[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

[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.

[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.

[21] Misconstruing A Spanish Prepositional Phrase As A Complex

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the logical structure of this nominal group is:

That is, what Martin terms 'subjacency complex' is actually the prepositional phrase serving as Postmodifier of the nominal group, and what he terms 'clitic' is actually the preposition of that prepositional phrase.

Importantly, although Martin interprets the prepositional phrase as a logical structure, a complex of Modifier and Head, prepositional phrases do not actually have a logical structure, because they are not groups (or complexes). 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. In this respect, they are clause-like rather than group-like;

Moreover, in terms of constituency, Martin's analysis of the Spanish nominal group is inconsistent with his previous analysis of the English nominal group, since in the Spanish example, the preposition forms a complex with the nominal within the prepositional phrase, whereas, in the English example, the preposition forms a complex with the nominals outside the prepositional phrase.

[2] To be clear, the interpretation of de ruedas as Classifier, rather than Qualifier, is called into question by instances such as los neutrinos solares ('solar neutrinos'):

[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.

[16] Proposing A Formal Solution To A Non-Existent Problem

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there is no problem here, and so, no solution is called for. As previously demonstrated, all Doran's previous examples are unambiguously multivariate structures: segmental structures of the experiential metafunction. Doran's false conclusion derives from confusing "iterated" experiential elements with iterative structures — unit complexes — of the logical metafunction.

[2] As will be seen as this blog unfolds, the 'factors' solution that Doran proposes for this non-existent problem involves adopting the 'distinctive features' approach of Formal phonology to structure types — without regard to the metafunctional meaning that the structures realise.

[15] Misconstruing "Iterated Elements" As Iterative Structure

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Doran's claim here is that a multivariate structure with multiple occurrences of a specific element is inconsistent with the notion of a multivariate structure, because Halliday (1965) stipulated that the elements of a multivariate structure occur only once. 

However, Halliday (1965) was his very first paper distinguishing multivariate and univariate structures, written at the time of Scale & Category Grammar, before the emergence of Systemic Functional Grammar. It also included the similarly mistaken claim that Modifier°Head structures are multivariate, rather than univariate. No paper in the 56 years since Halliday (1965) has claimed that the elements of a multivariate structure occur only once (with the sole exception of the current work of Doran and Martin).

However, what is truly astonishing here is Doran's assumption that Halliday — unlike Doran — would fail to notice that such structures contradict the notion of multivariate structure ascribed to him by Doran.

[2] To be clear, the data that Doran presents as evidence of his claim are artificial constructions, rather than attested examples in natural texts. But, in any case, none of the "iterations" constitutes an iterative structure, since iterative structures are unit complexes, formed out of logico-semantic relations, such as group complexes or clause complexes. That is, the three Epithets do form an "Epithet complex", the two Qualifiers do not form a "Qualifier complex" and the three Locations do not form a "Location complex".

[3] To be clear, the clause example does not support Doran's case, even in Doran's own terms, because it actually features one Location — not three — realised by a (textually motivated) discontinuous elaborating paratactic prepositional phrase complex:

 

Compare the textually agnate clause:

and the agnate clause that deploys embedding instead:

[14] Misrepresenting Korean Nominal Groups

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is not true that Korean nominal groups afford a maximum of only one Epithet. This claim is invalidated, for example, by the instance khu-n say chayk ‘big new book’, which appears in the paper Word Order and NP Structure in Korean: A Constraint Based Approach by Kim, Lee & Lee.

[2] To be clear, this example does not demonstrate that potential second Epithets can only be accommodated in Korean nominal groups "through complexing at the rank below".  There are two reasons for this. The first is that jeongi 'electricity' is a Classifier, not a potential Epithet, and the second is that the structure of the nominal group does not involve "complexing at the rank below"; it is simply structured as Epithet ^ Classifier ^ Thing:

[13] Multivariate Vs Univariate Structure

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451) explain a multivariate structure as follows:

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal. Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them. While we have modelled all multivariate structures in terms of constituency, this structural mode is in fact most appropriate for the experiential mode of meaning. That is, the relationships among the elements in a multivariate structure can be characterised as segmental from an experiential point of view but as prosodic from an interpersonal point of view and as culminative from a textual one. A prototypical example of a segmental structure is the transitivity structure of a clause, a prototypical example of a prosodic structure is the tone contour that typically extends over a clause, and a prototypical example of a culminative structure is thematic prominence at the beginning of the clause (followed by rhematic non-prominence).

That is, in SFL Theory, the number of occurrences of a functional relation is irrelevant. For example, the experiential structure of a clause can feature multiple circumstances, and the interpersonal structure of a clause can feature multiple Adjuncts.

[2] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (ibid.) explain a univariate structure as follows:

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 newfashioned 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.

Importantly, iteration is the underlying principle of all univariate structures, because the second and subsequent units of a logical structure are each singly generated by re-entering the same network that generated the first unit. Matthiessen & Kasper(1987: 46):

Logical systems are assumed to be (linearly) recursive. The recursion is represented by a loop back to the entry condition in the system…

[9] Doran's Factorial Approach To Structure

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this approach to structure is inconsistent with the fundamental approach to language taken by SFL Theory. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49) point out, SFL Theory takes the view 'from above', asking how meaning is realised, in this case, how the metafunctions are realised structurally.

[2] As this blog unfolds, it will be demonstrated that these factors — nuclearity, linearity and iteration — follow from the model of orbital and serial structure types in Martin (1996), which misidentifies experiential structures with hypotaxis and logical structures with parataxis. See One Of The Problems With Martin's Model Of Structure Types.

[3] To be clear, "the distinct structure types already in use" and "variation within these types" are already accounted for by Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), and there is no "fuzziness between them", as previously demonstrated on this blog. See Misrepresenting Structure Types As Indeterminate.

[4] As will be seen, these "elements typically left out or not considered structurally" include structure markers misconstrued as units in unit complexes, and non-structural cohesive relations misconstrued as covariate structures (after Martin 1992).