"Granting These Structural Orphans A Home"

Martin & Doran (2023: 44):

Structure markers make important contributions to the realisation of systemic options in many languages, though in some (such as those with adpositions at group rank) more than others (such as those where inflectional morphology carries a heavy load). And there are many cases, some reviewed above (e.g. nominal group complexes and embedded clauses in Korean and Tagalog), where structure markers make explicit what goes with what and cannot be ignored. Our goal here has been to suggest a way forward for grammarians disposed towards granting these structural orphans a home.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, adpositions (and inflectional morphemes) do not function as structure markers. Instead, they mark functions in structures. To be clear, SFL construes structure as the relations between functional elements. 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.

A structure marker, in this view, is a marker of relations, not of functional roles. Because 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, genuine structure markers mark relations between elements. For example, linkers mark paradigmatic relations and binders mark hypotactic relations, but this is already theorised in SFL Theory (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 453, 611), so any suggestion that these functions have been ignored or not been made explicit before this paper by the authors is misleading.

[3] To be clear, the authors end their paper, as they began, with a logical fallacy: presenting lexical metaphors that position the reasoned invalidation of their model as an immoral act. This is the fallacy known as an Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement. The sentiment might be summarised as "Make Structure Markers Great Again."

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.

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.

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.

Misconstruing Adpositions As Structure Markers

Martin & Doran (2023: 41-2):

Our analysis raises issues about how far to extend subjacency duplex modelling in our descriptions. For adpositions this brings us in effect to the fuzzy boundary between participants and circumstances and the line drawn between structure markers on the one hand and prepositions or co-verbs on the other. The following excerpts from Halliday with Matthiessen (2014) flag the distinction as follows:

There is also one class of expressions with of, one of the few places where of functions as a full preposition (i.e. representing a minor process) as distinct from being merely a structure marker; for example, die of starvation. The corresponding WH- forms are why? or how?. (2014: 321)

The Medium is also the only element that is never introduced into the clause by means of a preposition (again with the same exception of medio-receptives); it is treated as something that always participates directly in the process. (Note that the structure the cooking of the rice, where the Medium follows of, is not an exception; of is functioning here, as it typically does, not as preposition but as structure marker – cf. genitive ‘s in the rice’s cooking.) (ibid. 341)

What appears to be taken as criterial here is whether or not of is simply positioning participants in transitivity structure or is specifying some kind of “circumstantial” meaning (e.g. “cause” in die of starvation; cf. die from starvation). For many languages the challenge here lies in drawing a line between peripheral participants (e.g. roles akin to English Recipients and Receivers) and Circumstances of Location — and their marking by the same adposition (e.g., English to, Tagalog sa, Korean e). In terms of this paper we are exploring how to draw a line between a subjacency duplex analysis (restricted perhaps to Recipients and Receivers in English) and a prepositional phrase analysis (restricted perhaps to Circumstances of Location in English).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, as previously demonstrated, the argument for interpreting submodification in a nominal group as a subjacency duplex structure was invalid and based on misunderstandings of theory. And no argument whatsoever has been proffered for the validity of applying the model to other structures.

[2] As previously demonstrated, because the authors misconstrue structure, the relationships between functions, as the functions themselves, they also misconstrue markers of those functions, adpositions, as structure markers. Because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] This misunderstands the quotes from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014). To be clear, their point is that the preposition of either functions as a 'full preposition', that is as a minor Process/Predicator, or it does not, in which case it functions as a structure marker that marks a relation between two nominal groups.

[4] Again, 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. For an SFL approach to these matters, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 167-176) on degree of participanthood and degree of involvement.

Why Subjacency Duplexes Are Passed Over In Functional Grammar Descriptions

Martin & Doran (2023: 38):

As we can see, subjacency duplex analysis adds layers of structure to tables (or trees). This is inevitable if we strictly follow the principle that classes are realised by grammatical functions (such as α β# or #β α) and functions in turn by classes as we move from higher ranks to lower ones (shifting perspective back and forth between syntagm and structure as we go). This does present a problem, however, if we want to use our tables (or trees) to reflect grammatical complexity (Halliday 2008). Unlike serial complexing (the resource expanding the meaning potential of spoken language) or embedding (the resource expanding the meaning potential of written language), layers of subjacency structure do not reflect systemic choices of their own — they are part of the realisation of choices in other implicating systems. Put another way, they don’t add an extra layer of meaning to the structures with which they are involved. This is possibly why they are passed over in many functional grammar descriptions, especially where the goal is text analysis (following, for example, Halliday 1985 and its subsequent 1994 edition) rather than a comprehensive description.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. In SFL Theory, structures realise systems. In the authors' own model, subjacency duplexes are said to be logical structures that realise non-recursive systems, so this claim is even inconsistent with their own model. 

Importantly, the problem that the authors are trying to conceal here is that it is not possible to specify the entry condition for a system that specifies a subjacency duplex. This is because the entry conditions for grammatical systems are units on the rank scale, and, unlike all other complexes, a subjacency duplex is not the expansion of a rank unit, since a subjacency is not a rank unit.

[2] To be clear, if subjacency duplexes do not "add an extra layer of meaning", they do not serve any function, and so do not add any explanatory potential. In fact, as previous posts have demonstrated, a subjacency duplex analysis provides less explanatory potential than the original theory that the authors simply misunderstand.

[3] This is very misleading indeed. On the one hand, it sets up a false dichotomy: text analysis vs comprehensive description — one does not exclude the other — and on the other hand, it falsely claims that Halliday (1985; 1994) are not comprehensive descriptions.

To be clear, the reason why subjacency duplexes are "passed over" in all functional grammar descriptions not carried out by Martin and his former students, is that they only arise from misunderstandings of theory. These misunderstandings include taking the view from below, instead of the view from above, misunderstanding at which rank logical structures are located, not understanding recursive systems, not understanding iterative structures, mistaking adpositions for structure markers, and so on.

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?

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.