[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

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[10] The Structure Types To Be Discussed

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by 'particulate structures', Doran means those of the experiential metafunction. This usage is inconsistent with Martin (1996), where 'particulate' describes the structures of both the experiential (orbital) and logical (serial) metafunctions:

Less importantly, this usage is also inconsistent with Halliday ± Matthiessen (1994, 2004, 2014) who use the term 'segmental' for the structure type favoured by the experiential metafunction. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

[2] To be clear, by 'non-structural relations', Doran means the cohesive relations of the textual metafunction, at the stratum of lexicogrammar, first theorised by Halliday & Hasan (1976). And by 'covariate structures', Doran means Martin's (1992) reinterpretation of Halliday & Hasan's non-structural cohesive relations as covariate structures — after Lemke 1985 — when he rebranded their lexicogrammatical cohesion as his discourse semantics. Importantly, however, by 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.

[3] As will be seen as this blog unfolds, the theorising in this paper actually moves from shaky ground to groundlessness.

[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).

[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):