Most Pageviews by Country

Overall Assessment

Blogger Comments:

Doran's paper is not concerned with modelling language, but with modelling one aspect of theory: SFL's model of structure.

Because Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory gives priority to the view 'from above', structure is seen as a means of realising meaning, with structure types varying with the metafunctional meaning they express. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

Doran, however, is not concerned with structures as realisations of meaning, but with structures only, and his approach is to take a 'distinctive feature' ("factor") approach to classifying structures, the approach taken to classify phonemes in Formal phonology, limiting his attention to structure types favoured by the ideational metafunction.

The factors (features) he derives are [±iterative], [±nuclear] and [±linear]. Deriving the factor [+iterative] involved confusing iterative structures (logical metafunction) with segmental structures (experiential metafunction) that feature more than one occurrence of an element, such as Epithet.

The factors [+nuclear] and [+linear], however, unknown to Doran, are actually derived from Martin's misunderstanding of metafunctional structures, where Martin represents segmental structures as if hypotactic ("mono-nuclear"), and iterative structures as if paratactic ("multi-nuclear"):

Doran derives both [+nuclear] and [+linear] from Martin's orbital structure, with [+nuclear] corresponding to the relation between nucleus and satellite, and [+linear] corresponding to the relation between satellites.

The outcome of this distinctive feature approach is a table with cells that variously include whole structures, partial structures, and non-structures (cohesive relations, subjacency duplexes), with no suggestions as to the functions of the factors that classify them.

For the arguments on which these conclusions are based, see the individual posts, below.

[45] Some Problems With Non-Iterative/Non-Nuclear/Linear Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here Doran is looking for structures that fit the combination of factors that specify the last unfilled cell of his table.

Ignoring all the previously noted problems with the factors themselves, by the logic of the table, Doran should be looking for a structure that is:

1. the non-nuclear counterpart of subjacency duplexes, and
2. the non-iterative counterpart of covariate lexical relations, and
3. the linear counterpart of relational clauses without a Process.

He tentatively suggests:

• correlative conjunctions in English, or
• clitic doubling in Spanish, or
• full reduplication in Sundanese.

There is no argument as to how these satisfy the three requirements above, and in the case of correlative conjunctions — which do not, in themselves, constitute a structure — the structure that they mark is a paratactic clause complex, a univariate structure, which, in terms of Doran's factors is:

• iterative rather than non-iterative, and
• non-linear rather than linear.

[44] The Problem With Non-Linear/Non-Nuclear/Non-Iterative Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the additional claim here is that the previously top-right empty cell — the intersection of the factors [non-linear, non-nuclear, non-iterative] — is exemplified by relational clauses without a Process and the Sundanese verbal group.

[1] With regard to the relational clauses, this is inconsistent even within Doran's own model, because these clauses do have a nucleus, since the nucleus comprises the Medium as well as the Process, and these clauses do have a Medium: Identified in identifying clauses, and Carrier in attributive clauses.

[2] With regard to the Sundanese verbal group, the categorisation rests on Doran's claim that the Event function is optional, and confusions such as looking for dependency (logical structure) in an experiential analysis that is not consistent with SFL Theory:

[43] Problems With 'Univariate', 'Covariate (Non-Structural)' And 'Subjacent'

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the additional claims here are that

1. parataxis, hypotaxis and phoric covariate are univariate structures,
2. expectancy covariate, hypotaxis and phoric covariate are covariate and non-structural, and
3. subjacency duplexes are subjacent.

With regard to the first claim, parataxis and hypotaxis are indeed degrees of interdependency in univariate structures, but what Doran has relabelled here as hypotaxis was presented as a relation between Classifiers within a nominal group, which is neither univariate nor a (complete) structure. A further problem here is that phoric covariate, which has not been argued for, is not a type of structure, and as such, is not a univariate structure.

With regard to the second claim, there is the basic self-contradiction of glossing (what have been presented as) covariate structures as non-structural. Moreover, neither hypotaxis nor what Doran calls 'hypotaxis' (a relation between Classifiers) is either covariate or non-structural.

The third claim is merely tautological, since it is 'needlessly repetitive without adding information or clarity'.

[42] Self-Contradiction: Multivariate As Nuclear

Doran (2021):

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Doran limits multivariate structure to experiential structures without repeated elements. On this model of orbital structure, an experiential structure ceases to be multivariate with the instantiation of more than one element of the same type —  circumstance, Epithet or Qualifier (non-linear) or Classifier (linear) — despite the fact that it still conforms to the definition of a multivariate structure as 'a configuration of elements each having a distinct function with respect to the whole' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 390).

[2] To be clear, the overlap of 'multivariate' with 'nuclear' flatly contradicts Doran's previous claim that 'multivariate interpretations tend not to involve a nucleus':

See Martin's Orbital Model As Univariate Representation Of A Multivariate Structure

[41] The Variations In Structure Afforded By Doran's 3 Factors

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this table presents the four cells of the preceding table as 'iterative'.

In the case of the top cell of the 'iterative' column, [non-linear, non-nuclear], this is consistent with SFL Theory, since parataxis is one type of interdependency relation in iterative structures of the logical metafunction.

In the case of the second cell of the 'iterative' column, [non-linear, nuclear], this is not consistent with SFL Theory, because, as previously explained, Doran's 'iteration' confuses multiple occurrences of (experiential) elements — Epithets, Qualifiers, circumstances — with iterative structures of the logical metafunction.

In the case of the third cell of the 'iterative' column, [linear, non-nuclear], this is not consistent with SFL Theory, not least because 'covariate' is not a type of structure, as Lemke (1989) acknowledges.

In the case of the bottom cell of the 'iterative' column, [linear, nuclear], this would be consistent with SFL Theory, if hypotaxis had been what Doran argued for, since hypotaxis is one type of interdependency relation in iterative structures of the logical metafunction. However, Doran's argument for this classification was actually concerned with the relation between Classifiers in the experiential structure of the nominal group.

This bottom cell also features a category for which there has been no argumentation, 'phoric covariate'. Again, the problem here is that 'covariate' is not a type of structure, and so not iterative in a structural sense.

[2] The 'non-iterative' column of the table has only two of its four cells filled.

The upper cell, [non-linear, nuclear], is consistent with SFL Theory in as much as experiential structures are multivariate and so non-iterative.

However, the lower cell, [linear, nuclear], identifies the subjacency duplex. On the one hand, there has been no argument for classifying this structure as linear, and on the other hand, the subjacency duplex is not a structure, not least because it is based on misunderstandings of constituency. See, for example, the previous posts:

• Misrepresenting The SFL Analysis Of The Structure Marker 'Of'
• Martin's Solution To The Non-Problem Of Structure Marker 'Of'
• Misconstruing A Spanish Prepositional Phrase As A Complex

[40] Problems With Linearity x Nuclearity

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the top left cell of the table, [non-nuclear, non-linear], 'parataxis', has not been argued for in this paper. It corresponds to Martin's serial (multi-nuclear) structure, which, as previously demonstrated, is a misconstrual of all logical structure as parataxis.

[2] To be clear, the top right cell of the table, [non-nuclear, linear], 'expectancy covariate', is not a structure type, as later acknowledged by the theorist who first formulated it: Lemke (1989). 

[3] To be clear, the bottom left cell of the table, [nuclear, non-linear], 'orbital', only applies to part of a structure, not to the entire structure of a unit. It corresponds to the nucleus-satellite relation in Martin's experiential orbital structure.

[4] To be clear, the bottom right cell of the table, [nuclear, linear], 'hypotaxis', also only applies to part of a structure, not to the entire structure of a unit. It corresponds to the satellite-satellite relation in Martin's experiential orbital structure.

However, there are further inconsistencies in this case. Firstly, in the preceding argument, the example of this category, solar electron neutrons, was categorised as linear, but not nuclear, whereas here it is categorised as both linear and nuclear.

Secondly, the preceding argument for this category was based on experiential structure — relations between Classifiers — whereas here it is reconstrued as a hypotactic logical structure.

Thirdly, the preceding argument for this category was concerned with only part of a structure — relations between Classifiers in a nominal group — whereas here it reconstrued as applying to the structure of the entire unit (nominal group).

[5] In short, Doran has here categorised three of Martin's misunderstandings of structure types — covariate, orbital, serial — in terms of distinctive features. In doing so, he essentially provides a flawed system to specify classes — not functions — in metalanguage — not language — without regard to the metafunctions that the structure types express.

[39] Problems With The Factors Of Covariate Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Doran's linearity corresponds to the relation between satellites in Martin's orbital (mono-nuclear) model of structure, which, in turn, misrepresents the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as a univariate hypotactic structure of the logical metafunction.

[2] To be clear, in Doran's own terms, it could be argued that there is indeed "difference in status" in this example: between the whole (dog) on the one hand, and the parts (mouth, teeth, neck), on the other. 

(Note that conformation is not a part of body or dog, since it refers to the form or shape of the dog.)

[38] Problems With Lexical Relations As Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'lexical relations' refers to Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, which is his rebranding of his misunderstandings of lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976), relocated from textual lexicogrammar to experiential discourse semantics. Evidence here.

Importantly, from the perspective of SFL Theory, these cohesive relations are not structures, either in the sense of a unit as a configuration of elements, or in the sense of a complex of units.

[2] To be clear, Doran's second point again confuses the general notion of iteration (repetition) with iterative as a specific type of structure that realises the logical metafunction.

[3] To be clear, Doran's third point mistakes meronymic relations for interdependency relations, and mistakes lexical items for elements of structure.

[4] To be clear, Doran's fourth and fifth points are untenable, even in his own model. On the one hand, if these were relations of dependency, the relation would be hypotaxis, which corresponds, in terms of Doran's resources, to Martin's orbital (mono-nuclear) structure. So, on this basis, there should be a nucleus to which everything else relates.

On the other hand, given that these are part-whole relations, Doran could just as easily make the argument, from his own perspective, that the whole constitutes the nucleus, with the parts as satellites, though this would undermine the point he is trying to make.

And, in the final line, Doran shows again that he does not understand that 'interdependency' refers to taxis (parataxis and hypotaxis). 

[37] The Problem With Covariate Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the basis of Martin's term 'discourse semantics', Doran here presents the distinction between discourse and grammar as stratal. However, in SFL Theory, 'discourse' refers to one angle on language as instance. Halliday (2008: 78):

“discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

And analysing discourse means relating the text to the grammar as potential. Halliday (2008: 192):

The system and the text are not two different phenomena: what we call the “system” of a language is equivalent to its “text potential”. Analysing discourse means, first and foremost, relating the text to the potential that lies behind it.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 731):

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

And it is the textual component within the grammar that is the resource for creating discourse. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 528):

The “textual” metafunction is the name we give to the systematic resources a language must have for creating discourse: for ensuring that each instance of text makes contact with its environment. The “environment” includes both the context of situation and other instances of text.

And the systems of cohesion constitute the non-structural textual resources of the grammar for creating discourse.

[2] To be clear, covariate structures are not types of structure at all, as Lemke (1988: 159) soon realised:

My own 'covariate structure' (Lemke 1985), which includes Halliday's univariate type, is for the case of homogeneous relations of co-classed units, and should perhaps be called a 'structuring principle' rather than a kind of structure.

Martin's covariate structures are not structures in the sense of units with internal structure, nor in the sense of units forming complexes.

 

[36] The Non-Structural Relations Of Cohesion

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because cohesive relations are non-structural, they do not qualify as a type of structure.

[2] To be clear, for Halliday & Hasan (1976), a text is not a semantic unit with respect to the lexicogrammatical systems of cohesion. However, in terms of semantic systems, a text is a structured semantic unit. Halliday (1985: 318):

A text has structure, but it is semantic, not lexicogrammatical.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, cohesive relations obtain in the unfolding of text, as patterns of instantiation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 594ff).

[4] To be clear, in præsentia means 'for the present'.

[5] To be clear, cohesive relations are neither syntagmatic relations (see [3]), nor types of structure.

[35] Cohesive Relations / Covariate Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because cohesive relations are non-structural, it is theoretically inconsistent to include them in a model of structure types. 

[2] To be clear, Martin's (1992) systems of IDENTIFICATION and IDEATION are rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) systems of REFERENCE and LEXICAL COHESION relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics. Evidence here.

[3] Importantly, before 1992, Lemke had already recanted his view that 'covariate' was a type of structure. Lemke (1988: 159):

My own 'covariate structure' (Lemke 1985), which includes Halliday's univariate type, is for the case of homogeneous relations of co-classed units, and should perhaps be called a 'structuring principle' rather than a kind of structure.

[34] Problems With The Three Factors: Iteration, Nuclearity And Linearity

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated:

• 'iteration' confuses multiple occurrences of multivariate elements with iterative structure;
• 'nuclearity' corresponds to a hypotactic relation between Martin's nucleus and satellite;
• 'linearity' corresponds to a hypotactic relation between Martin's satellite and satellite

where Martin's model misconstrues a multivariate experiential structure as a univariate logical structure.

[2] To be clear, on this model, the experiential structure of a nominal group like new two-storey brick house involves all three factors:

• iteration: 2 Classifiers;
• nuclearity: Thing–Epithet "status distinction" (logical hypotaxis);
• linearity: Classifier–Classifier "interdependency" (logical hypotaxis).

Clearly, Doran does not understand that "status distinction" (hypotaxis) is a type of interdependency.

[33] The Basis Of Doran's Nuclearity vs Linearity Distinction

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, although it is not acknowledged here, Doran's distinction between nuclearity (nuclear dependency) and linearity (linear dependency) actually draws on Martin's notion of orbital structure:

Doran's nuclear dependency corresponds to the relation between nucleus and satellite (e.g. Thing and Epithet) in Martin's model, whereas his linear dependency corresponds to the relation between satellite and satellite (e.g. Classifier and Classifier).

As previously explained, Martin's orbital model misconstrues experiential structure as a hypotactic logical structure, with nucleus as dominant and satellite as dependent. So Doran's model continues this misapplication of hypotaxis to a multivariate structure. However, Doran compounds the error by proposing two different types of structure within the same structure:

• nuclear dependency: Thing–Epithet
• linear dependency: Classifier–Classifier

[2] To be clear, in eventually suggesting that nuclearity is the basis for status distinctions, Doran will be merely recognising that Martin's orbital model misconstrues experiential structure as logical hypotaxis.

[32] Some Problems With Doran's Notion Of Linear Dependency

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in the experiential structure of the nominal group, 'the Classifier indicates a particular subclass of the thing in question' (Halliday (1985: 164). However, the reason why the Classifiers cannot be swapped in Doran's example is explained by the logical structure. 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’. … The basis of the subcategorisation, of course, shifts as we move to the left: ‘what type of ...?’, ‘what quality of ...?’, ‘how many ...?’ and so on – this is the principle underlying the experiential structure.

So in Doran's example: 

the structure construes:

• what type of neutrinos? electron neutrinos.
• what type of electron neutrinos? solar electron neutrinos.

That is, the reason why the Classifiers cannot be swapped is that 'solar' is a subtype of electron neutrino, but 'electron' is not a subtype of solar neutrino.

[2] To be clear, the interdependency relation in the nominal group is the regressive hypotaxis in the logical structure from neutrinos to solar.

[3] To be clear, a structure is a structure of a whole unit. Incongruously, Doran here proposes different structures obtaining between different elements within the structure of the same unit. In this case, he proposes a structure type for the relation just between Classifiers in a nominal group.

[4] To be clear, there are two degrees of interdependency: hypotaxis and parataxis. The relation that obtains in the logical structure of a nominal group is hypotaxis, and the relation between the two Classifiers in Doran's nominal group is thus hypotactic. In terms of Doran's own model, this makes it a relation between two satellites in a nuclear structure, not a relation of linear dependency.

[31] Some Problems With Doran's Notion Of Nuclear Dependency

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, before Doran, Halliday (1985: 167) identified the Thing as 'the semantic core of the nominal group'.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, in the experiential structure of the nominal group, all the other elements have 'the function of characterising the Thing' (Halliday 1985: 167). The Thing specifies the class of thing, and the other elements specify some category of membership within this class (Halliday 1985: 160).

[3] To be clear, the first nominal group is the artificial invention of a non-native speaker of English, and the second is a reworking of it by Doran. To the extent that the Epithets can be swapped in this unnatural nominal group, it is because they vary little in terms of 'permanence'. Halliday (1985: 166):

By and large, the more permanent the attribute of a Thing, the less likely it is to identify it in a particular context. So we proceed with the very impermanent, quantitative characterisation that is nearest to a Deictic, e.g. three in three balls; through various qualitative features such as new in new ball; and end up with the most permanent, the assignment to a class, e.g. tennis ball. Within the qualitative characteristics, if more than one is specified there is, again, a tendency to more from the less permanent to the more permanent; e.g. a new red ball rather than a red new ball.

On the other hand, the reason why the prepositional phrases serving as Qualifier can be reversed is because they form a paratactic complex, as shown by the fact that either can be omitted.

[4] To be clear, a structure is a structure of a whole unit. Incongruously, Doran here proposes different structures obtaining between different elements within the structure of the same unit. That is, he proposes one structure for the relation between Epithet and Thing, and between Qualifier and Thing, but another structure with regard to the Classifier. (see the next post).

[5] To be clear, Doran's notion of nuclear dependency misconstrues the elements that characterise the Thing, Epithet and Qualifier, as elements that are dependent on the Thing — simply because they relate to the Thing. This misunderstanding derives from confusing interdependency (hypotaxis) with the 'dependency construct' in Halliday (1979):

That is, Doran's notion of nuclear dependency for (portions of) the nominal group is equivalent to a tree structure with Epithets and Qualifiers as nodes branching from the Thing as root node.

[30] Recapping And Looking Ahead

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To recap, as previously demonstrated:

1. Martin's orbital interpretation is a univariate representation of a multivariate structure.
2. Doran distinguishes Martin's orbital structure from multivariate structures.

So, Doran's confusion (2) derives from Martin's misrepresentation (1).

Looking ahead, having argued that orbital structure is not multivariate, Doran's next move, in arguing for his notion of nuclear dependency, will be to confuse interdependency ("status difference") — deriving from (1) above — with the 'dependency construct' (tree schema) representation of multivariate structure explored in Halliday 1979:

[29] Misconstruing Orbital Structure As Not Multivariate

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Doran misconstrues Martin's two different ways of representing one type of structure — the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction — as two different types of structure, treating the tree schema representation as multivariate, and the co-tangential ellipses representation as orbital (but not multivariate).

The reason why both are representations of multivariate structure is because both represent the same elements of structure and both represent 'a configuration of elements each having a distinct function with respect to the whole' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 390).

[2] To be clear, there are problems with both representations in Martin's Figure 7. Firstly, contrā Doran, the co-tangential ellipses representation does not represent an orbital structure, because it does not represent the non-nuclear elements as satellites of a nucleus.

Secondly, the tree schema representation misunderstands grammatical constituency. In SFL theory, grammatical constituency is modelled as a rank scale of forms, such that clauses consist of groups ± phrases, which consist of words, which consist of morphemes.

So, in Figure 7, the whole is the clause, the parts of the clause are the groups that constitute the clause. The structure, on the other hand, is the relationships between experiential functions assigned to the syntagm of groups.

The relation between a whole and its parts is composition (extension), whereas the relation between function and form is realisation (elaboration + identity).

[28] Martin's Orbital Model As Univariate Representation Of A Multivariate Structure

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin's orbital interpretation is a univariate representation of a multivariate structure. The structure is multivariate because it is 'a configuration of elements each having a distinct function with respect to the whole' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 390): Process, Medium, Agent, Location. The representation is univariate because it misconstrues the structure as a hypotactic relation (dominant nucleus vs dependent satellites).

[27] Misrepresenting Halliday's Explanation of Ergative Nuclearity As Doran's Argument For Martin's Orbital Structure Model

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading in two ways. Firstly, Doran falsely presents Halliday's ideas as if they were his own. Halliday (1985: 146-7):

Except in the special case of the medio–receptive voice, the Medium is obligatory in all processes; and it is the only element that is, other than the process itself. … 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); … 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.

Secondly, Doran falsely presents Halliday's description of nuclearity — a nonlinear interpretation of the ergative model of transitivity — as if it were support for Martin's orbital model of structure.

Moreover, Doran shows no evidence of being aware of the elaboration of this model in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 165-176) as 'degree of participation' and 'degree of involvement'.

[2] Less importantly, contrā Doran, circumstances can occur as Subject, as demonstrated by circumstantial identifying relational clauses; Halliday (1985: 121):

[26] Problems With Martin's Orbital Model Of Experiential Structure

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin (1996) misunderstands Halliday (1985, 1994) and Matthiessen (1995) by misconstruing the (multivariate) experiential structure of a clause as a (univariate) logical structure in which the Process and Medium constitute the dominant element (nucleus), with the Agent and Location as dependent (satellites):

In SFL Theory, interdependency relations obtain between units in unit complexes, not between elements in a unit.

[2] To be clear, the model in Martin (1996) is not only inconsistent with the model in Martin (1992: 319), which preceded Matthiessen (1995):

but also with the model in Martin & Rose (2007: 95), which followed both Matthiessen (1995) and Martin (1996):

[25] Martin's Orbital And Serial Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, before Matthiessen (1995), Martin's (1992: 22) model was:

and after Matthiessen (1995), Martin's (1996) model became:

[2] As previously explained, Martin's orbital structure misconstrues the multivariate structure of the experiential metafunction as the univariate relation of hypotaxis. As Doran confirms, "there is status distinction" (nucleus vs satellite).

[3] To be clear, Martin's serial structure, which, contrā Doran, he does not class as iterative, is not just similar to univariate structure, it is Martin's model of univariate structure. However, as previously explained, in modelling logical structure as multi-nuclear, it construes each unit as having the same status, and so reduces all univariate structure to parataxis.

[24] The Nuclear Model Of Clause Transitivity

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in this early, first exploration of structure types by metafunction, Halliday (1979) considered three non-linear representations of experiential structure (in addition to the linear):

[2] Importantly, 'dependency construct' refers to a tree structure schema, not to interdependency in the sense of tactic relations between units. It will be seen in future posts that Doran confuses the two.

[3] To be clear, the notion of a clause nucleus was taken up in Halliday (1985: 147) — and every edition of IFG since — but applied to the ergative model, not the transitive model, of clause transitivity:

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 which may be realised as a clause either alone or in combination with other participant or circumstantial functions.

Matthiessen (1995: 197) then developed this as a cline of nuclearity/peripherality of involvement:

which was then greatly elaborated in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 165-176) as degree of participation and degree of involvement, and used to relate participants and circumstances in terms of logico-semantic relations: