Martin: Incongruent and proud 827

Discourse & Society

Copyright 2008
SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 19(6): 827836
10.1177/0957926508095895
Incongruent and proud: de-vilifying
nominalization
J AMES R. MARTI N
UNI VERSI TY OF SYDNEY, AUSTRAL I A
ABSTRACT This rejoinder reviews the interpretation of nominalization
and grammatical metaphor in systemic functional linguistic theory and the
critical role it plays in constructing knowledge, enabling evaluation and
facilitating information flow. It is suggested that different disciplines deploy
grammatical metaphor in complementary ways to construct their discourse
and that these discourses depend fundamentally on this resource for their
existence.
KEY WORDS: critical discourse analysis, grammatical metaphor, nominalization,
positive discourse analysis, systemic functional linguistics
Billig (this issue) documents the e/vilification of nominalized discourse in
critical discourse analysis (CDA), exemplifies the recurrent enactment of nominal-
ization in CDA discourse, and proposes as a solution that critical theorists avoid
nominalization in order to properly ascribe action to human agents. He suggests
Power to the verb as an aspirational banner we might fly. In this response I will
make a few comments from the perspective of functional linguistics, in relation
to both a more appropriate characterization of nominalization drawing on
contemporary functional linguistic theory and to a more contextually sensitive
appreciation of its role in constructing knowledge, sharing values and organiz-
ing discourse.
In passing, I should note of course that not all practitioners of CDA are
equally guilty of pathologizing nominalized discourse. I take Trew (1979) as
a canonical exception because of his careful contextualization of the media
discourse analysed and his painstaking documentation of the ideological
re-contextualization of what happened in Zimbabwe through comparison of
different newspapers over time. Trew canvasses the nominalizations involved not
as a demon to be exorcised, but rather as a resource for construing ideological
DE BAT E
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 827 8/19/2008 11:46:21 AM
Process Black
828 Discourse & Society 19(6)
positions, some of which we might well celebrate and others not. The lesson I
take from his article is that we need to take great care in interpreting the role
played by nominalization in discourse of various kinds, and to this I would add
the need to carefully consider phylogenetic reasoning about why nominalization
evolved and how this semo-history relates to the ways it is used.
1. What are we actually looking at?
As a first step I should like to recontextualize the phenomenon at issue here,
nominalization, within a functional model of language of the kind designed
by Halliday for systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL). In this model,
we can treat nominalization at the level of grammar (syntax if you will) as a
grammatical resource for deriving nouns from other word classes for example,
nouns from verbs (transform/transformation) or nouns from adjectives (free/
freedom). As a second step, we can ask how this resource may or may not evolve
to affect the relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. For
example, if we derive runner from run, we have a nominalization that refers to
a participant which operates as a human entity in semantic figures of various
kinds (the runner won, the runner said . . ., the runner was tired); a runner is
someone who runs, not a process. The grammar and semantics match because
we have a semantic entity realized by a noun. By the same token, if we derive a
verb from a noun, so we can talk about texting someone, we have a verbalization
(to text) realizing a semantic process; texting is the process of sending a written
message via a mobile phone, not a participant. The semantics and grammar
match again because we have a process realized by a verb. It is these matching
relations between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar that Halliday refers
to as congruent (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999, 2004). This congruent rela-
tion, for the clause the runner texted his coach is outlined below.
semantics participant process participant
the runner texted his coach
grammar nominal verbal nominal
In his studies of the evolution of scientific English, however, Halliday notes
that in writing a language may come to deploy derivation in ways that scramble
a congruent relationship between semantics and grammar. So when Billig writes
that their argument is made through the use of nominalization, he realizes semantic
processes of arguing, using and nominalizing as nouns (instead of verbs), and
the logical connection between them through a preposition (instead of a con-
junction). In this case, the semantics and grammar do not match, but are in ten-
sion with one another a tension we can release by rephrasing Billig in congruent
discourse, for example, they argued by using language which nominalized
1
verbs.
Halliday (2004) refers to this phylogenetic development as grammatical
metaphor, in this case ideational metaphor (because it involves processes,
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 828 8/19/2008 11:46:51 AM
Process Black
Martin: Incongruent and proud 829
participants and causal relations between them). This incongruent relation for
Billigs clause is outlined following.
semantics process process manner process [[process]]
the argument is made through the use of nominalization
grammar nominal verbal preposition nominal
As we can see, nominalization (and derivation in general) is a resource for
extending the lexical resources of a language. Grammatical metaphor, by con-
trast, is a resource for scrambling, within limits, the realization relationship
between semantics and grammar and so indefinitely extending a languages
meaning potential. This is much more than a vocabulary-building exercise. It
allows writers, and people who learn to speak writing, to mean more than one
thing at once. Because of the tension between semantics and grammar there
are two levels of meaning involved, not one, with one symbolizing the other, in
a figure to ground relation. For Billig, grammatically speaking, one thing (the
argument) is created by means of another (the use of nominalization); at the same
time, sufficiently literate speakers recognize that he is symbolizing an addi-
tional layer of meaning comprising the various processes involved in someone
deriving nouns and using them to argue with.
Stratal tension of this kind is something we all have to learn to manage, if
we are to become functionally literate members of post-colonial societies. And
this comes from a successful apprenticeship into disciplinary and administrative
discourse in institutionalized education typically secondary school. When my
daughter Phoebe was 4, for example, I recited a well-known line from a sign at
Manly beach in Sydney as we arrived there by car: Seven miles from Sydney, and
a thousand miles from care? Wheres Care? she replied, unable to process the
idea that my grammar would use a prepositional phrase of location to realize a
mental process. Now a third-year law student, she can laugh along as I tease her
with the anecdote. But as a fluent four-year-old, stratal tension of this kind was
not yet part of her linguistic repertoire.
In SFL these considerations of ideational metaphor are part of a more general
theory of grammatical metaphor, including metaphors of mood and modality
as well. At the same beach where Phoebe mistook care, a colleague tried to place
an order over the counter at a cake shop by saying I wonder if I could have one
of those . . ., and was cut off by the server retorting Why do you wonder? Its right
there in front of you. Here the tension between the speech function (command)
and the grammar (projected declarative) was exploited as an opportunity for
verbal play. Similarly, Watson began one of his narrations of his adventures with
Sherlock Holmes
2
saying Im inclined to think . . . only to have Holmes cut him off
with I should do so. (Doyle 1981). Here the tension between Watsons tentative
modalization and his grammar (projecting mental process) were too much for
Holmes, who cut Watson off in exasperation.
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 829 8/19/2008 11:46:51 AM
Process Black
830 Discourse & Society 19(6)
Billig does not deal with interpersonal metaphor of mood and modality such
as those just exemplified, which accordingly will not detain us here. But it is
important from a linguistic perspective to see nominalization as one aspect of a
larger phenomenon. SFLs general theory of grammatical metaphor is outlined
in Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, 2004). Halliday (1998; reprinted in Halliday,
2004) focuses in more detail on ideational metaphor; Zhu (2008) provides a very
accessible introduction to this work. Martin (1992a) and Martin and Rose (2003)
present a discourse semantic perspective; Martin (1995) focuses in more detail
on interpersonal metaphor in a hortatory exposition. Simon-Vandenbergen et al.
(2003) collect together a number of important SFL studies, including work on its
ontogenesis. It would appear that the understanding of nominalization typically
deployed in critical linguistics, and later CDA, predate its recontextualization
as part of a more general theory of grammatical metaphor in SFL. Martin (2000)
offers a more contemporary discussion of the roles this and other dimensions of
SFL might play in CDA research. Billig draws very selectively on this research
tradition, mainly by way of reinforcing the treatment of nominalization as a
kind of language pathology in CDA; this opportunistic reading radically distorts
the interpretation of the social function of grammatical metaphor in most SFL
research.
2. What does nominalization actually do?
Halliday and Martin (1993) bring together a number of early studies of the role
of ideational metaphor in scientific discourse. The major thrust of this research,
contra Billig, is not to show how scientists fail to use congruent language and
therefore act as gatekeepers of social inequality, but rather to demonstrate the
ways in which science discourse necessarily involves grammatical metaphor in
order to build knowledge and organize text. As far as building knowledge is con-
cerned, grammatical metaphor is crucial to establishing technical terms and
relating them to one another, and to explaining causal relations among processes.
As far as organizing text is concerned, grammatical metaphor is crucial to
appropriately parcelling out information as peaks of thematic prominence,
providing readers with an angle on the field and peaks of news building on from
what can be assumed. Billig himself deploys grammatical metaphor for these
very functions.
As far as knowledge building is concerned, Billig makes the important point
that there are at least five different kinds of transformation that nominalization
can describe:
linguistic nominalization;
etymological nominalization;
psychological nominalization;
between-text nominalization;
within-text nominalization.
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 830 8/19/2008 11:46:51 AM
Process Black
Martin: Incongruent and proud 831
Each of these is technicalized as a nominal group with a nominalization
(Nominalization) as Head preceded by sub-classifying Pre-modification (Hallidays
Classifier Thing structure). Because English, like other languages, depends on
nominal constructions to technicalize
3
and sub-classify, and we are taxonomizing
processes here, the ideational metaphors are both necessary and appropriate.
Similarly, when explaining, Billig relies heavily on nominalization to construct
the abstract entities which affect and are affected by other abstractions. In the
following passage he is explaining how the fact that critical writers themselves
use language they critique as distorted might be construed as distorting their
own discourse:
Critical writers have argued that nominalization conceals and distorts. Their
argument is made through the use of nominalization. Because it uses forms that
are said to distort, the argument must itself be distorted. Thus, the critical argument
either destroys itself or reduces itself to a self-referential paradox. Either way, it is
seriously compromised.
Causal relations in this explanation, both between clauses (via the linkers because,
thus) and within them (Hallidays Agent Medium relations) depend on Billig
nominalizing what critical writers do (i.e. argue that nominalization conceals and
distorts) as an argument and playing it off as an affecting or affected participant as
his rhetoric requires. The relevant affecting and affected participants are outlined
in Table 1 (with elided items in parentheses).
Turning to considerations of information flow, Billig begins by referrring to
critical writers; but his explanation is not about them, it is about their arguments.
So their argument is nominalized and re-iterated thereafter as the Theme (pace
Halliday) of every clause (in bold):
Critical writers have argued that nominalization conceals and distorts.
Their argument is made through the use of nominalization.
Because it uses forms that are said to distort,
the argument must itself be distorted.
Thus, the critical argument either destroys itself
or (the argument
4
) reduces itself to a self-referential paradox.
Either way, it is seriously compromised.
TABL E 1. Affecting and affected participants in Billigs explanation
Agent (affecting participant) Process Medium (affected participant)
nominalization conceals and distorts (something)
(by critical writers) is made their argument
It (their argument) uses forms
forms are said to distort (something)
(distorting forms) must be distorted the argument
the critical argument destroys itself (the critical argument)
(the critical argument) reduces itself (the critical argument)
(distorting forms) is compromised it (the critical argument)
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 831 8/19/2008 11:46:51 AM
Process Black
832 Discourse & Society 19(6)
At the other end of all but one of these clauses Billig concentrates on his news,
namely, the negative evaluation he is developing of critical writers argument
(bold below). The bad news involves either negative processes (e.g. distorts) or
attributes (e.g. a self-referential paradox):
Critical writers have argued that nominalization conceals and distorts.
Their argument is made through the use of nominalization.
Because it uses forms that are said to distort,
the argument must itself be distorted.
Thus, the critical argument either destroys itself
or (the argument) reduces itself to a self-referential paradox.
Either way, it is seriously compromised.
These negative evaluations highlight another important function of
nominalization that of affording opportunities for evaluation. As foreshadowed
in Trew (1979), resources for both positive and negative evaluation in language
key heavily on nominals (cf. Trews rioting blacks, African demonstrators, thirteen
unarmed Africans, Zimbabweans). And without nominalization, there would be no
affected participant for long-term critics of CDA to pounce upon:
Long-term opponents of critical discourse analysis might pounce gleefully upon the
preceding analyses.
So basically, what I am arguing here is that disciplinarity as we know it depends
necessarily on nominalization to build knowledge, to organize discourse building
knowledge and to distribute values during this process. Billig cannot do without it,
any more that the critical writers he is criticizing as the SFL research exploring
grammatical metaphor in various disciplines and professions has been at pains
to show. For work on the discourse of science see Halliday (2004), Halliday and
Martin (1993) and Martin and Veel (1998); Korner et al. (1992) explore this work
in relation to science industry. Coffin (2006) and Martin and Wodak (2003)
focus on history, Wignell (2007) on social science, OHalloran (2006) on mathe-
matics, and Martin (1993b) and Iedema (1995) on administrative discourse.
Recently, this SFL research has opened up a dialogue with scholars influenced
by Bernsteins sociological perspective on knowledge structure, focusing in part
on the role played by grammatical metaphor in constructing various forms of
vertical discourse (Christie and Martin, 2007; Freebody et al., 2008; Martin,
2007b). What this research tradition demonstrates to me is that languages evolve
grammatical metaphor as a resource for building the specialized discourses we
use to try and manage our environment (science and technology) and to try
and manage people (humanities, social science and bureaucracy). To be sure,
grammatical metaphor affords the kinds of political distortion CDA is concerned
to document; there are certainly communicative contexts in which it has been
overused (the public documents Plain English movements rail against for
example); and people without the requisite amounts of functional literacy are
indeed excluded by it. But doing without it would be tantamount to living in
an oral culture, without a writing system; and we know too well the fate that
awaits cultures of this kind in the face of environmental challenges or, more
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 832 8/19/2008 11:46:52 AM
Process Black
Martin: Incongruent and proud 833
disastrously, the arrival of invaders with the technology and bureaucracy, both
secular and religious, that grammatical metaphor affords.
3. Morality for critical peers
Elsewhere (Martin, 1992b
5
) I have expressed my reservations about the
effectiveness of scholarly critique as far as advancing understandings in a
field is concerned. My basic argument was that critique encourages reductive
readings of the position being critiqued and has a concomitant tendency to
provoke defensive responses, which discourse becomes increasingly emotional
with each cycle of defence and attack. Readers can make their own minds up
about how much of this is going on here. In this article I have noted in passing
that Trews (1979) canonical
6
study was not taken as an exemplar, and that
Billigs reading of SFL in relation to his discussion was a tactical one, which for
the purposes of his argument sets aside both the way in which the functional
linguists concerned interpret nominalization and their views on the reasons
for its emergence in written languages and the functions it has evolved to serve
across written registers of disciplinary and professional discourse.
To this I would add here a comment on the challenges we face in inter-
disciplinary research as we try to learn from one another. Bernstein (1996)
positions vertical discourses along a cline, from those construing hierarch-
ical knowledge structures at one end (e.g. science) to those construing horizontal
knowledge structures at the other (e.g. humanities); in between are the various
social sciences, which share features of the poles (as explored in Christie and
Martin, 2007). For Bernstein, a feature of both social science and humanities
knowledge structures is that they comprise a set of competing languages of
description (various linguistic theories for example, or kinds of history
traditional, Marxist, feminist, post-colonial, etc.). Were I to arrange SFL, CDA and
Billig along this cline, I would place SFL closer to the science end of the scale
and Billig closer to the humanities end than CDA. This conditions the amount
of technicality a discourse uses, the complexity of inter-relations among tech-
nical terms, the degree to which analyses are put at risk in relation to data, the
amount of attention given to argumentation as opposed to theory building,
the frequency of moralistic exhortation, the number of references or allusions
7
to
a literary or theoretical canon, and so on. Complicating this is the fact that CDA is
probably best characterized as a federation of knowledge structures rather than a
discipline, so critique is always dealing with a many-headed beast; it is impossible
to knock off all or even several of its heads in a single blow. For all these reasons it
is extremely difficult to read across disciplines, and within horizontal knowledge
structures to read across languages of description. The risks of misunderstanding
and consequent distortion are always present, and for purposes of critique they
prime the degenerative cycles of stab and parry that give me pause.
So in the spirit of positive discourse analysis (PDA)
8
, I suggest we think
carefully about how to spend our time, and whether or not critique truly has a
constructive role to play in promoting understanding and developing knowledge.
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 833 8/19/2008 11:46:52 AM
Process Black
834 Discourse & Society 19(6)
Should I really have felt called upon to generate this reply? What have I learned
(a little more about differences between knowledge structures perhaps)? What
has been learned from me (severe space constraints, as ever in replies, have not
served my explanations well I fear)? I am left concerned about critique, and
warring words in warring worlds. Should we live another dream?
NOTE S
1. Note of course that nominalize is itself a derivation, of a verb from an noun but not
one that crates stratal tension since nominalize is a verb realizing a process here.
2. Doyle, A.C. (1981) The Valley of Fear. Part 1 The Tragedy of Birlstone, The Penguin
Complete Sherlock Holmes, Chapter 1: The Warning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
3. Technicality regularly involves turning ideationally metaphorical nominalizations
into abstract concepts in a given field, thereby killing off the stratal tension that made
the concept thinkable (e.g. condensation, evaporation, transpiration in science); this
lightens the discourse-processing demands of a technical discipline, in effect making
room for more stratal tension. Both Billig, and the CDA analysts he is critiquing, use
the term nominalization as both a live and dead metaphor, and it is in fact a feature
of this kind of vertical discourse that we cannot always be quite sure when they are
using it one way rather than the other (cf. Martin, 1993a, 1993b, 2007a, 2007b for
discussion).
4. The Theme is ellipsed in this clause, but sustains Billigs orientation to his field.
5. This obscurely published paper is available from the author on request; the paper itself
makes clear the reasons why it is so difficult to access.
6. Ignoring Trew is fairly typical for critics of CDA, almost pathological one might say;
I have even witnessed one of his examples taken out of context and offered as an
example of the way CDA fails to take co-text and context into account, without any
citation of Trews own treatment whatsoever.
7. My allusion in the heading for this section is, for example, to A.M. Smiths Ladies
Detective Agency series, specifically Morality for Beautiful Girls (New York: Anchor
Books. 2002), or those in the title of the article to James Brown and to Michelle
Lazar (in Discourse & Society 15:23); Fuller (1998) describes Stephen Jay Goulds
techniques for bridging these divides.
8. For my thoughts on this irrealis dimensions of critical inquiry, see Martin (2004,
2007c).
R E F E R E NCE S
Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Christie, F. and Martin, J.R. (eds) (2007) Knowledge Structure: Functional Linguistic and
Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Coffin, C. (2006) Historical Discourse: The Language Of Time, Cause and Evaluation. London;
Continuum.
Freebody, P., Maton, K. and Martin, J.R. (2008) Talk, Text and Knowledge: Literacy
and Cumulative Learning in Schools, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,
in press.
Fuller, G. (1998) Cultivating Science: Negotiating Discourse in the Popular Texts of
Stephen Jay Gould, in J.R. Martin and R. Veel (eds) Reading Science: Critical and
Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, pp. 3562. London: Routledge.
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 834 8/19/2008 11:46:52 AM
Process Black
Martin: Incongruent and proud 835
Halliday, M.A.K. (1998) Things and Relations: Regrammaticising Experience as Technical
Knowledge, J.R. Martin and R. Veel (eds) Reading Science: Critical and Functional
Perspectives on Discourses of Science, pp. 185235. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004) The Language of Science. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power
(Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education). London: Falmer.
Halliday, M.A.K and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999) Construing Experience Through Language:
A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar,
3rd edn. London: Arnold.
Iedema, R. (1995) Literacy of Administration (Write it Right Literacy in Industry Research
Project Stage 3). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Korner, H., McInnes, D. and Rose, D. (1992) Scientific Literacy (Write it Right Literacy in
Industry Research Project Stage 1). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools
Program.
Martin, J.R. (1992a) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J.R. (1992b) Theme, Method of Development and Existentiality The Price of
Reply, Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 147184.
Martin, J.R. (1993a) Life as a Noun, in M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds) Writing
Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education),
pp. 221267. London: Falmer.
Martin, J.R. (1993b) Technology, Bureaucracy and Schooling: Discursive Resources and
Control, Cultural Dynamics 6: 84130.
Martin, J.R. (1995) Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion and Public Discourse: Packing
Semiotic Punch, Australian Journal of Linguistics 15: 3367.
Martin, J.R. (2000) Close Reading: Functional Linguistics as a Tool for Critical Analysis,
in L. Unsworth (ed.) Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional
Linguistics Approaches, pp. 275303. London: Cassell.
Martin, J.R. (2004) Positive Discourse Analysis: Solidarity and Change, Revista Canaria
de Estudios Ingleses 49: 179200.
Martin, J.R. (2007a) Construing Knowledge: A Functional Linguistic Perspective, in F.
Christie and J.R. Martin (eds) Knowledge Structure: Functional Linguistic and Sociological
Perspectives, pp. 3464. London: Continuum.
Martin, J.R. (2007b) Genre and Field: Social Processes and Knowledge Structures in
Systemic Functional Semiotics, in L. Barbara and T. Berber Sardinha (eds) Proceedings
of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress. So Paulo: PUCSP. Available at
http://www.pucsp.br/isfc.
Martin, J.R. (2007c) English for Peace: Towards a Framework of Peace Sociolinguistics:
Response, World Englishes 26: 8385.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
London: Continuum.
Martin, J.R. and Veel, R. (eds) (1998) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives
on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge.
Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English.
London: Palgrave.
Martin, J.R. and Wodak, R. (eds) (2003). Re/Reading the Past: Critical and Functional
Perspectives on Discourses of History. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
OHalloran, K. (2006) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images.
London: Continuum.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. and Ravelli, L.J.(eds) (2003) Metaphor:
Systemic and Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 835 8/19/2008 11:46:53 AM
Process Black
836 Discourse & Society 19(6)
Trew, T. (1979) What the Papers Say: Linguistic Variation and Ideological Difference, in
R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress and T. Trew (eds) Language and Control. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Wignell, P. (2007) On the Discourse of Social Science. Darwin, Australia: Charles Darwin
University Press.
Zhu, Yongsheng (2008) Nominalisation, Verbalisation and Grammatical Metaphor, in
J. Webster (ed.) Meaning in Context: Strategies for Implementing Intelligent Applications
of Language Studies. London: Continuum.
J . R. MARTI N is Professor of Linguistics (Personal Chair) at the University of Sydney. His
research interests include systemic theory, functional grammar, discourse semantics,
register, genre, multimodality and critical discourse analysis, focussing on English and
Tagalog with special reference to the transdisciplinary fields of educational linguistics
and social semiotics. Recent publications include Re/Reading the Past (edited with Ruth
Wodak) Benjamins, 2003; Negotiating Heteroglossia (a special issue of Text edited with Mary
Macken-Horarik) Mouton de Gruyter, 2003; Language Typology: A Functional Perspective
(edited with A. Caffarel and C. Matthiessen) Benjamins, 2004; Interpreting Tragedy: The
Language of September 11th, 2001 (a special double issue of Discourse & Society edited
with John Edwards) SAGE, 2004; The Language of Evaluation (with Peter White) Palgrave,
2005; Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy (edited with Fran Christie) Continuum, 2007.
He has recently completed, with David Rose, a book on genre (Genre Relations: Mapping
Culture, Equinox, in press) and a second edition of Working with Discourse (Continuum,
2007). Professor Martin was elected a fellow the Australian Academy of the Humanities
in 1998, and awarded a Centenary Medal for his services to Linguistics and Philology in
2003. ADDR E S S : Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006,
Australia.
827-836 DAS-095895.indd 836 8/19/2008 11:46:53 AM
Process Black