In previous editions the Postmodifier also was brought into the scope of the logical representation. But this appears to complicate the description without adding further to its explanatory power.
With elaborating selection, the Facet construes the order of abstraction (picture, symbol, etc.) or delicacy (type, example, etc.) of the participant being represented whereas with extending selection, the Facet construes the size (collection, cup, part, etc.). The more delicate types are set out in Table 7-10 below together with nouns that can serve as the Head of the nominal group realising Facet.
Blogger Comments:
As previously explained, the symbolisation category does not satisfy the requirements of a Facet, because the Head always conflates with Thing in such nominal groups. That is, words like picture, photograph, painting, drawing, sketch, symbol, sign always function as Thing — not Facet — because such words serve as the participant in the transitivity structure of the clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):
… the Thing is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause … .
The more weight the nominal group with the potential for serving as Facet is given, in particular through specific determination, the less likely it is to be interpreted as Facet and the more likely its Head is to be interpreted as the Thing of the whole nominal group, as in I haven't seen this beautiful expensive picture of Dorian Grey before. Here the Postmodifier is unlikely to serve as Theme — that is, we would hardly get Dorian Grey I haven't seen this beautiful expensive picture of before; and this indicates that the multivariate and univariate structures are congruent with picture as Head/ Thing.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the thematic potential of the Postmodifier is irrelevant to whether Head and Thing are conflated. The Thing is the experiential element of the nominal group that serves as the participant in the experiential structure of the clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):
What all these have in common is that, while the Thing is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause … . It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.
In this instance, picture serves as Thing because it is this that I haven't seen, not Dorian Grey.
Matthiessen (1995: 656):
Blogger Comments:
What all these have in common is that, while the Thing 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.
On this basis, the Thing in this nominal group is picture, as demonstrated by the clause
a picture of Dorian Grey was thrown in the bin
where it is clearly a picture that was thrown in the bin, not Dorian Grey. Thus:
Matthiessen (1995: 652):
What all these have in common is that, while the Thing 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.
On this basis, the Thing in this nominal group is picture, as demonstrated by the clause
a picture of these famous first two marvellous brick houses with gardens was thrown in the bin
where it is clearly a picture that was thrown in the bin, not houses. Thus:
In contrast, in verbal groups, the Head is not the main experiential function, the Event, but rather the Finite, i.e., the function that relates to the now of the communicative exchange — the interpersonal reference point created in the speech interaction. Consequently, expansion within the verbal group of the Head does not start as a construal of the event; rather, it construes a (stepwise) move away from the interpersonal reference point of the Finite to the experiential Event through time and/or modality.
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. …
The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … Thus tense in English is a recursive system. The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.
Matthiessen (1995: 640):
As the examples above show, the Head (⍺) of each type of group is a different multivariate function, viz. Thing (nominal group), Circumstance (adverbial group of ideational type), and Finite (verbal group).
Blogger Comments:
In previous editions the Postmodifier also was brought into the scope of the logical representation. But this appears to complicate the description without adding further to its explanatory power.
However, more importantly, here Matthiessen seriously misrepresents the the logical structure of the verbal group. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398-9):
… the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. … The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.
As can be seen, the elements of logical structure of the verbal group are not words, and it is the realisation of primary tense, not the word serving as the Finite element, that functions as the Head (⍺) of the verbal group. Halliday (1985: 177):
Importantly, the Finite element realises not just primary tense, but also modality and polarity (Halliday 1985: 75), but it is only the realisation of primary tense that functions as the Head (⍺) of the verbal group.
Finally, the Event has never featured in the logical structure of the verbal group. Halliday (1985: 184n):
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.
Matthiessen (1995: 638):
Verbal groups are groups of verbs, nominal groups are groups of nominals, and adverbial groups are groups of adverbials.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, there are exceptions to this generalisation, such as verbs serving as Epithets and Classifiers in nominal groups, adverbs serving as Submodifiers in nominal groups, and adjectives (nominals) serving as the Event in verbal groups. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427n):
Certain adjectives can serve as Event in a verbal group in a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. (conation: potentiality:) be able/apt/prone/likely → to do; (modulation: time: frequency:) be wont → to do; (modulation: manner: quality:) be wise/right/wrong → to do; (projection:) be willing/keen/eager → to do; be afraid/scared → to do.
Matthiessen (1995: 637):
The textual option in the prepositional phrase has just been illustrated for wh-phrases. That is, the prepositional phrase may be thematic as a whole, or its Complement/Range may alternatively be thematic on its own:What's it | like_ | out today?✝ That house I'll never set my foot | in_ | again.From the point of view of the prepositional phrase, the Complement/ Range conflates with a function that is external to the prepositional phrase (shown as Theme ↑). If the nominal group serving as Complement/ Range has an elaborating or extending Facet (Selector) and its structure is ambivalent, it is even possible to thematise only the non-Facet part of the nominal group (cf. Matthiessen, 1991):✝ That peak I've never talked about [a picture of _].
Blogger Comments:
[1] Again, this misconstrues what is thematic at clause rank — the prepositional phrase or its Complement/Range — as thematic at phrase rank.
[2] To be clear, the clause That peak I've never talked about a picture of is extremely unlikely.
As already noted above, prepositional phrases can be interpreted as mini-clauses (IFG, p. 180; 212-3). Experientially, they offer the system MINOR TRANSITIVITY — a system of relational process types; interpersonally, they offer MINOR MOOD, where the distinction is simply between wh- and non-wh-; and textually they offer MINOR THEME which is the choice between having an externally thematic participant or not. These systems are set out in Figure 7-3. (The symbol ↑ indicates that the Complement of the prepositional phrase is conflated with a function external to the domain of the prepositional phrase, viz. the Theme of the clause in which the prepositional phrase serves: See Section 7.1.2.3 below.)
This system network thus defines a three-dimensional paradigm; examples are given in Table 7-5.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Halliday proposes no thematic structure for the prepositional phrase. Here Matthiessen misconstrues what is thematic at clause rank — the Range/Complement of prepositional phrase — as thematic at phrase rank. A structure is the relation between functions, so a thematic structure for a prepositional phrase would be a relation between the minor Process/Predicator and the minor Range/Complement.
[2] To be clear, neither the two examples of 'externally thematic projection' are likely instances of English:
Matthiessen (1995: 627):
As already noted, a prepositional phrase is like a mini-clause — more specifically, it is like a mini relational clause. For example, corresponding to the relational clause The fence surrounds the property, we have the prepositional phrase around the property. While the finite clause represents both participants entering into the relation (Token + Value, or Carrier+ Attribute), the phrase only represents one of them (the one construed in the clause as Value or Attribute).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, since, for Halliday (1994: 151-2), a prepositional phrase is like a relational or verbal clause, the minor Range of a prepositional phrase may also correspond to the Verbiage or Sayer of a verbal clause — the former when the phrase serves as Matter, the latter when it serves as Angle.
To sum up, groups differ from phrases in that(i) they are groups of words of the same primary class (nominals, verbs, or adverbials), so their functional potential is related to the Head word;
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, there are exceptions to this generalisation, as when a verb serves as the Epithet or Classifier of a nominal group, or an adverb serves as Sub-Modifier; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427).
Matthiessen (1995: 626):
In contrast, prepositional phrases are mini-clauses, more specifically mini relational clauses — shrunken clauses (see IFG Ch. 6).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, for Halliday (1994: 151-2), a prepositional phrase is like a relational or verbal clause:
For the present discussion, what is important is the notion of ‘circumstance’ as a kind of additional minor process, subsidiary to the main one, but embodying some of the features of a relational or verbal process, and so introducing a further entity as an indirect participant in the clause.
Note that adverbial group is treated quite broadly here; it includes conjunctions and continuatives as well as adverbs at Head. In IFG, adverbial groups and conjunction groups are distinguished. Here they are just taken as more delicate types of adverbial group. IFG also recognises a prepositional group. Here groups of prepositions are simply treated as complexes of prepositions at word rank (paratactic - e.g., extending: above —> and below the surface; enhancing: from —> beyond the mountains).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this treatment has the advantage of acknowledging the hybrid nature of the prepositional phrase, with one element realised by a unit (complex) at word rank, and the other element realised by a unit (complex) at group rank, and also of economising the rank scale, since it proposes just a single class of form at group/phrase rank for the word class 'preposition'.
Certain verbs of behaviour (including verbal behaviour) are "reciprocal" and can serve either in clauses with a participant realised by a plural nominal group or coordinated nominal groups or with a circumstance of Accompaniment. For instance, fight can serve in either Anne and Henry fought or in Anne fought with Henry.Similarly: chat, discuss, speak, talk, dance, fight, kiss, play, waltz. Outside the behavioural domain …
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, fight patterns like a material Process, not a behavioural Process, since it allows a co-participant to be construed as Goal in an effective clause:
Henry fought Anne
whereas a behavioural Process does not:
*Henry sneezed Anne
*Henry laughed Anne
