Martin's Argument For Stratifying Identification And Nominal Group Options

Martin (1992: 135-6):

In theory, the IDENTIFICATION network developed above could be viewed as cross-classifying other nominal group systems much as THEME at clause rank cross-classifies TRANSITIVITY  and MOOD.  But the interdependence between textual and other nominal group options is so great that a tremendous amount of relative correlative marking (see Martin 1987) or negative conditioning in realisation (see Fawcett 1980) would be required; IDENTIFICATION options would not in other words combine relatively freely with other nominal group ones in a way characteristic of simultaneous systems at the same rank on the same stratum.  The relationship between IDENTIFICATION and nominal group systems displays much more clearly the interlocking diversification (Lockwood 1972) characteristic of inter- rather than intra-stratal relations.  Setting aside then the question of discourse structure, to be taken up in 3.5 below, there are sound systemic reasons for stratifying IDENTIFICATION and nominal group oppositions (cf. the critical discussion of Halliday's (1976b) DEIXIS network in Martin 1987).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is just an obfuscatory way of claiming that IDENTIFICATION could, in theory, be viewed as a textual system of the nominal group.  However, in terms of theory, this view is not tenable, since reference is not a system of the nominal group, and IDENTIFICATION is proposed as the semantic counterpart of reference, not a grammatical system.

[2] This attempted obfuscation is irrelevant to the question of what stratum IDENTIFICATION is located.  The degree of interdependence of feature options is irrelevant to the level of symbolic abstraction at which options are available.  The works cited, as if to support this misunderstanding are:

• Martin, J. R. 1987. "The Meaning of Features in Systemic Linguistics".  M. A. K. Halliday & R. P. Fawcett [eds] New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1: theory and description, 14-40.  London: Pinter  

• Fawcett, R. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: towards and integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of an interacting mind.  Heidelberg: Julius Groos.

[3] This explicitly demonstrates that Martin does not understand that strata, which he misconceives as interacting modules, are distinct levels of symbolic abstraction.  The work cited, as if in support, is from the framework of Sydney Lamb's Stratificational Linguistics:

• Lockwood, D. G. 1972. Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

[4] To be clear, no sound systemic reasons have been provided for "stratifying IDENTIFICATION and nominal group oppositions".  As previously demonstrated, Martin's rebranding of cohesive reference as IDENTIFICATION is constructed on serious theoretical misunderstandings, including:

• confusing ideational denotation with textual reference,
• confusing interpersonal deixis with textual reference, and
• confusing nominal groups with reference items.

The work cited, as if in support, is Martin's own critique:

• Martin, J. R. 1987. "The Meaning of Features in Systemic Linguistics".  M. A. K. Halliday & R. P. Fawcett [eds] New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1: theory and description, 14-40.  London: Pinter  

of

• Halliday, M. A. K. 1976b Halliday: system and function in language. G. Kress [ed.]. London: Oxford University Press.

Giving Priority To Structure And Form Instead Of System And Function

Martin (1992: 135):

This distribution of phoric items across different elements of nominal group structure makes it very difficult to capture the relevant textual generalisations at the level of grammar.  The structure of pronominal, proper and common nominal groups is very divergent (cf. he, Professor Emeritus J C Smith, that fellow I met last week) for good experiential and interpersonal reasons.  But all three types of group may be presuming in the same way and need to be classed together as far as textual meaning is concerned.  The same point can be made with respect to relevance phoricity: Deictics, Numeratives and Epithets are generated by quite different nominal group systems, but from the point of view of textual meaning all can presume supersets.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, the "distribution of phoric items across different elements of nominal group structure" is irrelevant to "textual generalisations at the level of grammar" since reference is not a system of the nominal group.  On the other hand, viewing the grammar in terms of structure is at odds with SFL theory, in which priority is given to the view from above, which, in terms of axis, is to system rather than structure.

[2] Given that Martin's model is concerned with 'reference as semantic choice', and that reference is a grammatical system, "the relevant generalisations at the level of grammar" are already provided the theorists whose work Martin sources; see, for example, Halliday (1985).

[3] Here again Martin gives priority to the view 'from below' in terms of axis, structure over system, and supplements this with the view 'from' below' in terms of the rank scale, by classifying nominal groups in terms of the word classes that realise them (pronoun, proper noun, common noun).  That is, Martin's view is neither systemic not functional, being concerned instead with structure and form.

[4] Here again Martin confuses reference items with one of the grammatical domains in which they occur, the nominal group, and completely ignores the other grammatical domain: the adverbial group.

Relating Phoricity Types To Nominal Group Structure

Martin (1992: 135):

Setting aside the Qualifier, the range of different types of phoricity across elements of nominal group structure is outlined in Fig. 3.13.

Deictic	Post-Deictic	Numerative	Epithet	Classifier	Thing
reminding					reminding
	————— relevance ————–——
	——————————————————————— redundancy

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, reference ("phoric") items are not elements of the function structure of any grammatical unit, and the nominal group is not the only domain from which they make cohesive (non-structural) relations.

[2] To be clear, reminding phoricity is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) personal and demonstrative (co-)reference, misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.  The actual domains in which these items appear are given by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628, 629) as follows:





[3] To be clear, relevance phoricity is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.  The actual domains in which these items appear are given by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 633) as follows:



[4] To be clear, redundancy phoricity is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) ellipsis–&–substitution, misunderstood as a type of reference, and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.  The actual domains in which these operations can take place are given by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 633) as follows:

Misinterpreting Substitution-&-Ellipsis As Reference

Martin (1992: 135):

In addition, redundancy phoricity is operative [in nominal group structure], with one/ones substituting for the Thing, or with ellipsis presuming elements of structure left-wards from the Thing. Substitution is exemplified in the second clause of [3:70], ellipsis in the third.

[3:70]	Do you have any other woks?
	— We have those other two large aluminium ones.
	— Those two would be nice.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "redundancy phoricity" is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) substitution and ellipsis, misunderstood as a type of reference, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics.  Moreover, ellipsis sets up a cohesive relation that is grammatical, not semantic.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

But unlike reference, which is itself a semantic relation, ellipsis sets up a relationship that is not semantic but lexicogrammatical — a relationship in the wording rather than directly in the meaning.

[2] To be clear, substitution and ellipsis are not limited to the nominal group.  The three grammatical domains are the clause, the verbal group and the nominal group (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 635-6).  Martin's "redundancy phoricity" does not account for the discourse semantics of substitution and ellipsis in the clause and verbal group.

[3] To be clear, in SFL terms, those illustrates demonstrative anaphoric co-reference.

Misunderstanding Grammaticalisation

Martin (1992: 134):

Grammaticalising Phoricity 

As far as nominal group structure is concerned, phoric items function in all places except the Classifier.  Reminding phoricity is realised through the Deictic and Thing; relevance phoricity is realised through Deictic, Post-Deictic, Numerative and Epithet — with supersets presumed by the Deictic, Numerative and Epithet and relevant sets by the Post-Deictic, Numerative and Epithet.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, this misunderstands the concept of grammaticalisation, the process of becoming grammatical, which in SFL terms, is the movement of lexicogrammatical potential from the more delicate 'lexical zone' to the more general 'grammatical zone' over semogenetic time.  Here Martin uses 'grammaticalising' merely to mean 'looking (at phoricity) from a grammatical angle'.

On the other hand, it is misleading, since the entire discussion has been concerned with grammar (nominal group and clause functions, etc.).  Given that Martin's aim is to argue that his system is discourse semantic, and not grammatical, this misunderstanding serves Martin's interest.

[2] To be clear, reference (phoric) items do not function as part of nominal group structure; this misunderstanding arises from confusing the deictic function of determiners (interpersonal, nominal group structure) with the reference function of determiners (textual, non-structural).  Rather, the nominal group is one of two domains in which reference items appear.  The other domain, the adverbial group, is ignored by Martin's model, which means that it does not provide the semantic counterpart of what is realised by reference items in this domain.

[3] To be clear, 'reminding phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) personal and demonstrative (co-)reference, misunderstood, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics. 

[4] To be clear, 'relevance phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics.

[5] To be clear, the actual grammatical domains in which co-reference ("reminding phoricity") items and comparative reference ("relevance phoricity") appear are identified by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 626):