Misconstruing Multivariate And Paratactic Structures As Having "Heads"

 Martin & Doran (2023: 25):

For particulate structure this means bringing nuclearity into the picture and re-interpreting multivariate structures as orbital (with satellites related to a single nucleus) and univariate structures as serial (i.e. multi-nuclear). This additional variable (i.e. nuclearity) allows for the recognition of “heads” in both experiential and logical structures. The canonical “head” in an orbital structure is exemplified by the Thing in nominal groups, the Event in verbal groups or the configuration of Process and Medium in clause structure; the canonical “head” in serial structure is the α variable in hypotactic complexes – e.g. the primary tense choice in an English or Spanish verbal group (Martin et al. 2023) or the projecting clause in a reporting clause complex across languages.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's model of structure misconstrues multivariate experiential structure as hypotactic univariate logical structure, and so it is this misconstrual that 'allows for the recognition of "heads" in experiential structures'. However, because Martin's model of structure misconstrues univariate logical structure as paratactic univariate structures, it does not 'allow for the recognition of "heads" in logical structures', since a paratactic structure links elements of equal status, and as such, has no Head element.

[2] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, unacknowledged by Martin & Doran, the notion of Process and Medium as nucleus in the ergative model of the English clause appears in Halliday (1985: 147):

The Process and the Medium together form the nucleus of an English clause; and this nucleus then determines the range of options that are available to the rest of the clause. Thus the nucleus ‘tear + cloth’ represents a small semantic field that may be realised as a clause either alone or in combination with other participant or circumstantial functions.

Importantly, for Halliday, the meaning of 'nucleus' is distinct from the meaning of 'head', which is why he uses the different terms. The nuclear model construes a cline from the most central to the most peripheral. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):

the nucleus of ‘Process + Medium’ has an inner ring of additional participants as well as an outer ring of circumstances surrounding it: see Figure 5-40.

[3] To be clear, this is an instance of self-contradiction. If Martin models logical structure as serial (i.e. multinuclear), and it is nuclearity that 'allows for the recognition of heads', then, in a logical structure every single nucleus is a head, and there are no satellites.

[4] This is misleading, because it invites the reader to falsely credit Martin et al. (2023) with the insight that the realisation of primary tense serves as the element of the logical structure of a verbal group. Halliday (1985: 177):

The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α.

Misconstruing Hypotactic vs Paratactic Logical Structure As Experiential vs Logical Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 25, 26):

Inspired by Halliday’s paper³ and by his own work on Tagalog grammar (e.g. 1995a) and English text structure, Martin (1988, 1995b, 1996a, 2000, 2004a, 2008, 2018) proposes the correlations between kinds of meaning and types of structure outlined in Figure 3. For particulate structure this means bringing nuclearity into the picture and re-interpreting multivariate structures as orbital (with satellites related to a single nucleus) and univariate structures as serial (i.e. multi-nuclear).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday updated his 1979 model in Halliday (1994: 36), and it remains so twenty years later in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

[2] To be clear, Martin's orbital structure for experiential meaning is inconsistent with the notion of multivariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.

Martin's model, however, interprets the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as just one type of relationship: that between a nucleus and satellite. To the extent that a satellite is dependent on a nucleus, this is actually a model of a hypotactic univariate iterative structure of the logical metafunction.

On the other hand, Martin's serial structure for logical meaning is partially consistent with the notion of univariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship … . Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are, as noted, formed out of logico-semantic relations.

However, in giving each nucleus equal status, this is only a model of a paratactic univariate iterative structure of the logical metafunction.

In short, Martin's model misconstrues the difference between multivariate experiential and univariate logical structures as the difference between hypotactic and paratactic logical structures.

Misunderstanding Iterative Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 23):

This complementarity means that there are two ways in which a given structure can be extended. For multivariate structure the relevant process is embedding as an element of structure is realised by an element of the same or higher rank (a process originally referred to as rankshift). This kind of extension was exemplified by the embedded nominal group in (1) above and the embedded clauses in (6), (7) and (8). For univariate structure on the other hand the relevant process is iteration – as an element of structure is repeated an indefinite number of times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, rankshift involves a rank unit, not an element of function structure, operating at a lower rank, as when a clause is shifted to the rank of word to serve as an element (Qualifier) of nominal group structure.

[2] To be clear, 'iteration' was not discussed in the authors' source: Halliday (1965). It first appears in IFG in the second edition (1994).

[3] To be clear, because a structure consists of relationships between elements, not the elements themselves, an iterative structure means that it is a relationship that is iterated, not an element. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship: for example ‘and’ as in Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Dan’l Whiddon, Harry Hawk, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all; ‘equals’ as in Tom, Tom, the piper’s son (Tom = Tom = the piper’s son); ‘is a subset of’ as in new-fashioned three-cornered cambric country-cut handkerchief (what kind of handkerchief? – country-cut; what kind of country-cut handkerchief? – cambric, ... ); and so on. Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are, as noted, formed out of logico-semantic relations.

The authors' misunderstanding of structure as its functional elements is one of several factors that undermines the validity of the argumentation in this paper.

Misrepresenting Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1965) As Representative Of Systemic Functional Grammar In 2023

Martin & Doran (2023: 22-3):

Halliday’s original paper on types of structure was prepared in 1965 as a Working Paper for the O.S.T.I. Programme in the Linguistic Properties of Scientific English (and later published as Halliday 1981 [1965]). In this paper he draws a basic distinction between multivariate structures involving “a specific set of variables each occurring only once” (1981[1965]: 33) and univariate structures involving a single variable occurring an unlimited number of times. The contrast here is illustrated in (9) and (10). The structure of the clause in (9) is a canonical multivariate one – consisting experientially of one Carrier, one Process and one Attribute, with none of these functions repeatable. The structure of (10), by contrast, is a canonical univariate one – realised by an indefinitely extendable complex of words grading appreciation of the argument (featuring hypotactic dependency, notated as δ γ β α).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Halliday (1965) was an exploratory paper in Scale & Category Grammar — written before Halliday had formulated Systemic Functional Grammar — and does not feature in his collected works. Importantly, it predates the notion of metafunctions and their structural types, and contains inconsistencies with later work, such as categorising Head°Modifier structures as multivariate, instead of univariate (p230):

The question then arises as to why the authors would choose a pre-Systemic, pre-metafunctional publication, instead of the most recent work, as a springboard for improving the current state of the theory.

Summary Of Section On Adpositions

Martin & Doran (2023: 22, 17):

In this section two difficulties with an experiential analysis of structure marking adpositions have been reviewed – arising from the relation of these structure markers to nominal group complexes and embedded clauses. By way of working towards an alternative analysis working around these problems we need to step back and reconsider work on types of structure in SFL. In particular we need to focus on the complementarity of experiential and logical meaning, a complementarity passed over briefly above in relation to the tiers of experiential and logical structure proposed by Halliday with Matthiessen (2014) in Figure1.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this section of this paper on structure markers was concerned with adpositions, which are not structure markers, and so are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper. The misunderstanding arises from mistaking functions, elements of structure, for structures, the relations between functions, as previously explained. The adpositions discussed were all lower rank markers of clause rank transitivity functions.

[2] To be clear, the two problems arose because the authors attempted to interpret adpositions as constituents of nominal groups, nominal group complexes and embedded clauses, instead proposing a phrase that consists of an adposition and a nominal group, nominal group complex or embedded clause. So, on the one hand, there are no problems in this regard, and on the other hand, the non-problems are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: structure markers.

Misconstruing Another Adposition As A Structure Marker

Martin & Doran (2023: 22):

The same issue arises in Tagalog. In (8) the embedded clause dahan-dahang lumapit sa kanya ‘very slowly approached him’ functions as Value (and Theme) in a relational identifying clause — as marked by ang (a relatively literal English translation would run along the lines of ‘a weak flicker of light was what slowly approached him’).

Aside from this structure marker there is nothing to indicate that this clause is embedded (contrast the nominalisation pag-kislap ‘flicker’ in the nominal group realising the Token, with its nominalising prefix pag-). The clause dahan-dahang lumapit sa kanya can in fact function perfectly well as a ranking clause enacting a negotiable move in an exchange. 

So once again we either have to suggest that Tagalog adpositions are elements of both embedded clause and nominal group structure – or alternatively insist that dahan-dahang lumapit sa kanya is embedded as Thing. Additional argumentation for the latter analysis would be very challenging to provide since there is nothing motivating the analysis of this clause as a nominal group other than the pre-preposition.

Blogger Comments:

[1] See the previous post.

[2] To be clear, since ang marks an element as Value and Theme, it is not a structure marker, but is, like previous adpositions, a marker of clause functions. As previously pointed out, because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, this instance demonstrates that a clause rank function is realised by an adposition plus an embedded clause. This does not logically entail that the adposition is an element of the structure of the embedded clause (or a nominal group). As previously mentioned, the two can be interpreted as joint constituents of a phrase.

[4] To be clear, the clause is shifted to word rank where it serves as the Head/Thing of a nominal group.

[5] In SFL Theory, argumentation is made from above: how meanings are expressed. Here the authors take the opposite perspective: looking for formal evidence for distinguishing expressions of meaning (clause vs nominal group).

Misunderstanding Rankshift

Martin & Doran (2023: 21):

Alternatively we could argue that such embedded nominal groups are in fact embedded as a function in a nominal group realising the Phenomenon, as outlined in (7). This is a considerable complication of the analysis, for which additional argumentation would have to be provided. It is not clear for example which group function the embedded clause is realising (we somewhat arbitrarily chose Thing below). This analysis also misses the point that an embedded clause has in fact been chosen instead of a nominal group, not within a nominal group.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the Phenomenon (macrophenomenon) of this clause is realised by an embedded clause, translated as losing to others, whose circumstantial Adjunct is realised by a postpositional phrase consisting of a nominal group nam (others) and a postposition hante (to).

[2] To be clear, an embedded clause in a nominal group serves as either Postmodifier/Qualifier or Head/Thing. In this instance, it serves as the Head/Thing; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 492).

[3] This misunderstands rankshift. In this instance, a clause has been rankshifted to function as an element of nominal group structure. Because elements of group structure are realised by words, the clause has shifted to word rank.

Here again, the authors are taking the perspective of form (clause and group) instead of the SFL view of function.

Misconstruing A Non-Problem As A Problem [3]

Martin & Doran (2023: 21):

Another problem with an analysis of this kind is that it is not just nominal groups in Korean and Tagalog that are assigned a role in clause structure through adpositions; the same set of adpositions are used with embedded clauses. In (6),  for example, the structure marker reul positions the embedded clause as Phenomenon in a mental clause. Following SFL notation the embedded clause is enclosed in double square brackets.

Using this analysis would suggest that we need to treat Korean post-positions as culminative elements of embedded clause structure as well as nominal group structure – and set up an embedded vs non-embedded clause system at clause rank to trigger realisations of the structure marker. This would entail a loss of generalisation as far as the role of function markers in groups and embedded clauses is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not a problem either. The function of an adposition is to mark a transitivity function, and here it marks an embedded clause as serving such a function: Phenomenon. The fact that the authors misconstrue this as a problem demonstrates that they taking the view 'from below' (form) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (meaning).

Again, because these adpositions mark functions instead of structures — relations between functions — they are not structure markers, and so are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

[2] To be clear, this is not true. Again, the obvious solution is to treat the adposition as a separate element in a phrase that also includes an element realised by a nominal group or embedded clause. Again, the authors' suggestion demonstrates that they taking the view 'from below' (form) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (meaning).

[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 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misconstruing A Non-Problem As A Problem [2]

Martin & Doran (2023: 20):

The analyses provided in both (4) and (5) treat the structure marker as an element of experiential nominal group structure. In doing so, it requires that we position the structure marker as a constituent of one of the two nominal groups in the complex — in Korean, the final nominal group and in Tagalog, the first nominal group. But this fails to show that it is not just the nominal group that includes the structure marker that is assigned a role in clause structure, but rather the nominal group complex as a whole. So labelling the structure marker as a constituent of one of the nominal groups is not adequate because the marker positions the whole complex.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, none of these adpositions functions as a structure marker, since, as the authors themselves acknowledge, each marks a transitivity function, not a structural relation between functions. Again, this makes them irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

[2] This is true. So the obvious solution is to treat the adposition as a separate element in a phrase that also includes an element realised by a nominal group simplex or complex. English similarly uses phrases to realise participants, most notably Agent (by the poet) and Beneficiary (for the parents and their children), but also Medium (thought/said by many).

Matthiessen (1995: 637-8):

Adpositions in phrases. A number of languages have phrases — either prepositional (as in English, German, French; Arabic; Chinese; Tagalog) or postpositional (as in Japanese; Hindi). … 

Adpositions may be deployed not only to realise ideational roles (i.e., participant and circumstance roles in the clause and modifying roles in groups as in English, German, French; Arabic; and Chinese), but they may also be deployed to realise textual roles; for example, in Japanese and Tagalog the (ideational) Theme is marked adpositionally (by the postposition wa in Japanese and by the preposition ang in Tagalog).

Misconstruing A Non-Problem As A Problem [1]

Martin & Doran (2023: 19-20):

One problem with this analysis is that in both Korean and Tagalog a single postposition or pre-position can be used to specify the role of a nominal group complex. In (4) choego ui gamdok ‘best director’ and tteooreuneun seuta ‘rising star’ are complexed by the linker gwa ‘and’ as the Actor participant role — a joint role marked once by the Korean EFM ga (analysed below as culminating the second nominal group). The structure of this paratactic complex is notated as 1 + 2 below.

Similarly in (5) Tonyo and Ningning are complexed by the linker at as Goal — a joint role marked once by the Tagalog plural FM sina.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not a problem. The function of each adposition is to mark a transitivity function, and in each case, it marks a nominal group complex as serving such a function: Actor in (4), Goal in (5). The fact that the authors misconstrue this as a problem demonstrates that they taking the view 'from below' (form) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (meaning).

Again, because these adpositions mark functions instead of structures — relations between functions — they are not structure markers, and so are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper.

[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 'culminating' to mean 'ending', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misconstruing Tagalog Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 19):

Martin and Cruz  (2022) adopt a similar analysis for function marking pre-positions in Tagalog. There the adpositions (ang/si/sina,ng/ni/nina,sa/kay/kina) occupy first rather than culminative position in almost every nominal group that plays a participant role in clause structure. And in conjunction with verb morphology these clitics sort out both participant roles and thematic prominence. Thus in (3), in relation to the affix in- in the Process inaantay ‘was waiting’, the pre-position ni positions Tonyo as Actor and si positions Ningning as Goal and Theme. In (3) “FM” abbreviates Function Marking,“ ntp” abbreviates“ non-theme participant” and “tp” abbreviates “theme participant”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As the authors make clear, these adpositions mark functions, not structure — the relations between functions — and so do not function as structure markers, and, as such, are irrelevant to the concerns of this paper. 

[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.

Misconstruing Korean Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 18-9):

This type of analysis is adopted for function marking post-positions in Korean nominal groups in Martin and Shin (2021) and Kim et al.(2023), as illustrated in (2).

The adpositions in question (i/ga, eul/reul, e, ege, hante etc.) sort out the participant roles associated with experiential clause types and in Korean culminate almost every nominal group that plays a participant role in clause structure. The term proposed for these structure markers is Experiential Function Marking (EFM for short). In Example (2), following Kim et al.’s terminology, these markers position the woodcutter as Actor, the winged dress as Undergoer and the nymph as Recipient. In the analysis tables below p1, p2, p3 sort out the marking of participant roles. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the word 'culminate' means 'reach a climax or point of highest development'. 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 'culminate' to mean 'end', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

[2] To be clear, more than twenty years before these authors, Matthiessen (1995: 370-1) discusses the marking of transitivity roles by adpositions, citing the earlier work of Nichols (1986), and adds (op cit: 638):

Adpositions may be deployed not only to realise ideational roles (i.e., participant and circumstance roles in the clause and modifying roles in groups as in English, German, French; Arabic; and Chinese), but they may also be deployed to realise textual roles; for example, in Japanese and Tagalog the (ideational) Theme is marked adpositionally (by the postposition wa in Japanese and by the preposition ang in Tagalog).

[3] Importantly, these adpositions are not structure markers. Instead, as the authors themselves recognise, these are markers of transitivity roles. That is, they are markers of functions, not markers of structures — a function structure being the relations between functions (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 451). As such, the discussion of adpositions in this paper is entirely irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: modelling structure markers.

[4] To be clear, in SFL terms, this the Goal/Medium of the material Process.

Misrepresenting Structure Marker 'Of' As An Experiential Function

Martin & Doran (2023: 18):

One of the main issues with these structure markers is that they do not neatly “fit” into the typical configurations of structure that SFL proposes. For example, one possibility for incorporating structure markers into the description of nominal groups is to assign them a function label, such as Focus Marker below. This treatment positions them as an additional element of experiential structure — i.e. as a constituent of the unit being analysed. This is in effect the strategy of what is often referred to as Cardiff grammar, which labels the Focus Marker in (1) as “v”, standing for what Fawcett calls the “selector” element of nominal group structure (Fawcett 1980: 204; cf. Fontaine and Schönthal 2020). 

This treatment as a Focus Marker is outlined for Halliday and Matthiessen’s Example (1) below, revising the terminology along the lines of that proposed in Martin et al. (2010:170) (so Focus rather than Facet) and incorporating both class and function labels to clarify the embedded nominal group involved. Following SFL notation the embedded group is enclosed in square brackets.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, structure markers may, or may not, serve as elements of structure. In the case of linkers and binders, the structure marker also serves as structural Theme. But in the case of the structure marker of, it serves no function other than marking a relation between nominal groups. That is, it does not serve as a functional element in nominal group structure.

[2] To be clear, the unnecessary rebranding of Halliday's 'Facet' as Martin's 'Focus' creates theoretical inconsistency by replacing an experiential category with a textual category. The inconsistency is further exacerbated by the the fact that the term 'Focus' is already used for New information in the information unit. As demonstrated by the 61 clarifying critiques here, Martin's modus operandi has long been to rebrand the work of his sources, thereby creating the potential of being credited with their ideas.

[3] To be clear, the problem with this approach is that the structure marker of does not serve any function in the nominal group the tops. Specifically, the function Focus Marker does not relate to the nominal group the tops, and so does not form a structure with it. Instead, of simply marks a relation between two nominal groups: the tops and the hills.

[4] To be clear, the problem with this treatment is that the structure marker of is not a constituent of 'the unit being analysed', the embedded nominal group the tops. Instead, it is a constituent of the prepositional phrase of the hills. Where, in the experiential analysis, the first nominal group is treated as embedded, of marks the relation between the two nominal groups.

[5] To be clear, Example (1) misrepresents the preposition of the prepositional phrase of the hills as a clitic of the nominal group the tops.

"Sweeping Structure Markers Under The Carpet"

Martin & Doran (2023: 17):

As Fontaine (2017:280) comments, “It is well known that of-expressions are problematic…”. McDonald (2017:263) similarly expresses concern about the need to account “for a structural marker that is not itself part of a structure, such as of in English, de in French, zhi in classical Chinese or de in modern Chinese, or no in Japanese”. …

As SFL addresses an ever-wider range of languages and extends descriptions to include group/phrase and word rank systems and structures, sweeping structure markers under the carpet becomes less and less tenable. Thus in this paper we  focus on these structure markers and suggest how to deal with them. In doing so we re-visit SFL’s conception of types of structure and suggest a generalisable account of structure markers which makes room for their analysis in tables or trees.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fontaine's comment is an example of the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum:

appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.

And Martin & Doran's use of Fontaine's comment is an example of the logical fallacy known as Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy):

a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.

[2] To be clear, 'structure marker' is precisely how such items are accounted for. If they are not part of a structure, then they cannot be interpreted as part of a structure. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Martin & Doran propose in this paper.

[3] To be clear, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as Red herring:

introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic

since it makes the further claim that accounting for such items as structure markers is 'sweeping them under the carpet'; see [2]. This red herring then serves as a fallacious straw man to be defeated by the authors in this paper.

Misunderstanding The Function Of The Structure Marker 'Of'

Martin & Doran (2023: 16-7):

A representative description from Halliday with Matthiessen (2014) is provided as Figure 1 below.¹ Note that neither the experiential nor logical tier of analysis provides a specific function label for of.

¹ The experiential label Qualifier on the logical tier, where a Post-Modifier function might be expected, is surprising, as is the absence of a post- α β function below (for of the hills); however, these labelling issues are not directly relevant to the paper and so will be set aside here.

 Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason why no function label for of is that does not serve as a functional element in the nominal group. Instead, it marks a relation between nominal groups (the tops and the hills).

[2] Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 396):

[3] To be clear, the "surprising" use of 'Qualifier' instead of 'Postmodifier' in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) is simply a typographical error, as a quick glance at the surrounding text makes clear.

[4] To be clear, the Postmodifier is not labelled as a dependent element for reasons explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390, 392n):

But the Postmodifier does not itself enter into the logical structure, because it is not construed as a word complex. What the logical analysis does is to bring out the hypotactic basis of premodification in the nominal group…

In the first two editions of IFG, the Postmodifier also was brought into the scope of the logical representation. But this appears to complicate the description without adding further to its explanatory power.

Misunderstanding Structure Markers

 Martin & Doran (2023: 16):

1. Structure markers 

In  systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL) Halliday’s description of English grammar (1985  and subsequent editions) is generally taken as a benchmark,  proposing as it does rich functional descriptions of clauses, groups and phrases. In the fourth edition (2014) a number of references are made to what are termed “structure markers” – with reference to of in nominal groups, to in verbal groups and conjunctive binders (e.g. that, which, whether, if; when, because, if, although) and linkers (e.g. and, or, but, so). Of these, binders and linkers are treated as structural Themes but otherwise analyses with distinct function labels for structure markers are not provided.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, the reason why Halliday's description is 'taken as a benchmark' is that SFL is a theory devised by Halliday. Without Halliday, there is no SFL; without everyone else, there is.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, 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.

On the other hand, the authors here disclose their misunderstanding of the SFL notion of structure. 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.

Because a structure consists of relations, a structure marker marks a relation. For example, of marks a relation between nominal groups, while binders and linkers mark tactic relations between rank units.

The reason why binders and linkers are also treated as structural Themes is that they also serve as these functional elements in clause structure. The reason why the structure marker of is not assigned a function label is that it does not serve as a functional element in nominal group structure.

This fundamental misunderstanding of structure forms the basis of this paper.