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.

Misunderstanding Recursive Systems

Martin & Doran (2023: 30-1):

What about the link between “logical” systems and iterative structures?

Rose (2001, 2021) presents overviews of logical resources in Western Desert (Pitjantjatjara), taking into account the possibility of what he calls simplexes, duplexes and series – with the choice of series leading to a recursive system realised by iterative structure. For nominal group choices, he notes that the series option is not available for grading within Epithets. So an adjective can be graded once, but we do not find series such as very much more difficult. An example of a grading duplex is presented in (17), adapted from Rose (2021:70).

Rose (2021) further reports that paratactic series are possible for Pitjantjatjara groups and words in general, but that hypotactic relations at these ranks (and certain choices at clause rank) are restricted to duplexes – in orbital terms a head and just one dependent satellite. His work thus documents the possibility of logical systems realised by non-iterative structures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, even Rose (2001: 368) acknowledges that he took the terms 'simplex' and 'duplex' from Matthiessen (1995).

[2] To be clear, this misunderstands the basic nature of a recursive system. A recursive system is one which provides the option of re-entering the same system.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438) provide an example:

In the case of a simplex, a single rank unit, the RECURSION system is not entered, because the system is a means of specifying iterative structures (complexes). In the case of a duplex, a two-unit complex, the feature 'stop' is selected (along with the other features that specify the tactic and logico-semantic relations of the complex). In the case of a "series", a complex of three or more units, the feature 'go on' is selected, and the system is re-entered, and either 'stop' or 'go on' is then selected, depending on how many units in the complex.

[3] To be clear, the 'grading within Epithets' is realised by a two-unit word complex, an iterative structure realising a recursive system at word rank. In this case, the recursive system is entered, and the feature 'stop' is selected, as explained above.

[4] To be clear, Rose's 'grading duplex' is simply the word complex that realises the submodification in the nominal group:

[5] To be clear, Martin proposes orbital structure as experiential, but here the authors have used it to describe a hypotactic logical structure. As previously observed, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues multivariate experiential structure as hypotactic logical structure. Here the authors reveal that misunderstanding themselves.

[6] This is misleading, because it is not true. Rose's work does not document the possibility of logical systems realised by non-iterative structures, because it presents an iterative structure, a two-unit word complex, that realises a recursive system, as demonstrated above.

Falsely Claiming That Multivariate Structures Involve Recursive Systems

Martin & Doran (2023: 30):

To this point we have established that what have been traditionally viewed as nominal group multivariate structures in fact involve both non-recursive systems (responsible for English Deictic, Numerative and Thing functions for example) and recursive systems (as exemplified by English Epithets and Qualifiers above).

 

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is not true. The authors have not established that multivariate structures of the nominal group involve recursive systems. As previously demonstrated, the recursive system involved for multiple Epithets is located at word rank, and is realised by a univariate structure, a word complex, that serves as an Epithet at group rank. The example presented as multiple Qualifiers was a single Qualifier realised by an embedded clause complex. In this case, the recursive system involved also specified a univariate structure: the logically related interdependent clauses that were embedded as Qualifier.

Misrepresenting Recursive Systems As Specifying Experiential Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 30):

The possibility of multiple Epithets (English) and Qualifiers (Korean and English) indicates that too strict an association of non-recursive systems with experiential structure is not tenable. Recursive systems clearly underlie both the English Epithets and Korean Epithets and Qualifiers exemplified above.⁷

⁷ At first blush Halliday’s (1985) analysis of English Classifiers would appear to exemplify a comparable pattern. But English Classifiers do not each independently modify the Thing (the structure is serial not orbital). In fact structures of this kind would be better modelled as hypotactic word complexes recursively taxonomising the entity construed by the Thing function (see Martin et al. 2021 for discussion).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is misleading because it is untrue. The 'multiple Epithets' example demonstrated that the experiential function is realised by a logical structure at word rank: a paratactic or hypotactic word complex. The 'multiple Qualifiers' example featured an embedded clause complex serving as a single Qualifier.

[2] To be clear, firstly, this misconstrues experiential structure (the Classifier–Thing relation) as logical ('modify', 'serial'). Secondly, it claims that both the Classifier and the Thing are both Heads, since Martin's serial structure is 'multi-nuclear'. Thirdly, Martin's serial structure misconstrues univariate structure as parataxis ('multi-nuclear'). Fourthly, it proposes a different structure type (serial) for just two elements of a nominal group: Classifier(s) and Thing. 

[3] This is misleading. Firstly, the notion that the Classifier 'taxonomises' the Thing is Halliday (1985), not Martin (2021). Halliday (1985: 160, 164):

This is an experiential structure which, taken as a whole, has the function of specifying (i) a class of things, namely trains, and (ii) some category of membership within this class. We shall refer to the element expressing the class by the functional label Thing. … 

The Classifier indicates a particular subclass of the thing in question, e.g. electric trains, passenger trains, wooden trains, toy trains.

Secondly, the notion that a Classifier can be realised by a hypotactic word complex is Halliday (1985), not Martin (2021), as expressed in Matthiessen (1995: 665):

CLASSIFICATION is the resource for specifying successively more specific classes of a thing; it is used to represent taxonomies. Table 7-14 presents a few examples from geology.

The recursive system is, of course, logical and at word rank.

Misconstruing Nominal Group Qualifiers

Martin & Doran (2023: 29-30):

The same kind of pattern arises for both Korean and English as far as Qualifiers are concerned — multiple Qualifiers are possible, each modifying the Thing function independently of one another (and thus can be moved around with respect to one another without affecting the construal of experiential meaning). Korean examples are provided in (15) and (16) below, with the same two Qualifiers, but in reverse sequence (Martin and Shin 2021). The English translations for these examples display the same pattern, but with the Qualifiers following rather than preceding the Thing.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, based on the English translation, there is only one Qualifier in (15) and (16), each one realised by an embedded paratactic extending clause complex:

The interdependency relation is paratactic because either clause can stand on its own without the other, and the expansion relation is extension: addition because the meaning is 'X and Y'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471-2).

The reason why Martin & Doran misconstrue this as two Qualifiers is methodological: they are concerned with assigning function to form (embedded clauses), instead of assigning forms to function (Qualifier). That is, they are decoding form instead of encoding function.

[2] To be clear, the theoretical reason why the embedded clauses 'can be moved around with respect to one another without affecting the construal of experiential meaning' is that parataxis is a symmetrical relation. Halliday (1985: 198):

In principle, the paratactic relation is logically symmetrical … 'salt and pepper' implies 'pepper and salt', so the relation is symmetrical;

Misconstruing The Multivariate Structure Of Nominal Groups

Martin & Doran (2023: 29):

This restriction contrasts with English, where alongside the adjective complexing in (13), there can be an indefinite number of Epithets as in (14).⁵

The fact that functions such as Epithets can be repeated calls into question a strict interpretation of multivariate structures as comprising elements of structure that only occur once.⁶

 ⁵ Ghesquiere (2014:53) notes that Dixon (1982:25) refers to such structures as involving “independent modification”. Breban (2010: 37–38) distinguishes “classifying adjectives”, which enter into recursive modifications of their head from “descriptive adjectives” which independently modify theirs. Tucker (1998) and Vandelanotte (2002) make a similar distinction between “coordinated adjectives” and “non-coordinated” (or “modifier-sequence”) adjectives. 

 ⁶ From the perspective of orbital structure we can have an unlimited number of Epithets, each modifying a nuclear Thing function.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the difference between (13) and (14) is that (13) presents a paratactic word complex as serving one Epithet, whereas (14) presents a hypotactic word complex serving three Epithets, one for each adjective. Both types of representation are used in SFL. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 388, 397):

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, it is Systemic Functional Grammar itself that 'calls into question' the Scale-&-Category Grammar 'interpretation of multivariate structures as comprising elements of structure that only occur once'. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 364):

Categorisation within the class is typically expressed by one or more of the functional elements Deictic, Numerative, Epithet and Classifier. They serve to realise terms within different systems of the system network of the nominal group.

[3] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as a hypotactic univariate structure of the logical metafunction. The authors betray this misconstrual here by their use of the term 'modifying', which denotes a hypotactic univariate structure, not a multivariate one. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 389):

Misrepresenting 'Canonical' Multivariate Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 28):

At this point let’s look a little more critically at Halliday’s (2002 [1979]) proposal that multivariate structures realise non-recursive experiential systems and that univariate structures realise recursive logical systems. We’ll address the multivariate structure/non-recursive systems association first, by focusing on structures involving Epithets and Things in nominal group structure. Recall that in a canonical multivariate structure of this kind each variable is distinct and occurs once. As far as the Epithet function is concerned this works fine for Korean (Martin and Shin 2021). Each nominal group is limited to just one Epithet.

The only way to introduce additional description into the picture is via a paratactic word complex realising the Epithet. For example in (12) we have three adjectives forming a word complex realising just one Epithet. Note that the final adjective in the Epithet necessarily takes the suffix -n, linking it to the Thing — as shown in both (11) and (12). In order to add more adjectives Korean deploys the paratactic linker -go, since expanding the number of adjectives involves building a paratactic word complex realising the Epithet. We cannot add additional Epithets to the structure. Thus *빠른 아름다운 혁신적인 자동차 (*ppareu-n areumdau-n hyeoksinjeogi-n jadongcha), where the adjectives have the linking suffix -n rather than parataxis marking -go, is ungrammatical.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this obsolete claim is from an exploratory paper by Halliday in 1965, at the time of Scale-&-Category Grammar, when there were no metafunctions, and so, no metafunction structures. In the theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar, the variable of a multivariate structure is the relationship between the functional elements, not the functional elements themselves. For example, the multivariate structure of the verbal group involves the different relationships that obtain between Finite, Polarity, Auxiliary and Event, but this does not preclude the possibility of there being more than one Auxiliary; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 397):

The experiential structure of the finite verbal group is Finite (standing for ‘Finite operator’) plus Event, with optional elements Auxiliary (one or more) and Polarity. Finite verbal groups range from short, one-word items such as ate, where the Finite is fused with the Event and there is no Auxiliary, to long strings like couldn’t have been going to be being eaten (Figure 6-13). 

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is a linker that marks a paratactic relation. If the suffix -n does not mark a paratactic relation, then it either marks a hypotactic relation, in which case it is a binder, or it marks the function Epithet — or both the relation and the function.