Problems With The Discourse Semantics Framework

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 11):

The model of discourse semantics we assume here is also organised by metafunction (Hao, 2020; Martin, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2003/2007; Martin & White, 2005). As outlined in Figure 1.5, its systems comprise: 

• the ideational systems of IDEATION, which map how we construe our experience in terms of the occurrences, states, entities and qualities of language, and CONNEXION, which articulates how we connect these ideational meanings and stretches of text together into larger sequences of experience or rhetoric; 
• the textual systems of PERIODICITY, which are concerned with how we foreground and background information as waves of prominence, and IDENTIFICATION, which map how we introduce and track people, places and things; and most significantly for this book, 
• the interpersonal systems of NEGOTIATION, which present the resources we have for dialogue, and APPRAISAL, which map the resources we have for evaluating, amplifying and arranging interpersonal meanings.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the experiential discourse semantic system of IDEATION in Martin (1992) is Martin's rebranding of his misunderstandings of (textual) LEXICAL COHESION in Halliday & Hasan (1976). However, it has more recently become a rebranding of the ideational semantics — both experiential and logical — of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) by Martin's former student Hao. See, for example:

Misrepresenting Halliday & Matthiessen's Semantics As Martin And Hao's Discourse Semantics 

[2] To be clear, the logical discourse semantic system of CONJUNCTION in Martin (1992), renamed CONNEXION by Martin's former student, Hao, is Martin's rebranding of his misunderstandings of (textual) grammatical cohesive CONJUNCTION in Halliday & Hasan (1976), confused with (logical) grammatical CLAUSE COMPLEXING in Halliday (1985).

[3] To be clear, the textual discourse semantic system of PERIODICITY in Martin & Rose (2007) is Martin's rebranding of writing pedagogy. No system networks have ever been devised, and the structures each consist of only one functional element (e.g. hyper-Theme). Moreover, in Martin (1992: 393), these rebrandings were modelled as interstratal interaction patterns, rather than discourse semantic systems.

[4] To be clear, the textual discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION in Martin (1992) is Martin's rebranding of his misunderstandings of grammatical REFERENCE in Halliday & Hasan (1976). 

[5] To be clear, the interpersonal discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION in Martin (1992) is Martin's rebranding of his misunderstandings of SPEECH FUNCTION in Halliday (1985). 

[6] To be clear, for Halliday, APPRAISAL is a system between grammar and lexis, in which attitudinal assessments are realised by lexical items.

∞

For detailed evidence of the myriad misunderstandings of SFL theory in the 'discourse semantic' framework, see here (Martin 1992) and here (Martin & Rose 2007).