Problems With 'Further Reading'

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 229):

Further reading

Matthiessen 1996 develops the reasoning around IFG’s approach to English tense in some detail; …

Matthiessen, Christian M I M 1996 Tense in English seen through systemic-functional theory. M Berry, C Butler & R Fawcett & G Huang (eds), Meaning and Form: systemic functional interpretations. (Volume 2 in Meaning and Choice in Language: studies for Michael Halliday) Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 431-498.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the misunderstandings of verbal group logical structure that have been identified in the preceding posts can also be found in the recommended reading Matthiessen (1996):

The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of TENSE, so, because the Event does not constitute a choice in tense, it does not feature as an element in representations of logical structure; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411n).

The tense of the first of these verbal groups is 'present in future in past in future', and so makes 4 tense choices, not 5:

The tense of the second verbal group is 'present in past in future', and so makes 3 tense choices, not 4:

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:

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.

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.

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:

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 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’

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):

Seriously Misrepresenting The Logical Structure Of A Verbal Group

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 175):

From a logical point of view, the verbal group is just a series of related elements: in a finite verbal group, the ‘Head’ is the first element, the Finite, and the remaining elements constitute a series of ‘Modifiers’; for example:

Blogger Comments:

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

But more importantly, the authors seriously misrepresent the logical structure of this verbal group. According to SFL Theory, the logical structure is:

Crucially, as Halliday (1994: 198) explains, secondary tense is realised by two forms in the verbal group:

Consider the verbal group has been eating. This actually makes three separate tense choices: (1) present, expressed by the -s in has (i.e. by the fact that the first verb is in the present form); (2) past, expressed by the verb have plus the -en in been (i.e. plus the fact that the next verb is in the past/passive participle form v-en); (3) present, expressed by the verb be plus the -ing in eating (i.e. plus the fact that the next verb is in the present/active participle form v-ing).