The Discourse Semantic System Of Participant Identification

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 285):

Textually, from the discourse semantic perspective of participant identification (Working with Discourse Chapter 5), we also have to keep track of which wave we're talking about, since the text involves more than one of them. Decitic [sic], Post-Deictic, Numerative and Thing functions make important contributions to this process. The comparative another introduces the second wave in relation to the first and the third set of waves in relation to the second; and more presents further waves in relation to these.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the discourse system of IDENTIFICATION (Martin 1992) is a confusion of two grammatical systems: cohesive reference and deixis, further confused with reference in the sense of ideational denotation. Evidence here.

[2] For a close examination of some of the theoretical problems with the discourse system of IDENTIFICATION in Chapter 5 of Working with Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), see the clarifying critiques here.

[3] To be clear, it is not the speaker who has to "keep track" of which wave he is talking about, but the addressee.

[4] To be clear, this confuses subcategorisation of the Thing in nominal group structure (Deictic, post-Deictic, Numerative, Thing) with the cohesive relation between a reference item and its referent, and the lexically cohesive relation between repeated instances of the same word (wave).

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this is known as comparative reference; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 632-4).

Misrepresenting Identifiability As A Textual Function Of Nominal Group Structure

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 225):

For example, the textual metafunction deals with thematicity at clause rank (in terms of thematic structure) but with identifiability at group rank (in terms of deictic items, as in this hall vs. a hall).

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it misrepresents identifiability as the group rank analogue of thematicity at clause rank.

Firstly, in the nominal group, the textual metafunction is realised throughout the entire structure. Halliday (1994: 191):

Textual meaning is embodied throughout the entire structure, since it determines the order in which the elements are arranged, as well as patterns of information structure just as in the clause … .

Secondly, the initial position of both Theme and Deictic reflects the same textual principle. Halliday (1994: 187):

So the principle that puts the Theme first in the clause is the same as that which puts the Deictic first in the nominal group: start by locating the Thing in relation to the here-&-now – in the space-time context of the ongoing speech event.

But, importantly, this the structural deictic function — the system of DETERMINATION — not the cohesive reference function ("identifiabilty"). That is, the authors have once again confused determination with reference. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 365):

The Deictic element indicates whether or not some specific subset of the Thing is intended; and if so, which. The nature of the Deictic is determined by the system of DETERMINATION. The primary distinction is between (i) specific or (ii) non-specific.

Thirdly, the irrelevant notion of 'identifiability' is itself a misunderstanding of cohesive reference, because it misconstrues the recoverable identity of a reference item as the identifiability of the nominal group featuring the reference item.

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':

Serious Problems That Invalidate The 'Classifying' Subtype Of Focus

   Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 170):

The Focus element can have a range of functions, which are outlined in Table 5.7 below.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, contrary to the above, the 'classifying' subtype of Focus does not classify a sub-type of the Thing. Instead, it simply construes the notion of 'subtype'. 

In the second two editions of IFG (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004; 2014: 395), this type of construction is interpreted as an extended Numerative:

The problem here is that 'type (quality)' is inconsistent with the category meaning of 'Numerative'. Halliday (1985: 163; 1994: 183):

The Numerative element indicates some numerical feature of the subset: either quantity or order, either exact or inexact.

On the other hand, in the first two editions of IFG (Halliday 1985; 1994), this type of construction is not identified as one in which Head and Thing are out of phase, so it is simply a case of Head/Thing conflation:

This interpretation is supported by the fact the Head is also the entity that functions as participant in the transitivity system (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 394). For example, it is the Head element that is also the Thing to which Attributes are assigned:

This kind of X is tasty.

This type of X is unreliable.

This class of X is superior.

This category of X is illegal.

This brand of X is over-priced.

This make of X is downmarket.

This form of X is beautiful.

This variety of X is popular.

This species of X is endangered.

Problems With The 'Perspective' Subtype Of Focus

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 170):

The Focus element can have a range of functions, which are outlined in Table 5.7 below.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the Focus subtype 'perspective' combines nominal groups with Pre-Deictics with nominal groups with Head and Thing conflated. 

The Pre-Deictic expressions are side, top, front, back, foot, peak, summit, root, start, end:

The Head/Thing nominal groups feature picture, painting, photo, drawing:

To be clear, in such nominal groups, picture, painting, photo, drawing is the entity that functions as the participant in the transitivity structure, and so, as Thing as well as Head. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):

What all these [out-of-phase constructions] have in common is that, while the Thing (e.g. coffee) is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause, the logical Head of the construction is something that constrains the entity in terms of the two variables mentioned above. It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.

For example, in the clause Oscar burnt a picture of Dorian, the thing that was burnt was the picture, not Dorian.

Not Acknowledging Or Distinguishing Pre-Deictics And Pre-Numeratives

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 169-70):

However, there is one situation where the two types of structure are out of phase with one another even though the nominal group is a full one (see IFG2: 195-196, IFG3: 332-5 for grammatical indications of the two structures being out of phase). This happens when the Head is a noun that does not represent a thing in its own right but rather an elaboration or extension of another thing, as in the side of the house, two metres of fabric, another cup of coffee. In such cases the multivariate and univariate structures are out of phase with one another:

Here the univariate Head has a kind of ‘numerative’ function, but in fact, the full potential of the nominal group (including Deictic, Post-Deictic and Numerative) is still available after this initial Numerative choice. We might have, for example, two metres of the first fabric [[I looked at]].

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. IFG2 (Halliday 1994: 195-6) makes a distinction between structures exemplified by the side of the house versus two metres of fabric. The former type involves a Pre-Deictic element, while it is only the latter type that involves a Pre-Numerative:

 

Note that, in Matthiessen's editions of IFG (2004: 333; 2014: 395), this distinction is lost, as both types are interpreted as extended Numeratives, despite the fact that Pre-Deictics are types (qualities), not measures (quantities).

[2] This is potentially misleading, because this fact is already acknowledged in IFG2 (Halliday 1994: 195):

In the experiential structure, therefore, it is the Numerative that is embedded; and since it is embedded, it comes to the front and may be followed by a fully structured nominal even beginning with a Deictic, as in a cup of that good strong tea.

and it is this that motivates the terms 'Pre-Numerative' and 'Pre-Deictic'.

Seriously Misrepresenting Nominal Group Deixis

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 167):

The Deictic provides the key to the textual status of the particular referent presented by the nominal group. For example, his dog, that dog, the dog are all shown to be identifiable or recoverable by the hearer, whereas a dog, some dogs are shown to be non-recoverable. The Deictic thus ‘contextualises’ the nominal group (compare the way a Theme ‘contextualises’ a clause). The choices associated with the Deictic all concern particular referents at a given point in the discourse – their recoverability status, their location relative to the speaker, etc. At the same time, the Deictic also embodies the interpersonal orientation of the group: it indicates whether the group gives information (e.g. this dog, a dog) or demands information (e.g. which dog?).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misrepresents the function of the Deictic as an element of nominal group structure. As Halliday (1985: 160; 1994: 181) explains:

The Deictic element indicates whether or not some specific subset of the Thing is intended; and if so, which. It is either (i) specific or (ii) non-specific.

This is the nominal group system of DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 365, 366):

[2] Here again the authors mistake nominal groups that either feature a reference item (his, that, the), or don't, for referents. To be clear, the referent is that which is referred to by his, that, the. And again, the authors mistake the recoverable identity signalled by the reference item (e.g. the person signalled by his) for the identifiability (of the Thing) of nominal group featuring the reference item (his dog).

Importantly, reference is not a system of the nominal group (or any other grammatical unit) because it is not a relation that is realised through nominal group structure. The recoverable identity of a reference item lies outside the nominal group featuring the reference item.

[3] This is very misleading. It is not the reference item that 'contextualises the nominal group', as Theme 'contextualises the clause', but the Deictic element as specified by the system of DETERMINATION (see [1] above). Halliday (1985: 166; 1994: 187) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 381):

So there is a progression in the nominal group from the kind of element that has the greatest specifying potential to that which has the least; and this is the principle of ordering that we have already recognised in the clause. In the clause, the Theme comes first. We begin by establishing relevance: stating what it is that we are using to introduce this clause into the discourse, as ‘this is where I’m starting from’ – typically, though by no means necessarily, something that is already ‘given’ in the context. In the nominal group, we begin with the Deictic: ‘first I’ll tell you which I mean’, your, these, any, a, etc. So the principle that puts the Theme first in the clause is the same as that which puts the Deictic first in the nominal group: start by locating the Thing in relation to the here-&-now – in the space-time context of the ongoing speech event.

[4] To be clear, this is indeed the system of DETERMINATION, not REFERENCE (see [1] above).