Seriously Misrepresenting The Logical Structure Of The Verbal Group

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 164):

In addition, this Head may be expanded by other words; these serve the general function of Modifier. In the most expanded examples above, there are several instances of the Modifier function:

… To show this step-wise modification, we can represent the structure as a series of linked elements denoted by small Greek letters, with α for the Head and β, γ, δ etc. for successive Modifiers. For example:

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the representation of the logical structure of the nominal group is potentially misleading. Halliday (1994: 191) represents the structure as:

On the other hand, the representation of the logical structure of the verbal group is seriously misleading in what it portrays as elements and by including the word functioning as Event in the recursive relation. Cf Halliday (1994: 200):

To be clear, the logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. Because of this, it is realisation of the primary tense that functions as Head and the realisation of secondary tenses that function as Modifier. 

Halliday (1994: 199, 198) clarifies the realisations of tense:

and illustrates such realisations of tense as structural elements:

And it is because the logical structure realises tense as a recursive relation that the Event is not an element in the notation. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411n):

A major point of difference between the verbal group and the nominal group is that the Event (unlike the Thing) is not the point of departure for the recursive modifying relationship. Hence it does not figure as an element in the notation.

The experiential and logical structures of this verbal group are actually as follows: