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.

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;

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 [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 [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.

Misunderstanding Structure Markers

 Martin & Doran (2023: 16):

1. Structure markers 

In  systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL) Halliday’s description of English grammar (1985  and subsequent editions) is generally taken as a benchmark,  proposing as it does rich functional descriptions of clauses, groups and phrases. In the fourth edition (2014) a number of references are made to what are termed “structure markers” – with reference to of in nominal groups, to in verbal groups and conjunctive binders (e.g. that, which, whether, if; when, because, if, although) and linkers (e.g. and, or, but, so). Of these, binders and linkers are treated as structural Themes but otherwise analyses with distinct function labels for structure markers are not provided.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, the reason why Halliday's description is 'taken as a benchmark' is that SFL is a theory devised by Halliday. Without Halliday, there is no SFL; without everyone else, there is.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, 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.

On the other hand, the authors here disclose their misunderstanding of the SFL notion of structure. 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.

Because a structure consists of relations, a structure marker marks a relation. For example, of marks a relation between nominal groups, while binders and linkers mark tactic relations between rank units.

The reason why binders and linkers are also treated as structural Themes is that they also serve as these functional elements in clause structure. The reason why the structure marker of is not assigned a function label is that it does not serve as a functional element in nominal group structure.

This fundamental misunderstanding of structure forms the basis of this paper.

Abstract

Martin & Doran (2023: 1):

Structure markers 

A subjacency duplex analysis 

J.R.Martin & Y.J.Doran The University of Sydney, Australia|Australian Catholic University, Australia 

In this paper we revisit the association of types of structure with modes of meaning in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). Focusing mainly on nominal group grammar, we argue that the association of experiential structure with non-recursive systems realised by multivariate structures and logical structure with recursive systems realised by univariate structures needs to be relaxed – in recognition of dependency structures consisting of two elements in a head/dependent relation. We refer to such structures as subjacency duplexes and explore their potential for the analysis of what are often dismissed in SFL as structure markers – adpositions, linkers and binders in particular. 

Keywords: subjacency duplex, types of structure, structure marker, logical metafunction, recursion, nominal groups

Blogger Comments:

It will be seen, in the course of this review, that the notion of a 'subjacency duplex' is theoretically invalid, partly due to the fact that the authors, Martin & Doran, misunderstand both the SFL mode of theorising and the SFL notion of structure, the latter entailing the misunderstanding of the notion of 'structure marker'.

In terms of understanding the mode of theorising, SFL is concerned with identifying how meanings are expressed. Halliday (1985: xiv):

In this paper, however, the authors are concerned with the 'syntax' approach: identifying what expressions mean. That is, the SFL method is to encode meaning (Value) by reference to expression (Token), but the authors' method is to decode expression (Token) by reference to meaning (Value).

In terms of understanding structure, 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.

In this paper, however, the authors misconstrue structure as the functional elements themselves. This leads them to misunderstand iterative structures as iterated elements, rather than as an iterated relation, and to misunderstand markers of functions, adpositions, as structure markers.