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.