David Rose Misunderstanding Markedness

David Rose replied to Brad Smith on asflanet on 2 Sept 2024, at 21:21:

As you say, it’s related to instantiation, specifically the probability of instantiation... less likely choices are more marked. That gets you into knots with tone 1 imperatives here, which you say are ‘unmarked’ but are no more frequent than other tones in your data. A problem may be ambiguity of the term ‘neutral’. It can mean unmarked, but in Halliday’s key system it means neutral force, in contrast to mild, strong etc.

PS Key treats grammar/tone couplings as delicate mood choices, but another perspective is delicate speech function and appraisal choices... ‘what a command is trying to get done ‘

and on 3 Sept, at 13:27:

In contrast, marked/unmarked are used technically as feature labels in textual systems, theme and information focus. Could we perhaps avoid using these terms quasi-technically in pedagogic contexts, and reserve them for textual features? The ‘good reason’ is textual prominence.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there is no problem here because markedness is not defined by frequency. Halliday (2005 [1991]: 68):

An unmarked term is a default condition: that which is selected unless there is good reason for selecting some other term. It is not defined by frequency, but it is likely to correspond to the more probable term in a system whose probabilities are skew.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 169) identify the different speech functions realised by imperative mood realised by different tones as follows:

command: tone 1 (unmarked in positive)
invitation: tone 3 (unmarked in negative)
request (marked polarity): tone 13, with tonic on do/don’t
plea: tone 4

The frequency of a selected tone will thus vary with the frequency of a selected speech function realised by imperative mood in a given text type, and this varies with the tenor relations of the interlocutors.

[2] This misunderstands the distinction between a feature and a classification of feature. In Halliday's system of KEY, Halliday & Greaves (2008: 208) 'neutral' is one of the features, not a classification of a feature as neutral or unmarked:

[3] This misrepresents the SFL model. To be clear, SPEECH FUNCTION (semantics) is realised by MOOD (lexicogrammar), and different features of KEY (lexicogrammar), realised by different features of TONE (phonology), differentiate the SPEECH FUNCTION of a MOOD into more delicate types. An example is the case of commands being differentiated into invitations, requests and pleas according to the tone selection, as in [1] above.

[4] To be clear, the unmarked/marked distinction is not restricted to features of textual systems, as demonstrated by the unmarked/marked distinction for the system of TONE, which realises interpersonal systems. Another interpersonal example is the unmarked choice of Subject; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 194):

For any clause, there is one choice of Subject that is ‘unmarked’ – that is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In a giving clause (offer or statement), the unmarked Subject is ‘I’; while in a demanding clause (question or command), the unmarked Subject is ‘you’.

An experiential example is unmarked/marked distinction for present tense, which varies according to PROCESS TYPE. 

[5] This misunderstands the 'good reason' principle. To be clear, 'textual prominence' is what choosing an element as Theme or New affords, and this is the case whether the choice is unmarked or marked. The 'good reason' principle, on the other hand, is what lies behind the choice of a marked option in preference to the unmarked option.

Brad Smith On Phonological Congruence And His Problem With Markedness

Brad Smith replied to ChRIS CLÉiRIGh on asflanet on 3 September 2024 at 9:43 :

… in the SFL material I was browsing through yesterday afternoon, the terms unmarked and congruent seemed to be used more or less interchangeably.

I am not seeking to find the canonical definition to follow, but working out my own ideas on this (I believe, as a Doctor, this is not only my right but my responsibility!). The quoted passage from my YouTube lecture script, I think, is probably where I land on this: congruence, at least, relates, as you have said, to an inter-stratal relation, specifically what is being demanded of clause and tone group by the discourse semantics (that's my current take on this aspect). …

There are other, similarly troublesome issues of terminology and symbolism in SFL: for example, the same symbol, with minor, inconsequential adjustment, is used for both structural ordering and for a silent Ictus! …

In terms of intonation, however, unlike much of the rest of his work, this has not, relatively speaking, happened as much as I think Halliday wished or expected - for example, the functions of tonicity are still discussed in terms of (Given-New) structure; when the real game, for me, has always been, what gets chosen as focus against the background of what could have been chosen?...i.e. what is the systemic potential for a textual choice? (which, when you start to consider it, is a question with a lot of implications, including for theoretical accounts). 

Markedness is not a systemic description, it is a post hoc account of the valeur of certain choices: we consider, for example, which systemic option in the system of mood is unmarked; but this assignment of markedness, however, is not itself a systemic description - the systemic description of mood is declarative, polar interrogative etc. - We still have to work out what the actual potential for choice is for systems of tonicity, salience etc. (eg within/outside of the mood block can, in some texts, be consequential).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as demonstrated in the previous post, Smith's 'current take' on the interchangeability of 'unmarked' and 'congruent' is a theoretically invalid misunderstanding.

[2] To be clear, the troublesome issue here is using the symbol ^ for ordering (a^b) and the symbol ‸ for silent Ictus (/‸ /).

[3] To be clear, every non-tonic salient syllable realises what could have been selected as the tonic that realises the Focus of New information. The choice of the Given + New structure of an information unit, on the other hand, is a grammatical selection: tonicity is the phonological means of realising it.

[4] This misunderstands 'valeur'. To be clear, 'valeur' (Saussure) is the value of a term in a system in relation to the other terms.

[5] To be clear, descriptive terms like 'declarative', 'polar interrogative' etc. are features that describe language, whereas theoretical terms like 'unmarked' describe the features.

[6] To be clear, a selection of tonic placement realises a selection of a Focus of New information, which gives textual prominence to one or more functional elements of mood (and transitivity and thematic) structure.

David Rose On "Tonic Focus" As A Probe For Markedness

David Rose replied to Dongbing Zhang on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, at 15:21:

Ah, but isn’t the probe for markedness tonic focus? (Themes underlined)...

unmarked

// those who have guns have them lègally //

marked

equative

// those who have gùns // are the ones who have them lègally //

predicated

// it is those who have gùns // who have them lègally //

So the textual function of the Qualifier is IDENTIFICATION rather than PERIODICITY. Back to Bea’s questions, those is esphoric to the embedded Attribute have guns and them is anaphoric to guns (per ET).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "tonic focus" is not the probe for markedness. Tonic prominence is the phonological realisation of the focus of New information. An unmarked Theme can be realised by tonic prominence, making it New as well as unmarked Theme.

[2] As a spoken reading reveals, the most likely first tonic in these instances is hàve, not gùns, making the possessing of guns the focus of New information, which is consistent with the issue at stake.

[3] To be clear, the Theme in this thematic equative construction is unmarked, because it conflates with the Subject in a declarative clause:

[4] To be clear, this non-sequitur is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. The Qualifier in question is who have guns. IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammatical system of reference as his discourse semantic system, and PERIODICITY is Martin's rebranding of writing pedagogy ('Topic Sentence' etc.) mixed with Halliday's grammatical systems of THEME and INFORMATION.

In terms of SFL Theory, textually, the Qualifier is the referent of a demonstrative reference item (those, the) in the same nominal group, and has the status of Given or New information in an unmarked Theme:

[5] This is essentially true, except for the misleading omission of the very important fact that the analysis actually derives from Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976). The only contribution of English Text (Martin 1992) was to relabel Halliday & Hasan 'structural cataphora' as Martin's 'esphora' — a term adapted from Ellis (1971). It is very misleading indeed to credit Martin with Halliday & Hasan's original ideas.

David Rose Misunderstanding Textual Prominence

 After BEATRIZ QUIROZ asked on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, at 02:19:

How would you analyse the following clauses in terms of the ideational (transitivity) and textual metafunctions:

Those who have guns have them legally, …

the majority of people who have guns have them to protect themselves

(no any other punctuation in the original clauses found on the internet)

If “those who have guns” and “the majority of people who have guns” are [nominal groups with] embedded clauses realising a Participant within their respective single clauses, what is the function of “them”? a[s] an Attribute in a attributive possessive clause picking out “guns” from the embedded clause realising the Carrier (IFG4, p. 289)? Or is this some kind of structure giving special textual prominence to “those who have guns” and “the majority of people who have guns”? Or both?

 

David Rose replied on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, 10:07:

Here’s my auty answer. First question -Yes. Second question -No. The Qualifiers function to specify the Carriers’ identity, not to mark them textually. So much of this has been worked out or flagged for further work in English Text, which continually acknowledges the work of others who went before it. ...

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the 'special textual prominence' of those who have guns and the majority of people who have guns, that Quiroz seeks, is simply that each of these unmarked Themes is also coterminous with an information unit:

(The information analysis is based on the tonic falling on the first have and legally in the first clause, and on majority and protect in the clause complex.)

The important difference between the two is that the first has unmarked information structure (Given^New), whereas the second has marked information structure (New^Given).

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, the question is about the nominal groups serving as Carrier, not about the Qualifiers of such nominal groups, and on the other hand, a Qualifier relates to the Thing of the nominal group, so it does not "specify the Carrier's identity".

[3] To be clear, "so much of this" was first "worked out" by Halliday. English Text (1992) is merely Martin's later misunderstanding of Halliday's original theorising, as demonstrated here.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. See David Rose Positively Judging Martin (1992).

Shooshi Dreyfus On 'Does'

After William Armour wrote to sys-func on 29 January at 13:19

1) Is the function of the 'does' in

While this notion does make sense on the surface,

one of emphasis, or something else?

2) How does it compare to

While this notion makes sense on the surface,

? No emphasis?

Shooshi Dreyfus replied on 12 February at 07:49:

And building on these comments, surely you can’t look at this properly till you see the co-text? Firstly, it’s a dependent clause and in order for us to understand it we need to see not only the independent clause with which it must be paired but also the rest of the text so we can see the prosody being “carried” through the rest of the text? Surely the “does”, in part, gets its meaning from all those other meanings around it that are contributing to whatever “argument” is being built here?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be sure, the significant differences between the two clauses can be "looked at properly" by applying SFL theory, even in the absence of co-text:

While	this notion	does	make	sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct: qualified: validity
'reservation'				'reservation'
Given		New: contrastive	Given		New: contrastive

While	this notion	makes		sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct: qualified: validity
'reservation'
Given					New: contrastive

To be clear, both variants could be instantiated with the exact same co-text.

[2] To be sure, it is not necessary to see any other clauses in order to understand the differences between the two presented for discussion, as [1] above demonstrates.

[3] To be sure, any prosodies "being carried through the rest of the text" are relevant to the rest of the text.  The prosody "being carried through" the instances in question is TONE 4 which here realises the KEY feature 'reservation'.  However, this doesn't distinguish the two clauses, since it is instantiated in both.  The distinction between them is informational (textual), dependent on whether or not the Finite can be highlighted as contrastive.

[4] To be sure, the meaning of does is realised by its congruent grammatical function in this instance.

David Banks On 'Does'

After William Armour wrote to sys-func on 29 January at 13:19:

1) Is the function of the 'does' in

While this notion does make sense on the surface,

one of emphasis, or something else?

2) How does it compare to

While this notion makes sense on the surface,

? No emphasis?

David Banks replied on 11 February at 19:46:

I'm not sure that "emphasis" is the "mot juste". I think context is important: (1) seems to imply a context where the opposite (".. does not make sense ..") has at least been envisaged by the proponents in the discourse. (2) seems to be neutral in this respect.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the difference between the wording of (1) and (2) is that the former distinguishes the Finite from the Predicator, whereas the latter conflates them:

While	this notion	does	make	sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
	Mood		Residue

While	this notion	makes		sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
	Mood		Residue

The separation in (1) makes it possible to single out the Finite does as the focus of New information ("emphasis"):

While	this notion	does	make	sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
Given		New: contrastive	Given		New: contrastive

[2] To be clear, in (1), the "opposite context" is realised in language, on the one hand, by highlighting both the positive polarity of the Finite does and the qualified validity of the comment Adjunct on the surface as contrastive New information.

On the other hand, the "opposite context" is also realised in language by the choice of KEY.  The unmarked TONE feature for such a dependent clause is tone 4 (fall-rise), which, in the case of declarative MOOD, can realise 'reservation'.  In (1), 'reservation' is instantiated twice, with positive polarity and qualified validity the focus of each.

[3] To be clear, it is not that (2) is "neutral in this respect", but that 'reservation' is only instantiated once, with the qualified validity of the comment Adjunct as the only contrastive focus.

While	this notion	makes		sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
Given					New: contrastive