Fawcett's Eight Metafunctions

Matthiessen (1995: 85-6):

Some systemic linguists have taken positions on the metafunctions different from Halliday's, which is followed here. In particular, Fawcett (1980) sets up eight metafunctions rather than three. In terms of the present treatment, a number of the metafunctions he differentiates (e.g., negativity, attitude) correspond to functional regions rather than metafunctions and the higher number of metafunctions is essentially a result of interpersonal enacting a more delicate differentiation. As will be noted below, functional regions within the same metafunction (in the framework used here) interact in metafunctionally principled ways and this is an important reason for recognising metafunctional unity.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the point here is that it will be demonstrated that there are theoretical reasons for thinking that Fawcett (1980) misunderstands regions within a metafunction for distinct metafunctions.

See also The Cardiff Grammar.

Verbal Group Structure

Matthiessen (1995: 84):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427) identify the Auxiliary as the function of an auxiliary verb in the verbal group:

More importantly, the elements of the logical structure of the verbal group (α,β, γ etc.) are not realised by auxiliary verbs. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398-9):

… the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. … The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.

Hasan's Generic Structure Potential

Matthiessen (1995: 53):

A genre or register is the linguistic reflection of a contextual configuration; "genre is language doing the job appropriate to that class of social happenings" that a particular contextual configuration constitutes (Hasan 1985: 108).

From the point of view of text structure, a genre corresponding to a particular contextual configuration is reflected in a range or repertoire of structures available as a resource for that genre. This is what Hasan calls the Generic Structure Potential (GSP) of a genre. The GSP she gives for service encounters is as follows.

[ ( <Greeting> . ) (Sale Initiation) ^] [ (Sale Enquiry * ·) (Sale Request ^ Sale Compliance)*^ Sale ^ Purchase ^ Purchase Closure( ^ Finis)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Hasan is using 'genre' in the sense of text type, rather than rhetorical mode (context).

[2] To be clear, for Hasan, Generic Structure Potential is concerned with the semantic structure of a text type (genre) that realises the configuration of field, tenor and mode features of a situation type.

The Stratal Location Of Hasan's Generic Structure Potential

Matthiessen (1995: 51):

Generic Structure Potential [e.g. Hasan (1978)] is designed to show what repertoire of text structures is available within a particular situation type; a given generic potential is specific to the register associated with that situation type. … Generic structures belong within context; they are realisations of options within field, tenor, and mode within some situation type. … See Figure 1-20.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, for Hasan, generic structures are text structures — and so semantic, not contextual — that vary according to the genre (i.e. 'text type') that realises a situation type. Hasan (1989/1985: 64):

The Stratal Organisation Of Context In Martin (1992)

Matthiessen (1995: 46, 46n):

Work on the 'stratal' organisation of context is one of the current research areas in systemic linguistics, as can be seen in the recent collections and reviews of systemic research (e.g., Berry, 1984; Benson & Greaves, 1985; Halliday &Fawcett, 1987; Martin, 1992: Ch. 7).¹⁰

¹⁰ The organisation of 'context' is not necessarily a stratal one in the same way as the overall organisation of the linguistic system is. In particular, Martin (e.g., 1985, 1992) has built a model using Hjelmslev's (1943) notion of konnotationssprog, 'connotative language'. A konnotationssprog has language as its expression plane.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. Both Halliday and Martin use Hjelmslev's notion of a connotative semiotic in modelling context. The difference is that Martin misunderstands it. For Hjelmslev, a connotative semiotic is one that has a denotative semiotic (e.g. language) as its expression plane. On the one hand, Martin mistakes its content plane for the entire connotative semiotic, and on the other hand, locates varieties of a denotative semiotic — register and genre in the sense of 'text type' — on the content plane of the connotative semiotic instead of its expression plane. See the clarifying critiques of Martin (1992) at English Text: System And Structure.

Context And Language

Matthiessen (1995: 33):

Semantics is the interface between the linguistic system and the higher-level systems of the context in which language is embedded. The relationship between context and language is of the realisational kind; that is, context is stratified above language and is thus realised by language. 

This means that context determines systems in language; but it is also construed by them. The relationship between context and language is one of dialogic exchange. 

From the perspective of the instantial text, this means that selections in the development of the text are influenced by context; but at the same time, these selections contribute not only to maintaining the context but also to constructing it.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here Matthiessen is consistent with Halliday (1978), so the inconsistencies identified below are in Halliday's model, not in Matthiessen's understanding of it.

[1] To be clear, if the relation between context and language is one of realisation, then the question arises as to whether the lower level of symbolic abstraction can be embedded in a higher level. For example, is phonology embedded in lexicogrammar, and lexicogrammar embedded in semantics?

[2] To be clear, if the relation between context and language is realisation, then context does not determine systems in language, since the relation between them is intensive identity (elaborating), whereas 'determine' is a causal relation: one of circumstantial identity (enhancing).

[3] To be clear, if the relation between context and language is realisation, then the relationship between them cannot be one of dialogic exchange, because there can be no dialogic exchange between different levels of abstraction. For example, there can be no dialogic exchange between Hamlet and the actor playing him.

[4] To be clear, if the relation between context and language is realisation, then selections in the development of the text are not influenced by context. This is because the relation between them is elaborating (intensive identity), not enhancing (circumstantial identity), which means that the unfolding of context and language is the same process viewed at different levels of symbolic abstraction.

Instead, if the relation between context and language is one of realisation, then, in logogenesis, earlier selections probabilise later selections, and this can be viewed at each level of symbolic abstraction: context and language. That is, the influence is intra-stratal, not inter-stratal.

The Semantic Systems And Structures In Martin (1992)

Matthiessen (1995: 29): 

A text is realised lexicogrammatically by clause complexes, clauses and other grammatical units; but its scope is not determined by the grammar. Semantic systems are thus not confined to semantic units derived from the units of grammar (such as "propositions" or "predications" derived from clauses in formal semantics). This is brought out in Martin's (1992) work on the semantic systems and structures of text.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. Martin (1992) rebrands the non-structural textual lexicogrammar of Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976) as semantic systems and structures. See the clarifying critiques of Martin (1992) at English Text: System And Structure.

Meaning Potential

Matthiessen (1995: 27):

The level above grammar is semantics, the system of meanings — the resources of meaning (meaning potential) available to the language user.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is meaning potential as opposed to wording or sounding potential. In general, the term 'meaning potential' refers to language as system. Halliday (2003 [1985]: 192-3):

A language is a semiotic system; not in the sense of a system of signs, but a systemic resource for meaning — what I have often called a meaning potential (Halliday 1971).

Construing Experience

Matthiessen (1995: 17):

TRANSITIVITY is part of the ideational metafunction, which is a resource for construing our experience of the phenomena in the world around us and the world inside us.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, on the immanent view of meaning adopted in SFL Theory, 'the phenomena in the world around us and the world inside us' are themselves meanings construed of experience. They do not transcend semiotic systems.