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.

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.

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?

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;

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.

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 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.