[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.

[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'.

[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.

[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). 

[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.

[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.

[23] Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Hypotaxis

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] Doran's first point is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, hypotaxis ("status differences") is a relation in iterative structures of the logical metafunction only. The source of Doran's confusion, as will be seen, is the model of structure in Martin (1996):

which unwittingly misconstrues the distinction between experiential and logical structure as the distinction between hypotaxis (the unequal status of nucleus and satellite) and parataxis (the equal status of multiple nuclei).

[2] As was the case with the multivariate vs univariate distinction, Doran again begins his argument on experiential structure with Halliday's first statement on the matter, instead of later revised theorising.

[3] To be clear, what Doran refers to as a 'flat' structure, Halliday (1979) terms a linear structure.

[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.

[11] The Relevance Of Huddleston (1965) To Structure Types In SFL Theory

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, to cite an author, rather than the argument on which the conclusion of the author is based, is a fallacious use of the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

Moreover, in 1965, 

1. Systemic Functional Grammar had not yet been devised by Halliday,
2. the metafunctions had not yet been devised by Halliday, and so
3. the favoured structure types of the metafunctions had not yet been devised by Halliday.

As previously noted, the first statement on structure types varying according to metafunction appears 14 years later: Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions (Halliday 1979).

On the other hand, in 1965, Halliday did publish his first paper on the distinction between multivariate and univariate structures, though the focus was primarily on univariate structures, and the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis. However, importantly, his characterisations of these structure types at that time were inconsistent with the view he eventually arrived at. 

For example, as previously noted, Halliday (1965) classified a Head°Modifier structure as multivariate, rather than univariate, and defined a multivariate structure as comprising 'a specific set of variables each occurring once only', though the stipulation on the number of occurrences plays no part in any descriptions since the formulation of SFL Theory.

[4] Misrepresenting SFL On Structural Subtypes

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is not true. 

On the one hand, sixty years ago, SFL Theory did not exist. Halliday (1961) outlined Halliday's first theory, Scale & Category Grammar, and did not include any discussion of types of structure, though Halliday (1965) did introduce the distinction between multivariate and univariate structures, focusing on the latter. The first statement on structure types varying according to metafunction was Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions (Halliday 1979). An earlier paper on structure, Language structure and language function (Halliday 1970) did not propose such a structure typology.

On the other hand, a range of subtypes has not been proposed for any of the structure types. That is, a range of subtypes has not been proposed for culminative (textual), prosodic (interpersonal), segmental (experiential) or iterative (logical) structures. The relations in iterative structures have always been limited to either hypotactic or paratactic, and both relations may obtain within the same structure.

[3] Halliday (1979) On Structure Types

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

The following summary, from the same early paper, will also be useful for later discussions. Halliday (2002 [1979]: 217):

In English, experiential options tend to generate constituent-like structures, actually constellations of elements such as can be fairly easily represented in constituency terms. Interpersonal options generate prosodic structures, extending over long stretches (for example intonation contours), which are much less constituent-like. Textual options generate culminative structures, elements occurring at the boundaries of significant units, and give a kind of periodicity to the text, which is part of what we recognise as “texture”. Logical options generate recursive structures, paratactic and hypotactic, which differ from all the other three in that they generate complexes — clause complex, group complex, word complex – and not simple units.

[1] The Grammar Of Algebraic Mathematics

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, what Doran refers to as the 'radically iterative grammar' of algebra is simply the fact that solving an algebraic equation involves the paratactic elaboration of that equation. This is not problematical from the perspective of SFL Theory.

Experientially, an algebraic equation is a decoding identifying clause. Solving the equation involves elaborating it until each unknown Token is identified by a Value.

See also Yaegan Doran Failing To Recognise The Interpersonal Function In Mathematics.