Misrepresenting Behalf As Purpose

 Martin & Doran (2023: 43):

For some circumstances however Korean deploys a co-verbal phrase, which is clearly structurally distinct from the subjacency duplexes in (36). Purpose is illustrated in (37) below (realised by a co-verbal phrase joguk eul wihae ‘for mother country’). Following Kim et al. (2023) the co-verbal phrase is analysed as comprising an Incumbent^Role experiential structure, with the circumstantial role of the nominal group realising the Incumbent specified by Korean grammarians refer to as a ‘bound verb’ (i.e. a verb with a very limited conjugation potential). In this regard Korean offers grounds for distinguishing between subjacency duplexes and co-verbal phrases as far as circumstantial relations are concerned.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the function of this element is Behalf, not Purpose. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 322):

Expressions of Behalf represent the entity, typically a person, on whose behalf or for whose sake the action is undertaken – who it is for. They are expressed by a prepositional phrase with for or with a complex preposition such as for the sake of, in favour of (negative: against), on behalf of;

[2] To be clear, this analysis misrepresents the data. Applying SFL Theory, the function structure at clause and phrase rank is:

[3] To be clear, what this instance offers is grounds for distinguishing adpositional phrases whose adposition (=i, =eul) marks the participant function of a nominal group at clause rank from adpositional phrases whose adposition (wihae) serves as the minor Process at phrase rank.

And again, because adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

Misconstruing A Korean Postpositional Phrase As A Subjacency Duplex

Martin & Doran (2023: 43):

For Korean, subjacency duplex analysis can be comparably extended to a wide range of circumstantial relations. Accompaniment is illustrated in (36) below (marked by gwa).

As in Tagalog there is no need to distinguish nominal groups from prepositional phrases for circumstances and in the following instance of this kind. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, no argument has been proffered in support of applying a subjacency duplex analysis to this type of instance. From an SFL perspective, this is simply an Accompaniment realised by a postpositional phrase. That is, the authors have simply rebranded a postpositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Moreover, the interpretation of the phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

But note that prepositional phrases are phrases, not groups; they have no logical structure as Head and Modifier, and cannot be reduced to a single element.

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[2] To be clear, what distinguishes nominal groups from phrases is the additional presence of a postposition in phrases.

Misconstruing Tagalog Prepositional Phrases As Subjacency Duplexes

Martin & Doran (2023: 42-3):

The same kind of problem arises in Tagalog and Korean. In Tagalog for example Receiver and Recipient participants are marked with sa. The projecting clause in “Nasaan kaya si Ningning?” sabi niya sa sarili. ‘“Where might Ningning be?” he said to himself.’ is analysed in (34) below – treating sa sarili ‘to himself’ as a subjacency duplex.

As introduced in (8) above, Tagalog uses the same pre-position sa to mark Direction. Outside of the semantics of the Processes involved (sabi ‘say’ vs lapit ‘approach’) there is nothing to distinguish the sa sarili ‘to himself’ and sa kanya ‘to him’ phrases. Accordingly a subjacency duplex analysis is proposed in (35).

The more general issue arising here is that in Tagalog there is arguably no need to recognise a distinction between nominal groups and prepositional phrases. Virtually all participants and circumstances are realised by subjacency duplexes with a #β clitic marking the role of an α nominal group in clause structure (Martin 1996b, 2004b).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, no argument has been proffered in support of applying a subjacency duplex analysis to this type of instance. From an SFL perspective, this is simply a Receiver realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. That is, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Moreover, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

But note that prepositional phrases are phrases, not groups; they have no logical structure as Head and Modifier, and cannot be reduced to a single element.

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[2] As the phrase 'outside of the semantics' demonstrates, the perspective taken here by the Martin & Doran is again the opposite of the perspective taken in SFL. That is, instead of identifying how meanings are expressed, the authors are concerned with identifying what expressions mean. From an SFL perspective, this instance is simply a Location realised by a prepositional phrase, as in the English gloss. Again, the authors have simply rebranded a prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.

Again, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase as a subjacency duplex misrepresents a unit with no logical structure as one with a logical structure. And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

[3] To be clear, the examination of this claim for instances of Tagalog presented in this paper have demonstrated that the claim is invalid. All cases presented are analysable as clause elements realised by adpositional phrases (adposition + nominal group).

And again, as adpositions are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the aims of the paper: a subjacency duplex analysis of structure markers.

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.

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.

Misrepresenting 'Canonical' Multivariate Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 28):

At this point let’s look a little more critically at Halliday’s (2002 [1979]) proposal that multivariate structures realise non-recursive experiential systems and that univariate structures realise recursive logical systems. We’ll address the multivariate structure/non-recursive systems association first, by focusing on structures involving Epithets and Things in nominal group structure. Recall that in a canonical multivariate structure of this kind each variable is distinct and occurs once. As far as the Epithet function is concerned this works fine for Korean (Martin and Shin 2021). Each nominal group is limited to just one Epithet.

The only way to introduce additional description into the picture is via a paratactic word complex realising the Epithet. For example in (12) we have three adjectives forming a word complex realising just one Epithet. Note that the final adjective in the Epithet necessarily takes the suffix -n, linking it to the Thing — as shown in both (11) and (12). In order to add more adjectives Korean deploys the paratactic linker -go, since expanding the number of adjectives involves building a paratactic word complex realising the Epithet. We cannot add additional Epithets to the structure. Thus *빠른 아름다운 혁신적인 자동차 (*ppareu-n areumdau-n hyeoksinjeogi-n jadongcha), where the adjectives have the linking suffix -n rather than parataxis marking -go, is ungrammatical.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this obsolete claim is from an exploratory paper by Halliday in 1965, at the time of Scale-&-Category Grammar, when there were no metafunctions, and so, no metafunction structures. In the theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar, the variable of a multivariate structure is the relationship between the functional elements, not the functional elements themselves. For example, the multivariate structure of the verbal group involves the different relationships that obtain between Finite, Polarity, Auxiliary and Event, but this does not preclude the possibility of there being more than one Auxiliary; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 397):

The experiential structure of the finite verbal group is Finite (standing for ‘Finite operator’) plus Event, with optional elements Auxiliary (one or more) and Polarity. Finite verbal groups range from short, one-word items such as ate, where the Finite is fused with the Event and there is no Auxiliary, to long strings like couldn’t have been going to be being eaten (Figure 6-13). 

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is a linker that marks a paratactic relation. If the suffix -n does not mark a paratactic relation, then it either marks a hypotactic relation, in which case it is a binder, or it marks the function Epithet — or both the relation and the function.

Misrepresenting Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1965) As Representative Of Systemic Functional Grammar In 2023

Martin & Doran (2023: 22-3):

Halliday’s original paper on types of structure was prepared in 1965 as a Working Paper for the O.S.T.I. Programme in the Linguistic Properties of Scientific English (and later published as Halliday 1981 [1965]). In this paper he draws a basic distinction between multivariate structures involving “a specific set of variables each occurring only once” (1981[1965]: 33) and univariate structures involving a single variable occurring an unlimited number of times. The contrast here is illustrated in (9) and (10). The structure of the clause in (9) is a canonical multivariate one – consisting experientially of one Carrier, one Process and one Attribute, with none of these functions repeatable. The structure of (10), by contrast, is a canonical univariate one – realised by an indefinitely extendable complex of words grading appreciation of the argument (featuring hypotactic dependency, notated as δ γ β α).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Halliday (1965) was an exploratory paper in Scale & Category Grammar — written before Halliday had formulated Systemic Functional Grammar — and does not feature in his collected works. Importantly, it predates the notion of metafunctions and their structural types, and contains inconsistencies with later work, such as categorising Head°Modifier structures as multivariate, instead of univariate (p230):

The question then arises as to why the authors would choose a pre-Systemic, pre-metafunctional publication, instead of the most recent work, as a springboard for improving the current state of the theory.

Misrepresenting Structure Marker 'Of' As An Experiential Function

Martin & Doran (2023: 18):

One of the main issues with these structure markers is that they do not neatly “fit” into the typical configurations of structure that SFL proposes. For example, one possibility for incorporating structure markers into the description of nominal groups is to assign them a function label, such as Focus Marker below. This treatment positions them as an additional element of experiential structure — i.e. as a constituent of the unit being analysed. This is in effect the strategy of what is often referred to as Cardiff grammar, which labels the Focus Marker in (1) as “v”, standing for what Fawcett calls the “selector” element of nominal group structure (Fawcett 1980: 204; cf. Fontaine and Schönthal 2020). 

This treatment as a Focus Marker is outlined for Halliday and Matthiessen’s Example (1) below, revising the terminology along the lines of that proposed in Martin et al. (2010:170) (so Focus rather than Facet) and incorporating both class and function labels to clarify the embedded nominal group involved. Following SFL notation the embedded group is enclosed in square brackets.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, structure markers may, or may not, serve as elements of structure. In the case of linkers and binders, the structure marker also serves as structural Theme. But in the case of the structure marker of, it serves no function other than marking a relation between nominal groups. That is, it does not serve as a functional element in nominal group structure.

[2] To be clear, the unnecessary rebranding of Halliday's 'Facet' as Martin's 'Focus' creates theoretical inconsistency by replacing an experiential category with a textual category. The inconsistency is further exacerbated by the the fact that the term 'Focus' is already used for New information in the information unit. As demonstrated by the 61 clarifying critiques here, Martin's modus operandi has long been to rebrand the work of his sources, thereby creating the potential of being credited with their ideas.

[3] To be clear, the problem with this approach is that the structure marker of does not serve any function in the nominal group the tops. Specifically, the function Focus Marker does not relate to the nominal group the tops, and so does not form a structure with it. Instead, of simply marks a relation between two nominal groups: the tops and the hills.

[4] To be clear, the problem with this treatment is that the structure marker of is not a constituent of 'the unit being analysed', the embedded nominal group the tops. Instead, it is a constituent of the prepositional phrase of the hills. Where, in the experiential analysis, the first nominal group is treated as embedded, of marks the relation between the two nominal groups.

[5] To be clear, Example (1) misrepresents the preposition of the prepositional phrase of the hills as a clitic of the nominal group the tops.