Martin's Criticism Of Having A Stop Option In A Recursive System

Martin (2013: 73-4):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the point of having a stop option in a recursive loop is that it provides the only means of stopping the recursion. A recursive loop that does not include a stop option obligatorily goes on forever. 

Martin's Criticism Of Matthiessen's Network

Martin (2013: 73):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here, yet again, Martin adopts the opposite perspective to SFL Theory by giving priority to structure over system.  A grammatical system is devised on the basis of the meaning being realised, not the structures that realise it.

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, Matthiessen's network properly restricts recursion to just those features that can be realised iteratively. Matthiessen (1995: 232):

Martin's clause network, in contrast, allows potentially unlimited insertions of Medium and Process, and potentially unlimited selections of both 'middle' and 'effective' if the feature 'agentive' is selected. So it is Martin's network that does not account for the structures he has presented.

[3] Matthiessen's network only presents recursion in effective clauses because that was the extent of its description. As Matthiessen (ibid.) made clear:

The system network in Figure 4-14 sets out a partial specification of options and their realisations.

It is misleading of Martin to claim that Matthiessen restricts agency to effective clause, because the network is immediately preceded by instances of agency, all of which are middle clauses. Matthiessen (ibid.):

For instance:

The general kept the soldiers marching.
The general helped the soldiers march.
The general required the soldiers to march.
Well they got the army digging

∞

In summary, Martin here misleads the reader by deliberately misrepresenting Matthiessen's network, and promoting his own very poorly constructed network as successful in comparison.

Misunderstanding The Realisation Of Tense In English

 Martin (2013: 72):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in the English TENSE system, the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398, 399):

… it is the logical structure that embodies the single most important semantic feature of the English verb, its recursive tense system, and the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements.

Misrepresenting The Scope Of Recursion In The System Of Transitivity

Martin (2013: 71):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this system network is ill-conceived because, if the feature 'agentive' is selected, for the one clause, it allows potentially unlimited insertions of Medium and Process, and potentially unlimited selections of both 'middle' and 'effective'.

A system network that properly restricts the recursion in effective clauses is provided in Matthiessen (1995: 232):

Misconstruing Experiential Structures As Hypotactic Logical Structures

Martin (2013: 70):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin (1996) associates serial structures with univariate structure of the logical metafunction, and orbital structure with the multivariate structures of the experiential metafunction. This distinction, however, is the distinction between parataxis and hypotaxis in the univariate structure of the logical metafunction. The orbital structure is also univariate because there is only type of relation between the nucleus and its satellites: dependency. For more details, see

Misconstruing Hypotactic vs Paratactic Logical Structure As Experiential vs Logical Structure 

[2] To be clear, it is misleading to claim that SFL distinguishes the experiential and logical metafunctions on the basis of recursive systems and Martin's notion of serial structure (i.e parataxis). The metafunctions are distinguished as modes of meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 511):

Ideationally, the grammar is a theory of human experience; it is our interpretation of all that goes on around us, and also inside ourselves. There are two parts to this: one the representation of the processes themselves, which we refer to as the "experiential"; the other the representation of the relations between one process and another, and it is this that we refer to as the "logical". The two together constitute the "ideational" metafunction, whereby language construes our experiential world. The word "construe" is used to suggest an intellectual construction — though one that, of course, we then use as a guide to action.

[3] To be clear, just as the logical metafunction is not based on recursive systems, the other metafunctions are not based on "feature bundling", but are distinguished as modes of meaning. 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. But this does not mean processing some preexisting body of information; rather it is the ongoing creation of a semiotic realm of reality.

Misunderstanding Recursive Systems And Misrepresenting 'Univariate'

Martin (2013: 70):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misunderstands a recursive system. The choice in a recursive system is either to go on or stop. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

[2] To be clear, these structures are still referred to as univariate, and opposed to multivariate. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390):

We refer to this kind of structure as a univariate structure, one which is generated as an iteration of the same functional relationship (cf. Halliday, 1965, 1979): α is modified by β, which is modified by γ, which is ... . By contrast, the type of structure exemplified by Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing we call a multivariate structure: a configuration of elements each having a distinct function with respect to the whole.

[3] To be clear, a complex is a type of univariate structure, one in which rank units are related to one another, as clauses in a clause complex. An example of a univariate structure that is not a unit complex is the logical structure of the verbal group, which is not a complex of rank units. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398-9):

… the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. … The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.