Another more complex example is the one shown in Figure 7-38, mentioned earlier.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Because there are only five features selected — future, past, future, past, passive — there are only five elements of univariate structure, not six:
will have been going to have been tested
α future β past γ future δ past ε passive
The most convenient way of naming these tense selections is to start with the last selection and work towards the first. This indicates the context in which a given tense selection has been made; for example, primary: past, secondary: future, tertiary: past — was going to have walked — is called past-in-future-in-present. The following example (taken from Halliday, 1976; 1981) is present-in-future-in-past-in-future:
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this is merely a typo that should read 'past'. The univariate structure is:
was going to have walked
α past β future γ past
past in future in past
will have been going to be being tested
α future β past γ future δ present ε passive
passive: present in future in past in future.
Secondary tenses are realised by tense auxiliaries followed by the particular verb form they govern:Secondary past is realised by the tense auxiliary have followed by the past participial form (v-en), as in have eaten; have walked; have been eating; have been walking.Secondary present is realised by the tense auxiliary be followed by the present participial form (v-ing), as in be eating; be walking; be being eaten.Secondary future is realised by the tense auxiliary be going + a to infinitival verb form (to v), as in be going to eat, be going to have eaten, be going to be eating. (We can also include forms such as be about to for immediate future and would as a special form for future-in-past, as in He would later regret his rash decision.)
Blogger Comments:
This is misleading because it misrepresents words as the realisation of secondary tense in univariate structure. 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.
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: temporal: future & unmarked focus & secondary: past: secondary: future: secondary: past & passive
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Because there are only five features selected — modal, past, future, past, passive — there are only five elements of univariate structure, not six:
should have been going to have been tested
α modal β past γ future δ past ε passive
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: modal & unmarked focus & secondary: past & active
Blogger Comments:
This misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Because there are only two features selected, modal and past, there are only two elements of univariate structure: the expression of modality and the secondary past tense have + V-en: (with the -en not realised phonologically or graphologically for this irregular verb):
should have become
α modal β past
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: modal & unmarked focus & no secondary & active
Blogger Comments:
This misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of these verbal groups. Because there is no secondary tense, there is only one element of univariate structure: the expression of modality:
would live
can see
α modal
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: temporal: past & marked focus : polarity (not shown in network) & no secondary & active
Blogger Comments:
This miconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of this verbal group. To be clear, the tense of this verbal group is again the simple past (V-ed), and so there is only one structural realisation of tense, not two:
did fall
α past
Examples:positive & finite: temporal: past & unmarked focus & no secondary & active
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the tense of this verbal group is the simple past, realised structurally by V-ed, which is realised phonologically and graphologically by vowel change in this irregular verb:
fell
α past
Matthiessen (1995: 715):
The verbal group is a group of verbs - one lexical verb and one or more auxiliaries. It is organised both univariately and multivariately. The principles will be discussed below; the univariate structure is a simple hypotactic one, realised progressively — α –> β –> γ –> δ (as in α must β have γ been going δ to leave) and so on.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. The elements of the univariate structure of the verbal group are not words. 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.
And so, importantly, the Event does not figure as an element in the univariate structure. 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.
[2] To be clear, this misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Only three features, not four, are selected in this verbal group: modal, past and future, realised as:
[must] [have + V-en] [be going to + V]
must have been going to leave
α modal β past γ future
Now let us turn to non-identifiable determination. The interpretation given in IFG Section 6.2.1 will be used and elaborated on. Non-identifiable determination is not concerned with how to identify an already established instantiation but with how a class is instantiated — whether it is instantiated completely or only partially, whether it is instantiated selectively or not, and so on. The general distinctions are the same for both singular instantiations and non-singular (i.e., mass or plural) instantiations.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
The most general system in the DETERMINATION region of systems is concerned with the general recoverability or identifiability status of the discourse referent being presented — is it recoverable or not? If it is, then the issue is how it is to be recovered (as an instance of some general class); if it is not, then the issue is how it is to be presented (as an instance of some general class). (In either case, the system of POSTDETERMINATION may give some further indication of the status of the referents as instances of the general class: the usual three trouble-makers; these famous two stars; the alleged two burglars.)
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
[2] To be clear, this confuses a genuine nominal group system, POSTDETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 373) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
Non-structural cohesive systems are not systems of the nominal group, since systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
Like THEMATISATION, DETERMINATION depends on a dynamic model of the environment in which the text is unfolding, in particular of the current state of development from the point of view of the addressee. In this dynamic text model, it has to be possible to determine whether a given referent is identifiable or not to the addressee. (Non-identifiable determiners in particular overlap in coverage with the quantifiers of formal logic, but the distinctions are not the same.)
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
Non-structural cohesive systems are not systems of the nominal group, since systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
In the clause, THEMATISATION determines the thematic status of participants and circumstances (thematic vs. rhematic). In the information unit in spoken English, INFORMATION determines their information status (given vs. new). These textual statuses are independent of, but clearly related to, a third textual status, the identifiability status of referents; this status is controlled by DETERMINATION in the nominal group.In the experiential perspective, an object is a general class, possibly with subcategorisations and descriptive attributes. The textual perspective is concerned with the instantiation of the class; with the object as a referent. In the case of objects, both perspectives are integrated in the nominal group. DETERMINATION is the resource for determining whether a referent is identifiable or not; and if it is, how it is to be identified; and if it is not, how it is to be selected as an instance of a class. DETERMINATION is concerned with things as instances, not as experiential classes.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
Non-structural cohesive systems are not systems of the nominal group, since systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
From a textual point of view, the nominal group provides the resources for presenting and contextualising discourse referents — instances of participants brought into referential space — and for differentiating between continuous and contrastive information. There are two textual sets of systems, DETERMINATION and SUBSTITUTION/ELLIPSIS. Both deal with recoverability of information. DETERMINATION is concerned with the recoverability status of discourse referents (their identifiability), whereas SUBSTITUTION/ELLIPSIS is concerned with the recoverability of words.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, these are non-structural cohesive systems, not systems of the nominal group. Systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
[2] To be clear, this confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
The adjectives that regularly serve as Classifiers - adjectives of provenance (Chinese, Burmese, Australian), of material (wooden, metallic, plastic), for example - are closer to the domain of nouns on the scale from prototypical adjectives to prototypical nouns. For instance, they are not scalar and intensifiable but form n-nary taxonomic oppositions (instead of binary scalar oppositions such as tall - short ). Thus we would not expect to get very metamorphic rocks. ¹²⁹
¹²⁹ But we do find examples such as a thoroughly modern woman, a very post-modern discourse, a very French attitude; more French than the French. Here the intensification seems to be concerned either with degree of (proto)typicality rather than value on a single scale or with some particular aspect that is characteristic of the quality.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the fact that intensification is possible in such instances suggests that the words are serving as Epithets, rather than Classifiers. Moreover, they can be seen to serve as interpersonal Epithets, since they express the speaker's attitude toward the Thing in question (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 376).
Deictic, Postdeictic and Numerative are concerned with various aspects of the selection of instantial representatives of the general experiential category construed by the nominal group - whether they are recoverable/ identifiable to the addressee or not, how they are selected (as typical, usual, possible, etc. representatives), how many are selected, and so on.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this confuses the function of the Deictic as an element of nominal group structure, realising the system of DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 365), with its non-structural cohesive function (recoverability, identifiability), realising the system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
