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.

Misapplying A Subjacency Duplex Analysis To A Spanish Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 36-7):

Comparable linkers are found across languages. In Spanish Classifiers realised by nouns following the Thing function are most commonly prefaced by de (Quiroz and Martin 2021).⁸

⁸ A possible alternative analysis treating de ruedas in (29) as a prepositional phrase is not tenable since (i) de is a structure marker, not a preposition (i.e. there are no “circumstantial” meanings implicated) and (ii) ruedas ‘wheels’ cannot be expanded as a nominal group (Martin et al. 2023). It should be noted that Quiroz, Martin’s mentor as far as Spanish grammar is concerned, does not subscribe to this subjacency analysis (as reflected in Quiroz and Martin 2021).

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, silla  and ruedas are both nouns, so the function of de 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 'chair of wheels', 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 significantly, this is a compound noun in English.

But, more importantly, the combination [de + nominal group], like all prepositional phrases, is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex) because de does not modify (subcategorise) the nominal group.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Spanish de is a preposition that serves as a structure marker. As a preposition, it forms a prepositional phrase with the nominal group that follows. Here the authors have confused form (prepositional phrase), with function (circumstance).

[4] To be clear, this suggests that the nominal group has similar properties to compound nouns, like English wheelchair.

[5] This review is demonstrating that Quiroz 'made the right call' in this regard.

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 [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.

A Fundamental Problem With The Notion Of A Subjacency Duplex

Martin & Doran (2023: 32):

The α β# / #β α notation for duplexes has been selected to 

(i) capture the dependency relation involved (resonating with hypotaxis notation in SFL description) and 

(ii) to reflect the use of # to mark the beginning and end of elements of structure (in SFL realisation statements). 

Although it has a different meaning in formal linguistics (Chomsky 1973), the term subjacency nicely captures the sense in which duplexes involve adjacent elements with one element dependent on the other. To avoid confusion these structures (referred to as subjacency structures in Martin et al. 2021) can be termed ‘subjacency duplexes’ in SFL (following Rose 2021; Stosic 2021; Hao and Wang 2022; Doran and Bangga 2022).

Blogger Comments:

[1] It will be seen in later posts that this dependency notation is applied where no dependency relation obtains.

[2] As previously explained, the end of a logical structure is specified by the selection of the feature 'stop' in its recursive system.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a duplex is a two-unit complex, and all complexes are complexes of rank units (clause, group, word, morpheme). The authors' notion of a 'subjacency duplex' is not only inconsistent with the notion of complex, it provides no means of locating its system on the grammatical stratum, because units on the rank scale are the entry conditions for grammatical systems.

[4] To be clear, these are the works of Martin's former students, acting under his direction. 

Misunderstanding The Logical Structure Of The Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 31-2):

By way of illustrating this logical notation, we can compare the α β# of the Pitjantjatjara subjacent duplex Example (17) above, with the serial hypotactic grading in English in (18):

Blogger Comments:

[1]  To be clear, (17) is intended to demonstrate a non-iterative logical structure, but it fails to provide the full logical structure of the nominal group. Moreover, the structure claimed to be a subjacency duplex is simply the Sub-Head and Sub-Modifier of the ɣ Modifier:

[2] To be clear, (18) confirms that the authors do not understand the logical structure of a nominal group, since they omit all the logical structure above the level of submodification:

Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390):

Misconstruing Word Rank Iterative Logical Structures As Group Rank (i) Iterative Experiential Structures And (ii) Non-Iterative Logical Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 31):

The discussion in this section indicates that we need to loosen up the association of experiential and logical meaning with specific types of system and structure – as outlined in Table 2 (setting aside paratactic complexing to simplify the discussion here). 

For experiential meaning the table draws on the contrast in English between a Deictic Numerative Thing structure for which non-recursive systems insert each function once and Epithet Thing Qualifier structures for which recursive systems allow for multiple Epithets and Qualifiers independently modifying the Thing (notated with an “ⁿ” superscript below). 

For logical meaning the table contrasts duplexes deriving from non-recursive systems with series deriving from recursive ones (e.g. the contrast between Pitjantjatjara and English, for example, as far as grading is concerned). The notation allows for both progressive and regressive duplexes and series (i.e. “left-headed” α β… vs “right-headed” β α dependency structures). And duplexes are distinguished from series by marking their culminative dependent β element with “#”.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of a non-recursive system and non-iterative structure for a logical structure is based on their misunderstanding of the nature of recursive systems and the iterative structures that realise them. And the authors' notion of a recursive system and iterative structure for experiential structure is based on mistaking recursive systems and iterative structures of the logical metafunction at word rank for recursive systems and iterative structures of the experiential metafunction at group rank.

That is, what the authors presented as a non-iterative logical structure at group rank was an iterative logical structure at word rank: a two-unit hypotactic word complex. And what the authors presented as an iterative experiential structure at group rank was actually an iterative logical structure at word rank: a hypotactic word complex realising an Epithet.

[2] As previously explained, here the authors misconstrue the word rank iterative logical structures that can realise elements of group structure as iterative experiential structures at group rank. But here they also create theoretical inconsistency by proposing different structural types obtaining between different elements of the same unit. 

[3] As previously explained, here the authors misconstrue the word rank iterative logical structure that realises a submodified Epithet as a group rank non-iterative structure. But here they also create theoretical inconsistency by proposing different logical structural types obtaining between different experiential elements of the same unit.

[4] To be clear, Matthiessen (1995: 600-2) proposes a textual system of CULMINATION, at clause rank, as a written mode analogue of spoken mode INFORMATION. The authors, however, just use 'culminative' to mean 'final', without any acknowledgement of Matthiessen.

Misunderstanding Recursive Systems

Martin & Doran (2023: 30-1):

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falsely Claiming That Multivariate Structures Involve Recursive Systems

Martin & Doran (2023: 30):

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

 

Blogger Comments:

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

Misrepresenting Recursive Systems As Specifying Experiential Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 30):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misconstruing Nominal Group Qualifiers

Martin & Doran (2023: 29-30):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.