[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). 

[37] The Problem With Covariate Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the basis of Martin's term 'discourse semantics', Doran here presents the distinction between discourse and grammar as stratal. However, in SFL Theory, 'discourse' refers to one angle on language as instance. Halliday (2008: 78):

“discourse” is text that is being viewed in its sociocultural context, while “text” is discourse that is being viewed as a process of language.

And analysing discourse means relating the text to the grammar as potential. Halliday (2008: 192):

The system and the text are not two different phenomena: what we call the “system” of a language is equivalent to its “text potential”. Analysing discourse means, first and foremost, relating the text to the potential that lies behind it.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 731):

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

And it is the textual component within the grammar that is the resource for creating discourse. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 528):

The “textual” metafunction is the name we give to the systematic resources a language must have for creating discourse: for ensuring that each instance of text makes contact with its environment. The “environment” includes both the context of situation and other instances of text.

And the systems of cohesion constitute the non-structural textual resources of the grammar for creating discourse.

[2] To be clear, covariate structures are not types of structure at all, as Lemke (1988: 159) soon realised:

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.

Martin's covariate structures are not structures in the sense of units with internal structure, nor in the sense of units forming complexes.

 

[35] Cohesive Relations / Covariate Structures

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because cohesive relations are non-structural, it is theoretically inconsistent to include them in a model of structure types. 

[2] To be clear, Martin's (1992) systems of IDENTIFICATION and IDEATION are rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) systems of REFERENCE and LEXICAL COHESION relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics. Evidence here.

[3] Importantly, before 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.

[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.

[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):

[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.