[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'.

[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.

[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).

[7] Misrepresenting "The Conflation Of Distinct Tiers Of Structure" As SFL Theory

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] These bare assertions are very misleading indeed, because on the one hand, there is no indeterminacy ("fuzziness") here — see the previous post — and on the other hand, there is no structure conflation in SFL Theory. As a consequence:

• this non-existent indeterminacy is not "often described in terms of conflation of distinct tiers of structure",
• conflation does not "work well in emphasising that there are tensions occurring between different strands of meaning",
• conflation does not "give us a tool for understanding how this non-existent fuzziness works, or the parameters of variation of this non-existent fuzziness",
• conflation does not "give us an explanation of why a structure occurs", and
• conflation is not relevant to "a description of what the structure is".

[2] And, to be clear, the reason why structure markers are "simply left out of any structural description" is simply that they are not units in unit complexes.

[5] Misrepresenting SFL Theory On The Structure Marker 'Of'

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the structure marker of does not constitute evidence that the structure types in SFL Theory "don't quite account for everything we come up against". To explain:

Firstly, it is misleading to claim that the structure marker of is not accounted for in the SFL model of structure, because it is untrue. The structure marker of is analysed as a constituent of the embedded prepositional phrase serving as Postmodifier in the logical structure of a nominal group:

Secondly, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394) point out, the preposition of is the generalised marker of a structural relationship between nominals. When it functions in this way, therefore, of is not functioning as a unit in a unit complex, and so to model it as such, as Martin does — see here — is to make a category error.

Moreover, contrary to Doran's claim, the 'structure marker' of is also pervasive in English, and the claim that its function is somehow "marginalised" — by not misinterpreting it as a unit in a unit complex — is not only a bare assertion, but also, as demonstrated above, untrue.