Martin & Doran (2023: 1):Structure markers
A subjacency duplex analysis
J.R.Martin & Y.J.Doran The University of Sydney, Australia|Australian Catholic University, Australia
In this paper we revisit the association of types of structure with modes of meaning in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). Focusing mainly on nominal group grammar, we argue that the association of experiential structure with non-recursive systems realised by multivariate structures and logical structure with recursive systems realised by univariate structures needs to be relaxed – in recognition of dependency structures consisting of two elements in a head/dependent relation. We refer to such structures as subjacency duplexes and explore their potential for the analysis of what are often dismissed in SFL as structure markers – adpositions, linkers and binders in particular.
Keywords: subjacency duplex, types of structure, structure marker, logical metafunction, recursion, nominal groups
Blogger Comments:
It will be seen, in the course of this review, that the notion of a 'subjacency duplex' is theoretically invalid, partly due to the fact that the authors, Martin & Doran, misunderstand both the SFL mode of theorising and the SFL notion of structure, the latter entailing the misunderstanding of the notion of 'structure marker'.
In terms of understanding the mode of theorising, SFL is concerned with identifying how meanings are expressed. Halliday (1985: xiv):
In this paper, however, the authors are concerned with the 'syntax' approach: identifying what expressions mean. That is, the SFL method is to encode meaning (Value) by reference to expression (Token), but the authors' method is to decode expression (Token) by reference to meaning (Value).
In terms of understanding structure, 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.
In this paper, however, the authors misconstrue structure as the functional elements themselves. This leads them to misunderstand iterative structures as iterated elements, rather than as an iterated relation, and to misunderstand markers of functions, adpositions, as structure markers.
