Looking Up To Discourse Semantics

Martin (2013: 78):

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, here Martin misconstrues looking 'from above' as looking 'above' ("up"), and misleads by using this misinterpretation to claim that it is important to look at his discourse semantics, since it may be a rich source of interpreting grammatical structure.

[2] This misunderstands the significance of Halliday's observation of the natural relation between grammatical form and meaning — a relation which is not accommodated by Martin's discourse semantics. Halliday (1985: xvii, xviii, xix):

The relation between the meaning and the wording is not, however, an arbitrary one: the form of the grammar relates naturally to the meanings that are being encoded. A functional grammar is designed to bring this out; it is a study of wording, but one that interprets the wording by reference to what it means. …

What this means is that both the general kinds of grammatical pattern that have evolved in language, and the specific manifestations of each kind, bear a natural relation to the meanings they have evolved to express. … the distinction into word classes of verb and noun reflects the analysis of experience into goings-on, expressed as verbs, and participants in the goings-on, expressed as nouns; and so on. …

… the relation of grammar to semantics is in this sense natural, not arbitrary …

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):

Misunderstanding Word Rank Forms As Clause Rank Functions [4]

Martin (2013: 67):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this poses no problems for a clause rank system and its realisation statements, since these are word rank forms marking different reference items. The 'reflexive' form marks an anaphoric reference to the Theme/Subject, whereas the other form does not.

To be clear, the same system "introduces" the Subject, Complement and Adjunct. That is, the MOOD system includes realisation statements that insert these functions in clause structure.

Misunderstanding Word Rank Forms As Clause Rank Functions [3]

Martin (2013: 67):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this poses no problems for a clause rank system and its realisation statements, because these are word rank markers of clause rank functions, and realisation statements at clause rank specify structural consequences at clause rank, or preselect a systemic feature at group/phrase rank. The 'agreement' here is between word rank forms realising group rank functions, not between clause rank functions.

Misunderstanding Word Rank Forms As Clause Rank Functions [2]

Martin (2013: 67):

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, this poses no problems for a clause rank system and its realisation statements, because these are word rank markers of clause rank functions, and realisation statements at clause rank specify structural consequences at clause rank, or preselect a systemic feature at group/phrase rank.

[2] To be clear, it is not that these word rank markers of Subject and Finite — i.e. the view 'from below — constitute recognition criteria for Subject and Finite, but that the clause rank elements reprised in the Mood Tag identify the Subject and Finite of the clause.

[3] To be clear, in the system of MOOD, the realisation statement Subject^Finite for the feature informative "refers back" to the realisation statement +Subject for the feature indicative.

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.

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):

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

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).

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.

Deriving A System From Structural Realisations

Martin (2013: 43-4):

Blogger Comments:

[1] 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.

[2] To be clear, to specify which interpersonal function the interpersonal WH- element conflates with, it is not necessary to incorporate choices beyond the interpersonal MOOD system. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 162):

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.

Misunderstanding Redundancy And Structure

Martin (2013: 40):

Technically speaking, as noted above, a sequence of classes redounding with one another is referred to as a syntagm. Redounding functions are referred to as structures. … By 'redound' we mean that the classes of functions are redundant with respect to one another — in other words they are mutually expectant (given one class or function the co-appearance of another is not random). This is simply a more technical way to say that the classes form a syntagm or that the functions form a structure and so make a meaning beyond the sum of their parts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the notion of redundancy. To be clear, 'redundancy' refers to the skewing of probabilities away from equiprobability. Halliday (2003 [1987]: 122):

In an ideal system, one having two states that are equiprobable, there is no redundancy. Once we depart from equiprobability, redundancy sets in. In all open systems the probabilities are skewed, so that the system carries redundancy.

In SFL Theory, 'redundancy' is used to refer to realisation relations between strata. Halliday (2002 [1992]: 356):

Consider a minimal semiotic system, such as a protolanguage – a system that is made up of simple signs. This is based on the principle of redundancy. When we say that contents p, q, r are “realised” respectively by expressions a, b, c, what this means is that there is a redundancy relation between them: given meaning p, we can predict sound or gesture a, and given sound or gesture a we can predict meaning p. This relationship is symmetrical; “redounds with” is equivalent both to “realises” and to “is realised by”.

with these probabilities variably skewed along the cline of instantiation. Halliday (2002 [1992]: 359):

The [language] system is permeable because each instance redounds with the context of situation, and so perturbs the system in interaction with the environment.

Halliday (2003 [1997]: 260):

If we consider register variation first: viewing from the "instance" end, we can recognise a text type as a collection of similar instances. But when we shift perspective and see it as systemic variation, each of these text types appears as a register, a kind of subsystem which redounds with the properties of the context in terms of field, tenor and mode.

Martin, however, misunderstands the skewed probabilities of redundancy as just any mutual expectancy, and applies this to the sequencing of items on the syntagmatic axis.

[2] As demonstrated above, redundancy is not a more technical way of saying that syntagms and structures "make a meaning beyond the sum of their parts". The crucial point that Martin omits is that, just as a system is the relationships among its features, a structure is the relationships among its functions. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

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