[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). 

[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:

[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:

[22] Problems With Status And Iteration As Independent Factors

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, hypotaxis ("status differences") is an interdependency relation that obtains only between units in unit complexes; that is, it obtains only in the iterative univariate structures of the logical metafunction. As demonstrated previously, Martin's notion of a subjacency duplex does not involve hypotaxis because it is not a unit complex, though if it were a complex, contrā Doran's analysis, it would indeed be an iterative structure, not a "non-iterative" structure.

That is, Doran has provided no valid evidence for his claim that status (interdependency) and iteration (in the sense of iterative structure) "can be separated out as independent factors".

[2] To be clear, it is only the third column of Doran table that is theoretically tenable. The first column is redundant because the terms of its cells, equal vs unequal status, only validly apply to the third column, and are merely glosses the terms 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' in that column.

The cells of the second column are invalid, on the one hand, because interdependency ("status") does not apply to multivariate structures, as will be demonstrated in future posts, and on the other hand, because subjacency duplexes are not valid structure types, as previously demonstrated.

[20] The Original Sources Of 'Subjacency' And 'Duplex'

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin actually called these misconstrued structures 'subjacency duplexes':

[2] To be clear, Martin took the term 'subjacency' from Government and Binding Theory (Chomsky 1973), while Rose (2001) took the term 'duplex' from Matthiessen (1995), where it simply means a two-unit complex. However, Rose (2001) applied the term to verbal group complexes — and nothing else. On this basis, it can be said that Doran's wording above is misleading.

[3] To be clear, given the previous arguments, any use of 'subjacent structures' to describe any of the world's languages is the application of a theoretical confusion.

[19] Martin's Solution To The Non-Problem Of Structure Marker 'Of'

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, the logical structure of this nominal group is:

[2] To be clear, Martin's (quite bizarre) solution to this non-existent problem is to misconstrue the numeral and noun as forming a complex with the preposition of the embedded prepositional phrase:

As previously explained, two litres and of do not form a unit complex because

• of is just one of two constituents of the prepositional phrase of water, and
• there is no logico-semantic relation of expansion or projection between two litres and of.

[3] To be clear, Martin's proposed "complex" is not a complex, and so it is not an iterative structure. On the other hand, if it were a complex, it would be an iterative structure, because all complexes are iterative structures, regardless of the number of units involved.

[18] Misrepresenting The SFL Analysis Of The Structure Marker 'Of'

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the structure marker of is accounted for in terms of the univariate logical structure of the nominal group where it is construed as a constituent of the rankshifted prepositional phrase serving as Postmodifier

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the structure marker of is not dependent on two litres (which is only an embedded nominal group in the multivariate experiential analysis). There are two main reasons for this:

• interdependency relations obtain between units in unit complexes, and two litres and of are not two units that form a unit complex — i.e. two litres and of do not form a nominal group complex, or a preposition group complex — since of is a constituent of the prepositional phrase of water;
• interdependency relations involve the logico-semantic relations of expansion and projection, and there is no such relation between two litres and of.

[3] To be clear, the reason why "we can't have a nominal group of water" is that of water is a prepositional phrase, not a nominal group.

[4] To be clear, the question of whether of can or cannot "re-iterate" only arises from the misunderstandings identified in [1], [2] and [3] above.

[5] To be clear, in this instance, the structure marker of relates the nominals two litres and water and it is modelled in SFL Theory as a constituent of the prepositional phrase that serves as Postmodifier in the univariate structure of the nominal group.

It will be seen in the following post that Martin's proposed solution to this non-existent problem does not in fact relate two litres to the rest of the nominal group, since it only relates two litres to of, and does so by misconstruing of as dependent on two litres in a two-unit complex; see [2] above.

[17] Interdependency

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, parataxis and hypotaxis do not describe relations between elements in function structures. Rather, parataxis and hypotaxis are degrees of interdependency between formal units in unit complexes: between clauses in clause complexes, between groups/phrases in group/phrase complexes, and between words in word complexes; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451). 

[2] To be clear, it is true that, in SFL Theory, interdependency relations obtain in univariate structures, and not in multivariate structures. This means that they obtain in the iterative structures that realise the logical metafunction.

On the other hand, Doran's notion of "potential for iteration" derives from his previous misconstrual of "iterated" elements as an iterative structure. It will soon be seen that this misunderstanding forms the basis of his next argument.

[2] Types Of Structure In SFL Theory

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the SFL model, since 1994, is given in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85, 452):

[2] What Doran has in mind are Martin's models, which will be demonstrated here to involve theoretical misunderstandings and inconsistencies. These include the following from Martin (1992: 13, 22):

and Martin (1996):