Misunderstanding Word Rank Forms As Clause Rank Functions [1]

Martin (2013: 66-7):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the basic descriptive challenge alluded to here is said to arise from Martin's self-contradiction of privileging system by using structure to motivate systems.

However, this is misleading, because privileging system poses no challenge for describing clause rank systems, since these phenomena are word rank markers of clause rank functions. It is not that the Subject agrees with the verb, but the form of the word serving as the Head of the nominal group serving as Subject agrees with the form of the verb serving as Finite of the verbal group serving as Finite + Predicator.

This misunderstanding arises from confusing ranks and again viewing the clause 'from below', how it is realised, instead of 'from above', what it means.

It will be seen in the following posts that this confusion of function and form across ranks as "syntagmatic dependency relations between functions" is a persistent source of confusion for Martin.

Privileging Structure While Claiming The Opposite

Martin (2013: 66):

Blogger Comments:

This is self-contradiction. Using structure to motivate systems is privileging structure, not system, and this is the direct opposite of SFL methodology.

Misunderstanding A Taxonomy Of Forms As A System Of Functions

Martin (2013: 66):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this misunderstands a taxonomy of forms, word classes, as a word rank system of potential. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 52):

Misunderstanding Realisation Statements

Martin (2013: 66):

Blogger Comments:

This misunderstands realisation statements. Realisation statements are concerned with functions (e.g. Qualifier) in structures, not with forms (e.g. phrase, clause) that realises such functions. Halliday (2003 [1994]: 434-5):

Realisation statements are of seven types:

(a) 'insert' an element (e.g. insert subject);

(b) 'conflate' one element with another (e.g. conflate subject with theme);

(c) 'order' an element with respect to another, or to some defined location (e.g. order finite auxiliary before subject);

(d) 'classify' an element (e.g. classify process as mental: cognition);

(e) 'split' an element into a further configuration (e.g. split mood into subject + finite);

(f) 'preselect' some feature at a lower rank (e.g. preselect nominal group: human collective); and

(g) 'lexify' an element (e.g. lexify subject: it).

This also repeats the previously noted misunderstanding of of as a linker.

Misrepresenting 'Rankshift' And 'Linker'

 Martin (2013: 65):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misunderstands 'embedded' as a later renaming of 'rankshifted', whereas both terms are current, and present different views of the same phenomenon. For example, a nominal group that is embedded in a nominal group has shifted from group rank to word rank — words being the constituents of groups.

[2] To be clear, the structural analysis misrepresents of as a linker, despite the fact that a linker is a marker of a paratactic relation, and no paratactic relation obtains between the embedded nominal group and what follows. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 333) point out, the 'word of is the generalised marker of a structural relationship between nominals'. In such instances, of is a constituent of the prepositional phrase serving as Postmodifier. Halliday (1994: 196):

Note that in Matthiessen's editions of IFG, the term 'Facet' has been shifted from the embedded Thing to the embedded nominal group as a whole, and from a Pre-Deictic to a Numerative function. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 335):

Note also that 'Qualifier' here should read 'Postmodifier'.

Mistaking Thing For "Focus"

Martin (2013: 65):

Some examples [of Martin's Focus function] are given below.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, analyses of these structures after Halliday (1985, 1994) have been inconsistent and even self-contradictory. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 333, 2014: 394) write that the Thing

… is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause …

If this principle is applied to the examples above, then six of the seven do not include a "Focus" function, as demonstrated by:

the front of the stage is wider than the back.
 an album is a collection of songs.
a chapter of the book was removed by censors.
the length of the stage is 9 metres
a Nobel Laureate is typically a genius of a writer
ragtime is a kind of jazz 

On the other hand, the coverage in Halliday (1985, 1994) is restricted to 'measure' expressions and 'facet' expressions, the latter being an optional alternative approach to Head/Thing conflation. The 'measure' expressions are analysed as complex Numeratives or Pre-Numeratives, and the 'facet' expressions as Pre-Deictics. Halliday (1994: 195-6):

Using the Halliday (1985, 1994) analysis:

the front of the stage is Pre-Deictic

a collection of songs is complex Numerative: collective

a chapter of the book is Pre-Numerative: partitive

three of the songs is Pre-Numerative: quantitive

the length of the stage is Thing

a genius of a writer is Thing

a kind of jazz is Thing

However, using the Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014) analysis (see previous post):

the front of the stage is extended Numerative: partitive: facet

a collection of songs is extended Numerative: collective: aggregate

a chapter of the book is extended Numerative: partitive: portion

three of the songs is embedded Numerative

the length of the stage is Thing

a genius of a writer is Thing

a kind of jazz is extended Numerative: collective: variety

Rebranding Hallidays 'Facet' As Martin's 'Focus'

Martin (2013: 65):

Blogger Comments:

[1] Although Martin correctly understands such expressions as involving embedding, he nevertheless misunderstands embedding as expansion. To be clear, expansion relates units of the same rank, such as two nominal groups in a nominal group complex.

[2] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 333) call these Extended Numeratives, with Facet as just one of its six subtypes:

[3] To be clear, Martin's unnecessary rebranding of Halliday's functions as Martin's Focus is particularly poor, firstly, because it assigns a textual highlighting term to an experiential function, and secondly, because the term 'Focus' is already in use as the Focus of New information.

[4] For problems with the 'extended coverage as a Focus function' in Martin et al (2010), see:

Needlessly Rebranding Halliday's 'Numerative' As The Authors' 'Focus'

Problems With The 'Perspective' Subtype Of Focus

Rebranding Halliday's 'Complex' Numeratives As The Authors' 'Re-counting' & 'Partitive' Subtypes Of Focus

The 'Selecting' Subtype Of Focus As A Confusion Of Numeratives And Epithets

A Serious Problem That Invalidates The 'Dimensional' Subtype Of Focus

The 'Evaluative' Subtype Of Focus Reconsidered

Serious Problems That Invalidate The 'Classifying' Subtype Of Focus

A Problem With A Further Proposed 'Classifying' Type Of Focus

Needlessly Rebranding Halliday's 'Pre-Deictic' As The Authors' 'Focus'

The Problem With Exercise 5: Recognising Pre-Elements

Problems With Exercise 4: Analysing Groups With Focus

Rebranding Pre-Deictic And Pre-Numerative As Focus

Deriving System From Structure

Martin (2013: 63):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this once again misrepresents SFL methodology by devising a system from below: on the basis of structure.

Misunderstanding System And Rank

Martin (2013: 63):

Blogger Comments:

This misunderstands system and rank. Realisation statements in a clause rank system specify clause rank structure, not the types of group rank units that realise clause rank functions.

Confusing Formal Constituency (Rank) With Function Structure

Martin (2013: 62):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, functions are not constituents of rank units, such as clause and nominal groups. Constituents of rank units are lower rank units on the rank scale. Constituents of clauses are groups and phrases.

The Thing is a function of a word, a constituent of a nominal group, and the structure of a rank unit is the relationships among the functions, not the functions themselves (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 451).

Misrepresenting SFL Methodology And Nominal Group Potential

Martin (2013: 61):

Blogger Comments:

Firstly, this once again misrepresents SFL methodology by devising a system from below: on the basis of structure.

Secondly, not all nominal groups include a Thing function. For example, neither nominal group in the clause that was nice includes a Thing: the first has Deictic as Head, and the second has Epithet as Head. Martin does not account for this in any later discussion.

Thirdly, the choice of 'simple' vs 'complex' as a nominal group system is very poor pedagogically, not to say theoretically, since the notion of a simple nominal group and a complex nominal group invites confusion with a nominal group simplex and a nominal group complex. 

The Problem With Recommending Martin et al. (2010) On Nominal Groups

Martin (2013: 61):

Blogger Comments:

For problems with the account of nominal groups in Martin et al.'s 2010 Deploying Functional Grammar, see the 22 posts here, including:

Problems With Exercise 4: Analysing Groups With Focus

The Problem With Exercise 5: Recognising Pre-Elements

Misrepresenting System As Axis

Martin (2013: 59):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it misrepresents system as axis. System is the dimension of the paradigmatic order of the dimension of axis, and it is system, not axis, that disclosed the notion of metafunction to Halliday. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20, 32):

The misrepresentation is motivated, however, since it is presented as evidence for Martin's central claim in this monograph: that axis, misunderstood as 'axial relations', is foundational. 

Misunderstanding Delicacy And Prioritising Structure

Martin (2013: 56):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, on the one hand, this misunderstands delicacy as "privileging". Delicacy is simply a hyponymic relation (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 145), and a hypernym (e.g. ape) is not more "privileged" than any of its hyponyms (e.g. human). Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 14):

the paradigmatic network is ordered in delicacy (subsumption, classification, specialisation), from the least delicate (most general) to the most delicate (most specific types).

On the other hand, this, once again, misrepresents SFL methodology by taking the view 'from below', structural similarity, in determining how to organise a system.

Misrepresenting Polarity And Tag Potential

Martin (2013: 56-7):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because of the unwarranted conditional marking, this network fails to account for either negative Mood Tags in negative clauses, such as So, he won't pay, won't he?, and negative exclamatives, such as How tidy you are…not!.

[2] To be clear, a realisation statement specifies the structural consequences of a systemic feature at the rank in question. If the feature 'tagged' is selected, the structural consequence is simply + Finite^Subject. Nominal and verbal group variation is accounted for at group rank, and is irrelevant to structure at clause rank.