Association As Participation, Accord, And Coordination Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 208):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on association presented above. From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is participation – to what extent to people share understandings about what to do and who or what is involved? From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is accord – to what extent are feelings shared, explicitly and implicitly, about what is going on, and how cooperative are speakers where interaction is involved? From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is coordination – to what extent do speakers smooth the flow of discourse by taking for granted information that is shared? Table 4 summarises this metafunctional factoring of association as participation, accord, and coordination.

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'association' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[2] As previously explained, 'participation' is the contextual parameter of field confused with the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[3] As previously explained, 'accord' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[4] As previously explained, 'coordination' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Coordination'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 206):

From a textual perspective, we are concerned with what we will generalise as coordination – involving taken for granted understandings smoothing the flow of discourse based on the experience of ‘kith and kin’ spending time together, and the relative control over the textual organisation of a text. Homophoric reference is a strong marker of taken-for-granted understandings of association since it identifies entities that are not necessarily accessible from the co-text or material context of an utterance. Familiar examples from domestic situations would be presuming reference such as the fridge, the car, the bathroom, the yard, and so on (where it would be ridiculous to say there’s a fridge in the kitchen; grab some beer from it, unless there were another fridge elsewhere that might be confused with it). As far as proliferation is concerned, the more that can be presumed, the closer the relationship.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'coordination' is interpersonal meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'coordination' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'coordination' is simply the textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as tenor. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Accord'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 205):

From an interpersonal perspective we are concerned with what we will generalise as accord – i.e. sharing feelings about people and things and cooperating in dialogue. Shared feelings may involve emotional reactions to triggers of various kinds, judgements of people’s character and behaviour and the value of ‘things’ (including natural phenomena, books, films, songs, performances, and so on).

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'accord' is interpersonal meaning viewed from an interpersonal perspective. That is, 'accord' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'enacting social relations'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'accord' is simply the interpersonal enactment of social relations, misunderstood here as tenor. The interpersonal perspective taken here is on language itself, not on interpersonal meaning.

The Misunderstandings Behind 'Participation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

From an ideational perspective we are concerned with what we will generalise as participation – i.e. undertaking or discussing some domestic or institutionalised activity (e.g. at home, at work, in recreation, in worship). These activities involve shared knowledge about what to do and who or what is involved. The more you understand the more you are part of the group. As far as language is concerned, a lot of such knowledge is encoded in specialised or technical lexis that only insiders can follow and whose development depends on informal and formal mentoring practices.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors characterise 'participation' as an ideational ('construing experience') perspective on social relations (tenor). But

• undertaking some domestic or institutionalised activity is material, not semiotic;
• discussing some domestic or institutionalised activity is the languaging that realises a field;
• knowledge about what to do and who is involved is ideational meaning;
• knowledge encoded in specialised or technical lexis is ideational meaning;

[2] To be clear, the more you know about SFL Theory, the less you are part of the group.🎄

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Association'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

Martin (1992: 529, 532) provides more detail on the language systems in play as far as Poynton’s patterns of usage are concerned, concentrating on interpersonal systems. But even there textual systems (e.g. rhythm, homophora) and ideational systems (e.g. agency, technical lexis) are brought in to provide a more complete picture. This suggests that as far as social relations are concerned, a multi-functional perspective will prove useful. Below we suggest a framework for what we will refer to as association – comprising ideational (participation), interpersonal (accord), and textual (coordination) patterns of usage as interlocutors enact relations of status and contact with one another.

Reviewer Comments:

The authors' argument here is as follows: 

Premiss 1: The tenor of a context is realised by textual and ideational language as well as interpersonal language.

Premiss 2: This is a problem for context-metafunction resonance.

Conclusion: The solution is to propose that there are ideational, interpersonal and textual components of interpersonal language, and to locate the resultant ensemble, 'association', in tenor at the level of context.

The problem with Premiss 2 is that it is false, because it misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that tenor only have implications for interpersonal meaning. The problem with the conclusion is that it misunderstands both stratification and metafunction. As previously explained for the authors' framework of 'mass', the authors' framework of 'association' confuses the level of context (tenor) with the level of language (interpersonal meaning), and misunderstands one metafunction, the interpersonal, to include all three metafunctions.

Mass As Technicality, Iconisation, And Aggregation Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 203):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on mass presented above. 

From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is technicality – to what extent is meaning distilled as technical terms arranged as uncommon sense property, classification, composition, and activity? 

From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is iconisation – to what extent is knowledge charged with values shared by members of a community? 

From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is aggregation – to what extent does a text consolidate meaning, prospectively or retrospectively, as it unfolds? 

Table 3 summarises this metafunctional factoring of mass as technicality, iconisation, and aggregation.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'mass' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[2] As previously explained, 'technicality' is the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[3] As previously explained, 'iconisation' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[4] As previously explained, 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Aggregation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 201):

Turning to textual meaning, another important dimension of mass is what we refer to as aggregation – a process whereby texts package their presentation of knowledge and values.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'aggregation' is ideational meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'aggregation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'aggregation' is simply a textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as field. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Iconisation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 200-1):

As a popular science writer, Mukherjee does not of course leave us there. He also has the task of celebrating the achievements of the scientists involved and their discoveries. This means we need to bring interpersonal meaning into the picture – to show how value is added to knowledge via a process we refer to as iconisation (Martin 2010). 

… In general terms, the point we are making here is that specialised knowledge involves both understandings and their value.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] For the authors, 'iconisation' is ideational meaning viewed from an interpersonal perspective. That is, 'iconisation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'enacting social relations'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'iconisation' is simply an interpersonal enactment of social relations, misunderstood as field. The interpersonal perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

[2] To be clear, here the authors present Halliday's model as their own discovery. For example, Halliday (2003 [1992]: 384):

But the full creative power of an act of meaning arises from the fact that language both construes and enacts. It is not only a way of thinking about the world; it is also, at one and the same time, a way of acting on the world — which means, of course, acting on the other people in it.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Technicality'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 200):

From an ideational perspective we are concerned with technicality – in particular the nature of more and less common-sense knowledge in discourse. Mukherjee (2022), in his popular science celebration of cell biology, introduces readers to seminal work on cell composition …

In doing so Mukharjee moves readers from common sense observations about differences between organisms and their substance to the uncommon sense understanding that the building blocks of all life are cells. From the perspective of field, he construes specialised composition.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] For the authors, 'technicality' is ideational meaning viewed from an ideational perspective. That is, 'technicality' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'construing experience'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'technicality' describes the ideational meaning construed of experience, misunderstood as field. The ideational perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

[2] As previously explained, such composition hierarchies are not field, but construals of experience in the language that realises a field. The misunderstanding here is of stratification: confusing context and language

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

Responding to Maton’s characterisation of semantic density as involving ‘formal definitions, empirical descriptions or feelings, political sensibilities, taste, values, morals, affiliations’, we have revisited work on technicality in an effort to broaden SFL’s conception of specialised knowledge. 

In terms of SFL’s concept of metafunction this means extending the focus on ideational meaning to include interpersonal and textual perspectives as well. As noted above, taken together, the contributions from the different metafunctions are referred to as mass (introduced in Martin [2017] and further elaborated with respect to the analysis of infographics in Martin and Unsworth [2024]).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in taking a 'language-based approach to cognition', SFL models 'knowledge' as meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: ix-x):

It seems to us that our dialogue is relevant to current debates in cognitive science. In one sense, we are offering it as an alternative to mainstream currents in this area, since we are saying that cognition "is" (that is, can most profitably be modelled as) not thinking but meaning: the "mental" map is in fact a semiotic map, and "cognition" is just a way of talking about language. In modelling knowledge as meaning, we are treating it as a linguistic construct: hence, as something that is construed in the lexicogrammar. Instead of explaining language by reference to cognitive processes, we explain cognition by reference to linguistic processes.

[2] To be clear,  this "extension" of the focus on ideational meaning misunderstands SFL’s concept of metafunction. To paraphrase Halliday (2003 [1995]: 414-5):

• the ideational metafunction is the function of language in construing experience as meaning;
• the interpersonal metafunction is the function of language in enacting social relations as meaning; and
• the textual metafunction is the function of language in creating the flow of information.

In this model, ideational meaning does not "include contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives", any more than the TRANSITIVITY system of the clause "includes contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives". MOOD and THEME are Interpersonal and textual "perspectives", but on the clause, not on the ideational wording of the clause.

[3] To be clear, defining 'mass' in terms of the meaning of language and locating it in the contextual parameter of field is a contradiction in terms.

Three Of The Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass', 'Association' And 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

In this section we turn from realisation to instantiation and introduce a multifunctional perspective on some of the traditional concerns of field, tenor, and mode studies in previous work. 

• Re-visiting traditional work on field leads us to a multi-functional perspective on knowledge-building we refer to as mass (Martin 2017); 
• re-visiting traditional work on tenor leads us to a multi-functional perspective on enacting social relations we refer to as association; and 
• re-visiting mode leads us to a multifunctional perspective on organising information flow we refer to as presence (Martin and Matruglio 2013). … 

We propose mass, association, and presence as principles of co-selection during the process of instantiation – which we believe provide a partial account of the phenomenon of permeability in Hasan’s work as introduced above.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, from this point on, the theoretical confusions in this paper multiply.

[1] The authors here continue their confusion of context with language:

• 'mass' confuses field (context) with "knowledge building" (ideational language + semogenesis);
• 'association' confuses tenor (context) with enacting social relations (interpersonal language); and
• 'presence' confuses mode (context) with organising information flow (textual language).

[2] It will be seen that these multifunctional perspectives involve viewing each of the metafunctions from the perspective of each of the metafunctions. A grammatical example of this approach would be to view clause transitivity from ideational, interpersonal and textual perspectives. To be clear, it is the clause itself that is viewed from metafunctional perspectives, not any of the metafunctional strands of the clause.

[3] As previously explained, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables that are said to be at the level of context — mass, association and presence — cannot be principles of instantiation for the level of language. That is, here the authors misunderstand instantiation as a relation between context and language. If mass, association and presence are said to be potential at the level of context, then they themselves are instantiated at the level of context.

[4] To be clear, 'permeability' here simply means that options in one parameter of context, say field, can preselect or exclude options in another, say tenor or mode. The same phenomenon occurs in language where an option in THEME, say, preselects or excludes options in MOOD or TRANSITIVITY.

Moving From The Misunderstandings Of Realisation To The Misunderstandings Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198-9):

As for tenor and field, these systems of mode – DISTRIBUTION, JUNCTURE, and PULSING – offer a model of the resources drawn on to organise text, rather than a common-sense classification of different modes. This model of mode as a resource is considerably less developed than that for field (Doran and Martin 2021) and for tenor (Doran et al. 2024), but it nonetheless offers a means of maintaining the context-metafunction resonance that has underpinned SFL’s conception of the relationship between the internal and external functionality of language.

Of course, this does not mean that other considerations often grouped under field, tenor, and mode (e.g. degrees of technicality, social contact, and context-dependence) do not need to be accounted for. Rather, it means that they need to be conceptualised in a theoretically clearer manner. To do this, we propose a perspective from instantiation that treats these and other variables as coupling principles – i.e. as principles for the co-selection and arrangement of choices in language.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously shown, these "mode" systems all derive from misunderstanding context as language.

[2] As previous shown, the authors misunderstand context-metafunction resonance as requiring that a contextual parameter only implicate linguistic systems of the counterpart metafunction. On this misunderstanding, the field of logic implicating 'proposition' in the interpersonal system of the speech function would constitute a reduction in context-metafunction resonance.

Moreover, as previously shown, the authors themselves contribute to a "reduction of resonance" by interpreting exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) as a resource of mode (textual context).

[3] To be clear, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables at one level, context, cannot be principles of instantiation for another level, language. That is, here the authors begin their misunderstanding of instantiation as a relation between context and language. This is the direct opposite of conceptualising context "in a theoretically clearer manner".

Confusing Mode With "Martin's" Text Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Similarly, the use of text reference (Martin 1992), often coupled with semiotic entities (Hao 2020) and connexion resources, also indicates a distribution of information. In the following (constructed) example, the semiotic entity three main arguments points forward to the fact that a set of arguments are required for the full meaning of the section; the internal connexions First, Second, and Finally signal that each argument connects either forward or backward with the other arguments; and the text reference None of these arguments at the end, looks backwards by making clear that the information that is ‘not convincing’ is to be found earlier in the text. These resources all work together to distribute information throughout the text (while also working to demarcate and foreground different components of this information).

There have been three main arguments against students wearing uniforms. First, they dampens students’ individual expression. Second, uniforms are expensive. And third, they harken back to an old-fashioned time of rigid uniformity. None of these arguments are convincing.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with the text reference of Halliday & Hasan (1976: 52), and misleads by plagiaristically crediting Martin (1992) as its intellectual source.

[2] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with Martin's logical discourse semantic system of connexion, which rebrands his confusion of Halliday's grammatical systems of cohesive conjunction (textual) and clause complexing (logical). Evidence here.

Confusing Mode With Endophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Distribution can also occur within texts. The clearest instance of this involves drawing on anaphora – whereby an instance refers backwards in a text, often via pronouns. In the following text, the teacher first puts forward the entity ‘nucleolus’, and then each subsequent reference uses it to indicate the information being sought is distributed across the text:

Phoricity resources such as those noted above are one of the key means of distributing information. But they are by no means the only resource for doing this. In the text above, the two questions put forward by the teacher and student: Do you know what the nucleolus is? And Isn’t that where it make ribosomes? also make clear that the information of the text is to be distributed – in this case that another move is needed for closure.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of endophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

[2] To be clear, here the authors propose that exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) is a resource of mode (textual context), which, as well as confusing context with language, contradicts their claim  that their model conforms to (their misunderstanding of) context-metafunction resonance,.

Confusing Mode With Ideational Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197-8):

This contrasts with a number of instances at the beginning of the class, where the teacher is establishing what they are going to do. In these instances, marked in bold, the teacher is indicating that there is no relevant information elsewhere that is needed to follow what is going on – the information is not distributed but immediate.

What we’re going to do today is model a representation of mitosis as a point of reference to explain these stages. I’m going to give you some materials so when we jump into our groups you’re going to construct a model for the stages.

The immediacy of the information is established in three of these instances through presenting reference (Martin 1992) – a representation of mitosis, some materials, a model, where the indefinite Deictics indicate that these participants are being introduced and are not to be recovered from elsewhere in the text or the situation. The fourth possible instance, our groups, draws on homophora (Halliday and Hasan 1976); in this case the entity’s identity is presumed, and so does not need to be recovered from anywhere else.

Reviewer Comments:

This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with two misunderstandings of a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

On the one hand, Martin's 'presenting reference' misunderstands reference in the sense of ideational denotation; see the evidence here. On the other hand, the authors misunderstand what is not a reference item, the first person determiner our, as a homophoric reference item.

Confusing Mode With Exophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197):

Finally, mode offers resources for distributing information across a text, via a system called DISTRIBUTION. The basic distinction is between an instance of language that indicates that there is further information needed to understand what is being said (i.e. that the information is in some sense distributed) or that all the information is given in the immediate instance. 

Distribution of information occurs throughout the classroom example we have been looking at, where the teacher refers across modalities to the slides they are using (in bold below):

I have this image here of the cell undergoing mitosis for two replicated daughter cells. You’ve got here DNA replication with the cell cycle – what part is that called?

In this example, the teacher is specifying that the information needed is distributed between the spoken language and the slide they are looking at. She does this by drawing on exophoric reference to the infographic (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Martin 1992).

Reviewer Comments:

This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of exophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).