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.

"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.

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.

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 [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.

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.