Problems With 'Tracking' And 'Esphora'

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 286, 286n):

The Bondi Boys are a little easier to keep track of, since they are treated as a group (except for partitioning into those attached to reels and those not). The boys are introduced esphorically⁸, with Deictic those resolved in the Qualifier of the Bondi Surf Bather's Life Saving Club. Thereafter they are tracked through the, their, they (and elided them).

 

⁸ With esphoric reference, deixis is resolved inside the same nominal group, typically from Deictic to Qualifier.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Clearly, it is not the author of the newspaper article who has difficulty in keeping track of the participants in his texts. The notion of 'tracking' misrepresents a need of the reader as the meaning potential of the writer.

[2] Trivially, the twice-used some marks each as subsets of the same 'group'.

[3] To be clear, 'esphoric reference' (Martin 1992: 123) is his discourse semantic rebranding of grammatical 'structural cataphoric reference' (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 56).

[4] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, these are demonstrative (the) and personal (their, they) reference items whose meaning is resolved by a cohesive relation with their referent Bondi Boys. On the other hand, the ellipsis of them was the author's choice not to deploy personal reference.

Confusing Nominal Group Structure With Lexical Cohesion

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 284-5):

Tables 7.2 and 7.3 have introduced the three major participants in FitzSimons' text, namely the waves, their victims and the Bondi Boys. Each of these entities has to be constructed grammatically in nominal groups, so let's look more closely at how this is done, beginning with the waves – this time taking into account the whole of the article. 

Experientially, the basic pattern here is to realise the waves as Thing and deploy Epithets to describe their size. From a discourse semantic perspective relations between Things are meronymic (part/whole relations): we have nature, including oceans, involving surf, consisting of waves, made up of water (Working with Discourse Chapter 3). Taken together the Epithet Thing structure of nominal groups and their meronymic relations to one another tell us what we are talking about.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the nominal group is the congruent grammatical realisation of a participant.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, meronymic relations obtain between lexical items — rather than grammatical Things — as one type of lexical cohesion. The function is thus textual, rather than experiential. Martin's (experiential) discourse semantic system of IDEATION is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (textual) lexical cohesion, confused with logical relations between transitivity elements. Evidence here.

[3] For the theoretical problems with Chapter 3 of Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), see the clarifying critiques here.

[4] Clearly, the vast majority of speakers do not need to be told what they are talking about.

Rebranding Pre-Deictic And Pre-Numerative As Focus

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 226):

In addition to the functions shown in the table (Deictic, Post-Deictic, Numerative, Epithet, Thing, Classifier, Qualifier), the meaning potential of the group also includes the possibility of a Focus function (e.g. the tip of the iceberg, two cups of black coffee, a dream of a holiday job).

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the authors' 'Focus' is an unnecessary, internally-inconsistent, and poorly named rebranding of Halliday's Pre-Deictic and Pre-Numerative.

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 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:

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 Grammatical Metaphor

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 171):

At around the time we enter secondary school, we begin to use nominal groups not only to construe concrete and abstract entities, but to reconstrue other kinds of meanings as if they were entities. The kinds of meanings that get reworked in this way include processes (collide-collision, perceive-perception, depart-departure...), qualities (strong-strength, brave-bravery, ugly-ugliness...), modal assessments (might-possibility, must-requirement, may-permission...) and logical relations (so-cause, so that-purpose, if-condition...). These nominalisations are interpreted within the general framework of (ideational) grammatical metaphor in IFG Chapter 10. Metaphorical groups involve the grammar ‘dressing up’ a meaning as something else. Consequently, metaphorical nominal groups have to be interpreted grammatically (as entities) and semantically (as the processes, qualities, modal assessments or logical relations we also understand them to be) in order to fully account for their meaning.

Blogger Comments:

This misrepresents the SFL model of grammatical metaphor, as set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 227-96). It is not simply a matter of metaphorical nominal groups being interpreted grammatically as entities and semantically as processes etc.

Instead, metaphorical grammatical realisations express two layers of meaning on the semantic stratum at once. For example, the nominal group perception realises both a thing and a process, with the thing realising the process. See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 272, 289) on grammatical metaphor as semantic junction in which a metaphorical Token realises a congruent Value.

Misrepresenting The SFL Orientation To Meaning

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 171):

When we are first working our way into the linguistic system as pre-school children, nominal groups are used to construe the concrete sensible objects of our experience of the material world. They refer to the people and things that we can see, hear, smell, taste and feel.

 

Blogger Comments:

This is potentially misleading, because it invites a transcendent view of meaning, wherein meaning transcends semiotic systems, and the meanings of semiotic systems refer to the meanings outside semiotic systems. This is the opposite perspective on meaning to the immanent perspective on which SFL Theory is founded, wherein meaning is exclusive to semiotic systems; see, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 415-8). 

In this view, experience is construed as meaning, with the meanings of perceptual semiotic systems reconstrued as the meanings of language that are realised by the wordings of language, such as nominal groups. That is, in SFL Theory, nominal groups do not refer; they realise the meanings (people and things) construed of experience.

A Problem With A Further Proposed 'Classifying' Type Of Focus

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 170-1):

Closely related to these ‘of’ expansions are groups that would be considered appositive in traditional terms. Here there is a relation between a thing and its class identity: the month of May, the state of Alabama, the city of Rome, the kingdom of Norway, the house of Windsor, the science of cladistics, the title of Mayor (cf. the month is May, the state is Alabama, etc.). We could assimilate these with the classifying type above.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in the 'classifying' subtype of Focus, the logical Head of the nominal group is realised by various words for 'subtype' (see previous post). Here, in contrast, the Head is not realised by a word for subtype, but by specific types of superordinate. For example, 'month' is neither a word for 'subtype', nor a subtype of 'May'. Consequently, even ignoring the problems outlined in the previous post, "assimilating" these with the classifying type of Focus is inconsistent within the authors' own model.

In short, in terms of SFL Theory, these are simply nominal groups in which Head conflates with Thing:

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.

The 'Evaluative' Subtype Of Focus Reconsidered

  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 'evaluative' subtype of Focus is the attitudinal counterpart of the Epithets in the 'selecting' subtype of Focus. On the basis of the same reasoning that Halliday used to derive 'Pre-Numerative' and 'Pre-Deictic', these can again be interpreted as 'Pre-Epithets'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):

When the Head is conflated with the Epithet or the Classifier, the relationship between the Head and the Thing is an elaborating one (which is why this type of construction has been called appositive): ‘Head is Thing’.

 

cf.

A Serious Problem That Invalidates The 'Dimensional' 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, not one of examples of the 'dimensional' subtype of Focus is a nominal group with the Head and Thing out of phase. That is, in every single case, the Head conflates with Thing:

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

The size of X is enormous.

The shape of X is irregular.

The colour of X is crimson.

The height of X is 2 m.

The weight of X is 4 kg.

The length of X is 40 km.

The texture of X is silky smooth.

The taste of X is like syrup.

The smell of X is like coal gas.

The nose of X is floral.

The aroma of X is fragrant.

The feel of X is unpleasant.

The look of X is modern.

The sound of X is mellifluous.

The 'Selecting' Subtype Of Focus As A Confusion Of Numeratives And Epithets

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 170):

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

⁴ Some selecting Focus items appear without the structure marker of (e.g. half the boys, all the problems).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the 'selecting' subtype of Focus includes not just quantitative (three, four, some, none, hundreds, thousands) and ordinative (first, third, last, next) Numeratives but also Epithets (bigger, smaller, largest, smallest).

The Numeratives in the 'selecting' subtype of Focus are just Pre-Numeratives on the SFL model:

In such cases, the fact that numeral serves as Head is shown by 'subject-verb agreement': one of the awards is… vs three of the awards are… . Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):

It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.

On the basis of the same reasoning that Halliday used to derive 'Pre-Numerative' and 'Pre-Deictic', these Epithets can be interpreted as 'Pre-Epithets'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):

When the Head is conflated with the Epithet or the Classifier, the relationship between the Head and the Thing is an elaborating one (which is why this type of construction has been called appositive): ‘Head is Thing’.

cf.

Rebranding Halliday's 'Complex' Numeratives As The Authors' 'Re-counting' & 'Partitive' Subtypes 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 're-counting' and 'partitive' subtypes of Focus are merely the authors' rebranding of Halliday's types of complex Numerative. Halliday (1985: 173-4; 1994: 195):

The 're-counting' subtype of Focus includes both quantitative Numeratives (cup, glass, jug, tank, pound, yard, metre, gallon, litre) and collective Numeratives (set, collection, group, crowd, school, herd, flock, gaggle, pod, swarm).

The 'partitive' subtype of Focus is just a rebranding of partitive Numeratives.

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.

Needlessly Rebranding Halliday's 'Numerative' As The Authors' 'Focus'

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 170): 

Nominal group expansions of this kind are very common, and we’ll suggest an analysis here that treats these structures as having an embedded nominal group with the multivariate function Focus; in these nominal groups of functions as a structure marker, signalling the embedding (there is no need to label it separately in the analysis).

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, on the one hand, this is an unnecessary rebranding of the term Numerative; Halliday (1994: 195): 

On the other hand, the term 'Focus' is a very poor choice, because the term is already in use in the theory (the Focus of New information), and in this usage, the term does not construe experiential meaning. Moreover, it creates unnecessary confusion because the unmarked Focus of such a nominal group is on the other element, the Thing:

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).