The Methodological Aberration That Undermines This Entire Monograph

Martin (2013: 112):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this encapsulates the basic methodological problem in this monograph. Where SFL Theory gives priority to the view 'from above', Martin, while claiming the opposite, gives priority to the view 'from below', by devising systems to account for structures. It is this opposite, contra-functional methodology that naturally leads Martin to call for 'restoring more of a balance between the concerns of system and structure in SFL research' (p69).

Martin's central claim that axial relations underlie the other dimensions of language has been asserted repeatedly throughout the monograph without supporting argument. Moreover, as demonstrated throughout this review, Martin misunderstands axis as axial relations, and the relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes, realisation, as the realisation statements in paradigmatic systems.

"Foregrounding" Paradigmatic Relations

Martin (2013: 95):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, priority is given to system over structure. Here Martin gives priority to structure over system by claiming that the purpose of paradigmatic relations is to account for structures, while simultaneously claiming the opposite: that this is "foregrounding" the paradigmatic.

The False Claim That The Architecture Of Language In SFL Is Founded On Axial Relations

Martin (2013: 75):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the examination of Chapter 4 demonstrated Martin's false claim that metafunction and rank are based on axis derives from his misunderstanding of axis and other factors, such as giving priority to the view 'from below' in devising systems, in contradistinction to SFL methodology.

[2] In this chapter, it will be seen that stratification, also, is not founded on axial relations. Consequently, the organisation of system networks in SFL, and its conception of the architecture of language, are not either, since these, too, are falsehoods deriving from the same misunderstandings.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, systems are not motivated by structure. This would be taking the perspective 'from below' (what systems do these structures realise?). In SFL Theory, the perspective taken is the opposite: 'from above' (how are these systems realised in structure?). This whole monograph is based on this misunderstanding (and the misunderstanding of axis).

The False Claim That Stratification Is Founded On Axial Relations

Martin (2013: 74):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, as will be seen in the examination of the next chapter, Martin's claim that stratification is based on axial relations derives from his continuing misunderstandings of theory. The scope of stratification is global, whereas the scope of axis is only local. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32):

"Systems Tied To Structures"

 Martin (2013: 73):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the notion of 'systems tied to structures' gives priority to structure, which is the opposite perspective to that taken in SFL Theory. The latter perspective gives priority to systems whose realisation statements provide structural specifications. Throughout this entire monograph, Martin has misunderstood realisation statements as axial relations, and axial relations as axis.

Repeating A Bare Assertion That Assumes The Conclusion Of This Monograph

Martin (2013: 73):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is untrue. As the examination of this chapter has demonstrated, Martin has not shown that metafunction and rank are based on axis — nor could he.

As previously explained, 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.

Moreover, metafunction and rank are not based on either axis or system/structure relations. 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. In dialogue, the repeating of this bare assertion would be an example of the logical fallacy known as the argument from repetition.

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. 

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.

Giving Priority To Structure And Form Over System And Function

Martin (2013: 21-2):

Once thou was lost, English speakers would have had to deploy alternative resources to negotiate their social relations. And this means that we need to revise our pronoun network for standard English, as outlined below (setting aside GENDER for the moment to simplify the presentation).

It might be objected that we should keep the same system we developed for Shakespeare's times, and simply allow you to realise both second person singular and plural; this is the grammarian's concept of neutralisation. But we're going to be very stringent in our introduction to axial relations here and argue that if there is no difference in structure then there is no difference in system. Accordingly, we oppose above first and third person pronouns that distinguish NUMBER to second person pronouns which don't. This illustrates a very important strategy for network drawing — namely, setting aside, as early in delicacy as possible, classes that in some sense lie outside the system. Since you is different from other pronouns, we set it aside, and then move on to capture the parameters that the rest of the system shares.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, interlocutors enact their social relations. A child does not negotiate her status or institutional role with a teacher. Negotiating propositions and proposals is a different matter.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, it wasn't that thou was lost and speakers were forced to 'deploy alternative resources'. It was because speakers 'deployed alternative resources' that the use of thou diminished.

[3] To be clear, this is the methodology of SFL Theory, where priority is given to system and function over structure and form. Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 62):

[4] To be clear, the relation between the axes is simply realisation.

[5] This is misleading. To be clear, this approach gives priority to structure over system, the exact opposite of SFL methodology. Martin (p10) has previously acknowledged SFL methodology:

so his contradiction here demonstrates that he does not understand what it means to give priority to system over structure. The misunderstanding also invalidates the fundamental premise of this monograph.

[6] This is misleading. To be clear, this is again giving priority to form (pronouns, classes) over function, the exact opposite of SFL methodology.

The Fundamental Misunderstanding Of Axis In This Monograph

Martin (2013: 19):

The realisation of this system in structure has also been specified, with the words I, thou and he following the downward slanting arrow angled from upper left to lower right (the arrow represents 'is realised by'). In this form the system network formalises both the paradigmatic relations and their structural consequences (i.e. the units realising them). This dimension of SFL analysis is called axis. Axis privileges system over structure, with features realised through structure and structure motivating system (in other words, if no structural consequence, then no system).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. The network does not even specify any elements of structure, let alone structure. All it specifies is the grammatical form (pronouns) and their formal categories in terms of person. It even contradicts Martin's introduction which opposed words to structure; Martin (2013: 14):

To be clear, structure is constituted by the relationships among the functional elements. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

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.

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue, since a formal unit realising a feature does not constitute a structure, as explained above. What is true is that the system of a unit, such as a clause, is realised by the structure of that unit.

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. Axis is a local dimension of language with two orders, paradigmatic and syntagmatic, whose dimensions are system and structure, respectively (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 20, 32). Here Martin misunderstands axis as the systemic specification of syntagmatic units. As Halliday (2003 [1994]: 434) explains, such specifications are a component of systems, the paradigmatic order of axis only:

The system has one further component, namely the 'realisation statement' that accompanies each option. This specifies the contribution made by that option to the structural configuration; it may be read as a proposition about the structural constraints associated with the option in question.

[4] This is misleading because it is untrue. It is not axis that "privileges" system over structure but SFL Theory. Halliday (2003 [1994]: 433):

In Firth's system-structure theory, neither of these is given priority; and in scale and category grammar this perspective was maintained. In systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms.

[5] This is potentially misleading, especially in this context. To be clear, individual features are not realised by structure; it is a system of features that is realised by the relationships among the functional elements of structure.

[6] To be clear, here Martin is giving priority to structure over system, thereby contradicting his own misunderstanding of axis, and taking the opposite perspective to that of SFL Theory.

[7] To be clear, Martin has already provided two networks that contradict this claim: the PERSON system above, and traffic light system (p3):

Moreover, as Halliday (2003 [1994]: 433-4) explains:

In systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms. … This step was taken by Halliday in the early 1960s so that grammatical and phonological representations could be freed from constraints of structure.

Outline Of Chapter 5

Martin (2013: 11):

Blogger Comments:

This foreshadows the misleading misunderstandings to appear in Chapter 5.

Firstly, it is stratification, metafunction and rank that "bundle" systems together, not the reverse. The systems are devised according to the principles of strata, metafunction and rank, not the reverse.

Secondly, even within the misunderstanding that the "bundling" of systems is the basis of stratification, metafunction and rank, axis cannot be key. Stratification, metafunction, rank and axis are distinct dimensions, and stratification and metafunction differ from axis and rank in being a global rather than local dimensions. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32):

Outline Of Chapter 4

Martin (2013: 10-1):

Blogger Comments:

This foreshadows the misleading misunderstandings to appear in Chapter 4.

Firstly, it is not language that "privileges" systems over structure or formalises systemic relations as system networks but Systemic Functional Linguistics. Here Martin mistakes the data for the theory.

Secondly, it is the principles underlying the metafunctions that "bundle" clause systems, not the reverse. The metafunctions give rise to the systems, not the reverse. The systems are devised according to the metafunctions, not the reverse.

Thirdly, it is the modelling of constituency as rank that "bundles" systems, not the reverse. The systems are devised according to rank, not the reverse.

Fourthly, metafunction and rank are not based on axis. Metafunction, rank and axis are distinct dimensions, and metafunction differs from axis and rank in being a global rather than a local dimension. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32):

Outline Of Chapter 3

Martin (2013: 10):

Blogger Comments:

This foreshadows the misleading misunderstandings to appear in Chapter 3.

Firstly, the distinction between class (e.g. verbal group) and function (e.g. process) is not a distinction between categories and relations, since both are categories, and neither are relations.

Secondly, realisation statements are not used to derive structure from system, since realisation statements only specify such things as the insertion of an element, or the ordering of elements in a structure. No realisation statement specifies a structure: the relationships among functions such as Senser^Process^Phenomenon.

Thirdly, because of this, realisation statements do not "formalise" the complementarity of system and structure.

Misunderstanding The Dimension Of Axis As A Relation

Martin (2013: 1):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, axis is not equivalent to axial or system-structure relations. Axis is theorised as a local dimension of language with two orders, paradigmatic and syntagmatic, with system as the dimension of paradigmatic order, and structure as the dimension of syntagmatic order. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32, 20):

The relation between the two orders, and their dimensions, is realisation: the intensive identifying relation that obtains between two levels of symbolic abstraction. That is, structure (Token) realises system (Value).

That is to say, the dimension of axis is logically distinct from the relation that obtains between its two orders and their dimensions.

This fundamental misunderstanding is the basis of Martin's "axial relations" in this publication.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, systems are not motivated by structures. This is the opposite perspective to that taken in SFL Theory. In SFL Theory, priority is given to the view 'from above', system, whereas Martin's notion that structure motivates system gives priority to the view 'from below', structure. Halliday (2003 [1994]: 433-4):

In systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms. Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the "realisation" of paradigmatic features. This step was taken by Halliday in the early 1960s so that grammatical and phonological representations could be freed from constraints of structure. Once such representations were no longer localised, they could function prosodically wherever appropriate.