[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'.

[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.)

[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.

[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:

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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…

[12] Misrepresenting A 'Pre-Systemic' Citation As Representative Of SFL Theory

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, Halliday's first statement on multivariate and univariate structures, Halliday (1965), is written at the time of Scale & Category Grammar, not Systemic Functional Grammar, and, most importantly, is not consistent with Halliday's later theorising. For example, in this paper, and in no work since, Halliday stipulates (pp229, 232) that, in multivariate structures, different variables each occur once only. Similarly, in this paper, and in no work since, Halliday (p230) categorises Head°Modifier structures as multivariate, instead of univariate:

In short, Doran has misrepresented Halliday's very first 'Scale & Category Grammar' statement on multivariate structure as consistent with Halliday's later understanding of it in SFL Theory.

[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.

[8] Different Types Of Structure Described Differently By The Same Authors

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Doran's claim that the "strongly bound types", multivariate vs univariate structure, "are often found wanting in more complex or less prototypical constructions" is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

Although Doran provides no evidence that different types of structure are described differently by same authors in different situations, the most relevant example of this is Halliday himself. At the time of his now superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar, Halliday (1965) classified a Head°Modifier structure as multivariate, whereas by the time of Systemic Functional Grammar, Halliday (1985) classified a Head°Modifier structure as univariate.

Similarly, Halliday (1965) — Scale & Category Grammar — defined a multivariate structure as comprising 'a specific set of variables each occurring once only', whereas Halliday (1985) — Systemic Functional Grammar — defined a multivariate structure as 'a constellation of elements each having a distinct function with respect to the whole', with no specification of the number of occurrences.

It will be seen, as this blog unfolds, that Doran adopts the superseded definition of multivariate structure, and makes it pivotal to his argument.

[6] Misrepresenting Structure Types As Indeterminate

Doran (2021):

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because there is no indeterminacy here. 

The experiential structure of the verbal group is clearly multivariate, because, like all multivariate structures, it is 'a configuration of different functional relationships' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 451): Finite vs Auxiliary vs Event. The number of Auxiliaries is irrelevant to this definition of a multivariate structure.*

The logical structure of the verbal group is clearly univariate, because, like all univariate structures, it is the iteration of the same functional relationship' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 451), in this case: modification (α is modified by β, which is modified by γ). The number of modifications is irrelevant to this definition of a univariate structure.

[2] To be clear, the English system of TENSE is realised by the logical structure only, not by the experiential structure (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 398).

* See the upcoming posts of 11 and 15 September.

[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):