Confusing Meaners With Meaning

 Martin (2013: 104-5):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, knowers and actors are not language, and so do not constitute semiotic options in an exchange. Again, Martin has confused the material (phenomenal) order of participants in an exchange (meaners) with the semiotic (metaphenomenal) order of their projected texts (meanings).

Confusing Orders Of Experience

Martin (2013: 104):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, handing over goods or providing a service is not language, and so does not constitute a semiotic exchange. Again, Martin has confused the material (phenomenal) order of participants in an exchange (meaners) with the semiotic (metaphenomenal) order of their projected texts (meanings).

Advocating A More Structural-Formal Approach To Systemic-Functional Grammar

Martin (2013: 69):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, as previous posts have demonstrated, this conclusion derives from privileging structure in devising systems, contrary to SFL methodology, and from confusing functions at clause rank with forms at lower ranks. It is thus an ill-conceived call for a systemic-structural functional-formal grammar to replace Systemic Functional Grammar. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning – it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organizing principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features. Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness …

It is because SFL gives priority to the higher level of abstraction (system and function), rather than the lower level of abstraction (structure and form), that its use for computerised parsing is more difficult. But the limitations of computers are no basis for making a theory less functional.

Martin's call for "restoring more of a balance" might be seen as an instance of the logical fallacy:

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam) — also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of grey, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy — is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites. It does not necessarily suggest that an argument for the middle solution or for a compromise is always fallacious, but rather applies primarily in cases where such a position is ill-informed, unfeasible, or impossible, or where an argument is incorrectly made that a position is correct simply because it is in the middle.

Confusing Form(al) With Function(al)

Martin (2013: 69):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the 'agreeing' here is between forms, constituents, not functions. Here Martin is taking the view of Formal linguistics, not Functional linguistics.

Confusing Systems Across Ranks

Martin (2013: 68-9):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these "inter-function dependencies" are inter-system relations at ranks below the clause. That is, this confuses clause rank functions, Subject, Finite, Complement, with the realisation of features of systems at lower rank, NUMBER, GENDER, CASE.

[2] To be clear, 'prosodic' is a type of structure, and a structure is the relationships that obtain between functions (elements) at given rank. It does not refer to a syntagm of forms, such as words or morphemes.

[3] To be clear, 'to follow Halliday's lead' is the default procedure, unless there are valid reasons for doing otherwise, because SFL Theory is his brainchild, and no-one else's. But the system of PERSON in the MOOD network is not concerned with the lower rank realisations that Martin confuses with clause rank here. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 162):

Confusing Ranks In Tagalog

Martin (2013: 68):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this poses no problems for a clause rank system and its realisation statements, because these are word rank markers of a distinction in a clause rank, THEME CONFLATION, and realisation statements at clause rank only specify structural consequences at clause rank, or preselect a systemic feature at group/phrase rank.

Confusing Ranks

Martin (2013: 67-8):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this poses no problems for a clause rank system and its realisation statements, because these are lower rank markers of a clause rank distinction, polarity, and realisation statements at clause rank only specify structural consequences at clause rank, or preselect a systemic feature at group/phrase rank.

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.

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).

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.

Distinguishing Mood By Structural Realisation Instead Of The Meaning It Realises

Martin (2013: 43):

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'. Here he also explicitly distinguishes mood types on the basis of their structural realisations instead of in terms of the speech functions they congruently realise.

And again, the inclusion of the verbal group feature 'non-finite' in this clause system confuses ranks, and misrepresents imperative clauses, which can include Finite and Subject elements, as non-finite.

Misrepresenting The Finiteness Of Imperative Clauses

Martin (2013: 42-3):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this misrepresents SFL methodology. Here 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'.

A further theoretical inconsistency is the inclusion of the verbal group feature 'non-finite' in this clause system. As well as confusing ranks, imperative clauses are finite clauses and can include Finite and Subject elements. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 165):

In the analysis, the unmarked positive has no Mood element, it consists of Residue (Predicator): the verb form (e.g. look) is Predicator only, with no Finite in it. The other forms have a Mood element; this consists of Subject only (you), Finite only (do, don’t), or Finite followed by Subject (don’t you). Any of these can be followed by a Mood tag: won’t you?, will you? – showing that the clause is finite, even though the verb is non-finite (the imperative of be is be, as in Be quiet!, not the finite form are.

Confusing Function With Form

 Martin (2013: 40):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, features of systems, such as the MOOD system, are not classes. It is form, not function, that is categorised into classes; e.g. word classes, group classes.

Confusing Mood Adjuncts With Comment Adjuncts

Martin (2013: 37, 39):

And in other contexts verbs are used to classify (and are thus not gradable):

running shoes

industrialised nations

… Imperative clauses, giving commands, are typically indicated in English by the absence of a Finite and a Subject function.

In addition Halliday recognises Modal Adjuncts which add an interpersonal comment of some kind to the clause (a modalisation of probability below) …

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, industrialised is gradable: there are less industrialised nations and more industrialised nations.

[2] To be clear, 'giving' is a poor choice of words, pedagogically, since commands involve demanding goods-&-services, as opposed to giving them.

[3] This is misleading, because, within the category of modal Adjunct, SFL Theory distinguishes between mood Adjuncts and comment Adjuncts. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 184):

We can recognise two types of modal Adjuncts, (i) mood Adjuncts and (ii) comment Adjuncts. (i) Mood Adjuncts serve within the Mood element, and are closely associated with the meaning of the Finite element – the limiting case being modality, which (as we have seen) can also be realised by the operator serving as Finite. (ii) Comment Adjuncts serve outside the Mood + Residue structure of the clause. They are not part of the proposition realised by Mood + Residue, but are instead comments on it (propositional) or on the act of exchanging it (speech-functional).

Seriously Misunderstanding Hjelmslev On Stratification

Martin (2013: 4):

Blogger Comments:

This misunderstands Hjelmslev. Hjelmslev develops Saussure by interpreting the two aspects of the sign itself, signified and signifier, as a content plane and an expression plane, respectively. Hjelmslev (1961: 48, 58):

Instead, we shall speak of something whose existence we think we have established, namely the sign function, posited between two entities, an expression and a content. … We have here introduced expression and content as designations of the functives that contract the function in question, the sign function. …

But it appears more appropriate to use the word sign as the name for the unit consisting of content-form and expression-form and established by the solidarity that we have called the sign function.

That is, all semiosis — including language, "animal language" and protolanguage — is stratified to this extent. Hjelmslev makes no mention of animal language or human protolanguage, but he does make clear (1961: 58-9):

The distinction between expression and content and their interaction in the sign function is basic to the structure of any language. Any sign, any system of signs, any system of figurae ordered to the purpose of signs, any language, contains in itself an expression-form and a content-form.

In short, Martin has confused Hjemslev's distinction between content and expression with Halliday's view of language as the only semiotic system with a stratified content plane of semantics and lexicogrammar.