Misrepresenting "The Theoretical Map Within Which Halliday's Grammar Of English Has Been Proposed"

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 295, 298):

 

 

Our tour of the levels outlined in Table 9 is far from complete. Our main point here is to give some indication of the theoretical map within which Halliday's grammar of English has been proposed. As far as text analysis is concerned, every cell in the Table affords a glimpse of what is going on; and we have to take care in privileging one cell over another – for reasons of time, or interest, or familiarity with analysis of one kind or another. Halliday has given us a far richer grammar than any other grammarian of ours or any other time, and thus a sound foundation, and a resounding mandate, to push on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. Table 9 presents Martin's misunderstandings (evidence here) of "the theoretical map within which Halliday's grammar of English has been proposed". The theoretical map that Halliday (2005 [1995]: 254, 255) proposes for his systemic theory of grammar is:

elaborated as:

[2] To be clear, as far as Halliday is concerned, text analysis is carried out using the grammar, including the systems of cohesion, which the authors have ignored and replaced with Martin's rebranding of them as discourse semantic systems. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 57, 731):

The description of English grammar presented here is not designed as a reference grammar. However, unlike the recent reference grammars — or all previous ones for that matter, this description has been designed as one that can be used in text analysis — a task that imposes quite stringent demands on the description. …

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

Misrepresenting Tenor And Misunderstanding Power And Solidarity

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 295):

Tenor is concerned with the kind of relationship FitzSimons constructs with his readers. Its key dimensions are power and solidarity. Power is concerned with hierarchical social relations, solidarity with horizontal ones. As far as power is concerned, FitzSimons' position is an authoritative one – he writes for us to read and we read what he writes. The only real say we have is a yet to be realised one, solicited in his invitation to e-mail him with suggestions for historical anecdotes he might use. As we have seen, FitzSimons' authority is enhanced inter-modally – verbally through his blue coloured by-line in the text's macro-Theme and imagically through his Ideal/New position above the image of the beach.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 33) explain the interpersonal dimension of context as follows:

tenor – who is taking part in the situation: (i) the roles played by those taking part in the socio-semiotic activity – (1) institutional roles, (2) status roles (power, either equal or unequal), (3) contact roles (familiarity, ranging from strangers to intimates) and (4) sociometric roles (affect, either neutral or charged, positively or negatively); and (ii) the values that the interactants imbue the domain with (either neutral or loaded, positively or negatively)

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, power is but one system of tenor, and it distinguishes between equal ("horizontal") and unequal ("vertical") status. Relations of solidarity, contrary to the authors' claim, can obtain both between those of equal status ("horizontally") and between those of unequal status ("vertically") — the latter demonstrated by the solidarity between Martin (high status) and his students (low status).

[3] This is misleading, because it confuses dialogic role (writer vs reader) with interpersonal status (unequal vs equal). Clearly, it is not the role of writer that confers higher status in an exchange, as demonstrated by texts written by job applicants.

[4] This is misleading, because neither of these claims about authority have been previously argued for. That is, no argument has been offered as to why a by-line expressed in the colour blue should enhance the authority of the columnist, and no argument has been offered as to why the mere positioning of the columnist's name at the top of his newspaper column should enhance his authority. 

And, as previously explained, this usage of 'ideal' mistakes a construal of experience for textual status, and no argument has been offered as to why the name of the regular columnist should be interpreted as presented as New information.

Moreover, even in their own terms, the authors here have confused textual status (Ideal, New) with interpersonal status (power, authority).

Confusing Ideational Context (Field) With Ideational Content (Language) [2]

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 294):

As we have illustrated above, analysing clause complexes (grammar) in tandem with conjunctive relations (discourse semantics) is a good way of exploring activity sequences. To analyse each step in these sequences more closely we need to look at transitivity (from both transitive and ergative perspectives). And to understand participant relations we need to look at nominal group structure (Epithet, Classifier, Thing in particular), relational clauses (identifying and attributive), and relationships of hyponymy (class/subclass) and meronymy (part/whole) between nominal groups. We looked at FitzSimons' field in all these ways, in order to bring more fully to consciousness the senses in which he was concerned with the leisure activity of going to the beach in relation to the semi-professional activities of the Australian surf lifesaving movement.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'conjunctive relations' are lexicogrammatical, one of the systems of textual cohesion, first theorised by Halliday & Hasan (1976), and included in all editions of IFG. Martin's discourse system, on the other hand, is a confusion of their cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction) and Halliday's clause complexing (logical metafunction) which is misunderstood and relocated from lexicogrammar. Evidence here (Martin 1992) and here (Martin & Rose 2007).

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, analysing clause complexes and conjunctive relations is analysing the content of a text, whereas exploring activity sequences, here, is exploring the context of the text, its field, not the content of the text itself. In Martin & Rose (2007), on the other hand, activity sequences are interpreted as experiential semantics. See, for example:

• Activity Sequences: A Cornucopia Of Theoretical Inconsistencies

[3] This further demonstrates the authors' confusion of contextual field with the ideational content of the text.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the field of a text is 'what is going on' and 'what it is about'. The 'culturally recognised practice and its concerns' in this instance is the writing of a newspaper column about the 'Black Sunday' incident of Sunday, 6 February, 1938.

[5] This is misleading. Surf life saving in Australia has always been a volunteer movement, since its beginnings in 1907. The life savers at Bondi Beach in 1938 were volunteers, not "semi-professional".

Misrepresenting Ellipsed Subjects As Unmarked Themes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 282):

As noted above however, the text does feature a number of non-finite clauses, many with an implicit Subject/unmarked Theme. All except one (to be restored...) are imperfective and construct action that is underway and overlapping with the alpha clause on which they depend for temporal deixis (past) and to which they defer in terms of arguability (declarative). These clauses in effect help the text accelerate as a number of synchronous events are canvassed, thereby foregrounding the encompassing chaos of the waves' incursion and the cooperative intensity of the Bondi Boys' rescue.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Ellipsed Subjects are not unmarked Themes. The absence of elements through ellipsis iconically marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of these elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

[2] To be clear, this is merely an impressionistic interpretation, unsupported by grammatical evidence. Synchronous events can be construed paratactically or hypotactically, and through finite or non-finite clauses. Moreover, foregrounding is a function of the textual metafunction, not of non-finite dependent clauses.

Misrepresenting Internal Relations

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 282):

These internal relations, as we can see, tend to be realised between rather than within clause complexes and are oriented to phases of the generic structure of texts rather than what happened per se. Working with Discourse introduces conventions for analysing internal relations alongside external ones, rather than ignoring them (because they are between clause complexes) or subsuming some of them as delicate sub-types of expansion (inside clause complexes).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previous posts have demonstrated, the authors mistake instances of continuity for instances of internal conjunction.

[2] This is misleading, because internal relations also obtain structurally within clause complexes as well as cohesively between them. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):

… the enhancing relation may be internal rather than external (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: Ch. 5; Martin, 1992: Ch. 4; Mann & Matthiessen, 1991); that is, the β-clause may relate to the enactment of the proposition or proposal realised by the α-clause rather than to the figure that it represents. For example, if it is not too personal an inquiry, what limits do you set ... means ‘if it is not ..., I ask you ...’; that is, the condition is on the act of questioning, not on the content of the question.

[3] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. In the data analysed by the authors, it was the continuatives, not internal conjunctions, that marked new turns in the text — as is their function.

[4] For a summary of the many misunderstandings of internal conjunction in Working with Discourse, see Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Conjunction.

[5] This is very misleading indeed, because it falsely implies that, in Halliday's original model, cohesive internal relations between clause complexes are ignored, and that structural internal relations between clauses have less explanatory power by being subtypes of expansion. Martin's logical discourse semantic system lacks the general category of expansion, and its three subtypes: elaboration, extension and enhancement, because it derives from Halliday & Hasan (1976), at which time Halliday had not yet devised these categories. 

Importantly, contrary to the impression given above, the distinction between internal and external relations originates in Halliday & Hasan (1976), and others, such as Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007), are merely trying to use their ideas.

Misrepresenting IFG And Mistaking Continuity For Internal Conjunction

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 281):

A further limitation of the grammatical approach outlined in IFG 3rd edition is its backgrounding of the important distinction between what Halliday & Hasan (1976) call internal and external conjunction. External conjunctions construct logical relations between events in the field of discourse; internal relations construct rhetorical relations among phases of unfolding text. FitzSimons for example begins his text with And so, even though he hasn't mentioned any events which could be construed as causing people to be lying on the beach. The causal relation here is a rhetorical one, related to us settling down with text and image and starting to read because we have the feature in front of us.

And so there they lie, ||

happily sweltering in the summer sun on Australia's most famous beach, ||

just as they have for so many generations past. |||

It is such a wonderfully peaceful scene – of people and nature as a happy whole – [[that it is simply unimaginable [[that in a few seconds nature could ever rear up|| and savage the lot of them]].]] |||

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 542-3, 545-6):

Many temporal conjunctives have an ‘internal’ as well as an ‘external’ interpretation; that is, the time they refer to is the temporal unfolding of the discourse itself, not the temporal sequence of the processes referred to. In terms of the functional components of semantics, it is interpersonal not experiential time. Parallel to the ‘simple’ categories above we can recognise the simple internal ones set out in Table 9(6) above. These play an important role in argumentative passages in discourse.

Moreover, here the authors contradict their own former similarly false claim (p280n) that because this distinction is foregrounded, the distinction between simultaneous and successive relations is backgrounded:

Contrast IFG 3rd edition 542-3 which focuses grammatically on simple, complex and simple internal temporal relations, with several subdivisions within each of these; the opposition of successive to simultaneous events is not a major parameter.

Here the authors have ceased to provide a guide to IFG, and have switched to misrepresenting IFG in order to promote Martin's model (of Halliday & Hasan 1976) instead.

[2] This is misleading. Both external and internal conjunction are concerned with the logical relation of expansion. In the case of temporal relations, the distinction is between experiential time and the interpersonal time of the unfolding of the discourse.

[3] This is misleading, because the function served by And so is continuity, not conjunction, and as such, it does not construe a causal relation, internally or rhetorically. Its function is simply 'to signal that a new move is beginning' (Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 145).

Misrepresenting Temporal Relations In A Text

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 279-80, 281):

As we might expect, successive (then, now, finally, after) and simultaneous (as, with) temporal conjunctions are used to time events; but there are many implicit temporal links with events connected 'neutrally' by simple juxtaposition, and, or the dependency of non-finite clauses on finite ones. The text, as do stories in general, thus takes advantage of field based understandings, in this case of what happens when big waves hit a beach and a rescue operation gets underway – a reasonable expectation in an article composed for beach-savvy Sydneysiders.

We can also note that many of these relations obtain between clauses inside clause complexes, and others between clause complexes – since successive and simultaneous temporal relations can be realised in either way. For example, the same phrase and then functions both within and between clause complexes during the waves' attack above, highlighting the borders of a purely grammatical approach to logical relations:

^ And then another wave hit, ||

^ and then another. |||

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because here the authors misunderstand with as marking a temporal (enhancing) relation, instead of an additive (extending) relation, despite having previously correctly identified it as extension in Table 7.1.

[2] This is misleading. Firstly, simple juxtaposition does not express an implicit temporal relation, as demonstrated by all the juxtaposed clauses that are not related temporally. Secondly, the only temporal relations marked by and are those marked by and then, and these are all 'explicit temporal links'. Thirdly, the dependency of non-finite clauses, in itself, does not mark a temporal relation, and in this text, as Table 7.1 shows, none of the dependent non-finite clauses are temporally related to their dominant clause.

[3] To be clear, the (second-order) field of this particular situation, the subject matter, is construed by the text itself. The text explicitly describes 'what happens when big waves hit a beach and a rescue operation gets underway'.

[4] To be clear, temporal relations that obtain within clause complexes are structural relations and function logically, whereas temporal relations that obtain between clause complexes are cohesive relations and function textually. This distinction is lost in Martin's discourse semantic model.

Misrepresenting IFG On Temporal Relations

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 280):

Since FitzSimons' text is a story of some kind, it is important to consider temporal relations in some detail (Martin & Rose 2007, Chapter 4). …  In part this is a question of delicacy, since temporal relations are just one kind of enhancement. Convention also plays a role since implicit temporal relations are not considered in IFG style clause complex analysis, so that relations marked by and are treated as extending rather than enhancing. In addition, relations between clause complexes are beyond the scope of the analysis. And from the perspective of genre, the fine distinctions between parataxis and hypotaxis are not immediately relevant to mapping the time line of events. Shifting our attention from grammar to discourse is one way to overcome these limitations.

For Martin & Rose the basic distinction⁵ as far as temporal relations are concerned is between simultaneous and successive relations.

⁵ Contrast IFG 3rd edition 542-3 which focuses grammatically on simple, complex and simple internal temporal relations, with several subdivisions within each of these; the opposition of successive to simultaneous events is not a major parameter.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because enhancement is not a system in Martin & Rose (2007), since this work presents the model in Martin (1992), which derived from Halliday & Hasan (1976), which preceded Halliday's formulation of the most general logico-semantic relations. For some of the problems with Chapter 4 of Martin & Rose (2007), see the close examination here.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, implicit temporal relations are covered by IFG — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 420, 422-6) — and on the other hand, relations marked by and are those of parataxis: extending or enhancing. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 422):

[3] This is misleading, because there are no limitations (see above). Clearly, the misrepresentations above are a pretext for using Martin's derived model instead of Halliday's original model.

[4] This is misleading. For simple and simple internal temporal relations, the principal subtypes are following, simultaneous, preceding, conclusive:

This is an elaboration of Halliday (1994: 237):

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [4]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277-8):

And then we shift focus again, via another marked Theme, to the rescue on shore:

Blogger Comments:

The authors' analysis is misleading. On the one hand, since the first clause has a marked Theme, the Subject many survivors is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). On the other hand, since the final clause has an ellipsed Subject, it has no Theme. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of ellipsed elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635).

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [3]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

We then shift via a marked Theme to the Bondi Boys, who are unmarked Theme in every clause involving the rescue; in addition we find another marked Theme, as one, emphasising the intensity of their cooperation.

Blogger Comments:

The authors' analysis is misleading. On the one hand, since the first and last clauses have marked Themes, the Subjects this and they are not thematic, but fall within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). On the other hand, since the included dependent clause << ignoring their own possible peril >> has an ellipsed Subject, it has no Theme. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of ellipsed elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635).

The analysis also falsely interprets the included dependent clause as a marked Theme within its clause complex. To be clear, such clauses are not marked Themes, because there is no agnate unmarked Theme for such instances. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549-53).

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [2]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

Subsequently another marked theme shifts our attention to the waves' impact:

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The marked Theme In no more than 20 seconds highlights a temporal circumstance as the context for what follows as the body of the message.

[2] This is analysis misleading. On the one hand, since the first clause has a marked Theme, the Subject that peaceful scene is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). 

On the other hand, the authors misconstrue an embedded clause serving as Qualifier, waving for help, as a ranking clause, and misrepresent its ellipsed Subject as Theme. To be clear, the absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of ellipsed elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635).

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [1]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

The incursion proper begins with a marked Theme highlighting the sound of the first wave, and an unmarked Theme introducing the wave itself. Subsequently, the waves are unmarked Theme in every ranking clause. Alongside explicit unmarked Themes we've added boxes for Themes that have been ellipsed in non-finite and paratactic extending clauses; these missing Subjects all refer to the waves as well. In this respect, English is operating here like many languages that use an unmarked Theme to establish an orientation to a field and then don't mention Theme again until this orientation needs to be reinforced or changed (Caffarel et al. 2004).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here the marked Theme is misanalysed for constituency; the embedded clause serving as Qualifier includes the conjunction like:

with a roar [[like a Bondi tram running amok]].

[2] This is misleading. Since this clause has a marked Theme, the Subject/Actor is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). 

[3] This is misleading. Ellipsed Subjects are not unmarked Themes. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of these elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

[4] To be clear, the ellipsis of the Subject signals continuity — see [3] — and its textual function is cohesive.

[5] To be clear, Martin's field, which he misconstrues as the ideational dimension of register, misconstrued as context, actually corresponds to ideational semantics in SFL Theory. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407):

Thematic spaces in an ideational semantic network can be seen as a model of the systemic understanding of Theme and method of development articulated by Martin, where “field” corresponds to what has been discussed here in terms of ideational semantic networks in the ideation base.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Grammar And Confusing Strata

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 272):

Functional grammar analysis of the kind supported by this workbook enables a rich semantically oriented reading of clause, group and phrase structure. This is a critical step in text analysis since, as Halliday comments in his introduction to the 2nd edition, ‘A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an analysis at all, but simply a running commentary on a text...’ By the same token, an analysis based solely on grammar, however rich, is not a complete analysis, since relationships between sentences (between clause complexes) still have to be accounted for. To interpret these relations beyond the clause, we need a model of text structure, and a model of social context. In this chapter we will take grammar as the point of departure and demonstrate how it can be extended in the direction of text structure¹ and context, drawing specifically on Martin & Rose's Working with Discourse (2nd edition, 2007) and Genre Relations (2008) to do so.

¹ For an alternative extension see Halliday & Hasan's 1976 Cohesion in English, which elaborates Chapter 9 of IFG (3rd edition).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. The grammar includes the systems of cohesion, which are concerned with relations that obtain within and beyond clause complexes.

[2] This is misleading. Relations 'beyond the clause' are lexicogrammatical, and therefore require a lexicogrammatical model (cohesion). Text structure, on the other hand, is a semantic model, and 'social context', in SFL Theory, is a model of the culture as a semiotic system.

[3] For the serious theoretical inconsistencies in Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), see  the close examination of the publication here.

[4] For the theoretical confusions in Martin's model of genre, see here (Martin 1992) and here (Martin & Rose 2007).

[5] This is misleading. Halliday & Hasan's 1976 Cohesion in English is the intellectual source of both Chapter 9 of IFG (3rd edition) and the "extension" of it as discourse semantics (Martin 1992); see here.

Misrepresenting The Mapping Of Verbal Group Structures

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 227):

A verbal group realises a process in the clause structure, or, from an interpersonal perspective, a Finite + Predicator element. Verbal groups have a possible multivariate structure of Finite + Auxiliary/ies + Event, as in [Finite:] have [Aux:] been [Event:] avoiding, which maps onto a univariate structure in which the Finite is Head: [α:] have [β:] been [γ:] avoiding. Finites may realise tense or modality and Auxiliaries may realise secondary tense and/or passive.

 

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it misrepresents the mapping of the experiential ('multivariate') and logical structures of the verbal group, since the realisations of tense in the logical structure do not correspond to the words that make up the verbal group. Halliday (1994: 198, 199):

However, the structural labelling of the words that make up the verbal group is of limited value, not only because the meaning can be fully represented in terms of grammatical features (of tense, voice, polarity and modality), but also because it is the logical structure that embodies the single most important semantic feature of the English verb, its recursive tense system, and the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements.

In the authors' example, the elements of the logical structure are -s, have…-en and be…-ing:

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.

Problems With Exercise 4: Analysing (Projecting) Verbal Group Complexes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 221-2):

Exercise 4 Analysing (projecting) verbal group complexes

Analyse the verbal group complexes in the following clauses, and then the verbal groups making up the complexes: 

Blogger Comments:

This demonstration analysis is misleading because it misrepresents the logical structure of a verbal group as including an Event, and misrepresents the non-finite verbal group by assigning it a logical structure, despite there being no tense to be realised. According to SFL Theory, the analyses are as follows:

Problems With Exercise 3: Analysing (Expanding) Verbal Group Complexes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 221):

Exercise 3 Analysing (expanding) verbal group complexes

Analyse the verbal group complexes in the following clauses, and then the verbal groups making up the complexes:

Blogger Comments:

The demonstration analysis is misleading because it misrepresents the structures of both the verbal group complex and its verbal groups. The two verbal groups in the complex are could make and dream, and only the finite verbal group has tense, and thus, a logical structure:

Problems With Exercise 2: Analysing Elliptical Groups

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 221):

Exercise 2 Analsying [sic] elliptical groups

Analyse the elliptical verbal groups in the responses in the following examples.

Blogger Comments:

This example analysis is misleading, because it misrepresents the logical structure of this elliptical verbal group in two ways. Firstly, the structure realises future tense, not modality, because it is not an expression of inclination ('want to'), obligation ('has to') probability ('maybe') or usuality ('sometimes'). Secondly, as an expression of the simple future, there is only one tense choice, and only one structural element:

A Problem With Exercise 1: Analysing Groups With More Complex Tenses

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 220):

Exercise 1 Analysing groups with more complex tenses

Analyse the verbal groups in the following clauses:

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: 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.