Problems With The Authors' Negotiation System Network

Martin & Rose (2007: 252-3):

Above SPEECH FUNCTION, in the discourse semantics, we have the system of NEGOTIATION, which sequences moves. The basic system allows for exchanges consisting of between one and five moves, as outlined in Figure 7.6. 

In addition there are tracking and challenging options which have not been included in the network. Either can increase the number of moves an exchange works through before establishing its obligatory K1 or A1 move; and in many cases challenges abort an exchange completely by refusing to comply and perhaps leading the negotiation off in another direction (by initiating a new exchange).

The different roles of dKl, K2, K1, K2f, K1f, dA1, A2, A1, A2f, A1f and tracking or challenging moves can be shown in analysis by modelling the former as constituency to the left of the move labels, and the latter as dependency to the right:

 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for the system of NEGOTIATION to be above the system of SPEECH FUNCTION on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics, there needs to be a scale on which these two systems can be ranked as higher or lower. Martin & Rose have not proposed any such rank scale here.

[2] To be clear, the network does not specify the sequence of moves — it merely specifies which moves can be selected; but see [3] below.

[3] This is misleading, because it is not true. The network specifies either:

• an anticipatory primary initiation OR
• a nuclear primary initiation OR
• a secondary initiation

and, in the case of action, either immediate or prospective compliance. That is, these two systems  of the network specify two — and only 2 — moves.

The third system is incoherent, because it misconstrues the presence or absence of a primary follow up move as more delicate options of secondary follow up move. That is, it confuses paradigmatic delicacy with syntagmatic sequence.

See also the clarifying critique of the first appearance of this network, Figure 7.2, here.

[4] To be clear, the failure to include these tracking and challenging options in the network is a serious shortcoming of the NEGOTIATION system, since, in SFL Theory, it is the system that specifies structures.

Misconstruing A Clause Beneficiary As A Nominal Group Qualifier

Martin & Rose (2007: 112):

In the following example the processes of ‘exposing’ and ‘humiliating’ become things that qualify the penalty, and are themselves qualified by their participant the perpetrator:

Blogger Comments:

Original Text:

Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.

Here Martin & Rose misconstrue an element of clause structure (Beneficiary) as an element of nominal group structure (Qualifier):

Thus	there	is	the penalty of public exposure and humiliation	for the perpetrator
		Process	Existent	Beneficiary

The fact that the prepositional phrase for the perpetrator serves a function at clause rank, and not group rank, is demonstrated by the fact that, unlike a nominal group Qualifier, it can be relocated to other parts of the clause:

1. Thus, for the perpetrator, there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation.
2. Thus there is, for the perpetrator, the penalty of public exposure and humiliation.

The Argument For Particles Of Phrasal Verbs As More Central In The Verbal Group

Martin & Rose (2007: 98):

More central on the other hand are Particles in prepositional verbs, which comprise a single lexical item:

These can often be paraphrased with a simple verb, e.g. radiate, beware, research, abuse.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the criterion for nuclearity in this instance is lexical, rather than syntagmatic (grammatical), as for some of the previous instances. The argument here is that the particle of a phrasal verb is more central to the verbal group because the entire phrasal verb can be paraphrased as simple verbs.

The problem here is that, even ignoring the fact that 'particle' is a class of form, not a function, in SFL theory, such particles, whether prepositions or adverbs, are not constituents of the verbal group.  Again, Martin & Rose have mistaken a clause rank relation (Predicator^Adjunct) for a group rank relation (Event^Particle).

Verbal groups realise the clause structure Finite + Predicator (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 362), whereas the particle of a phrasal verb, as preposition group or adverbial group, realises the clause function Adjunct; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417):

 

Cf.

beam	out
Predicator	Adjunct

look	out
Predicator	Adjunct

look	up
Predicator	Adjunct

scream	at
Predicator	Adjunct

The Argument For Quality As Peripheral In The Verbal Group

Martin & Rose (2007: 97):

Second, Events may be described with Qualities (manner adverbs in traditional grammar), that are more peripheral:

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose mistake clause rank relations for group rank relations.  To be clear, in SFL theory, Quality is not a functional element of the verbal group.  The four examples provided are (partial) clause rank structures:

shake	uncontrollably
Process	Manner: quality

visit	regularly
Process	Extent: interval

mutter	abruptly
Process	Manner: quality

sits	motionless
Process	depictive Attribute

Note that, experientially, regularly is not the manner of 'visiting' ('visiting in a regular way'), but the extent of doing so ('visiting at regular intervals').

Further, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 208) point out, qualities can be construed as participant (Attribute), as circumstance (Manner), or as a feature of the Process (e.g. qualitative Process):

[2] Trivially, if Quality were a functional element of the verbal group, the relation to the Event would be one of qualification (enhancement), not "description" (elaboration).

[3] Here Martin & Rose provide no reason whatsoever as to why Qualities are to be categorised as peripheral.

Mistaking Verbal Group Complexes (And A Clause Complex) For Verbal Groups

Martin & Rose (2007: 97):

In verbal groups, we are concerned with just three functional elements. First, the lexical process in a verbal group is known as the Event, for example: was working, won’t see, was to learn, can't explain. A verbal group may include more than one Event, comprising separate lexical processes: 

Blogger Comment:

[1] Here Martin & Rose confuse lexis ("lexical") with clause grammar ("process") and identify the confusion with one element of verbal group structure (Event).  In SFL theory, the Process of a clause is realised by a verbal group, verbal group + 'particle', or verbal group complex.

[2] Here Martin & Rose mistake projecting and extending hypotactic verbal group complexes for verbal groups.

claim	"	to be
try	+	to resist
α		β

In SFL theory, a verbal group features only one Event.

The authors' final example of a verbal group, on the other hand, involves two distinct Processes, die and trying, and so involves two distinct clauses.

Confusing Composition With Realisation

Martin & Rose (2007: 96):

Nuclear relations below the clause
Below the clause, processes, participants and circumstances are themselves made up of groups of words, including lexical items. In Halliday’s 1994/2004 model, clause, group and word are different ranks in the grammar; a clause is realised by a configuration of word groups, each of which is realised by a configuration of words. As with the clause, nuclear relations also pertain between lexical words in groups. To describe these relations, we need to distinguish two kinds of word groups — nominal groups that realise things and people, and verbal groups that realise processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose confuse composition (the rank scale) with realisation (the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction).  In terms of composition, the rank unit, clause, is made up of units of the lower rank, groups and phrases.  In terms of realisation, clause functions, such as Process, are realised by forms, in this case, the verbal group.

In terms of expansion relations, composition is a type of extension, whereas realisation is a type of elaboration.  In terms of symbolic abstraction, the composition of the rank scale is of one level of abstraction, form, whereas realisation relates two distinct levels of abstraction, in this case, function and form.

[2] Here, as throughout this chapter, Martin & Rose confuse two distinct notions of 'word': 'word' as grammatical rank unit and 'word' as lexical item.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568):

The folk notion of the “word” is really a conflation of two different abstractions, one lexical and one grammatical.

[3] Here again Martin & Rose confuse composition (the rank scale) with realisation (the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction).  In SFL theory, a clause is composed of groups (± phrases), each of which is composed of words.  Moreover, each is composed of syntagms of lower rank forms, not configurations, since it is functions, not forms, that are configured.

[4] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not identified what it is that is scaled from nuclear to peripheral in groups, nor the basis on which it is nuclear or peripheral.  Without a clear statement of the underlying principles involved, this is merely an empty exercise in relabelling.

[5] It will be seen, in the discussion of verbal groups, that Martin & Rose mistake elements of clause structure, circumstantial Adjuncts, for elements of verbal group structure.

Medium

Martin & Rose (2007: 91):

Nuclear relations within the clause

To set the scene for exploring nuclear relations, we first need to discuss a few of the semantic patterns within the clause described by Halliday (1994/2004). The essential experiential pattern is that people and things participate in a process. In Halliday’s terms the core participant in the process is known as its Medium, ‘without which there would be no process’. Here are some familiar examples:

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's (1992) model of 'nuclear relations' is Halliday's ergative model of clause transitivity, misunderstood, and relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.  See the clarifying critiques here.

[2] To be clear, the subtitle of this publication is Meaning Beyond The Clause.  Martin's model of nuclear relations is concerned with the realisation of meaning as wording — within the clause.

[3] To be clear, 'people and things' are realised at the rank of group, not clause.

[4] To be clear, the Medium is the participant through which the Process is actualised (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 336).  The Medium is not obligatory in medio-receptive clauses like you were seen, they were told etc., or location-receptive clauses like this bed hasn't been slept in.

[5] To be clear, the mood Adjuncts even and never do not serve any experiential function, let alone Process.