Confusing Group Rank With Word Rank

Martin & Doran (2023: 39, 40):

To this point in our discussion we have focused on structure, without looking carefully at the systems from which our structures derive. One systemic implication arising has to do with the need to distinguish two different types of recursive system — namely recursive systems giving rise to serial logical structures (whether paratactic or hypotactic) as opposed to recursive systems giving rise to iterating elements of experiential structure. 

For English EPITHESIS for example we need to distinguish between systems underpinning indefinitely extendable regressive grading complexes (a not much more glorious history) and systems underpinning multiple Epithets (their long glorious well-documented history). 

One possibility would be to retain standard SFL recursive system notation for paratactic and hypotactic series (e.g. the grading system in Figure 4 to generate not much more glorious history) and use an ‘ⁿ’ superscript on the relevant feature for experiential iteration (e.g. the [describedⁿ] option in Figure 4 to generate long glorious well-documented history). 

Formulated along these lines Figure 4 thus includes one non-recursive DEIXIS system (from which a single Deictic function can be derived), one recursive EPITHESIS system (from which multiple Epithets can be derived) and one recursive GRADING system (from which a hypotactic series can be derived).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the recursive systems that specify these iterative structures are at word rank, not group rank, and the structures are logical, word complexes, not experiential.

[2] To be clear, Figure 4 confuses systems at group rank that specify multivariate structures, with the systems at word rank that specify the univariate structures that realise submodification at group rank.

Misunderstanding The Logical Structure Of The Nominal Group

Martin & Doran (2023: 31-2):

By way of illustrating this logical notation, we can compare the α β# of the Pitjantjatjara subjacent duplex Example (17) above, with the serial hypotactic grading in English in (18):

Blogger Comments:

[1]  To be clear, (17) is intended to demonstrate a non-iterative logical structure, but it fails to provide the full logical structure of the nominal group. Moreover, the structure claimed to be a subjacency duplex is simply the Sub-Head and Sub-Modifier of the ɣ Modifier:

[2] To be clear, (18) confirms that the authors do not understand the logical structure of a nominal group, since they omit all the logical structure above the level of submodification:

Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390):

Misunderstanding Recursive Systems

Martin & Doran (2023: 30-1):

What about the link between “logical” systems and iterative structures?

Rose (2001, 2021) presents overviews of logical resources in Western Desert (Pitjantjatjara), taking into account the possibility of what he calls simplexes, duplexes and series – with the choice of series leading to a recursive system realised by iterative structure. For nominal group choices, he notes that the series option is not available for grading within Epithets. So an adjective can be graded once, but we do not find series such as very much more difficult. An example of a grading duplex is presented in (17), adapted from Rose (2021:70).

Rose (2021) further reports that paratactic series are possible for Pitjantjatjara groups and words in general, but that hypotactic relations at these ranks (and certain choices at clause rank) are restricted to duplexes – in orbital terms a head and just one dependent satellite. His work thus documents the possibility of logical systems realised by non-iterative structures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, even Rose (2001: 368) acknowledges that he took the terms 'simplex' and 'duplex' from Matthiessen (1995).

[2] To be clear, this misunderstands the basic nature of a recursive system. A recursive system is one which provides the option of re-entering the same system.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438) provide an example:

In the case of a simplex, a single rank unit, the RECURSION system is not entered, because the system is a means of specifying iterative structures (complexes). In the case of a duplex, a two-unit complex, the feature 'stop' is selected (along with the other features that specify the tactic and logico-semantic relations of the complex). In the case of a "series", a complex of three or more units, the feature 'go on' is selected, and the system is re-entered, and either 'stop' or 'go on' is then selected, depending on how many units in the complex.

[3] To be clear, the 'grading within Epithets' is realised by a two-unit word complex, an iterative structure realising a recursive system at word rank. In this case, the recursive system is entered, and the feature 'stop' is selected, as explained above.

[4] To be clear, Rose's 'grading duplex' is simply the word complex that realises the submodification in the nominal group:

[5] To be clear, Martin proposes orbital structure as experiential, but here the authors have used it to describe a hypotactic logical structure. As previously observed, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues multivariate experiential structure as hypotactic logical structure. Here the authors reveal that misunderstanding themselves.

[6] This is misleading, because it is not true. Rose's work does not document the possibility of logical systems realised by non-iterative structures, because it presents an iterative structure, a two-unit word complex, that realises a recursive system, as demonstrated above.

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 The Multivariate Structure Of Nominal Groups

Martin & Doran (2023: 29):

This restriction contrasts with English, where alongside the adjective complexing in (13), there can be an indefinite number of Epithets as in (14).⁵

The fact that functions such as Epithets can be repeated calls into question a strict interpretation of multivariate structures as comprising elements of structure that only occur once.⁶

 ⁵ Ghesquiere (2014:53) notes that Dixon (1982:25) refers to such structures as involving “independent modification”. Breban (2010: 37–38) distinguishes “classifying adjectives”, which enter into recursive modifications of their head from “descriptive adjectives” which independently modify theirs. Tucker (1998) and Vandelanotte (2002) make a similar distinction between “coordinated adjectives” and “non-coordinated” (or “modifier-sequence”) adjectives. 

 ⁶ From the perspective of orbital structure we can have an unlimited number of Epithets, each modifying a nuclear Thing function.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the difference between (13) and (14) is that (13) presents a paratactic word complex as serving one Epithet, whereas (14) presents a hypotactic word complex serving three Epithets, one for each adjective. Both types of representation are used in SFL. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 388, 397):

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, it is Systemic Functional Grammar itself that 'calls into question' the Scale-&-Category Grammar 'interpretation of multivariate structures as comprising elements of structure that only occur once'. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 364):

Categorisation within the class is typically expressed by one or more of the functional elements Deictic, Numerative, Epithet and Classifier. They serve to realise terms within different systems of the system network of the nominal group.

[3] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as a hypotactic univariate structure of the logical metafunction. The authors betray this misconstrual here by their use of the term 'modifying', which denotes a hypotactic univariate structure, not a multivariate one. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 389):

Misconstruing Multivariate And Paratactic Structures As Having "Heads"

 Martin & Doran (2023: 25):

For particulate structure this means bringing nuclearity into the picture and re-interpreting multivariate structures as orbital (with satellites related to a single nucleus) and univariate structures as serial (i.e. multi-nuclear). This additional variable (i.e. nuclearity) allows for the recognition of “heads” in both experiential and logical structures. The canonical “head” in an orbital structure is exemplified by the Thing in nominal groups, the Event in verbal groups or the configuration of Process and Medium in clause structure; the canonical “head” in serial structure is the α variable in hypotactic complexes – e.g. the primary tense choice in an English or Spanish verbal group (Martin et al. 2023) or the projecting clause in a reporting clause complex across languages.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin's model of structure misconstrues multivariate experiential structure as hypotactic univariate logical structure, and so it is this misconstrual that 'allows for the recognition of "heads" in experiential structures'. However, because Martin's model of structure misconstrues univariate logical structure as paratactic univariate structures, it does not 'allow for the recognition of "heads" in logical structures', since a paratactic structure links elements of equal status, and as such, has no Head element.

[2] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, unacknowledged by Martin & Doran, the notion of Process and Medium as nucleus in the ergative model of the English clause appears in Halliday (1985: 147):

The Process and the Medium together form the nucleus of an English clause; and this nucleus then determines the range of options that are available to the rest of the clause. Thus the nucleus ‘tear + cloth’ represents a small semantic field that may be realised as a clause either alone or in combination with other participant or circumstantial functions.

Importantly, for Halliday, the meaning of 'nucleus' is distinct from the meaning of 'head', which is why he uses the different terms. The nuclear model construes a cline from the most central to the most peripheral. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):

the nucleus of ‘Process + Medium’ has an inner ring of additional participants as well as an outer ring of circumstances surrounding it: see Figure 5-40.

[3] To be clear, this is an instance of self-contradiction. If Martin models logical structure as serial (i.e. multinuclear), and it is nuclearity that 'allows for the recognition of heads', then, in a logical structure every single nucleus is a head, and there are no satellites.

[4] This is misleading, because it invites the reader to falsely credit Martin et al. (2023) with the insight that the realisation of primary tense serves as the element of the logical structure of a verbal group. Halliday (1985: 177):

The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α.

Misconstruing Hypotactic vs Paratactic Logical Structure As Experiential vs Logical Structure

Martin & Doran (2023: 25, 26):

Inspired by Halliday’s paper³ and by his own work on Tagalog grammar (e.g. 1995a) and English text structure, Martin (1988, 1995b, 1996a, 2000, 2004a, 2008, 2018) proposes the correlations between kinds of meaning and types of structure outlined in Figure 3. For particulate structure this means bringing nuclearity into the picture and re-interpreting multivariate structures as orbital (with satellites related to a single nucleus) and univariate structures as serial (i.e. multi-nuclear).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday updated his 1979 model in Halliday (1994: 36), and it remains so twenty years later in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

[2] To be clear, Martin's orbital structure for experiential meaning is inconsistent with the notion of multivariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.

Martin's model, however, interprets the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as just one type of relationship: that between a nucleus and satellite. To the extent that a satellite is dependent on a nucleus, this is actually a model of a hypotactic univariate iterative structure of the logical metafunction.

On the other hand, Martin's serial structure for logical meaning is partially consistent with the notion of univariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship … . Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are, as noted, formed out of logico-semantic relations.

However, in giving each nucleus equal status, this is only a model of a paratactic univariate iterative structure of the logical metafunction.

In short, Martin's model misconstrues the difference between multivariate experiential and univariate logical structures as the difference between hypotactic and paratactic logical structures.

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.

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.

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.