Saturday, 10 December 2016

Pageviews by Countries

Graph of most popular countries among blog viewers
EntryPageviews
Australia
2169
United States
1511
Russia
783
Portugal
438
France
424
Germany
144
China
123
United Kingdom
111
Canada
106
Hong Kong
93

Friday, 7 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 1 — Discourse Semantics: A Proposal For Triple Articulation

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 1 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Confusing Strata
  2. Confusing Realisation And Instantiantion
  3. Misconstruing Realisation And Instantiation
  4. The Problems With Semantic Motifs As A Motivation For Stratification
  5. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
  6. Misrepresenting Cohesion
  7. Misrepresenting The Domain Of Cohesion
  8. Misconstruing 'Cohesion Within The Sentence'
  9. Not Recognising The 'Continuity' Between Clause Taxis And Conjunctive Cohesion
  10. Why The Argument For A 'Discourse' Semantic Stratum Is Invalid
  11. Misconstruing Stratification
  12. Misconstruing The Level Of Symbolic Abstraction Of Cohesion
  13. Conflating Realisation With Instantiation
  14. Inconsistency In Reconstruing Reference As Identification
  15. Problems In Construing Cohesive Ties As Identification Structure
  16. Problems In Construing Cohesive Ties As Ideation Structure
  17. Inconsistencies In The Notion Of 'Discourse Semantic Structure'
  18. Discourse Semantic Systems: Metafunctional Inconsistencies
  19. Confusing Stratification With Instantiation: Register And Genre

Thursday, 6 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 2 — Negotiation: Shaping Meaning Through Dialogue

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 2 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Misrepresenting Stratification 
  2. Confusing The Textual And Interpersonal Metafunctions 
  3. Confusing Context With Co-Text And Material Setting 
  4. Misrepresenting The Realisation Of Speech Function In Mood 
  5. Blurring Context And Material Setting 
  6. Confusing Semogenesis And Stratification 
  7. Misrepresenting Stratification 
  8. Underestimating The Mood Grammar 
  9. The Inconsistency In Treating Genre As A Connotative Semiotic 
  10. Misconstruing Stratification 
  11. Confusing Unmarkedness And Congruence 
  12. Misrepresenting Structure, Metafunction And Stratum 
  13. Conflating Content And Expression

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 3 — Identification: Reference As Semantic Choice

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 3 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Confusing Semogenesis With Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
  2. Confusing Grammatical Reference And Lexical Cohesion (Hyponymy)
  3. Confusing Material Setting And Context Of Situation
  4. Misconstruing Context As Co-Text And Material Setting
  5. Confusing Grammatical Reference And Lexical Cohesion
  6. Foreshadowing A Misconstrual Of Stratal Relations
  7. Confusing Identity With Identifiability
  8. Confusing Participant Identity With The Systemic Means Of Referring To Referents
  9. Confusing Semogenesis With Stratification
  10. Underestimating Grammar
  11. Oversimplifying Nominalisation
  12. Misrepresenting Strata
  13. Metafunctional Inconsistency
  14. Two Theoretical Problems With Reference Chains
  15. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan On Reference
  16. Metafunctional Inconsistencies
  17. Misconstruing 'Multivariate' & Metafunctional Inconsistencies
  18. 'The Major Limitation On The Account Of Participant Identification'

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 4 — Conjunction & Continuity: The Logic Of English Text

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 4 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Why The Argument For A Discourse Semantics Of Logical Relations Is Invalid
  2. Underplaying The Scope Of Logical Relations
  3. Conflating Systems Of The Logical And Textual Metafunctions
  4. Misconstruing Different Systems As Divergent Classifications
  5. Misrepresenting Different Manifestations Of Expansion As Indeterminacy
  6. Misconstruing Extension As Enhancement
  7. Misconstruing the Theoretical Status Of Expansion
  8. Presenting Subtypes Of Expansion As The Principal Types
  9. Misidentifying A Metafunction
  10. Misinterpreting Internal And External Conjunctive Relations
  11. Confusing Conjunctive Relations With Conjuncted Messages
  12. Confusing Textual Relations With Construals Of Experience
  13. Confusing The Logical And Textual Metafunctions And Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement
  14. Misconstruing Internal And External Relations
  15. Confusing The Logical And Experiential Metafunctions
  16. Rebranding Grammar As Discourse Semantics
  17. Seeing Metafunctions As Alternatives Rather Than Complementary
  18. Confusing Ideational Cause And Interpersonal Modulation
  19. Using 'Condition' To Unite 'Cause' And 'Manner' As 'Consequential'
  20. Misconstruing Manner As Cause
  21. Misconstruing Condition And Purpose As Cause–Effect
  22. Misconstruing The Distinction Between Condition And Purpose
  23. Misrepresenting Reason As Purpose
  24. Misconstruing Negative Vs Positive Condition
  25. Misconstruing Negative Vs Positive Purpose
  26. Misconstruing Condition And Purpose
  27. Confusing Condition With Probability
  28. Misconstruing Reason And Result As Purpose
  29. Misconstruing Manner As A Cause-Effect Relation
  30. Misconstruing A Dependent Clause As A Postmodifier In An Adverbial Group
  31. Misconstruing Concession As Manner
  32. Misconstruing Adversative Extension As 'Concessive Purpose'
  33. Misconstruing Positive Condition As Concessive
  34. Confusing Enhancement (Manner: Comparison) With Extension (Adversative Addition)
  35. Confusing Dissimilar (Enhancement) With Adversative (Extension)
  36. The Argument For Comparison As A Major Logical Category
  37. Misconstruing Adversative Addition (Extension) As Manner: Comparison (Enhancement)
  38. Misconstruing Subtractive And Replacive Variation (Extension) As Subtypes Of Comparison (Enhancement)
  39. Using Clause Simplexes To Theorise Conjunctive Relations
  40. Confusing Negative Addition With Negative Polarity
  41. Confusing Internal With Cohesive, Similar With Elaboration, Different With Adversative
  42. Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Apposition' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'
  43. Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Clarification' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'
  44. Misconstruing Cohesive As Internal
  45. Misconstruing Types Of Elaboration As Types Of Enhancement
  46. Confusing (Elaborating) Conjunctive Relations With (Elaborating) Relational Processes
  47. Misconstruing Apposition (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)
  48. Misconstruing A Modal Adjunct As A Conjunctive Adjunct
  49. Misconstruing Summative Clarification (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)
  50. Confusing Textual Clarification With The Enactment Of Meaning
  51. Misconstruing Textual Clarification As Text Emendation
  52. Misconstruing Internal Conjunction
  53. Misconstruing Resumptive Clarification As Interrupted Comparison
  54. Misconstruing Different Metafunctional Manifestations Of Extension As Subtypes Of Enhancement
  55. Misconstruing Elaboration Vs Extension As Internal Enhancement
  56. Misconstruing Mixed Types Of Elaboration & Extension As Degrees Of Enhancement
  57. Relabelling Grammatical Relations As Discourse Semantic Relations
  58. Misconstruing Continuity As Addition
  59. Misconstruing Continuity And Clarifying Elaboration As Additive Extension
  60. Rebranding Extending Vs Elaborating As Developing Vs Staging
  61. Misconstruing Extension As A 'Continuity' Of Additive And Comparative Relations
  62. Reconstruing A False Dichotomy As Hyponymy
  63. Misconstruing An Interpersonal Concession As A Non-Concessive Logical Relation
  64. Mistaking Comment Adjuncts For Conjunctions
  65. Confusing Metafunctions — And Expansion Types
  66. Misconstruing Types Of Comment Adjuncts As Marking Modality Values Of A Logical Relation
  67. Misconstruing Clarification (Elaborating) As Concession (Enhancing)
  68. Not Recognising A Genuine Concessive Relation
  69. Mistaking A Thematised Mood Adjunct Of Temporality For Internal Temporal Conjunction
  70. Misrepresenting Internal Vs External Relations
  71. Misconstruing Structural Vs Cohesive As External Vs Internal
  72. Misconstruing The Meaning Of Internal Conjunctive Relations
  73. Misrepresenting Continuity
  74. Conjunction, "Continuity" And Thematicity
  75. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [1]
  76. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [2]
  77. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [3]
  78. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [1]
  79. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [2]
  80. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [3]
  81. Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [4]
  82. Misconstruing The Difference Between Conjunction And Continuity
  83. Misconstruing Types Of Adjunct As Types Of Continuity Item
  84. Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Continuity Items Of Counterexpectation
  85. Misconstruing Interpersonal Counterexpectancy As Logical Continuity
  86. Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Aspectual Continuity Markers
  87. Misconstruing the Function Of A Mood Adjunct (Misconstrued As A Continuity Item)
  88. Misconstruing Substitution As Continuity
  89. Misconstruing Residue Substitution As Continuity
  90. Misconstruing A Circumstantial Adjunct As A Continuity Item
  91. The Omission Of Projection And Hypotactic Elaboration From The Logic Of Discourse Semantics
  92. Misconstruing Parataxis As Addition (Extension)
  93. Misconstruing An Implicit Conjunctive Relation As Internal
  94. Misapplying Logical Nesting To Textual Relations
  95. Misapplying Textual Reference To Logical Dependency
  96. Misconstruing Circumstantial Comparison As Conjunctive Comparison
  97. Criticising Others For Not Making The Same Mistakes
  98. Confusing Textual Relations With Logogenesis
  99. Maintaining That Clause Simplexes "Cause Problems For The Clause Complex Analysis"
  100. Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis
  101. Confusing Textual Conjunction With Logical Relations
  102. Misrepresenting The Discourse Systems Of Conjunction & Identification
  103. Confusing Cohesive Relations With Logogenesis

Monday, 3 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 5 — Ideation: The Company Words Keep

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 5 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Misrepresenting The Chapter 4 Model Of Conjunction
  2. Misconstruing Context As Register
  3. Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Dictionary Definitions
  4. Not Recognising The Stratification Of Content: Thesaurus
  5. Misrepresenting The Model Of Transitivity
  6. Misconstruing Unassigned vs Assigned As Single vs Double Agency
  7. Misrepresenting 'Semiotic'
  8. Misrepresenting The Directions Of Coding And Mistaking A Verbal Projection Nexus For An Identifying Clause
  9. Falsely Claiming To Have Uniquely Classified Two Lexical Items
  10. Misconstruing The Agency Of Identifying Clauses
  11. Lexical Cohesion Update
  12. Confusing Textual Cohesion With Experiential Delicacy
  13. Relocating Lexis Outside Language
  14. Misconstruing Semantics As Context
  15. Inconsistencies Of Structure And Metafunction
  16. Misconstruing The Difference Between Lexical Item And Grammatical Word
  17. Confusing Register (Language) With Context (Culture)
  18. Confusing Context With Semantics
  19. Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]
  20. Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [2]
  21. Misconstruing Experiential As Constituent Of Logical
  22. Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics
  23. Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent
  24. Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar
  25. Misrepresenting Superordination (Hyponymy)
  26. Misconstruing Field As Language
  27. Misconstruing Meronymy As Hyponymy
  28. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Hyp(er)onymy
  29. Misconstruing Synonymy
  30. Confusing Lexis With Grammar
  31. Misconstruing Antonymy
  32. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [1]
  33. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [2]
  34. Misconstruing Location (Enhancement) As Possession (Extension)
  35. Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [3]
  36. Misconstruing Synonymy + Collocation As Relational Meronymy
  37. Confusing Lexical Cohesion And Reference
  38. Misrepresenting Hyponymy As Bridging Hyponymy
  39. Misrepresenting Meronymy As Bridging Meronymy
  40. An Unwarranted Claim About the System Of Identification
  41. Misconstruing Ranges As Mediums
  42. Confusing Collocation With Transitivity
  43. Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [1]
  44. Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [2]
  45. Misconstruing Expansion Relations Realised In The Nominal Group
  46. Misrepresenting Ranges As Mediums
  47. Misconstruing Enhancing Circumstances As Elaborating Ranges
  48. Misconstruing Enhancement (Cause) As Elaboration
  49. Misconstruing Extension (Composition) As Elaboration
  50. Misconstruing Extension (Possession) As Elaboration
  51. Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement
  52. Misrepresenting Elaboration
  53. Misconstruing Enhancement & Projection As Extension
  54. Misconstruing Elaboration As Extension
  55. Reducing All Verbal Group Complex Relations To Extension
  56. Relocating A Subset Of Manner Circumstances To The Verbal Group
  57. Reclassifying Function According To Form
  58. Misconstruing Projection As Enhancement
  59. Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Elaboration As Extension
  60. Classifying Expansion Type On The Basis Of Form
  61. Presenting Theoretical Misunderstandings As An 'Alternative Perspective'
  62. Misconstruing Experiential Nuclearity As Logical Expansion Type
  63. Misunderstanding 'Instantiate'
  64. Misconstruing Elaboration As Extension And Extension As Elaboration
  65. Misconstruing Logical Relations As Interpersonal Enactments
  66. Confusing Metafunctions And Confusing Context With Semantics
  67. Misconstruing Extension As Enhancement
  68. Confusing Implication, Cause And Modulation
  69. Misconstruing Ideational Semantics As Field
  70. Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions
  71. Self-Contradiction And Misunderstanding Stratification
  72. No Identifiable Discourse Semantic Unit Realised By Clause Complexes
  73. The Avoidance Of Experiential Meaning In Discourse Semantics
  74. Using Ideational Labels For Textual Units And Vice Versa
  75. Misconstruing Incongruent Realisations And Expansion Types
  76. Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration And General As Instantial
  77. Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
  78. Confusing Strata And Confusing Metafunctions
  79. Claiming The Verb 'Stand' Is A Repetition Of The Verb 'Tabled'
  80. Claiming That Analysing A Text Can Alter The Mode Of The Text
  81. Structural & Metafunctional Inconsistencies
  82. Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration
  83. Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
  84. Misconstruing Mode As Genre
  85. Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause
  86. Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension
  87. Misconstruing Mode As Genre
  88. Misconstruing Context As Register
  89. Misidentifying The Main Differences Between Martin And Hasan
  90. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor & Neglecting Interstratal Accountability
  91. Misidentifying Transitivity Rôles And Expansion Types
  92. A Summary Of Discourse Systems Inconsistencies
  93. Misconstruing Instantial Probabilities As Structural Relations
  94. Construing A Scale From Hyponym To Ellipsis (Via Word Classes)
  95. A Convoluted Non-Sequitur
  96. Misconstruing Instantiation Probability As The Opposite Of Anaphoric Reference
  97. Three Minor Clarifications
  98. Confusing Three Distinct Notions Of "Predicting" Discourse
  99. Claiming That Conjunctive Relations Are Realised By Nouns
  100. Multiplying A Misunderstanding Of The External Vs Internal Distinction
  101. Misrepresenting Field And Misconstruing Interstratal Realisation
  102. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Material'
  103. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Makes B Come To Be'
  104. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Reconstitutes B'
  105. Misconstruing 'A Realises B' As 'A Is A Metaphor For B'
  106. Self-Contradiction
  107. Misrepresenting Interstratal Relations

Sunday, 2 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 6 — Texture: Interleaving Discourse Semantics, Lexicogrammar And Phonology

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 6 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
  2. Misrepresenting Inconsistency As Consistency
  3. Misconstruing Collocation And Interstratal Relations
  4. Misconstruing Substitution–&–Ellipsis
  5. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan
  6. Misconstruing Stratification And Grammatical Metaphor
  7. Resorting To A Misconstrual of Stratification
  8. Misconstruing Cataphoric Reference
  9. Misconstruing Stratification
  10. Misconstruing Textual Grammar As "Redounding With" Interpersonal And Experiential Semantics
  11. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan And Confusing Metafunctions
  12. Misrepresenting Interstratal Realisation, Grammatical Metaphor & Register
  13. Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules
  14. Misrepresenting Realisation And Preselection
  15. Misunderstanding Stratification
  16. Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation And Instantiation
  17. Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal
  18. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
  19. Misrepresenting Halliday On The Stratification Of Content
  20. Misunderstanding The Principles Of Metafunction And Stratification
  21. Misunderstanding The Textual Metafunction And Misrepresenting Context As Register
  22. Misrepresenting Tenor As A 'Register Variable'
  23. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Ideation
  24. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Identification
  25. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Conjunction
  26. Ideational Metaphor And Mode
  27. Misconstruing Non-Structural Cohesion As Discourse Structure
  28. Misconstruing Types Of Language As More Abstract Than Language
  29. Misconstruing Contextual Systems And 'Text Forming Resources'
  30. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
  31. Taking A Monostratal Approach To Grammatical Metaphor
  32. Mistaking Ideational Metaphor For Metaphor
  33. Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor
  34. Claiming That Location Circumstances Realise Relations Between Clauses
  35. Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor As An Interaction Of Logical & Experiential Metaphors
  36. Reducing Expansion To Conjunctive Relations
  37. Misconstruing Ideational Metaphor
  38. Misrepresenting Internal Conjunctive Relations
  39. Misconstruing Experiential Manifestations Of Expansion As Logical Metaphor
  40. Under-Representing The Scope Of Ideational Metaphor
  41. Misconstruing Technical Terms As Grammatical Metaphors
  42. Reducing Ideational Metaphor To The Transcategorisation Of Elements
  43. Confusing Logogenesis With Text Analysis & Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
  44. Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
  45. Misconstruing Modal Adjuncts As Interpersonal Metaphor
  46. Misconstruing Congruent Obligation As Metaphorical Inclination
  47. Misconstruing Metaphors Of Mood
  48. Misrepresenting Metaphors Of Mood
  49. On The Ineffability Of Interpersonal Texturing
  50. Misrepresenting (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
  51. Confusing Metalanguage And Language
  52. Misunderstanding (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
  53. Problems With The Argument For "Textual" Metaphor
  54. The Confused Notion Of "Logically Oriented Textual Metaphor"
  55. The Confused Notion Of "Interpersonally Oriented Textual Metaphor"
  56. Misunderstanding The Trinocular Perspective And Misconstruing Context As Register
  57. Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony
  58. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion
  59. “One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique”
  60. Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Misidentifying Metaphor
  61. The Problem Of Overlapping Lexical Strings And Reference Chains
  62. Misrepresenting Hasan's Cohesive Harmony
  63. Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
  64. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
  65. Misrepresenting Information Structure
  66. The Origin Of 'Method Of Development': Peter Fries
  67. Misconstruing Marked Topical Theme
  68. Adjusting The Data To Fit The Theory
  69. Misunderstanding Internal Conjunction
  70. Problems With The Argument For Hyper-Theme
  71. Misconstruing A Graphological Unit As Semantic
  72. Intuiting Others' Assessments of Coherence
  73. Falsifying Data: Misrepresenting An Interview Transcript As A Writing Exercise
  74. Questions “Predicting” Answers
  75. Locating Graphological Units 'Above' A Grammatical Unit
  76. Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
  77. Misrepresenting Halliday On 'Theme'
  78. Assigning A Text To The Wrong “Genre” (Register)
  79. A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises
  80. Misconstruing Theme Selection As An Interpersonal Resource
  81. Misconstruing Stratification, Metafunction And Metaphor
  82. Confusing The Textual And Interpersonal Metafunctions
  83. Misrepresenting Phonology
  84. Misrepresenting Textual Analysis
  85. Misinterpreting Theme And New
  86. Failing To Model (Or Notice) The Interplay Of New And (Marked) Theme
  87. Not Accounting For A Distinctive Mode Of Development
  88. Misrepresenting New Information
  89. Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New
  90. Misidentifying New Information
  91. When New Information Isn't — But Repeated Information Is
  92. Confusing Textual Phase With Textual Status
  93. Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
  94. Presenting Prescription As Theoretical Description
  95. When An Abstract Is A Summary And A Summary Is An Introduction
  96. Misconstruing A Grammatical Reference Item As An Accumulation Of New Information
  97. Not Understanding Interstratal Realisation
  98. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility (Semiotic Order) As Social Responsibility (Material Order)
  99. Misconstruing Subject And Theme
  100. Confusing Metafunctions And Axes
  101. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility In Terms Of Exchange Resolution
  102. Confusing Subject With Validity
  103. Misunderstanding The Metafunctions
  104. Blurring Metafunctions
  105. Misconstruing Semiotic Validity As Social Success
  106. Confusing Metafunctions, Misunderstanding Modal Responsibility And Misinterpreting Data
  107. The Argument That "Verbal Processes Are Fundamentally Metaphorical In Nature"
  108. Using Embedding To Argue About Hypotaxis
  109. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility As Speaker At Risk
  110. Using A Middle Clause To Illustrate Agency
  111. Misconstruing Strata As Modules
  112. A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6
  113. Misrepresenting Cohesive Harmony
  114. Rhapsodising On Method Of Development
  115. Rhapsodising On Point
  116. Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point
  117. Rhapsodising On Modal Responsibility
  118. Using Allegory To Misrepresent The Rôle Of Mood And Residue In Modal Responsibility
  119. Rhapsodising On Grammatical Metaphor
  120. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
  121. Using Metaphor To Misrepresent Grammatical Metaphor
  122. Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Saturday, 1 October 2016

Post Titles For Chapter 7 — Context: Register, Genre And Ideology

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 7 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.
  1. Misunderstanding Metafunctions
  2. Confusing Orders Of Experience
  3. The Invalidity Of The Argument For Register And Genre As Context Strata
  4. Theoretical Inconsistencies In Modelling Genre And Register As Context Strata
  5. The Invalidity Of The Argument For A Stratum Of Ideology
  6. Inconsistent Claims About Discourse Semantics, Register, Genre And Ideology
  7. Misrepresenting Firth On Context
  8. Misrepresenting Halliday On Formal And Contextual Meaning
  9. Misunderstanding Stratification And Context
  10. Purpose, Genre And Register
  11. Confusing Context With Semantics
  12. Confusing Context With Text Type
  13. Self-Contradiction
  14. Problems With The Non-Argument For Register As Context
  15. Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context
  16. Assigning Purpose To Theoretical Dimensions
  17. Misrepresenting Purpose And Intention
  18. Confusing Text Type (Genre) With Text Structure (Semantics)
  19. Misrepresenting Previous Work On Text Structure And Context
  20. Misrepresenting Hasan On Text Structure
  21. Inverting The Stratification Hierarchy
  22. Misunderstanding Stratification And Realisation
  23. Confusing Context (And Semantics) With Text Type
  24. Problems With 'Genre As A Pattern Of Register Patterns'
  25. Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum
  26. Two Problems With The Second Justification For A Genre Stratum
  27. Eight Problems With The Third Justification For A Genre Stratum
  28. Two Problems With The Fourth Justification For A Genre Stratum
  29. Two Problems With The Fifth Justification For A Genre Stratum
  30. Misidentifying Metafunctions
  31. Misrepresenting Mode
  32. Misconstruing A Dialogic Response As Monologue
  33. Misunderstanding Mode
  34. Not Acknowledging Hasan As Intellectual Source
  35. Blurring Distinctions
  36. Misunderstanding Bakhtin's 'Dialogic' And 'Heteroglossic'
  37. Misunderstanding Orders Of Experience
  38. Confusing Material Order Phenomena With Textual Semiosis
  39. Confusing Context Potential (Mode) With Language Sub-Potentials (Registers)
  40. Multiple Violations Of Theoretical Dimensions
  41. Redefining Genre As Field
  42. Under-Acknowledging Hasan As Theoretical Source
  43. Confusing Contextual Potential With Semantic Sub-potentials
  44. Miscategorising Texts By Mode
  45. Miscategorising Text Types
  46. Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Hortatory And Analytical Exposition
  47. Misconstruing Degrees Of Abstraction
  48. Confusing Mode (Context) With The Ideational Semantics Of Registers
  49. Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
  50. Misrepresenting Abstraction
  51. Confusing Mode Potential (Context) With Text Types (Register)
  52. Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
  53. Misconstruing Language Rôle As Speaker Rôle
  54. Confusing Theoretical Dimensions: Stratification, Instantiation & Metafunction
  55. Confusing Different Strata, Metafunctions & Orders Of Experience
  56. Misconstruing Ancillary As Constitutive
  57. Misconstruing Lower And Higher Orders Of Experience As Higher & Lower Levels Of Symbolic Abstraction
  58. Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
  59. Confusing Mode Potential With Ideational Semantics Subpotentials
  60. Misconstruing Field As Mode
  61. Misconstruing The Notion Of Projection
  62. Misconstruing Mode
  63. Misconstruing Dialogue As Unprojected
  64. The Non-Argument For 'Experiential Distance'
  65. Misunderstanding Tenor
  66. Misconstruing Context Potential (Tenor) As Language Sub-Potential (Register)
  67. Blurring The Distinction Between Tenor (Context) And Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
  68. Misattributing A Source
  69. Three Minor Clarifications
  70. Confusing Context Potential With The Semantics Of Registers
  71. Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"
  72. Misconstruing Status As Control
  73. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Phonology
  74. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammar
  75. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Lexis
  76. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Discourse Semantics
  77. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Status & Grammatical Metaphor
  78. Misconstruing The Realisation Of Tenor
  79. Misrepresenting The Relation Between Contact And Field
  80. Metafunctional Confusion And A Non-Sequitur
  81. Spurious Use Of 'System' And 'Process'
  82. Misrepresenting Field As Discourse Semantics
  83. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tone
  84. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonality
  85. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Tonicity
  86. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & “Phonology”
  87. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammar
  88. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Lexis
  89. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics
  90. Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor
  91. Unsupported Claims About Affect
  92. Misconstruing Relations Between Speakers As Individual Predisposition
  93. Confusing Affect With Affection
  94. Mental vs Relational vs Material Affection
  95. Misconstruing Affect With Unsupported Claims
  96. Misconstruing A Tenor Relation As The Behaviours And Predispositions Of Individuals
  97. Blurring The Distinction Between Context And Semantics
  98. Inconsistent Unsupported Claims About The Realisation Of Misconstrued Affect
  99. Invoking Clinical And Social Psychology
  100. Confusing Field With The Language That Realises It
  101. Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation, Logogenesis And Instantiation
  102. Misrepresenting Data & Confusing Strata
  103. Confusing Context With Extra-Linguistic Knowledge, Register And Semantics
  104. Misrepresenting The Distinction Between Fabula And Syuzhet
  105. Misconstruing Barthes' 'Sequence' As Field
  106. Not Acknowledging Barthes As Intellectual Source
  107. Misrepresenting Barthes
  108. Misrepresenting Barthes And Confusing Material & Semiotic Orders Of Experience
  109. Confusing Composition And Superordination
  110. Why Chomskyan Linguistics Has Power
  111. Misconstruing Mode As Field
  112. Misconstruing Behaviour As A Register Of Language
  113. A False Dichotomy
  114. Confusing Field And Language
  115. Confusing Orders Of Experience
  116. Misconstruing Field Taxonomies As Classifications Of Personnel & Semiotic Objects
  117. Confusing Experience With Construals Of Experience
  118. Metafunctional Inconsistency
  119. Internal Inconsistency
  120. Some Of The Problems With Register and Genre As Semiotic Planes
  121. Misconstruing Activity Sequence (Semantics) As Field And Schematic Structure (Semantics) As Genre
  122. Confusing First And Second Orders Of Experience
  123. Inferring Invalidly From Misconstruals Of Semantic Structure As Field And Genre
  124. The Reason For Separating Field And Genre
  125. Misinterpreting Pike
  126. Misinterpreting Hasan And Proposing Theoretical Inconsistencies
  127. The Question Of Whether Systematising Generic Structure Potentials Leads Directly To A Two Plane Model Of Register And Genre
  128. Misrepresenting Hasan On Generic Structure Potential
  129. Prioritising Structure Over System
  130. Misrepresenting The Prosodic Mode Of Realisation
  131. Distinguishing Interpersonal Meaning From Evaluation
  132. Misconstruing Prosody
  133. Confusing Text Type With Text Structure
  134. Misrepresenting Halliday
  135. A Transparently False Claim
  136. Misunderstanding Stratal Relations And Confusing Text Type (Genre) With System (Potential)
  137. Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials (Genres) As Context Potential (Culture)
  138. Misrepresenting Longacre
  139. Martin's Reason Why Field, Tenor & Mode Are Insufficient To Classify Genres
  140. Misconstruing Semantics As Context And Misidentifying Metafunctions
  141. Confusing Strata And Misidentifying Metafunctions
  142. Misconstruing Semantics (Activity Sequence) As Context (Field)
  143. Not Classifying Text Types From Above
  144. Classifying Text Types From Semantics Instead Of Context
  145. Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials As Constituting Context Potential
  146. Weaving An Illogical Argument Around A Misinterpretation Of Halliday
  147. Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Genre Systems
  148. Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Halliday's
  149. Misrepresenting Halliday On Context, Register And Genre
  150. Misconstruing A Higher Order Of Experience As A Lower Level Of Symbolic Abstraction
  151. Misconstruing One Mode System As Register And Another As Genre
  152. Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field
  153. Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan
  154. Why Martin Prefers His Own Model To Hasan's
  155. Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True
  156. Misunderstanding Realisation
  157. Misrepresenting Martin (1992)
  158. Misconstruing Heteroglossia And Dialogism As System And Process
  159. Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre
  160. Addressing "The Central Problem In Marxist Theory" By Adding A More Abstract Level
  161. Ignoring Halliday's Caution Against Premature Articulation
  162. Preparing To Misconstrue Bernstein's Codes As Ideology
  163. Misrepresenting Hasan
  164. Misunderstanding Semantic Variation And Bakhtin
  165. Martin's Reasons For Not Devising Ideology Systems
  166. Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology
  167. Discursive Power And The Evolutionarily Necessary Resolution Of Semiotic Tension Through Dynamic Openness
  168. Confusing Linguistic Variabilty With Contextual Tension
  169. Misunderstanding System Architecture And Dynamics
  170. Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems
  171. Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)
  172. Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy
  173. Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Friday, 30 September 2016

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Martin (1992: 587):
So — texts are coherent, cultures are not.  Where does this leave linguistics which is articulated as a form of social action?
Clearly one important job, which has already begun […] lies in deconstructing the naturalisation process.  Systemic functional linguistics has always adressed [sic] this concern, and English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory was undertaken with this goal explicitly in mind.  What seems crucial here is a model which displays the way in which language inflects and is inflected by contextual systems; one model of this kind has been provided.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated by the reasoned arguments in the 550+ analyses on this website, English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory proceeds from multiple misunderstandings of SFL theory — misunderstandings so fundamental and pervasive that they undermine the validity of the work as theory.  In an intelligent, informed academic community that values reason and intellectual integrity, this would be a serious problem.

[2] The relation between language and context is precisely defined in SFL theory as realisation.  This is the relation of intensive identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] The contextual model that has been provided confuses context (the culture that is realised by language) with sub-potentials of language itself (registers/genres).  The confusion is along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

Thursday, 29 September 2016

Subscribing To The Naturalistic Fallacy

Martin (1992: 586):
Beyond this studies are needed on the inter-relationships between affect and morality (between ATTITUDE and MODULATION to put this grammatically): I like/dislike clearly conditions you should/shouldn't in ways that have been barely broached (see Martin 1992a).


Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that
  • the relation between affect (a neutral or charged tenor relation between interlocutors) and morality (principles of right and wrong
  • can be described as 
  • the grammatical relation between attitude (positive or negative evaluation) and modulation (obligation and inclination).

[2] The claim here is that the giving of information conditions the demanding of goods-&-services:
  • propositions that are realised by declaratives of the form I like/dislike
  • condition
  • proposals that are realised by declaratives of the form you should/shouldn't.

In philosophy, the claim that an "ought" (prescription) can be derived from an "is" (description) is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy (G.E. Moore); see also Hume's Law/Guillotine.

In SFL theory, the mental processes that relate to modulation are not those of emotion (I like), but those of desideration (I would like).  This is because desiderative processes project proposals and can serve as interpersonal metaphors of modulation, as in I would like you to finish this by tomorrow.

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Confusing Tenor (Context) With Interpersonal Meaning (Semantics)

Martin  (1992: 586):
… it demonstrates that […] the coding orientations associated with class, gender, ethnicity and generation focus attitudes in systematic ways.  Affect is in other words ideologically addressed (see Martin 1986 on the orientation of attitude in ecological debates) and exploring this projection of interpersonal meaning is an important dimension of semiotic space.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of Bernstein's coding orientation as ideology.

[2] This continues the confusion of affect, as a dimension of tenor (context stratum), with affect as interpersonal meaning (semantics stratum). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33) refer to the contextual system as 'sociometric rôles'.

[3] This stratal confusion is aided by the blurring of two distinct meanings of 'projection':
  • tenor as the theoretical "projection" of the interpersonal metafunction onto the context stratum;
  • interpersonal meaning as the verbal projection of speakers.

[4] Trivially, 'exploring' is not a dimension.

exploring this projection of interpersonal meaning
is
an important dimension of semiotic space
Identified / Token
Process
Identifier / Value

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Affirming The Metastability Of Evolving Dynamic Open Systems

Martin (1992: 585):
Martin 1986 introduces the term contratextuality for texts which directly oppose each other from different positions and this idea has been extended in delicacy by Lemke (1988: 48).  Contratextuality is critically related to semogenesis in ways that are only beginning to be investigated (for a revealing study of the semiotic subversion of genre fiction by feminist writers see Cranny-Francis 1990) and it is probable that work in this area will be among the first to shed light on the vexing question of how text renovates system as dynamic open systems evolve, thereby affirming their metastability.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the semogenesis to which contratextuality is related involves three related processes:
  • logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text;
  • ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual; and
  • phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.
[2]  To be clear, on the SFL model, the relation between text and system is instantiation.  In this view, language is a probabilistic system and it is differences in probabilities that define register variation (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 552-6).  Probabilities in the system are manifested as frequencies in the text, and the frequencies in each text minutely nudge the probabilities in the system up or down.

Monday, 26 September 2016

Misunderstanding System Architecture And Dynamics

Martin (1992: 582):
Martin [1986] suggested as part of a model for dealing with ideology in crisis as system involving two axes: protagonist/antagonist and left/right. […] In general terms the systemic oppositions are outlined below; as far as the dynamics of ideology are concerned these are best treated as genuine oppositions, not simply as alternative choices within a system.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands system architecture.  In terms of SFL theory, the system network (Fig. 7.28) involves two simultaneous (conjunctively related) systems.  The term 'axis', on the other hand, refers to the distinction between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimensions: i.e. system vs structure.

[2] This misunderstands system architecture and dynamics.  Alternative choices (features) in systems are "genuine" oppositions, and the dynamics of the system is its instantiation (the selection of options and the activation of their realisation statements).