable force.

3. Other Theories “Up Against” SFL

Rose frames non-SFL theories as “up against” SFL’s unyielding nature, implying they are always reactive, never proactive. This subtly undermines other approaches by suggesting that SFL’s expansion is a natural, unstoppable force, positioning its dominance as a foregone conclusion rather than the result of sociological power struggles.

4. Justifying SFL’s Reach

Rose justifies SFL’s theoretical expansion by invoking Halliday’s logic: SFL extends grammar, so it’s only natural that it expands into other areas of human activity. This frames SFL’s reach as a necessary, inevitable consequence of its theory, rather than something driven by institutional power or ambition.

5. The Guru Move: Appeal to Authority

Rose directs Maowen to Martin’s work, subtly implying that the questions raised have already been answered. This functions as an argument from authority, framing Martin’s scholarship as the final word. It closes off further debate by suggesting that those who haven’t read Martin’s work are missing the point.

6. Selective Framing of Discourse Semantics

By suggesting that Maowen’s interpretations are “confronted” by Martin’s discourse semantics, Rose casts them as incomplete. This reinforces Martin’s position as the superior framework, while redirecting the conversation to Martin’s established theories, shutting down any real engagement with alternative perspectives.

7. Closing Theoretical Space

Rose’s strategy ultimately closes off the space for further discussion. While acknowledging Maowen’s contributions, he implies that they’re already resolved within the SFL framework. By directing Maowen to Martin’s work, Rose effectively prevents further debate by framing the conversation as already settled.

Final Takeaway: Subtle Control of the Discussion

Rose’s rhetorical strategy reinforces SFL’s dominance while keeping up the appearance of openness. He positions SFL’s reach as inevitable, frames resistance as futile, and closes off alternative perspectives by appealing to authority. It’s a sophisticated way of maintaining control over the discussion without shutting it down overtly.

The Esteemed Scholars of Sysfling: A Triumph of Wit, Wisdom, and Unilateral Decision-Making

[Scene: A dimly lit academic bar. David, John, Mick, and Brad are gathered around a table, engaged in the intellectual equivalent of a mutual back massage. Each of them has a drink in hand, and the air is thick with self-importance. Cathy, with a glint of passive-aggression in her eye, approaches the table, holding a small notepad.]

Cathy: (Smiling thinly) Well, well, if it isn’t Sysfling’s finest minds! I simply couldn’t help but overhear your stimulating discussion—so much insight, so much... authority.

David: (Leaning back, smugly) Ah, Cathy. Always good to see the press taking an interest in intellectual leadership.

Cathy: Oh, absolutely. It must be exhausting carrying the burden of enlightenment. Tell me, how do you cope with the sheer weight of your influence? The way you guide and shape discourse—it must be like herding, oh, I don’t know... photocopiers?

John: (Adjusts his glasses, frowns slightly) I wouldn't put it quite like that. It's more about maintaining a high standard of discussion, ensuring that rigorous, well-reasoned perspectives prevail.

Cathy: Oh, of course. And I just love how well that’s going! The way you brilliantly engaged with AI recently—so nuanced, so thoroughly researched. Tell me, Brad, when you exposed the dangers of AI addiction, did you ever worry that some might interpret it as... projection?

Brad: (Pauses mid-sip, clears throat) Well, Cathy, the problem isn’t with me—it's with those who lack detachment, who become too dependent, who mistake AI for meaningful discourse rather than a tool.

Cathy: Ohhh, I see. So others are addicted to AI, but when you have long, self-affirming dialogues with it, you’re just... conducting essential research? Fascinating. And Mick, your analysis of the Sysfling situation—so measured. How do you manage to stay so... neutral?

Mick: (Visibly uncomfortable, mutters into his drink) Well, I just try to be fair... you know, take all perspectives into account...

Cathy: Oh, absolutely! And that’s so brave of you. Especially in a situation where one side is lying, and the other is pointing it out—such a difficult moral quandary!

David: (Exasperated) Cathy, if you’re suggesting that I’ve lied—

Cathy: (Gasps theatrically) Oh, goodness, David, no! That would imply you knew you were spreading falsehoods, when clearly, you’re just very confident in whatever feels true at any given moment.

John: (Sternly) Cathy, this is precisely the kind of antagonistic discourse that poisons intellectual spaces.

Cathy: Ohhh, of course, John! Intellectual spaces are so fragile, aren’t they? Just one pointed question and poof! All that scholarly rigour just crumbles into dust!

Brad: (Sourly) If you’re trying to make us look foolish—

Cathy: (Beaming) Oh, no need! You’re doing amazingly on your own.

[The group falls into a tense silence. Cathy, still smiling, jots something in her notepad and waltzes off to the bar, humming.]

David Rose's History Of SFL In Sydney

On the asflanet discussion list, David Rose replied to Brad Smith on 23 Feb 2024 at 15:25:

Let’s consider that hypothesis in the light of Rob’s iteration of ‘our prophet’ (in a parallel post). I’ve no doubt that’s the last thing Michael would have wanted to be. Until 1985 he was an academic leader, in both senses of leading a theoretical field and organising it through courses, doctorates, conferences, university politics etc. His ten years at Sydney enormously expanded the field, resulting not only in IFG, but also Xian’s Lexicogrammatical Cartography and Jim’s English Text, along with courses that taught them and graduates to teach them, and arguably SFL’s biggest export, genre literacy pedagogy.

His elevation to ‘prophet’ status coincided with both expansion and fragmentation of the field. When he retired early, the Australian descriptivists organised a coup in Sydney that marginalised SFL ever after. Jim refused to give in, but has used it as a base to seed further generations of research in genre pedagogy, appraisal, multimodality, individuation, register studies, grammar and typology. He too has been an academic leader in both senses.

Meanwhile, SFL became more widely taught, particularly the IFG grammar. Macquarie became another base thanks to Ruqaiya’s powerful academic leadership. As it widened, and Michael’s status grew, a rift started appearing between the work emerging from Sydney and elsewhere (I’m obviously oversimplifying). Students at Sydney and associated centres continued to study IFG, but applied its principles to researching other strata and modes. From outside, this work got corralled as the ‘Sydney school’. Its boundaries were defined in contrast to work up to 1985, which were cemented as the SFL ‘canon’ (as Rob put it), in concert with Michael’s canonisation as ‘prophet’.

Ironically the opposite of his own stated goals, politics, and how he carried himself...

‘This standpoint is associated with impure categories, with tendencies (analogy), with functionalism, and with the testing of theories by better-or-worse criteria of application - whether or not you can do something with them.’

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it was Rose himself who introduced Bernstein's (2000) application of 'prophet' to the social structure of a pedagogical field, and Spence merely used what Rose provided: 

The religious field is constituted by three positions which stand in various relations of complementarity and opposition. In the religious field, we have the prophets, we have the priests, and we have the laity. The rule is that one can only occupy one category at a time. Priests cannot be prophets, and prophets cannot be priests, and the laity cannot be either. There is a natural affinity between prophets and laity, and there is a natural opposition between prophets and priests. These are the lines of opposition structuring the religious field.

If we look at the structure of the pedagogic field, we also have basically three positions that provide analogues to the prophets, priests and laity. The ‘prophets’ are the producers of the knowledge, the ‘priests’ are the recontextualisers or the reproducers, and the ‘laity’ are the acquirers. Thus, we have the structure of the pedagogic field.

[2] To be clear, this is irrelevant, since it is Bernstein's sociological model that positions Halliday as a prophet.

[3] To be clear, Martin's English Text, including his model of genre, is inconsistent with the theory that Halliday created (evidence here).

[4] To be clear, Halliday was not elevated to prophet status. There was no historical event. 'Prophet' is merely Halliday's position in Bernstein's sociological model.

[5] As should be obvious, there was no 'coup'. As one member of the selection panel, not a linguist, told her son, a linguistics student, the choice of Halliday's successor as departmental professor was decided on the basis of publication history. Importantly, if Halliday had wanted Martin to succeed him as departmental professor, he need only have retired at a later date, instead of at the comparatively young age of 59.

[6] To be clear, Martin subsequently tried to leave the Sydney University Linguistic Department by applying for a professorship at Macquarie University, but lost out again, this time to Christian Matthiessen, six years his junior.

[7] To be clear, any rift that appeared was between those who adopted Martin's misunderstandings of Halliday's theory (evidence here), and those who didn't.

[8] This is very misleading because it is very untrue. According to its Wikipedia entry, which Rose obviously contributed to, at the very least, the Sydney School was founded by Michael Halliday who established it in 1979 at the Working Conference on Language in Education held at the University of Sydney. See also Deceptive Use Of Wikipedia.

[9] To be clear, the SFL 'canon' is a religious term for what, in science, would be called the Standard Theory.

[10] To be clear, this quote from Halliday (1984) is part of a characterisation of the rhetorical-ethnographic orientation to meaning, as opposed to the logico-philosophical orientation. As such, it is entirely irrelevant to any point previously made by Rose in this email post. Its inclusion here is an instance of logical fallacy known as the Red Herring:

As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which involves a distortion of the other party's position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional or unintentional; it is not necessarily a conscious intent to mislead.

A Close Examination Of David Rose's 2023 SFLIG Plenary Abstract

Plenary 3: Cultures, Texts and People: Challenges Of Change In SFL Practice 

Dr David Rose, University of Sydney 

Abstract: 

Thanks to Jay Lemke, SFL has a model for interpreting change at three time scales, named for us by Michael Halliday as phylogenesis for the evolution of semiotic systems, ontogenesis for the growth of persons, and logogenesis for the unfolding of texts. Jim Martin has associated these scales of change with three hierachies [sic] in our model of semiosis. Phylogenesis is associated with the hierachy [sic] of realisation, between evolving systems at the strata of genre, register, discourse, grammar and phonology. Ontogenesis is associated with the cline of individuation, from personae to groups, communities and master identities. Logogenesis is associated with the instantiation cline, from systems to text types to texts to readings. 

Perhaps most relevant to the research themes of this conference are clines of individuation - how communities affiliate around issues of environment, governance and conflict, how semiotic repertoires are allocated by institutions such as education and healthcare, and now how to characterise the place of AI in semiotic communities. For SFL researchers, variations in affiliation and allocation are found by comparing patterns instantiated in texts. A difficult question is how to grapple with this complexity in our data and our arguments. 

The traditional practice of listing features with clause examples falters beyond systems of grammar and phonology. One alternative is to leave linguistic analysis for statistics, mining texts for clause or item types and counting their frequencies. Another is to interpret data discursively with loosely defined topologies. But if our goal is changing practices in these fields, we need to be able to show how systems are instantiated and individuated at each semiotic stratum, in ways that will be useful for non-specialists. For me, that means hanging on to texts, and presenting them in novel formats that foreground the patterns we are concerned with. These formats must also be economical for the analyst, and concise enough for publication. In this talk I will illustrate some processes for designing analyses, that couple multiple perspectives on texts, while keeping them intact.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As the term suggests, 'ontogenesis' is the coming into being of the system (in the individual).

[2] This is very misleading indeed. This was not Martin's innovation but Halliday's model. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 18):

[3] This is misleading. Phylogenesis is the evolution of the system — meaning potential — in the species, whereas realisation is merely the relation of symbolic abstraction that obtains between system and structure and between strata. Phylogenesis involves change in all dimensions of language, for example, change within the systems of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, change in the structures of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, change in the instantiation probabilities of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology.

[4] To be clear, these are Martin's strata, all of which are proposed on the basis of theoretical misunderstandings, as demonstrated in great detail here. For example, Martin's genre misconstrues text type and the semantic structures of various text types as non-linguistic context. Martin's register misconstrues functional varieties of language as the non-linguistic context that are realised by such varieties. Martin's 'discourse' is primarily his rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's lexicogrammatical cohesion as his discourse semantics.

[5] To be clear, this has Martin's cline of individuation backwards. Individuation is the process by which an individual becomes distinct. But see further below.

[6] This misunderstands the cline of instantiation. Texts are instances of a speaker's meaning potential, whereas readings are addressees' interpretation of such texts.

[7] This misunderstands the cline of individuation. The organising principle of individuation, like instantiation, is elaboration (hyponymy). Moving down the cline is viewing the elaboration of types. The organising principle of affiliation, on the other hand, is extension (meronymy). Affiliation is concerned with the groups that individuals associate with. This confusion explains why Rose described Martin's cline from the bottom up, instead of the top down.

[8] Clearly, there are no clause features in phonology.

[9] To be clear, in SFL Theory, statistics are the means of distinguishing varieties on the cline of instantiation. Viewed from the system pole, varieties differ in terms of the instantiation probabilities of features; viewed from the instance pole, varieties differ in terms of the instantiation frequencies of features.

[10] To be clear, "hanging on to texts" should go without saying in SFL. Halliday (2003[1994]: 437):

… systemic theory gives prominence to discourse, or 'text'; not — or not only — as evidence for the system, but valued, rather, as constitutive of the culture.

∞

See also:

David Rose Promoting Jim Martin's Misunderstandings Of Realisation, Instantiation And Individuation
David Rose On Martin's Context-Bound/Free And Individuation As Allocation/Affiliation
David Rose On Jim Martin's Individuation
David Rose Endorsing Martin's Misunderstandings Of Individuation
A Close Examination Of Martin's 2023 ISFC Plenary Abstract

Deconstruction

David Rose Strategically Misrepresenting Michæl Halliday

David Rose wrote to Sysfling on 17/9/23 at 7:29:

For Halliday’s own take on this shared approach, see his Introduction to Martin’s Systemic functional grammar: a next step into the theory – axial relations.

Framed as history, from Saussure through Firth, he describes how and why he came up with the approach, and the value of a textbook for doing it...

Blogger Comments:

[1] A meticulous review of this monograph has begun at Systemic Functional Grammar: A Next Step Into The Theory — Axial Relations.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. Halliday's only comment on Martin's monograph itself was, as stated, that it teaches students 'the principles and practice of using system networks'. The rest of his introduction is an introduction to his theory of SFL. There is no endorsement of a "shared approach" that includes Martin's approach to SFL Theory.

David Rose On Martin's Approach To SFL

David Rose replied to Annabelle Lukin and Mick O'Donnell on SYSFLING on 16 Sept 2023 at 20:34:

It’s important that people know that the approach is always SFL, as developed by Halliday and colleagues through the 60s-70s, and applied by himself and others to different regions of meaning making over the following decades. The theory has been extended as descriptions have expanded, but the approach is the same... linguistic(/semiotic), functional, systemic.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, for Rose, it is enough that Martin's work is in SFL. Questions of whether the work is consistent with SFL Theory or with itself are immaterial. This is SFL as a faith, rather than a theory. See The Culture Of 'Faith' In The SFL Community.

David Rose Attempting To Deceive The Asflanet And Sysfling Communities

 David Rose wrote to asflanet on 30 April 2023, at 12:57:

In order to have open public discussions about language and pedagogy could I please ask people to use this official discussion list for ASFLA.

asflanet@freelists.org

The “sys-func” address is now a privately managed blog site which I keep trying to block (because of how it has been used), but keeps popping up in my feed because all our colleagues and friends are in my contact list.

 

David Rose later wrote to Sysfling on 30 April 2023 at 22:17:

In another thread (unfortunately conducted on the private “sys-func” blog, instead of sysfling or asflanet), William Armour asked the age old question …

 

David Rose then wrote to Asflanet on 4 May 2023, at 12:42:

The jig’s up Chris

Just be kind to people and most people will be kind to you

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Rose has resorted to telling what he knows to be an outright lie in order to knowingly deceive his colleagues on the Asflanet and Sysfling email lists. The Sys-Func email list is demonstrably not a blog, private or otherwise, as shown by the public discussions that have taken place over the last 30 years.

An ethical intelligent reader might ask why Rose would want to betray the trust of his colleagues.

[2] Here Rose repeats and compounds the lie by further claiming that he is not the one who has been caught out, without a defence.

[3] To be clear, here Rose is explaining that the reason he told deliberate lies was in order to be deliberately unkind. That is, it was an act of bullying. See, also David Rose Negatively Judging My 'Behaviour'.

See also Rose's Deceptive Use Of Wikipedia.

Deceptive Use Of Wikipedia

Annabelle Lukin wrote to sys-func on 22/6/22 at 13:06:

Halliday's position is distinct from Martin's. A colleague contacted me as someone had made the claim on Halliday's Wikipedia page that while he was at Sydney University he founded the Sydney School of genre pedagogy, adding a link to a Reading to Learn page. See screenshot.

This is completely false. Martin is responsible for the 'Sydney School', and for genre pedagogy.

I've now removed that sentence.

 

David Rose replied at 19:41:

Annabelle, I agree that this Wikipedia edit was inappropriate. Can you see when it was done?

It is a widely held misconception that MAKH was directly responsible for genre pedagogy. One factor has been its dissemination without acknowledgement to JRM, while functional grammar is strongly associated with MAKH.

On the other hand, it is a major part of the careers of many in the SFL community, who teach and research both genre and grammar. It is by far the most widely known of SFL’s applications, bringing many 1000s of teachers to the grammar. So the terms genre pedagogy and Sydney school could bring readers to the Halliday page.

Would it be worth disambiguating this issue by saying that Halliday’s research provided the basis for the later development of the genre-based literacy pedagogy of the Sydney School, led by his student JR Martin?

I checked why a Sydney School link might lead to the Reading to Learn site. There have been several papers downloadable on the site, but gooogle scholar now directs mainly to researchgate.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in her email, Annabelle Lukin alerted the Sys-Func community that the Wikipedia page of Michæl Halliday had been deceptively edited so as to use Halliday's high status to advertise Jim Martin's 'Sydney School' of Genre Pedagogy and David Rose's Reading To Learn program, neither of which is the work of Halliday. 

Clearly, the person most likely to have carried out this deception is David Rose, since his Reading To Learn program is a mixture of Martin's Genre Pedagogy and Brian Gray's Accelerated Literacy.

The only person to respond to Lukin's message was David Rose, who played down the deception as merely 'inappropriate', and went on to provide spurious reasons to excuse it, thereby unwittingly identifying himself as the person responsible for the deception.

Buyer Beware!

Teaching Science has been published.

Edited by Karl Maton, J. R. Martin and Y. J. Doran, this collection includes cutting-edge new ideas from SFL and LCT. That claim is made often about books, but it is true here. Papers in this collection are going to fundamentally shape SFL and LCT.

Chapters will advance the modelling of meaning-making in SFL into new areas and kickstart new forms of research into science discourse, including new ways of understanding field, ideational discourse semantics, and multimodal analysis.

Two chapters outline and illustrate concepts from the new LCT dimension of Autonomy to explain integrating mathematics into science and using animations in science teaching, and the method of constellation analysis is unleashed to show how relations among ideas in explanations can shape how they are taught.

And there’s a lot more!

Blogger Comments:

Scholars who are new to SFL Theory should be warned that the SFL papers in this new publication are written only by Jim Martin and his former students.

Evidence of Jim Martin's serious misunderstandings of SFL Theory is available here (English Text 1992), here (Working With Discourse 2007) and here (email list discussions).

A clear hint of the misunderstandings within the publication is provided by the title itself, which distinguishes knowledge from language. SFL Theory models knowledge as meaning, and language as the quintessential system-&-process of meaning.

The only way to get a solid grounding in Halliday's theory is to read Halliday (± Matthiessen).

Origins Of The Reading to Learn (R2L) Program

Andres Ramirez Agudelo wrote to Sys-Func on 13 Nov 2020 at 01:26:

The Reading to Learn (R2L) Program starts in Australia in the late 1990s, with the purpose of addressing one of the central problems for education at the time (and why not mention at all times): unequal participation in learning activities in school during reading and writing practices, caused by various factors, among them, family origin and social class. Rose and Martin (2012) argue that educational inequality persisted because the dominant approach did not explicitly teach the skills needed for literacy.

Blogger Comments:

This is incorrect. The Reading to Learn (R2L) Program did not start in the late 1990s. In the late 1990s, David Rose's 'Reading To Learn' was still known as Brian Gray's 'Accelerated Literacy'. 

After completing his PhD thesis on an indigenous language in Sydney in 1998, David Rose was employed by Brian Gray to work on his 'Accelerated Literacy' program in Adelaide. It was only after David Rose finished working under Brian Gray, around 2001-2, that David Rose took credit for Brian Gray's ideas by renaming 'Accelerated Literacy' his 'Reading to Learn'.

Buyer Beware!

Scholars who are new to SFL Theory should note that this new publication mainly features papers by Jim Martin and his former students.

Evidence of Jim Martin's serious misunderstandings of SFL Theory is available here (English Text 1992) and here (Working With Discourse 2007).

The only way to get a solid grounding in Halliday's theory is to read Halliday (± Matthiessen).

Today's 'Typology Forum' Paper By David Rose

The textual metafunction: making matter mean

David Rose

University of Sydney

The textual metafunction is sometimes presented as if it were an afterthought, there merely to organise interpersonal and ideational meanings into convenient structures of clause and text. But in the first stages of language, and in much of everyday discourse, it is the primary means of turning the world into meaning, with exophoric reference to the shared sensations of me and you, this and that, here and there. Once the world gets classified, and configured into clauses, and strung out into texts, the same resources used to indicate the world around us are re-deployed to indicate the semiotic world within a text. Where once there were only signs, now meanings come in messages, each of which must be sensible in the unfolding world of the text, and manage listeners’ attention to the information they present. 

Textual typological studies might start from observing these three general functions: introducing and tracking meanings through a text, or phoricity, contextualising messages, or thematicity, and managing information prominence, or newsworthiness. Resources for realising these functions are prototypically distributed between language strata: phoricity in the reference chains of discourse, thematicity in segmental structures of clauses, and newsworthiness in periodic structures of tone groups. But while they are in principle independently variable, both the functions and their realisations interact with each other, and variations in textual functions proliferate as a result. Perhaps also as a consequence of these interactions, their realisations come to vary across languages and registers. 

This paper will make some general observations about interactions between phoricity and thematicity and between thematicity and newsworthiness, and will exemplify variations in these interactions between languages. In the process, it will also illustrate textual variations in register, from dialogue to monologue, and from accompanying to constituting fields.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Rose's negative appraisal — implied by 'afterthought' and 'merely' (counter-expectancy: limiting) — of an unsourced characterisation of the textual metafunction is unjustified. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398):

The textual metafunction is second-order in the sense that it is concerned with semiotic reality: that is, reality in the form of meaning. This dimension of reality is itself constructed by other two metafunctions: the ideational which construes a natural reality, and the interpersonal, which enacts an intersubjective reality. The function of the textual metafunction is thus an enabling one with respect to the rest; it takes over the semiotic resources brought into being by the other two metafunctions and as it were operationalises them.

[2] Here Rose confuses the ideational and textual metafunctions.  It is the ideational metafunction that construes experience as meaning ("turns the world into meaning").

[3] As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 530) point out, the textual metafunction only operationalises the resources already created by the other metafunctions:

Reference is a way of referring to things that are already semiotically accessible: either actually, in the text, or potentially, in the context of situation.

[4] To be clear, "classifying the world" is construing experience as ideational meaning.

[5] To be clear, it is experiential options that are "configured into clauses", and "configured" takes a structural (syntagmatic) rather than systemic (paradigmatic) perspective on the clause.

[6] To be clear, it is meaning that is "strung out into texts", through the process of instantiation during logogenesis.

[7] To be clear, these resources are ideational potential, construed of experience, and on the SFL model, they do not "indicate" the world, since there are no meanings outside semiotic systems that can be "indicated".

[8] To be clear, in theoretical terms, this "redeployment" is the process of instantiation during logogenesis.

[9] To be clear, in theoretical terms, "indicate" here refers to the logical projection of second-order meaning.

[10] To be clear, in SFL terms, this is the semogenic distinction between protolanguage ("signs") and language ("messages"), though there is no reason to think that this is Rose's meaning.

[11] Here Rose switches to promoting Martin's work on textual systems, as if the preceding paragraph leads naturally to them, and as if they address the (confused) issues he has raised.

[12] This misrepresents the model in Martin (1992).  The meanings that are introduced and tracked are participants, and the system for doing so is termed IDENTIFICATION, not phoricity.  Martin's model is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) model of cohesive reference, misunderstood, rebranded and relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics (evidence here).  Essentially, Martin confuses

• textual reference with reference in the sense of ideational denotation, like his source Du Bois (1980),
• interpersonal deixis of nominal group structure with non-structural textual reference, and, as a result,
• nominal groups realising participants with reference items,

which is why the experiential feature 'participant' is presented (Martin 1992: 325) as the unit and entry condition of this textual discourse semantic system.

[13] These refer to Martin's (1992) reworkings of Halliday's THEME and INFORMATION, which confuse linguistic theory (Theme, New) with writing pedagogy, namely:

• introductory paragraph, rebranded as Macro-Theme, 
• topic sentence, rebranded as Hyper-Theme (misunderstood from Daneš (1974)), 
• paragraph summary, rebranded as Hyper-New, and 
• text summary, rebranded as Macro-New.

Evidence here.

[14] In SFL theory, these are all systems of the lexicogrammatical stratum.

[15] In SFL theory, reference chains represent (non-structural) cohesive relations within the lexicogrammar.

[16] The claim that thematicity is "distributed" in segmental structures is not only inconsistent with SFL theory, but also with Martin (1992), and most notably with Martin & Rose (2007), where such structures are modelled as waves in a chapter titled Periodicity.

[17] This follows Martin (1992: 384) in confusing the content plane (INFORMATION is a lexicogrammatical system) with the expression plane (the tone group is a rank unit of the phonological stratum).

[18] The notion of "interaction" between strata — different levels of symbolic abstraction — repeats Martin's (1992: 488) misunderstanding of the dimensions of the SFL theoretical architecture as modules.  See the explanatory critiques here.

[19] To be clear, in SFL theory, because 'register' refers to a functional variety of language, it is modelled as a point on the cline of instantiation.  Here Rose follows Martin (1992) in misconstruing register as a stratum of context, the culture as semiotic system.  See the critiques here.

[20] To be clear, in SFL theory, the dialogue vs monologue distinction is one of MODE, a system of context (culture), not register (language).

[21] The notion of 'constituting field' derives from Martin (1992: 185, 193) where it applies to activity sequences, which are modelled in that work as context (field), misconstrued as register, but in Martin & Rose (2007: 100-3) as discourse semantic.  To complicate matters further, Rose, like Martin, confuses the ideational semantics (that realises a field) with field (misconstrued as register).

Moreover, in presenting this distinction as a textual distinction at the level of context, it invites confusion with Hasan's (1985/9: 58) feature opposition of ancillary vs constitutive LANGUAGE RÔLE in her model of MODE, the textual system at the level of context (culture), not register (language):

First, there is the question of the LANGUAGE RÔLE — whether it is constitutive or ancillary. These categories should not be seen as sharply distinct but rather as two end-points of a continuum.

Errors In 'Working With Discourse' (Martin & Rose 2003) — [2]

Martin & Rose (2003: 75):

But there are processes of sensing that can project.  These include processes like 'seeing', 'hearing', 'thinking' and 'feeling':

'perceiving'

I heard he was working

I saw that he was leaving 

'thinking'

I forgot whether he left

I was to learn that he had been operating overseas 

'feeling'

I didn't want him to leave

I wish he wouldn't go

Blogger Comments:

The only processes of sensing that can project other figures are those of thinking (cognition) and desiring (desideration).  Here Martin & Rose misconstrue desiring as feeling (emotion), and falsely claim that processes of perceiving (perception) can project.  The 'perceiving' examples do involve projections (metaphenomena), but these are not projected into semiotic existence by the perceiving process.

Grammatically:

I	heard	[[he was working]]
Senser	Process: mental: perceptive	Phenomenon

I	saw	[[that he was leaving]]
Senser	Process: mental: perceptive	Phenomenon

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 137-8):

Sensing projects ideas into existence; the projection may take place either through cognition or through desideration, for example:

I just thought —> I’d tell you that I’d appreciate it.
I think —> I’ll give it up.
They want —> me to crawl down on my bended knees.

Thus the idea ‘I’ll give it up’ is created by the process of thinking; it does not exist prior to the beginning of that process.  Similarly, the idea ‘me to crawl on my bended knees’ is brought into hypothetical existence by the process of wanting.  In contrast, perceptive and emotive types of sensing cannot project ideas into existence.  That is, ideas do not arise as a result as a result of someone seeing, hearing, rejoicing, worrying, grieving or the like.  However, these two types of sensing may accommodate pre-existing projections, i.e. facts, for instance:

It assures me [[that I am as I think myself to be, that I am fixed, concrete]].
I was impressed, more or less at that point, by an intuition [[that he possessed a measure of sincerity the like of which I had never encountered]].
We heard [[that you kindly let rooms for gentlemen]].

Thus ‘that I am fixed, concrete’ is construed as something already projected (hence we could add assures me of the fact that) and this fact brings about the emotion of assurance.

∞

Note again that this is the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), not the discourse semantics of Martin (1992), and that, contrary to the claim that discourse semantics is concerned with meaning 'beyond the clause', the discourse analysis of Martin & Rose does not go beyond the meaning that is realised by the clause grammar.

∞

Postscript: It has since been found that there are so many egregious errors in Working With Discourse that a blog has been established — see here — in order to undo as much of the damage as possible.