Most Pageviews by Country

"Granting These Structural Orphans A Home"

Martin & Doran (2023: 44):

Structure markers make important contributions to the realisation of systemic options in many languages, though in some (such as those with adpositions at group rank) more than others (such as those where inflectional morphology carries a heavy load). And there are many cases, some reviewed above (e.g. nominal group complexes and embedded clauses in Korean and Tagalog), where structure markers make explicit what goes with what and cannot be ignored. Our goal here has been to suggest a way forward for grammarians disposed towards granting these structural orphans a home.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, adpositions (and inflectional morphemes) do not function as structure markers. Instead, they mark functions in structures. To be clear, SFL construes structure as the relations between functional elements. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451) make clear: 

Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

A structure marker, in this view, is a marker of relations, not of functional roles. Because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[2] To be clear, genuine structure markers mark relations between elements. For example, linkers mark paradigmatic relations and binders mark hypotactic relations, but this is already theorised in SFL Theory (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 453, 611), so any suggestion that these functions have been ignored or not been made explicit before this paper by the authors is misleading.

[3] To be clear, the authors end their paper, as they began, with a logical fallacy: presenting lexical metaphors that position the reasoned invalidation of their model as an immoral act. This is the fallacy known as an Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement

A Summary of The Problems That Invalidate The Authors' Model Of Ideational Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 44, 45):

By way of summarising our discussion we extend Table 1 above as Table 3 below, including English examples and filling out our paradigm for ideational structure.

The two central columns in Table 3 oppose non-recursive systems realised by non-iterative structures to recursive systems realised by iterative structures. This opposition is cross-classified by experiential as opposed to logical structure; logical structure is further classified as paratactic vs hypotactic, and within hypotactic structures are subclassified as progressive or regressive. The only structure type in the table not introduced above is non-iterative parataxis for which we suggest English correlative structures such as both…and, either…or, neither…nor (including perhaps the somewhat archaic the harder they come the harder they fall).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Table 1 was from Halliday (1965):

[2] To be clear, the authors' update of Halliday (1965) is limited to the three types of non-iterative logical structures and the iterative experiential structure.

The mistaken notion of a non-iterative logical structure arose from not understanding that a two-unit complex (duplex) is specified by selecting 'stop' on the first pass through a recursive system. Having first misapplied a subjacency duplex structure to submodification in a Pitjantjatjara nominal group, the authors then applied it to other structures in other languages without providing argument as to why it was appropriate to do so.

The mistaken notion of an iterative experiential structure arose from not understanding that 'multiple Epithets' at the rank of group are realised by iterative logical structures at the rank of word. The authors compounded this error by proposing that two types of structure obtain within the one experiential structure of a nominal group.

By way of comparison, the current SFL model of structure type by metafunction is given by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

The Argument For Applying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To Binders And Linkers

Martin & Doran (2023: 43-4):

Turning to conjunctive relations, Halliday with Matthiessen (2014) make a distinction in English between ‘cohesive’ conjunctions (therefore, consequently etc.) and structure markers (their binders and linkers as introduced in Section 1). They oppose non-structural conjunctions to structural ones as follows: 

The logico-semantic relation is marked by a conjunction… — either by a nonstructural one that is used only in this way, i.e. only cohesively, such as for example, furthermore, consequently; or by a structural one whose prototypical function is to mark the continuing clause in a paratactic clause nexus (see Chapter 7, Section 7.3). The former serve as conjunctive Adjuncts (Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3) and are very commonly thematic; the latter are simply analysed as structure markers and are obligatorily thematic as structural Theme. (Halliday with Matthiessen 2014: 611)

This offers a relatively clear English language criterion for limiting subjacency duplex analysis to the binders and linkers that necessarily come first in a clause, group/phrase or word as opposed to the more mobile cohesive conjunctions which can be realised in various positions in clause structure and so are not necessarily adjacent, let alone subjacent, to the elements they are connecting to another. We won’t pursue the extent to which conjunctive relations can be accommodated by subjacency duplex analysis in other languages here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this not an argument that validates the application of a subjacency duplex analysis to these structure markers. It merely makes the bare assertion that it "can" be done. As previously demonstrated, the subjacency duplex analysis is inconsistent with SFL Theory, and only arises because the authors misunderstand the theory.

[2] To be clear, because the aim of this paper is a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers, binders and linkers, as structure markers, are precisely what this paper claims to be investigating. Instead, however, the authors have focused on adpositions, which are not structure markers, and so are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

Misrepresenting Behalf As Purpose

 Martin & Doran (2023: 43):

For some circumstances however Korean deploys a co-verbal phrase, which is clearly structurally distinct from the subjacency duplexes in (36). Purpose is illustrated in (37) below (realised by a co-verbal phrase joguk eul wihae ‘for mother country’). Following Kim et al. (2023) the co-verbal phrase is analysed as comprising an Incumbent^Role experiential structure, with the circumstantial role of the nominal group realising the Incumbent specified by Korean grammarians refer to as a ‘bound verb’ (i.e. a verb with a very limited conjugation potential). In this regard Korean offers grounds for distinguishing between subjacency duplexes and co-verbal phrases as far as circumstantial relations are concerned.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the function of this element is Behalf, not Purpose. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 322):

Expressions of Behalf represent the entity, typically a person, on whose behalf or for whose sake the action is undertaken – who it is for. They are expressed by a prepositional phrase with for or with a complex preposition such as for the sake of, in favour of (negative: against), on behalf of;

[2] To be clear, this analysis misrepresents the data. Applying SFL Theory, the function structure at clause and phrase rank is:

[3] To be clear, what this instance offers is grounds for distinguishing adpositional phrases whose adposition (=i, =eul) marks the participant function of a nominal group at clause rank from adpositional phrases whose adposition (wihae) serves as the minor Process at phrase rank.

And again, because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

Misconstruing A Korean Postpositional Phrase As A Subjacency Duplex

Martin & Doran (2023: 43):

For Korean, subjacency duplex analysis can be comparably extended to a wide range of circumstantial relations. Accompaniment is illustrated in (36) below (marked by gwa).

As in Tagalog there is no need to distinguish nominal groups from prepositional phrases for circumstances and in the following instance of this kind. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, no argument has been proffered in support of applying a subjacency duplex analysis to this type of instance. From an SFL perspective, this is simply an Accompaniment realised by a postpositional phrase. That is, the authors have simply rebranded a postpositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Moreover, the interpretation of the phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

But note that prepositional phrases are phrases, not groups; they have no logical structure as Head and Modifier, and cannot be reduced to a single element.

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[2] To be clear, what distinguishes nominal groups from phrases is the additional presence of a postposition in phrases.

Misconstruing Tagalog Prepositional Phrases As Subjacency Duplexes

Martin & Doran (2023: 42-3):

The same kind of problem arises in Tagalog and Korean. In Tagalog for example Receiver and Recipient participants are marked with sa. The projecting clause in “Nasaan kaya si Ningning?” sabi niya sa sarili. ‘“Where might Ningning be?” he said to himself.’ is analysed in (34) below – treating sa sarili ‘to himself’ as a subjacency duplex.

As introduced in (8) above, Tagalog uses the same pre-position sa to mark Direction. Outside of the semantics of the Processes involved (sabi ‘say’ vs lapit ‘approach’) there is nothing to distinguish the sa sarili ‘to himself’ and sa kanya ‘to him’ phrases. Accordingly a subjacency duplex analysis is proposed in (35).

The more general issue arising here is that in Tagalog there is arguably no need to recognise a distinction between nominal groups and prepositional phrases. Virtually all participants and circumstances are realised by subjacency duplexes with a #β clitic marking the role of an α nominal group in clause structure (Martin 1996b, 2004b).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, no argument has been proffered in support of applying a subjacency duplex analysis to this type of instance. From an SFL perspective, this is simply a Receiver realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. That is, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Moreover, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

But note that prepositional phrases are phrases, not groups; they have no logical structure as Head and Modifier, and cannot be reduced to a single element.

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[2] As the phrase 'outside of the semantics' demonstrates, the perspective taken here by the Martin & Doran is again the opposite of the perspective taken in SFL. That is, instead of identifying how meanings are expressed, the authors are concerned with identifying what expressions mean. From an SFL perspective, this instance is simply a Location realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. Again, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Again, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] To be clear, the examination of this claim for instances of Tagalog presented in this paper have demonstrated that the claim is invalid. All cases presented are analysable as clause elements realised by adpositional phrases (adposition + nominal group).

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

Misconstruing Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 41-2):

Our analysis raises issues about how far to extend subjacency duplex modelling in our descriptions. For adpositions this brings us in effect to the fuzzy boundary between participants and circumstances and the line drawn between structure markers on the one hand and prepositions or co-verbs on the other. The following excerpts from Halliday with Matthiessen (2014) flag the distinction as follows:

There is also one class of expressions with of, one of the few places where of functions as a full preposition (i.e. representing a minor process) as distinct from being merely a structure marker; for example, die of starvation. The corresponding WH- forms are why? or how?. (2014: 321)

The Medium is also the only element that is never introduced into the clause by means of a preposition (again with the same exception of medio-receptives); it is treated as something that always participates directly in the process. (Note that the structure the cooking of the rice, where the Medium follows of, is not an exception; of is functioning here, as it typically does, not as preposition but as structure marker – cf. genitive ‘s in the rice’s cooking.) (ibid. 341)

What appears to be taken as criterial here is whether or not of is simply positioning participants in transitivity structure or is specifying some kind of “circumstantial” meaning (e.g. “cause” in die of starvation; cf. die from starvation). For many languages the challenge here lies in drawing a line between peripheral participants (e.g. roles akin to English Recipients and Receivers) and Circumstances of Location — and their marking by the same adposition (e.g., English to, Tagalog sa, Korean e). In terms of this paper we are exploring how to draw a line between a subjacency duplex analysis (restricted perhaps to Recipients and Receivers in English) and a prepositional phrase analysis (restricted perhaps to Circumstances of Location in English).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, as previously demonstrated, the argument for interpreting submodification in a nominal group as a subjacency duplex structure was invalid and based on misunderstandings of theory. And no argument whatsoever has been proffered for the validity of applying the model to other structures.

[2] As previously demonstrated, because the authors misconstrue structure, the relationships between functions, as the functions themselves, they also misconstrue markers of those functions, adpositions, as structure markers. Because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] This misunderstands the quotes from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014). To be clear, their point is that the preposition of either functions as a 'full preposition', that is as a minor Process/Predicator, or it does not, in which case it functions as a structure marker that marks a relation between two nominal groups.

[4] Again, the perspective taken here by the Martin & Doran is the opposite of the perspective taken in SFL. That is, instead of identifying how meanings are expressed, the authors are concerned with identifying what expressions mean. For an SFL approach to these matters, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 167-176) on degree of participanthood and degree of involvement.

The Argument For Subjacency Duplex Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 41):

In this paper we have proposed a generalised analysis for explicitly modelling structure markers in functional grammar — namely subjacency duplex structure. In these structures the culminative β element (#β or β#) is realised by closed class items for which further systemic distinctions and concomitant structural expansion are not available. They are dependent on other items and cannot occur on their own. And except for some borderline cases discussed below, they cannot themselves be combined into complexes (although as Rose 2001, 2021 has proposed, there may be layering involved, with the α on which a subjacent β depends itself realised by a subjacency duplex).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the subjacency duplex structure was proposed on the pretext that submodification of the nominal group in Pitjantjatjara is not realised by a recursive system. This was demonstrated to be untrue, since even a two-unit complex (duplex) requires the selection of the feature 'stop' in a recursive system.

This structure was then applied to instances that were not cases of submodification, including structure markers, with no argument provided as to why it was appropriate to do so. The many problems that arise from doing so have been identified in previous posts.

[2] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

"Subjacency Duplexes Do Not Add A Layer Of Meaning To The Structures In Which They Are Involved"

Martin & Doran (2023: 39-40): 

In Chinese on the other hand a subjacency duplex (culminating in de) is commonly used to realise Epithets; and in Tagalog, hypotactic series regularly involve subjacency duplexes (culminating in na).

The differences are the responsibility of realisation statements, not the valeur of the systems themselves. It is in this sense that we argued above that subjacency duplexes do not add a layer of meaning to the structures in which they are involved. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the function of de is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 314) as follows:

The structure marker 的 de signals that what precedes it modifies (is dependent on) what follows.

and the example provided by the authors, famous, served as Postdeictic, not Epithet — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 374). As demonstrated, the subjacency duplex analysis misconstrues de as modifying the Postdeictic, instead of signalling that the Postdeictic modifies the Thing.

[2] To be clear, the authors analysed two different functions of na as if they were the same. In one function, it linked elements of nominal group structure, in the other, it functioned like English that in introducing an embedded defining relational clause serving as the Qualifier of a nominal group. In neither case did na form a subjacency duplex, because it did not modify the other component of the "duplex". In the latter case, the subjacency duplex analysis also misrepresented formal constituency by removing na from the clause in which it serves as structural Theme.

[3] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminating' to mean 'ending', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, the structure of a subjacency duplex is purported to represent a hypotactic relation of modification, on the other hand, if a subjacency duplex does not "add a layer of meaning", then, even if it were a valid interpretation, it would not add any explanatory potential to a functional theory. of grammar

Confusing Group Rank With Word Rank

Martin & Doran (2023: 39, 40):

To this point in our discussion we have focused on structure, without looking carefully at the systems from which our structures derive. One systemic implication arising has to do with the need to distinguish two different types of recursive system — namely recursive systems giving rise to serial logical structures (whether paratactic or hypotactic) as opposed to recursive systems giving rise to iterating elements of experiential structure. 

For English EPITHESIS for example we need to distinguish between systems underpinning indefinitely extendable regressive grading complexes (a not much more glorious history) and systems underpinning multiple Epithets (their long glorious well-documented history). 

One possibility would be to retain standard SFL recursive system notation for paratactic and hypotactic series (e.g. the grading system in Figure 4 to generate not much more glorious history) and use an ‘ⁿ’ superscript on the relevant feature for experiential iteration (e.g. the [describedⁿ] option in Figure 4 to generate long glorious well-documented history). 

Formulated along these lines Figure 4 thus includes one non-recursive DEIXIS system (from which a single Deictic function can be derived), one recursive EPITHESIS system (from which multiple Epithets can be derived) and one recursive GRADING system (from which a hypotactic series can be derived).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the recursive systems that specify these iterative structures are at word rank, not group rank, and the structures are logical, word complexes, not experiential.

[2] To be clear, Figure 4 confuses systems at group rank that specify multivariate structures, with the systems at word rank that specify the univariate structures that realise submodification at group rank.

On The Representation Of Subjacency Duplex Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 38-9):

One way to simplify tables (or trees) incorporating subjacency duplex structure would be to relax the ‘function realised by class’ requirement and allow duplex structures to directly realise grammatical functions.⁹ Example (32) is revised along these lines as (33) below. This is a more economical analysis for publication purposes, but would need to be seen as a simplification. 

⁹ SFL’s expanded realisation statement operator (Matthiessen and Halliday 2009: 98) sets a precedent in this regard, although managing a completely different type of phenomenon (e.g. expansion of the English Mood function as Subject and Finite).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the revision of (32) as (33) is simply the removal of the words 'subjacency duplex'. A simpler solution, if the notion of 'subjacency duplex' had any validity, would be to provide different representations of structure for each rank, clause and group, as in Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014).

[2] To be clear, this realisation statement is concerned with layering functions such as Mood element as Subject and Finite. It is not concerned with layering what the authors consider to be form (subjacency duplex) and function (#β α).

Why Subjacency Duplexes Are Passed Over In Functional Grammar Descriptions

Martin & Doran (2023: 38):

As we can see, subjacency duplex analysis adds layers of structure to tables (or trees). This is inevitable if we strictly follow the principle that classes are realised by grammatical functions (such as α β# or #β α) and functions in turn by classes as we move from higher ranks to lower ones (shifting perspective back and forth between syntagm and structure as we go). This does present a problem, however, if we want to use our tables (or trees) to reflect grammatical complexity (Halliday 2008). Unlike serial complexing (the resource expanding the meaning potential of spoken language) or embedding (the resource expanding the meaning potential of written language), layers of subjacency structure do not reflect systemic choices of their own — they are part of the realisation of choices in other implicating systems. Put another way, they don’t add an extra layer of meaning to the structures with which they are involved. This is possibly why they are passed over in many functional grammar descriptions, especially where the goal is text analysis (following, for example, Halliday 1985 and its subsequent 1994 edition) rather than a comprehensive description.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. In SFL Theory, structures realise systems. In the authors' own model, subjacency duplexes are said to be logical structures that realise non-recursive systems, so this claim is even inconsistent with their own model. 

Importantly, the problem that the authors are trying to conceal here is that it is not possible to specify the entry condition for a system that specifies a subjacency duplex. This is because the entry conditions for grammatical systems are units on the rank scale, and, unlike all other complexes, a subjacency duplex is not the expansion of a rank unit, since a subjacency is not a rank unit.

[2] To be clear, if subjacency duplexes do not "add an extra layer of meaning", they do not serve any function, and so do not add any explanatory potential. In fact, as previous posts have demonstrated, a subjacency duplex analysis provides less explanatory potential than the original theory that the authors simply misunderstand.

[3] This is very misleading indeed. On the one hand, it sets up a false dichotomy: text analysis vs comprehensive description — one does not exclude the other — and on the other hand, it falsely claims that Halliday (1985; 1994) are not comprehensive descriptions.

To be clear, the reason why subjacency duplexes are "passed over" in all functional grammar descriptions not carried out by Martin and his former students, is that they only arise from misunderstandings of theory. These misunderstandings include taking the view from below, instead of the view from above, misunderstanding at which rank logical structures are located, not understanding recursive systems, not understanding iterative structures, mistaking adpositions for structure markers, and so on.

Misapplying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To Tagalog Nominal Groups

Martin & Doran (2023: 37-8):

Tagalog’s ubiquitous linker na (Martin 1995a) is another obvious candidate for subjacency analysis. Linking for Numerative and Epithet is exemplified in (31) and for Qualifier in (32).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, subjacency duplexes were (spuriously) proposed as a means of modelling limited submodification in a nominal group. No argument has been provided as to why they are appropriate to model structure markers.

[2] To be clear, the combinations [numeral + na] and [adjective + na] are not a hypotactic two-unit complexes (duplexes). On the one hand, na does not modify (subcategorise) the numeral or adjective. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, neither combination serves a single function. It is only the numeral or adjective that serves each function.

[3] To be clear, in this case, na functions like English that. That is, it is an element of the relative clause that she bought which serves as the Qualifier of the nominal group. The subjacency duplex analysis misrepresents the constituency by removing na from the clause in which it serves as structural Theme.

Moreover, the combination [na + clause] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, na does not modify (subcategorise) the clause. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, the combination does not serves a single function. It is only the clause (which actually includes na) that serves the Qualifier function.

Misapplying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To A Chinese Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 37):

In Chinese, the structure marker de (noted in McDonald 2017) which commonly links Epithets to following elements in nominal group structure can be analysed along similar lines (Wang 2020; Hao and Wang 2022).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, subjacency duplexes were (spuriously) proposed as a means of modelling limited submodification in a nominal group. No argument has been provided as to why they are appropriate to model structure markers.

[2] To be clear, famous serves as a Postdeictic, not Epithet — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 374) — and the function of de is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 314) as follows:

The structure marker 的 de signals that what precedes it modifies (is dependent on) what follows.

So, in this case, de ('of') signals that the Postdeictic zhùmíng ('famous') modifies the Thing zhànqiáo ('pier'), whereas the subjacency duplex analysis misconstrues de as modifying the Postdeictic zhùmíng ('famous').

Moreover, the combination [adjective + de] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, de does not modify (subcategorise) the adjective, and on the other hand, the combination does not serve a single function.

And less importantly, to the extent that the term applies, de is a binder, not a linker. since it marks a hypotactic relation, not a paratactic one.

Misapplying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To A Spanish Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 36-7):

Comparable linkers are found across languages. In Spanish Classifiers realised by nouns following the Thing function are most commonly prefaced by de (Quiroz and Martin 2021).⁸

⁸ A possible alternative analysis treating de ruedas in (29) as a prepositional phrase is not tenable since (i) de is a structure marker, not a preposition (i.e. there are no “circumstantial” meanings implicated) and (ii) ruedas ‘wheels’ cannot be expanded as a nominal group (Martin et al. 2023). It should be noted that Quiroz, Martin’s mentor as far as Spanish grammar is concerned, does not subscribe to this subjacency analysis (as reflected in Quiroz and Martin 2021).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, subjacency duplexes were (spuriously) proposed as a means of modelling limited submodification in a nominal group. No argument has been provided as to why they are appropriate to model structure markers.

[2] To be clear, silla  and ruedas are both nouns, so the function of de is mark a relation between nominal groups, like English of. It is not a linker because it does not mark a paratactic relation.

The literal translation of this nominal group is 'chair of wheels', so in the translation at least, the structure is Head + Postmodifier. That is, the subjacency duplex is just a rebranding of what would be a prepositional phrase serving as Postmodifier in English. But significantly, this is a compound noun in English.

But, more importantly, the combination [de + nominal group], like all prepositional phrases, is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex) because de does not modify (subcategorise) the nominal group.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Spanish de is a preposition that serves as a structure marker. As a preposition, it forms a prepositional phrase with the nominal group that follows. Here the authors have confused form (prepositional phrase), with function (circumstance).

[4] To be clear, this suggests that the nominal group has similar properties to compound nouns, like English wheelchair.

[5] This review is demonstrating that Quiroz 'made the right call' in this regard.

Misapplying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To A Korean Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 36):

Comparable analyses could be proposed for binders and linkers across ranks. What we will attend to here is the use of linkers inside nominal groups – such as the ui connecting Orient and Thing functions in Korean in (4), (21) and (26). The relevant nominal group is further analysed as (28) below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, subjacency duplexes were (spuriously) proposed as a means of modelling limited submodification in a nominal group. No argument has been provided as to why they are appropriate to model structure markers.

[2] To be clear, choego  and gamdok are both nouns, so the function of ui is mark a relation between nominal groups, like English of. It is not a linker because it does not mark a paratactic relation.

The literal translation of this nominal group is something like 'director of supremacy', so in the translation at least, the structure is Head + Postmodifier. That is, the subjacency duplex is just a rebranding of what would be a prepositional phrase serving as Postmodifier in English.

But, more importantly, the combination [nominal group + ui] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, ui does not modify (subcategorise) the nominal group. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, the combination does not serve a single function. For example, a genuine complex, like top director and rising star, serves a single function, Actor, whereas the combination [nominal group + ui] does not.

Why A Subjacency Duplex Analysis Of Structure Markers Is Invalid

Martin & Doran (2023: 35-6):

Linkers are of course common place as structure markers in paratactic and hypotactic complexes across ranks. Group rank complexes were illustrated in (4), (5), (21) and (22) above, though we did not apply subjacency analysis to the structure markers signalling paratactic group complexes in (21) and (22). We extend relevant parts of their analysis as (26) and (27) below to address the linkers gwa and at respectively.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, in SFL Theory, linkers mark paratactic relations and binders mark hypotactic relations.

[2] To be clear, subjacency duplexes were (spuriously) proposed as a means of modelling limited submodification in a nominal group. No argument has been provided as to why they are appropriate to model linkers (or binders).

[3] To be clear, (26) features a nominal group complex — top director and rising star — serving as the Actor of a material Process. The authors' analysis is to treat the first nominal group and the following marker of the paratactic relation — gwa (and) — as a subjacency duplex. In addition to the problems previously identified with the notion of a subjacency duplex, there are two further factors that invalidate the analysis. 

First, gwa is a structure marker that does not serve as an element of structure in any rank unit, since the combination [nominal group + gwa] is not a rank unit.

Second, the combination [nominal group + gwa] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, gwa does not modify (subcategorise) the nominal group. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, it does not serve a single function. For example, a genuine complex, like top director and rising star, serves a single function, Actor, whereas the combination [nominal group + gwa] does not.

[4] To be clear, (27) features a nominal group complex — Tonyo and Ningning — serving as the Goal of a material Process. The authors' analysis is to treat the second nominal group and the preceding marker of the paratactic relation — at (and) — as a subjacency duplex. In addition to the problems previously identified with the notion of a subjacency duplex, there are two further factors that invalidate the analysis.

First, at is a structure marker that does not serve as an element of structure in any rank unit, since the combination [at + nominal group] is not a rank unit.

Second, the combination [at + nominal group] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, at does not modify (subcategorise) the nominal group. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, it does not serve a single function. For example, a genuine complex, like Tonyo and Ningning, serves a single function, Goal, whereas the combination [at + nominal group] does not.

∞

As can be seen from above, contrary to the aim of this paper, structure markers cannot be validly modelled by the use of subjacency duplexes.

Some Of The Problems With Interpreting A Nominal Group "Focus" As A Subjacency Duplex

Martin & Doran (2023: 34):

Generalisation of subjacency structure for adpositions of all kinds opens up a host of possibilities. In (25) for example the Focus structure in (1) is reinterpreted along these lines, which obviates the need for an experiential Focus Marker function realised by of. This analysis more readily acknowledges that the of is not in fact a constituent of the embedded nominal group, but rather “modifies” it. It also opens the way for acknowledging that the of does not have the possibility for internal constituency itself (a regular feature of subjacency markers), unlike many of the other words within the group — that is, it acknowledges that the of is not in fact part of the experiential constituency hierarchy that underpins SFL’s notion of rank.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, adpositions are not structure markers, but markers of functions (clause roles); see Matthiessen (1995: 370). Because they are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: interpreting structure markers in terms of subjacency duplexes.

[2] To be clear, 'Focus' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's 'Facet'. It is a particularly poor rebranding, since it uses a textual distinction for an experiential construal, and because the term already has a place in the theory as the Focus of information.

[3] To be clear, here the authors have misinterpreted a genuine structure marker (of) as an adpositional function marker and reinterpreted the misinterpretation as a subjacency duplex. Importantly, the structure marker of is not a marker of one nominal group function, such as Facet, as demonstrated by all the nominal groups with this of where the Head and Thing conflate, as in the king of Bohemia.

[4] This is misleading, because it is not true. To be clear, in SFL Theory, modification is a hypotactic relation of subcategorisation. Halliday (1985: 170):

for the purposes of the nominal group we need to take account of just one such relationship, that of subcategorisation: ‘a is a subset of x’. This has usually been referred to in the grammar of the nominal group as modification, so we will retain this more familiar term here.

Clearly, the preposition of does not subcategorise the nominal group the tops. Moreover, this analysis misinterprets a nominal group and the preposition of the following prepositional phrase as a two-unit complex (duplex).

[5] This is a very serious misunderstanding of the ranked constituency of SFL Theory. On the one hand, the word of is monomorphemic: it consists of one morpheme; that is its 'internal constituency'. On the other hand, the ranked constituency hierarchy is a model of form, not experiential meaning. What is true is that the type of structure favoured by the experiential metafunction, segmental, is based on constituency (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 85).

[6] To be clear, all the constituents of this nominal group are accounted for by the logical analysis:

However, the authors' problem is, again, methodological: instead of starting with function (Value) and asking how it is realised in form (Token), they start with form (Token) and ask what function (Value) it realises. In this case, instead of starting with the Facet and asking how it is realised, they start with a preposition and ask what function it realises.

On the basis of Halliday's editions of IFG (1985, 1994), the multivariate analysis of this nominal group is:

Misapplying Subjacency Duplexes To Adpositions Misunderstood As Structure Markers [3]

Martin & Doran (2023: 33-4):

Examples (7) and (8) above presented the problem of embedded clauses whose role in clause structure is signalled by the same structure markers that position nominal groups. The relevant parts of these are reworked as (23) and (24) below with a subjacency duplex realising the relevant clause function. This obviates the need to suggest, rather spuriously, that these embedded clauses are in fact a special kind of nominal group.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, there is no problem here. The adposition marks a clause rank function, and in these cases the function is realised by an embedded. The reason why the authors mistakenly think this to be a problem is methodological: instead of starting with function (Value) and asking how it is realised in form (Token), they start with form (Token) and ask what function (Value) it realises.

Again, these adpositions are not structure markers, but markers of functions (clause roles); see Matthiessen (1995: 370). Because they are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: interpreting structure markers in terms of subjacency duplexes.

[2] To be clear, applying existing SFL theory, the participants in (23) and (24) are each realised by an adpositional phrase consisting of an embedded and an adposition, on the model of a prepositional phrase:

Again, Martin & Doran have merely rebranded an adpositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

[3] Again, this seriously misunderstands rankshift. There is no suggestion that a clause that is embedded in a nominal group is a "special kind of nominal group". Such a clause is shifted to the rank of word, where, like words, it serves as an element of nominal group structure (Head/Thing).

Again, the authors' misunderstanding is methodological: instead of starting with function (Value) and asking how it is realised in form (Token), they start with form (Token) and ask what function (Value) it realises.

Misapplying Subjacency Duplexes To Adpositions Misunderstood As Structure Markers [2]

Martin & Doran (2023: 33):

Examples (4) and (5) above presented the problem of group complexes sharing the same adposition. The relevant parts of these are reworked as (21) and (22) below. The analysis below the subjacency duplex makes it clear that both elements of the nominal group complex play the same role in clause structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, there is no problem here. The adposition marks a clause rank function, and in these cases the function is realised by a nominal group complex. The reason why the authors mistakenly think this to be a problem is methodological: instead of starting with function (Value) and asking how it is realised in form (Token), they start with form (Token) and ask what function (Value) it realises.

Again, these adpositions are not structure markers, but markers of functions (clause roles); see Matthiessen (1995: 370). Because they are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: interpreting structure markers in terms of subjacency duplexes.

[2] To be clear, applying existing SFL theory, the participants in (21) and (22) are each realised by an adpositional phrase consisting of a nominal group complex and an adposition, on the model of a prepositional phrase:

Again, Martin & Doran have merely rebranded an adpositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

[3] This is misleading. A subjacency duplex is not necessary to show that the clause role is served by a nominal group complex.

Misapplying Subjacency Duplexes To Adpositions Misunderstood As Structure Markers [1]

Martin & Doran (2023: 32-3):

Recognition of subjacency duplexes opens up the possibility of a logical alternative to the experiential analysis of adpositions discussed in Section 2. Examples (2) and (3) are reworked as (19) and (20) below. Here participants in clause structure are analysed as being realised by subjacency duplexes, with progressive (α β#) or regressive (#β α) structures as appropriate; their α is realised by a nominal group and their β by the relevant clitic.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, subjacency duplexes were said to be motivated by relations within nominal group structure, but here they are applied to a relation between a nominal group and an adposition. 

Importantly, these adpositions are not structure markers, but markers of functions (clause roles); see Matthiessen (1995: 370). Because they are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: interpreting structure markers in terms of subjacency duplexes.

[2] To be clear, applying existing SFL theory, the participants in (19) and (20) are each realised by an adpositional phrase consisting of a nominal group and an adposition, on the model of a prepositional phrase:

Cf Matthiessen (1995: 370):

In summary, Martin & Doran have merely rebranded an adpositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Nevertheless, the question is — even ignoring all the misunderstandings involved — what explanatory advantage does the subjacency duplex analysis have over existing SFL theory?

A Fundamental Problem With The Notion Of A Subjacency Duplex

Martin & Doran (2023: 32):

The α β# / #β α notation for duplexes has been selected to 

(i) capture the dependency relation involved (resonating with hypotaxis notation in SFL description) and 

(ii) to reflect the use of # to mark the beginning and end of elements of structure (in SFL realisation statements). 

Although it has a different meaning in formal linguistics (Chomsky 1973), the term subjacency nicely captures the sense in which duplexes involve adjacent elements with one element dependent on the other. To avoid confusion these structures (referred to as subjacency structures in Martin et al. 2021) can be termed ‘subjacency duplexes’ in SFL (following Rose 2021; Stosic 2021; Hao and Wang 2022; Doran and Bangga 2022).

Blogger Comments:

[1] It will be seen in later posts that this dependency notation is applied where no dependency relation obtains.

[2] As previously explained, the end of a logical structure is specified by the selection of the feature 'stop' in its recursive system.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a duplex is a two-unit complex, and all complexes are complexes of rank units (clause, group, word, morpheme). The authors' notion of a 'subjacency duplex' is not only inconsistent with the notion of complex, it provides no means of locating its system on the grammatical stratum, because units on the rank scale are the entry conditions for grammatical systems.

[4] To be clear, these are the works of Martin's former students, acting under his direction. 

Misunderstanding The Logical Structure Of The Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 31-2):

By way of illustrating this logical notation, we can compare the α β# of the Pitjantjatjara subjacent duplex Example (17) above, with the serial hypotactic grading in English in (18):

Blogger Comments:

[1]  To be clear, (17) is intended to demonstrate a non-iterative logical structure, but it fails to provide the full logical structure of the nominal group. Moreover, the structure claimed to be a subjacency duplex is simply the Sub-Head and Sub-Modifier of the ɣ Modifier:

[2] To be clear, (18) confirms that the authors do not understand the logical structure of a nominal group, since they omit all the logical structure above the level of submodification:

Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390):

Misconstruing Word Rank Iterative Logical Structures As Group Rank (i) Iterative Experiential Structures And (ii) Non-Iterative Logical Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 31):

The discussion in this section indicates that we need to loosen up the association of experiential and logical meaning with specific types of system and structure – as outlined in Table 2 (setting aside paratactic complexing to simplify the discussion here). 

For experiential meaning the table draws on the contrast in English between a Deictic Numerative Thing structure for which non-recursive systems insert each function once and Epithet Thing Qualifier structures for which recursive systems allow for multiple Epithets and Qualifiers independently modifying the Thing (notated with an “ⁿ” superscript below). 

For logical meaning the table contrasts duplexes deriving from non-recursive systems with series deriving from recursive ones (e.g. the contrast between Pitjantjatjara and English, for example, as far as grading is concerned). The notation allows for both progressive and regressive duplexes and series (i.e. “left-headed” α β… vs “right-headed” β α dependency structures). And duplexes are distinguished from series by marking their culminative dependent β element with “#”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of a non-recursive system and non-iterative structure for a logical structure is based on their misunderstanding of the nature of recursive systems and the iterative structures that realise them. And the authors' notion of a recursive system and iterative structure for experiential structure is based on mistaking recursive systems and iterative structures of the logical metafunction at word rank for recursive systems and iterative structures of the experiential metafunction at group rank.

That is, what the authors presented as a non-iterative logical structure at group rank was an iterative logical structure at word rank: a two-unit hypotactic word complex. And what the authors presented as an iterative experiential structure at group rank was actually an iterative logical structure at word rank: a hypotactic word complex realising an Epithet.

[2] As previously explained, here the authors misconstrue the word rank iterative logical structures that can realise elements of group structure as iterative experiential structures at group rank. But here they also create theoretical inconsistency by proposing different structural types obtaining between different elements of the same unit. 

[3] As previously explained, here the authors misconstrue the word rank iterative logical structure that realises a submodified Epithet as a group rank non-iterative structure. But here they also create theoretical inconsistency by proposing different logical structural types obtaining between different experiential elements of the same unit.

[4] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.