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 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.

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.

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?

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.