A Summary of The Problems That Invalidate The Authors' Model Of Ideational Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 44, 45):

By way of summarising our discussion we extend Table 1 above as Table 3 below, including English examples and filling out our paradigm for ideational structure.

The two central columns in Table 3 oppose non-recursive systems realised by non-iterative structures to recursive systems realised by iterative structures. This opposition is cross-classified by experiential as opposed to logical structure; logical structure is further classified as paratactic vs hypotactic, and within hypotactic structures are subclassified as progressive or regressive. The only structure type in the table not introduced above is non-iterative parataxis for which we suggest English correlative structures such as both…and, either…or, neither…nor (including perhaps the somewhat archaic the harder they come the harder they fall).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Table 1 was from Halliday (1965):

[2] To be clear, the authors' update of Halliday (1965) is limited to the three types of non-iterative logical structures and the iterative experiential structure.

The mistaken notion of a non-iterative logical structure arose from not understanding that a two-unit complex (duplex) is specified by selecting 'stop' on the first pass through a recursive system. Having first misapplied a subjacency duplex structure to submodification in a Pitjantjatjara nominal group, the authors then applied it to other structures in other languages without providing argument as to why it was appropriate to do so.

The mistaken notion of an iterative experiential structure arose from not understanding that 'multiple Epithets' at the rank of group are realised by iterative logical structures at the rank of word. The authors compounded this error by proposing that two types of structure obtain within the one experiential structure of a nominal group.

By way of comparison, the current SFL model of structure type by metafunction is given by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

The Argument For Subjacency Duplex Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 41):

In this paper we have proposed a generalised analysis for explicitly modelling structure markers in functional grammar — namely subjacency duplex structure. In these structures the culminative β element (#β or β#) is realised by closed class items for which further systemic distinctions and concomitant structural expansion are not available. They are dependent on other items and cannot occur on their own. And except for some borderline cases discussed below, they cannot themselves be combined into complexes (although as Rose 2001, 2021 has proposed, there may be layering involved, with the α on which a subjacent β depends itself realised by a subjacency duplex).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the subjacency duplex structure was proposed on the pretext that submodification of the nominal group in Pitjantjatjara is not realised by a recursive system. This was demonstrated to be untrue, since even a two-unit complex (duplex) requires the selection of the feature 'stop' in a recursive system.

This structure was then applied to instances that were not cases of submodification, including structure markers, with no argument provided as to why it was appropriate to do so. The many problems that arise from doing so have been identified in previous posts.

[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.

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 Chinese Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 37):

In Chinese, the structure marker de (noted in McDonald 2017) which commonly links Epithets to following elements in nominal group structure can be analysed along similar lines (Wang 2020; Hao and Wang 2022).

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, famous serves as a Postdeictic, not Epithet — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 374) — and the function of de is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 314) as follows:

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

So, in this case, de ('of') signals that the Postdeictic zhùmíng ('famous') modifies the Thing zhànqiáo ('pier'), whereas the subjacency duplex analysis misconstrues de as modifying the Postdeictic zhùmíng ('famous').

Moreover, the combination [adjective + de] is not a hypotactic two-unit complex (duplex). On the one hand, de does not modify (subcategorise) the adjective, and on the other hand, the combination does not serve a single function.

And less importantly, to the extent that the term applies, de is a binder, not a linker. since it marks a hypotactic relation, not a paratactic one.

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.

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?