Misunderstanding The Metafunctional Hookup

Martin (2013: 108):

Blogger Comments:

On the one hand, Martin's use of "traditionally" here is misleading, because it effaces the theorist responsible. Halliday applied the metafunctions that are intrinsic to language to the cultural context that language realises, yielding ideational field, interpersonal tenor, and textual mode.

On the other hand, this misunderstands SFL's architecture of language in context. The ideational metafunction of language is concerned with the construal of experience as meaning; the interpersonal metafunction of language is concerned with the enactment of intersubjective relations as meaning; and the textual metafunction of language is concerned with weaving ideational and interpersonal meanings together as text.

Field thus is concerned with the culture as a semiotic system in terms of the construal of experience; tenor is concerned with the culture as a semiotic system in terms of the enactment of intersubjective relations; and mode is concerned with the culture as a semiotic system in terms of weaving field and tenor together as situation.

Halliday (2003 [1994]: 437):

The mechanism proposed for this constitutive power of discourse has been referred to as the 'metafunctional hookup': the hypothesis that (a) social contexts are organic — dynamic configurations of three components, called 'field', 'tenor', and 'mode': respectively, the nature of the social activity, the relations among the interactants, and the status accorded to the language (what is going on, who are taking part, and what they are doing with their discourse); and (b) there is a relationship between these and the metafunctions such that these components are construed, respectively, as experiential, as interpersonal, and as textual meanings.

Repeating A Bare Assertion That Assumes The Conclusion Of This Monograph

Martin (2013: 73):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is untrue. As the examination of this chapter has demonstrated, Martin has not shown that metafunction and rank are based on axis — nor could he.

As previously explained, Martin misunderstands axis as system/structure relations, as stipulated in realisation statements. In SFL Theory, axis is a local dimension whose two orders are the paradigmatic and syntagmatic (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32), with system and structure as their respective dimensions. Realisation statements are located on the paradigmatic axis, and as the name suggests, the relation between the axes is simply realisation.

Moreover, metafunction and rank are not based on either axis or system/structure relations. On the one hand, the metafunctions are a distinct global dimension from the local dimension of axis (ibid.), and first appeared in Language Structure and Language Function (Halliday 1970). 

On the other hand, the SFL approach to constituency, a rank scale, is a distinct local dimension  from the local dimension of axis (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32), and derives from the method of ranked constituency analysis, rather than immediate constituency analysis, as first set out in Categories of A Theory of Grammar (Halliday 1961), and explained more fully in Introduction to Functional Grammar (Halliday 1985).

The rhetorical significance of Martin's misleading bare assertion (the ipse dixit fallacy) is that it assumes the conclusion (the petitio principii fallacy) of the entire monograph. That is, it is one logical fallacy serving another in an invalid argument for a false conclusion. In dialogue, the repeating of this bare assertion would be an example of the logical fallacy known as the argument from repetition.

Misconstruing Experiential Structures As Hypotactic Logical Structures

Martin (2013: 70):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin (1996) associates serial structures with univariate structure of the logical metafunction, and orbital structure with the multivariate structures of the experiential metafunction. This distinction, however, is the distinction between parataxis and hypotaxis in the univariate structure of the logical metafunction. The orbital structure is also univariate because there is only type of relation between the nucleus and its satellites: dependency. For more details, see

Misconstruing Hypotactic vs Paratactic Logical Structure As Experiential vs Logical Structure 

[2] To be clear, it is misleading to claim that SFL distinguishes the experiential and logical metafunctions on the basis of recursive systems and Martin's notion of serial structure (i.e parataxis). The metafunctions are distinguished as modes of meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 511):

Ideationally, the grammar is a theory of human experience; it is our interpretation of all that goes on around us, and also inside ourselves. There are two parts to this: one the representation of the processes themselves, which we refer to as the "experiential"; the other the representation of the relations between one process and another, and it is this that we refer to as the "logical". The two together constitute the "ideational" metafunction, whereby language construes our experiential world. The word "construe" is used to suggest an intellectual construction — though one that, of course, we then use as a guide to action.

[3] To be clear, just as the logical metafunction is not based on recursive systems, the other metafunctions are not based on "feature bundling", but are distinguished as modes of meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 7-8):

The ideational metafunction is concerned with construing experience — it is language as a theory of reality, as a resource for reflecting on the world. … The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with enacting interpersonal relations through language, with the adoption and assignment of speech roles, with the negotiation of attitudes, and so on — it is language in the praxis of intersubjectivity, as a resource for interacting with others. The textual metafunction is an enabling one; it is concerned with organising ideational and interpersonal meaning as discourse — as meaning that is contextualised and shared. But this does not mean processing some preexisting body of information; rather it is the ongoing creation of a semiotic realm of reality.

Misrepresenting System As Axis

Martin (2013: 59):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it misrepresents system as axis. System is the dimension of the paradigmatic order of the dimension of axis, and it is system, not axis, that disclosed the notion of metafunction to Halliday. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20, 32):

The misrepresentation is motivated, however, since it is presented as evidence for Martin's central claim in this monograph: that axis, misunderstood as 'axial relations', is foundational. 

Misrepresenting Rank As Derived From System Networks

Martin (2013: 52):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday's concept of rank was first published in Categories of a Theory of Grammar (Halliday 1961), five years before his first publication on system networks, Some Notes On 'Deep' Grammar (Halliday 1966), and nine years before the first publication on metafunctions, Language Structure and Language Function (Halliday 1970).

The rhetorical function of this misrepresentation is to support Martin's claim in this monograph that  "axial relations" are 'foundational'.

Misrepresenting Axis As the Origin Of Metafunction And Rank

Martin (2013: 52):

Blogger Comments:

[1] This gloss of the metafunctions is potentially misleading. The ideation metafunction is the construal of experience, not the construal of discourse, and the interpersonal metafunction is the enactment of interpersonal relations, not the enactment of discourse. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 7-8):

The ideational metafunction is concerned with construing experience — it is language as a theory of reality, as a resource for reflecting on the world. … The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with enacting interpersonal relations through language, with the adoption and assignment of speech roles, with the negotiation of attitudes, and so on — it is language in the praxis of intersubjectivity, as a resource for interacting with others. The textual metafunction is an enabling one; it is concerned with organising ideational and interpersonal meaning as discourse — as meaning that is contextualised and shared.

[2] The claim that 'SFL's distinctive approach to meaning and constituency in fact grew out of the development of axis (system/structure relations) from the early 1960s' is very misleading because it is untrue on several counts.

Firstly, Martin misunderstands axis as system/structure relations, as stipulated in realisation statements. In SFL Theory, axis is a local dimension whose two orders are the paradigmatic and syntagmatic (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32), with system and structure as their respective dimensions. Realisation statements are located on the paradigmatic axis, and as the name suggests, the relation between the axes is simply realisation.

Secondly, the SFL approach to the metafunctions and constituency did not grow out of the development of either axis or system/structure relations from the early 1960's. 

On the one hand, the metafunctions are a distinct global dimension from the local dimension of axis (ibid.), and first appeared in Language Structure and Language Function (Halliday 1970). 

On the other hand, the SFL approach to constituency, a rank scale, is a distinct local dimension  from the local dimension of axis (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32), and derives from the method of ranked constituency analysis, rather than immediate constituency analysis, as first set out in Categories of A Theory of Grammar (Halliday 1961), and explained more fully in Introduction to Functional Grammar (Halliday 1985).

The rhetorical significance of Martin's misleading bare assertion (the ipse dixit fallacy) is that it assumes the conclusion (the petitio principii fallacy) of the entire monograph. That is, it is one logical fallacy serving another in an invalid argument for a false conclusion.

Confusing Interpersonal And Ideational Functions

Martin (2013: 49-50):

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, this network incongruously proposes that an interpersonal feature, major, is realised by the insertion of an experiential function, Process, and does not account for the function Subject.

[2] To be clear, the fact that ba is an enclitic particle does not explain why it varies as to which item it cliticises.

[3] To be clear, the distinction between 'where' and 'when' questions is ideational, not interpersonal.

Misunderstanding 'Structure' In WH- Interrogatives

Martin (2013: 49):

Blogger Comments:

Again, Martin's notion that functional elements of different metafunctions can occur in the same structural configuration misunderstands the notion of structure, which, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451) make clear, is the relationships among functions:

Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Martin's structures propose a relationship between experiential elements, Process and Location, and textual Theme, and each of these with interpersonal Q and WH- elements, while omitting other textual and interpersonal elements, Subject and Predicator.

One way to repair Martin's analyses might be:

However, there is reason to doubt these two analyses, and the previous one, because the Theme always happens to conflate with the Subject, and this echoes Martin's misunderstanding of Theme in English. See, for example, Misconstruing Subject And Theme and Misconstruing Marked Topical Theme.

Misunderstanding 'Structure' In Polar Interrogatives

 Martin (2013: 48):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the notion that functional elements of different metafunctions can occur in the same structural configuration misunderstands the notion of structure, which, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451) make clear, is the relationships among functions:

Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Martin's structure proposes a relationship between experiential Process and textual Theme, and each of these with interpersonal Q, and omits other textual and interpersonal elements .

One way to repair Martin's analysis might be:

An Experiential Function Realising An Interpersonal Option

Martin (2013: 47-8):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is necessary to distinguish an interpersonal Predicator from an experiential Process, because a Predicator is enactment of the self as meaning, whereas a Process is a construal of experience as meaning. As a function, a Predicator is related to other elements of mood structure, such as Subject, Complement and Adjunct, whereas a Process is related to other elements of transitivity structure, such as Medium, Agent and Range. Moreover, there is no "morphology of the Process", since Process is a function at clause rank, not a class of form, verb, at word rank.

[2] To be clear, this network incongruously proposes that an interpersonal feature, major, is realised by the insertion of an experiential function, Process, and does not account for the function Subject.

Outline Of Chapter 5

Martin (2013: 11):

Blogger Comments:

This foreshadows the misleading misunderstandings to appear in Chapter 5.

Firstly, it is stratification, metafunction and rank that "bundle" systems together, not the reverse. The systems are devised according to the principles of strata, metafunction and rank, not the reverse.

Secondly, even within the misunderstanding that the "bundling" of systems is the basis of stratification, metafunction and rank, axis cannot be key. Stratification, metafunction, rank and axis are distinct dimensions, and stratification and metafunction differ from axis and rank in being a global rather than local dimensions. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32):

Outline Of Chapter 4

Martin (2013: 10-1):

Blogger Comments:

This foreshadows the misleading misunderstandings to appear in Chapter 4.

Firstly, it is not language that "privileges" systems over structure or formalises systemic relations as system networks but Systemic Functional Linguistics. Here Martin mistakes the data for the theory.

Secondly, it is the principles underlying the metafunctions that "bundle" clause systems, not the reverse. The metafunctions give rise to the systems, not the reverse. The systems are devised according to the metafunctions, not the reverse.

Thirdly, it is the modelling of constituency as rank that "bundles" systems, not the reverse. The systems are devised according to rank, not the reverse.

Fourthly, metafunction and rank are not based on axis. Metafunction, rank and axis are distinct dimensions, and metafunction differs from axis and rank in being a global rather than a local dimension. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32):