Misrepresenting The Tagging Of Negative Clauses

Martin (2013: 55-6):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is simply not true that negative clauses always reverse their polarity in the Tag, as demonstrated by instances like They won't pay, won't they?. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 173-4) provide the view 'from above':

Summary Of Exclamatives And Negative Imperatives

Martin (2013: 55):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a proscription against negative exclamative clauses fails to account for instances like What a good boy you are…not!

[2] To be clear, the discussion of negative imperatives misrepresented Finite not as a Mood Adjunct.

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 165-6) for the full paradigm of negative imperatives:

Mistaking Part Of The Finite For A Mood Adjunct [2]

Martin (2013: 54):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this again misunderstands not as a Mood Adjunct instead of part of the Finite do not. Again, here not is simply a formal or written variant of n't. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 175):

Finally, we should note that the negative word not occurs in two functions: either it is simply a formal or written variant of the Finite negative element n’t, in which case it is part of the Finite; or it is a distinct modal Adjunct in Mood or Residue. In the latter case it is phonologically salient and may also be tonic

A genuine example of not as a Mood Adjunct is

After all that, I couldn't not go, could I?

Mistaking Part Of The Finite For A Mood Adjunct [1]

Martin (2013: 53, 54):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the not in the data is not a Mood Adjunct, but part of the Finite, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 175) explain:

Finally, we should note that the negative word not occurs in two functions: either it is simply a formal or written variant of the Finite negative element n’t, in which case it is part of the Finite; or it is a distinct modal Adjunct in Mood or Residue. In the latter case it is phonologically salient and may also be tonic.

A genuine example of not as a Mood Adjunct is

After all that, I couldn't not go, could I?

 Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 177)

Positive Exclamatives Only

Martin (2013: 54):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is no longer true. Instances like the following are now commonplace:

What a generous person you are … not!

Misrepresenting The Speech Function Of Indicative Mood

Martin (2013: 52):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, proposals are congruently realised by imperative mood. It is propositions that are congruently realised by indicative mood.

Taking The View 'From Below' On System/Structure Cycles

Martin (2013: 52):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this misrepresents SFL methodology. Again Martin gives priority to the view 'from below', structure, instead of the view 'from above', system. 

Misrepresenting Rank As Derived From System Networks

Martin (2013: 52):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday's concept of rank was first published in Categories of a Theory of Grammar (Halliday 1961), five years before his first publication on system networks, Some Notes On 'Deep' Grammar (Halliday 1966), and nine years before the first publication on metafunctions, Language Structure and Language Function (Halliday 1970).

The rhetorical function of this misrepresentation is to support Martin's claim in this monograph that  "axial relations" are 'foundational'.

Misrepresenting Axis As the Origin Of Metafunction And Rank

Martin (2013: 52):

Blogger Comments:

[1] This gloss of the metafunctions is potentially misleading. The ideation metafunction is the construal of experience, not the construal of discourse, and the interpersonal metafunction is the enactment of interpersonal relations, not the enactment of discourse. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 7-8):

The ideational metafunction is concerned with construing experience — it is language as a theory of reality, as a resource for reflecting on the world. … The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with enacting interpersonal relations through language, with the adoption and assignment of speech roles, with the negotiation of attitudes, and so on — it is language in the praxis of intersubjectivity, as a resource for interacting with others. The textual metafunction is an enabling one; it is concerned with organising ideational and interpersonal meaning as discourse — as meaning that is contextualised and shared.

[2] The claim that 'SFL's distinctive approach to meaning and constituency in fact grew out of the development of axis (system/structure relations) from the early 1960s' is very misleading because it is untrue on several counts.

Firstly, Martin misunderstands axis as system/structure relations, as stipulated in realisation statements. In SFL Theory, axis is a local dimension whose two orders are the paradigmatic and syntagmatic (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32), with system and structure as their respective dimensions. Realisation statements are located on the paradigmatic axis, and as the name suggests, the relation between the axes is simply realisation.

Secondly, the SFL approach to the metafunctions and constituency did not grow out of the development of either axis or system/structure relations from the early 1960's. 

On the one hand, the metafunctions are a distinct global dimension from the local dimension of axis (ibid.), and first appeared in Language Structure and Language Function (Halliday 1970). 

On the other hand, the SFL approach to constituency, a rank scale, is a distinct local dimension  from the local dimension of axis (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 32), and derives from the method of ranked constituency analysis, rather than immediate constituency analysis, as first set out in Categories of A Theory of Grammar (Halliday 1961), and explained more fully in Introduction to Functional Grammar (Halliday 1985).

The rhetorical significance of Martin's misleading bare assertion (the ipse dixit fallacy) is that it assumes the conclusion (the petitio principii fallacy) of the entire monograph. That is, it is one logical fallacy serving another in an invalid argument for a false conclusion.

Interrogative Identifying Clauses In Tagalog

 Martin (2013: 50):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, these are interrogative forms of the thematic equative:

The information that the first clause demands is a decoding of the Token sino ('who') by reference to the Value ang naglaro ('who plays'), and the information that the second clause demands is a decoding of the Token ano ('what') by reference to the Value ang ginawa mo ('what you did') — Martin's second gloss notwithstanding. Analogous clauses in English are who is it who plays and what is it you did.

The fact that these clauses are thematic equatives casts further doubt on Martin's thematic analysis of Tagalog. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 93, 95) explain for English:

This kind of clause is known as a thematic equative (cf. Halliday, 1967/8), because it sets up the Theme + Rheme structure in the form of an equation, where Theme = Rheme. The particular clause type that is being exploited to form a thematic equative is the identifying clause… . In a thematic equative, all the elements of the clause are organised into two constituents; these two are then linked by a relationship of identity, a kind of ‘equals sign’, expressed by some form of the verb be. …

A thematic equative (which is usually called a ‘pseudo-cleft sentence’ in formal grammar) is an identifying clause which has a thematic nominalisation in it. Its function is to express the Theme-Rheme structure in such a way as to allow for the Theme to consist of any subset of the elements of the clause. This is the explanation for the evolution of clauses of this type: they have evolved, in English, as a thematic resource, enabling the message to be structured in whatever way the speaker or writer wants.

If the same is true of Tagalog, then thematic equatives may be a resource for highlighting a different element as Theme. In English, for example, it is used to avoid selecting an unwanted marked Theme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 97).

Confusing Interpersonal And Ideational Functions

Martin (2013: 49-50):

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, this network incongruously proposes that an interpersonal feature, major, is realised by the insertion of an experiential function, Process, and does not account for the function Subject.

[2] To be clear, the fact that ba is an enclitic particle does not explain why it varies as to which item it cliticises.

[3] To be clear, the distinction between 'where' and 'when' questions is ideational, not interpersonal.

Misunderstanding 'Structure' In WH- Interrogatives

Martin (2013: 49):

Blogger Comments:

Again, Martin's notion that functional elements of different metafunctions can occur in the same structural configuration misunderstands the notion of structure, which, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451) make clear, is the relationships among functions:

Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Martin's structures propose a relationship between experiential elements, Process and Location, and textual Theme, and each of these with interpersonal Q and WH- elements, while omitting other textual and interpersonal elements, Subject and Predicator.

One way to repair Martin's analyses might be:

However, there is reason to doubt these two analyses, and the previous one, because the Theme always happens to conflate with the Subject, and this echoes Martin's misunderstanding of Theme in English. See, for example, Misconstruing Subject And Theme and Misconstruing Marked Topical Theme.

Misunderstanding 'Structure' In Polar Interrogatives

 Martin (2013: 48):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the notion that functional elements of different metafunctions can occur in the same structural configuration misunderstands the notion of structure, which, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451) make clear, is the relationships among functions:

Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Martin's structure proposes a relationship between experiential Process and textual Theme, and each of these with interpersonal Q, and omits other textual and interpersonal elements .

One way to repair Martin's analysis might be:

An Experiential Function Realising An Interpersonal Option

Martin (2013: 47-8):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is necessary to distinguish an interpersonal Predicator from an experiential Process, because a Predicator is enactment of the self as meaning, whereas a Process is a construal of experience as meaning. As a function, a Predicator is related to other elements of mood structure, such as Subject, Complement and Adjunct, whereas a Process is related to other elements of transitivity structure, such as Medium, Agent and Range. Moreover, there is no "morphology of the Process", since Process is a function at clause rank, not a class of form, verb, at word rank.

[2] To be clear, this network incongruously proposes that an interpersonal feature, major, is realised by the insertion of an experiential function, Process, and does not account for the function Subject.

Rebranding Halliday's Work As Martin's

Martin (2013: 45-6):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this augmentation for devising the system network begins by taking the view 'from below': grammatical form and structure. 

The claim that the second perspective is 'discourse' semantic is misleading, because it rebrands Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION as Martin's system. Martin has made a career out of rebranding other people's work as his own, as demonstrated here and here, for example, and has even won a prize for it (recorded here).

Building A System On The Basis Of Realisation "Rules"

Martin (2013: 44-5):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this misrepresents SFL methodology. Again Martin constructs a system on the basis of how it is realised structurally. This is giving priority to the view 'from below', instead of the view 'from above'. Again, he explicitly distinguishes mood types on the basis of their structural realisations instead of in terms of the speech functions they congruently realise.