Misconstruing Tagalog Prepositional Phrases As Subjacency Duplexes

Martin & Doran (2023: 42-3):

The same kind of problem arises in Tagalog and Korean. In Tagalog for example Receiver and Recipient participants are marked with sa. The projecting clause in “Nasaan kaya si Ningning?” sabi niya sa sarili. ‘“Where might Ningning be?” he said to himself.’ is analysed in (34) below – treating sa sarili ‘to himself’ as a subjacency duplex.

As introduced in (8) above, Tagalog uses the same pre-position sa to mark Direction. Outside of the semantics of the Processes involved (sabi ‘say’ vs lapit ‘approach’) there is nothing to distinguish the sa sarili ‘to himself’ and sa kanya ‘to him’ phrases. Accordingly a subjacency duplex analysis is proposed in (35).

The more general issue arising here is that in Tagalog there is arguably no need to recognise a distinction between nominal groups and prepositional phrases. Virtually all participants and circumstances are realised by subjacency duplexes with a #β clitic marking the role of an α nominal group in clause structure (Martin 1996b, 2004b).

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 a Receiver realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. That is, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Moreover, the interpretation of the prepositional 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] As the phrase 'outside of the semantics' demonstrates, the perspective taken here by the Martin & Doran is again 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. From an SFL perspective, this instance is simply a Location realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. Again, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Again, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] To be clear, the examination of this claim for instances of Tagalog presented in this paper have demonstrated that the claim is invalid. All cases presented are analysable as clause elements realised by adpositional phrases (adposition + nominal group).

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

"Subjacency Duplexes Do Not Add A Layer Of Meaning To The Structures In Which They Are Involved"

Martin & Doran (2023: 39-40): 

In Chinese on the other hand a subjacency duplex (culminating in de) is commonly used to realise Epithets; and in Tagalog, hypotactic series regularly involve subjacency duplexes (culminating in na).

The differences are the responsibility of realisation statements, not the valeur of the systems themselves. It is in this sense that we argued above that subjacency duplexes do not add a layer of meaning to the structures in which they are involved. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the function of de is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 314) as follows:

The structure marker 的 de signals that what precedes it modifies (is dependent on) what follows.

and the example provided by the authors, famous, served as Postdeictic, not Epithet — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 374). As demonstrated, the subjacency duplex analysis misconstrues de as modifying the Postdeictic, instead of signalling that the Postdeictic modifies the Thing.

[2] To be clear, the authors analysed two different functions of na as if they were the same. In one function, it linked elements of nominal group structure, in the other, it functioned like English that in introducing an embedded defining relational clause serving as the Qualifier of a nominal group. In neither case did na form a subjacency duplex, because it did not modify the other component of the "duplex". In the latter case, the subjacency duplex analysis also misrepresented formal constituency by removing na from the clause in which it serves as structural Theme.

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

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, the structure of a subjacency duplex is purported to represent a hypotactic relation of modification, on the other hand, if a subjacency duplex does not "add a layer of meaning", then, even if it were a valid interpretation, it would not add any explanatory potential to a functional theory. of grammar

On The Representation Of Subjacency Duplex Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 38-9):

One way to simplify tables (or trees) incorporating subjacency duplex structure would be to relax the ‘function realised by class’ requirement and allow duplex structures to directly realise grammatical functions.⁹ Example (32) is revised along these lines as (33) below. This is a more economical analysis for publication purposes, but would need to be seen as a simplification. 

⁹ SFL’s expanded realisation statement operator (Matthiessen and Halliday 2009: 98) sets a precedent in this regard, although managing a completely different type of phenomenon (e.g. expansion of the English Mood function as Subject and Finite).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the revision of (32) as (33) is simply the removal of the words 'subjacency duplex'. A simpler solution, if the notion of 'subjacency duplex' had any validity, would be to provide different representations of structure for each rank, clause and group, as in Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014).

[2] To be clear, this realisation statement is concerned with layering functions such as Mood element as Subject and Finite. It is not concerned with layering what the authors consider to be form (subjacency duplex) and function (#β α).

Misapplying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To Tagalog Nominal Groups

Martin & Doran (2023: 37-8):

Tagalog’s ubiquitous linker na (Martin 1995a) is another obvious candidate for subjacency analysis. Linking for Numerative and Epithet is exemplified in (31) and for Qualifier in (32).

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, the combinations [numeral + na] and [adjective + na] are not a hypotactic two-unit complexes (duplexes). On the one hand, na does not modify (subcategorise) the numeral or adjective. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, neither combination serves a single function. It is only the numeral or adjective that serves each function.

[3] To be clear, in this case, na functions like English that. That is, it is an element of the relative clause that she bought which serves as the Qualifier of the nominal group. The subjacency duplex analysis misrepresents the constituency by removing na from the clause in which it serves as structural Theme.

Moreover, the combination [na + clause] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, na does not modify (subcategorise) the clause. On the other hand, unlike genuine complexes, the combination does not serves a single function. It is only the clause (which actually includes na) that serves the Qualifier function.

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?

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).

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.