Thursday, 26 March 2015

Tom Bartlett On Complexes

The following example clearly coordinates a nominal group with a clause, using SFL definitions:
Did he tell you his real name or that he was called Hot Lover Boy?
As a functional theory SFL needs to follow the data. And a functional theory should be able to handle the idea that similar functions (here Verbiage and projected clause as "information transmitted") are complexed even if they are structurally at different ranks.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Bartlett's example does not involve a relation of paratactic extension between a clause and a nominal group.  It is a clause complex in which a projecting verbal clause is omitted as a textual choice.  That is, the said clause complex is a textual agnate of 
Did he tell you his real name or did he tell you that he was called Hot Lover Boy? 
The agnates differ only textually — not experientially or interpersonally.  See analysis here.

For there to be a logical relation between a group and a clause, the clause would have to be rankshifted to group/phrase rank, in this case as an embedded fact, and the complex would realise an element of clause structure, in this case Verbiage.

[2] Theorists encode the theory by reference to the data, and text analysts decode the data by reference to the theory.  Following data can result in wild goose chases.

[3] Functions are not complexed — forms are.  That is, clauses, group/phrases and words form complexes, but a function such as Verbiage does not.  A function may be realised by a complex, as when Verbiage is realised by a nominal group complex, or when a Process is realised by a verbal group complex.

[4] The SFL term for clause projected by a verbal Process is a locution.