A Problem With Exercise 5: Distinguishing Auxiliary From Lexical Verbs

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 218):

Exercise 5 Distinguishing auxiliary from lexical verbs

Analyse the verbal groups in the following clauses, taking into account the difference between have and be as verbal group auxiliaries or as Processes in relational clauses. See Chapter 4, 3.5 (iii).

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

A Problem With Exercise 3: Analysing Non-finite Groups

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 217):

Exercise 3 Analysing non-finite groups

Analyse the non-finite verbal groups in the following clauses (beginning the analysis with β). In addition to analysing for tense, voice and polarity, mark the non-finite group as perfective (per) or imperfective (imp) on the β. See 2.2.7.

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

A Problem With Exercise 2: Analysing Modalised Groups

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 216):

Exercise 2 Analysing modalised groups

Analyse the modalised verbal groups in the following clauses, taking note of passives where present:

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

A Problem With Exercise 1: Analysing Verbal Groups With Secondary Tenses

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 216):

Exercise 1 Analysing verbal groups with secondary tenses

Analyse the verbal groups in the following clauses and name the tense:

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

A Problem With Exercise 5: Practising Mood And Polarity Agnation

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 214):

Exercise 5 Practising MOOD and POLARITY agnation

Analyse the verbal groups in the following clauses; construct agnate clauses to complement each example with respect to POLARITY (positive vs negative) and MOOD (declarative vs interrogative vs imperative).

 

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

A Problem With Exercise 2: Analysing Groups With Simple Tenses

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 213-4):

Exercise 2 Analysing groups with simple tenses

Analyse the verbal groups in the following clauses:

1. That giant alone has a most voracious appetite.
2. If I was a titchy little runty giant only twenty-four feet high then...
3. She and the big friendly giant sat quietly on the blue rock...
4. She is famous for her kindness...
5. He thinks perhaps...
6. We'll go to the Queen!
7. She sees a little girl...
8. ... and there are very few people about in the witching hour.

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

A Problem With Exercise 1: Analysing Simple Groups

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 213):

Exercise 1 Analysing simple groups

Analyse the verbal groups in the following clauses, noting in addition whether the clause is indicative or imperative:

1. I hate them.

2. Put that in the dream...

3. ... Sophie cried.

4. Get me back in your pocket quick...

5. Come on!

6. Let's hurry!

7. She stood up...

8. She sees a little girl...

Blogger Comments:

Here again the authors misrepresent the logical structure of the verbal group by including the Event as an element, and thereby mislead the reader to do likewise. 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.

Problems With Exercise 4: Analysing Groups With Focus

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 210-1):

Exercise 4 Analysing groups with Focus

Analyse the following nominal groups, noting embeddings and noting sub-types of Focus as perspective (persp), re-counting (re-c), partitive (part), selecting (sel), dimensional (dimen), evaluative (eval) or classifying (class) as required. See 2.1.3 (ii).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, 'Focus' is the authors' unnecessary, and poorly named, rebranding of Halliday's Pre-Deictic and Pre-Numerative, and anomalously includes instances in which Head and Thing are conflated.

[2] See Problems With The 'Perspective' Subtype Of Focus.

[3] See Rebranding Halliday's 'Complex' Numeratives As The Authors' 'Re-counting' & 'Partitive' Subtypes Of Focus.

[4] See The 'Selecting' Subtype Of Focus As A Confusion Of Numeratives And Epithets.

[5] See A Serious Problem That Invalidates The 'Dimensional' Subtype Of Focus.

[6] See The 'Evaluative' Subtype Of Focus Reconsidered.

[7] See Serious Problems That Invalidate The 'Classifying' Subtype Of Focus.

[8] To be clear, the example nominal group misrepresents the embedded unit [the top of] as [the top]. In IFG terms (Halliday 1994), the embedded unit serves as Pre-Deictic:

The Problem With Exercise 5: Recognising Pre-Elements

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 208):

Exercise 5 Recognising Pre-elements

Analyse the following nominal groups, labelling Focus, Deictic, Numerative, Epithet, Classifier, Thing, Qualifier as required. See 2.1.3 (ii).

1. both his maths exams
2. his two maths exams
3. some of the wine
4. the first light of day
5. the top of the cupboard with mirrors

6. one of the most popular writers of thrillers

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of a Focus element is theoretically redundant and internally inconsistent.

[2] From the perspective of SFL Theory (Halliday 1985, 1994), the 'Focus' in each of these nominal groups is a Pre-Numerative:

[3] From the perspective of SFL Theory (Halliday 1985, 1994), the 'Focus' in each of these nominal groups is a Pre-Deictic:

[4] To be clear, in these two nominal groups, Head and Thing are 'in phase':

Needlessly Rebranding Halliday's 'Pre-Deictic' As The Authors' 'Focus'

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 205):

the bottom of the mug is best analysed as [Focus:] the bottom of + [Deictic:] the + [Thing:] mug.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. To be clear, the 'best analysis', in this context, is one that is consistent with the work that this publication purports to use as its reference, Halliday (1994: 196), which uses the term 'Pre-Deictic' for such elements:

Dependent vs Embedded Prepositional Phrases

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 200):

Given this situation, it may not be obvious why the prepositional phrase is not regarded as an embedded Qualifier. The difference is that a phrase linked to a nominal group within a complex does not define the nominal group. For this reason it can be used with a proper name; and there is a contrast in meaning between (a) [α:] Margaret, [β:] in a yellow raincoat, greeted us and (b) the woman [in a yellow raincoat] greeted us. In (a), the referent of the nominal group has already been established and Margaret is sufficient to identify her. In contrast, in (b), the prepositional phrase in a yellow raincoat is needed to define the referent of the nominal group of which it is part. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. On the one hand, a non-defining prepositional phrase can also elaborate nominal groups without a proper name, as exemplified by the woman, in a yellow raincoat, greeted us, where the sense is 'who was incidentally wearing a yellow raincoat':

On the other hand, a defining prepositional phrase can also qualify a proper name in a nominal group, as exemplified by the Margaret in a yellow raincoat greeted us, where the sense is 'not the Margaret in a red raincoat':

[2] To be clear, the distinction here is simply between 'non-defining' and 'defining'. In (a), the prepositional phrase is agnate to a non-defining relative clause, whereas in (b), it is agnate to a defining relative clause. A non-defining relative clause serves as an elaborating unit in a complex, whereas a defining relative clause serves as the Qualifier of a nominal group. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 561):

It is important to distinguish between an elaborating group and an embedded group occurring as Qualifier: e.g. (taxis, elaborating) his latest book, ‘The Jaws of Life’, (embedded) his book ‘The Jaws of Life’. The former is related to a non-defining relative; it means ‘his latest book – which is “The Jaws of Life” ’, and is marked by tone concord:

//4 ^ his /latest /book the //4 jaws of /life was a //1 ghastly suc/cess //

The latter is related to a defining relative clause; it means ‘this particular book of his (he has written others)’ and has no tonic prominence on book.

[3] The use of 'referent' here is misleading. Importantly, in SFL Theory, nominal groups do not refer; they realise semantic elements, such as participants. It is reference items that refer, and a nominal group is not a referent unless it is referred to by a reference item elsewhere in a text.

Misrepresenting A Behavioural Clause As Material

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 199):

Blogger Comments:

This analysis is misleading. To be clear, on the criteria of SFL Theory, this clause is a 'near mental' behavioural, not material — not least because the Process necessarily construes a conscious participant. Halliday (1994: 139) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 302):

… Some of those in groups (i)–(iii) also regularly feature a prepositional phrase in it with to, at or on: I’m talking to you, don’t look at me, fortune is smiling on us. These are, in origin, circumstances of Place; in the behavioural context they express orientation but we may continue to use that label. (The verb watch is anomalous: in I’m watching you, the tense suggests a behavioural process but the you appears as a participant, like the Phenomenon of a ‘mental’ clause. Since this is restricted to watch, we can label this participant as Phenomenon, indicating the mental analogue.)

On the model of Halliday (± Matthiessen), the clause can be analysed as:

Misrepresenting The Logical Structure Of Both The Verbal Group And Verbal Group Complex

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 193):

So the greatest challenge is to assign sequences of verbs to either simple verbal groups or hypotactic verbal group complexes. In both environments, the verbs are related in a logical hypotactic series (α β γ δ...) and the line between the two environments is, in principle fuzzy:

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is untrue, since in neither environment are verbs related in a logical hypotactic series. Firstly, in simple verbal groups, it is the expressions of tense — not verbs — that are related hypotactically, because the logical structure realises the system of TENSE. Halliday (1994: 198, 199):

Secondly, in verbal group complexes, it is verbal groups — not verbs — that are related hypotactically:

Distinguishing Post-Deictic And Epithet

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 189):

To test if an adjective is a Post-Deictic, check whether it can come before a Numerative in the structure. If it can, it is a Post-Deictic rather than an Epithet or Classifier. Compare:

Blogger Comments:

This is potentially misleading. Since some adjectives can serve as post-Deictic or Epithet, it is not a matter of whether the adjective can precede the Numerative, but whether the adjective actually does precede the Numerative. This can be demonstrated using the authors' example:

Misrepresenting The Functional Range Of Verbs In Nominal Groups

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 188):

A lexical verb such as wrecked can function as the Event in a verbal group and as Epithet in a nominal group. In any particular instance the syntagmatic environment can be checked. For example, we find that for the example has been wrecked, wrecked is preceded by the auxiliary verb been, whereas in the example the wrecked car, it is preceded by the determiner the and followed by the noun car. This tells us that the first instance is an Event in a verbal group and the second is an Epithet in a nominal group.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, verbs can function in nominal groups as either Epithet or Classifier (Halliday 1994: 185-6).

[2] To be clear, the function of wrecked is 

Epithet if the wrecked car is agnate to the old car (cf. the very old car, the older car), but 

Classifier if the wrecked car is agnate to the abandoned car (not the very abandoned car, the more abandoned car).

Misrepresenting The 'Particles' Of Phrasal Verbs As Part Of The Event Of A Verbal Group

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 187):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the bottom row in Table 5.16 above misrepresents prepositions and adverbs of phrasal verbs as part of Event element of a verbal group. As previously explained, the preposition or adverb of phrasal verbs is not a constituent of verbal groups, but a constituent of its own group which serves as an Adjunct in the interpersonal structure of a clause.

Misrepresenting The Interpersonal Function Served By Phrasal Verbs

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 185-6):

From above, we can probe by considering textual variants of the clause with a marked or predicated Theme. Would it be (a) or (b) below?

The (a) versions are clearly the appropriate ones.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in concocting the unattested clause open up it would another fascinating strand, with open up as marked Theme, the authors misrepresent open up as Predicator. Importantly, the adverb of a phrasal verb serves as Adjunct, rather than part of the Predicator. Halliday (1994: 209):

Misrepresenting The Constituency Of Phrasal Verbs

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 185):

Sequences of verb + preposition + nominal group, as in it would open + up + another fascinating strand, can potentially represent either of two functional configurations. The preposition can be analysed as part of the verbal group (open up) or as combining with the following nominal group to form a prepositional phrase (up another fascinating strand).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this misrepresents the constituency of phrasal verbs. The preposition or adverb of a phrasal verb is not part of a verbal group, and it serves as an Adjunct in the interpersonal structure of a clause, in contradistinction to the verbal group, which serves as the Finite and Predicator:

Halliday (1994: 207, 209):

Phrasal verbs are lexical verbs that consist of more than just the verb word itself. They are of two kinds, plus a third, which is a combination of the other two:

(i) verb + adverb, e.g. look out ‘unearth, retrieve’

(ii) verb + preposition, e.g. look for ‘seek’

(iii) verb + adverb + preposition, e.g. look out for ‘watch for the presence of’

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 181):

When the second verbal group in the series is non-finite, the relationship is one of modification of a Head (referred to as hypotactic) and the α β notation you have met for relations within a group is used to show relations between groups:

One very common type of hypotactic verbal group complex is used to show that Agents have been added to the clause; note that these ‘causative’ complexes are discontinuous (e.g. forced... to be below):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, although not indicated above, the feature 'hypotaxis' is the entry condition to a vast array of relations between verbal groups in verbal group complexes, as shown by the network in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 589):

Misrepresenting Paratactic Verbal Group Complexes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 181):

Verbal groups may be combined into complexes. When combined as additions or alternatives, the relationship is referred to as paratactic (see Chapter 6) and the groups are numbered in sequence. For example:

Blogger Comments:

Here the authors confuse the expansion relation of extension ('additions or alternatives') with the interdependency relation of equal status (parataxis), and thereby give the misleading impression that extension is the only relation that obtains in paratactic verbal group complexes.

To be clear, the three types of expansion obtain in paratactic verbal group complexes. Halliday (1994: 274-5) provides the following examples:

• elaboration (1 = 2): (Unfortunately she) got killed, got run over, (by one of those heavy lorries).
• extension (1 + 2): (I) neither like nor dislike (it).
• enhancement (1 x 2): (He) tried, but failed, (to extract the poison).

Misrepresenting The Logical Structure Of Negative Verbal Groups

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 181):

In general, negative polarity is realised through the modal adverb not. As we have already noted, it may be fused with the Finite verb expressing primary tense or modality: don’t (know), shouldn’t (have come). In such cases the verb in question can be analysed as carrying both polarity and modality: 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here the authors misrepresent the logical structure of verbal groups by including the Event as an element in their 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 logical structure of the first example is thus:

and the second:

In modalised verbal groups, the distinction between 'past' came, 'past in present' has come and 'past in past' had come is neutralised, and represented by the form have come. See Halliday (1994: 201-4).

Misrepresenting The Tense Choices Of A Verbal Group

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 176):

However, the system of tense serialisation makes it possible to choose again from the tense type system to create a tense series of two to five tense choices. Thus the example above is built up as follows:

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Table 5.9 misrepresents the realisations of tense choices in this verbal group. The 2nd choice is secondary past have -en, the 3rd choice is secondary future be going to, and the 4th choice is secondary present be +V-ing:

The realisation of primary and secondary tenses is provided by Halliday (1994: 199):

and, importantly, the Event does not feature in the logical notation, for reasons given by Halliday (1994: 207):

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.

Seriously Misrepresenting The Logical Structure Of A Verbal Group In More Detail

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 175):

The English TENSE system construes the temporal relation between the interpersonal speaking time, ‘now’, and the experiential time of the event, the event time, as a series of one or more temporal relations. Our earlier example contains a series of four tense selections:

Blogger Comments:

Here the authors yet again repeat their misrepresentation of the experiential structure of this verbal group. As previously noted, according to SFL Theory, the experiential structure is:

And again, more importantly, the authors seriously misrepresent the logical structure of this verbal group, but this time with more detail. According to SFL Theory, the logical structure is:

Cf Halliday (1994: 199):