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.

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.

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;

Misunderstanding Iterative Structures

Martin & Doran (2023: 23):

This complementarity means that there are two ways in which a given structure can be extended. For multivariate structure the relevant process is embedding as an element of structure is realised by an element of the same or higher rank (a process originally referred to as rankshift). This kind of extension was exemplified by the embedded nominal group in (1) above and the embedded clauses in (6), (7) and (8). For univariate structure on the other hand the relevant process is iteration – as an element of structure is repeated an indefinite number of times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, rankshift involves a rank unit, not an element of function structure, operating at a lower rank, as when a clause is shifted to the rank of word to serve as an element (Qualifier) of nominal group structure.

[2] To be clear, 'iteration' was not discussed in the authors' source: Halliday (1965). It first appears in IFG in the second edition (1994).

[3] To be clear, because a structure consists of relationships between elements, not the elements themselves, an iterative structure means that it is a relationship that is iterated, not an element. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship: for example ‘and’ as in Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Dan’l Whiddon, Harry Hawk, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all; ‘equals’ as in Tom, Tom, the piper’s son (Tom = Tom = the piper’s son); ‘is a subset of’ as in new-fashioned three-cornered cambric country-cut handkerchief (what kind of handkerchief? – country-cut; what kind of country-cut handkerchief? – cambric, ... ); and so on. Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are, as noted, formed out of logico-semantic relations.

The authors' misunderstanding of structure as its functional elements is one of several factors that undermines the validity of the argumentation in this paper.

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.