… So it’s OK to define features by their realisations as function structures, and functions by their realisations as classes, then vice versa...given that units at each level are defined in contrast with other units.
Eg (v simplified),
- a clause participant is realised by a nominal gp that contrasts with verbal gp realising process.
- Nom gps are realised most generally by a Thing function.
- Thing is realised by a nominal word class, that realises a discourse semantic entity, in contrast to verbs realising an occurrence.
- Nominal sub-classes specify an entity uniquely, or by person, proximity, number, gender, or by class.
- These criteria define the class labels proper noun, pronoun and common noun.
- They in turn are criteria for different types of nom gp, which in turn have different options for specifying, evaluating and ordering, and different functions in discourse.
Just an example of ‘chains of (interlocking) relations involved (which also includes the labelling of such relations)’PS On such criteria, mine/ours/yours/theirs/hers/his could be defined as (possessive) pronouns, not determiners, since they realise Thing, not Deictic (despite the weight of old authority).
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the argument here is:
Premiss: Units at each rank are defined in contrast with other units.
Conclusion #1: Features are defined by their realisations as function structures (and vice versa)
Conclusion #2: Functions are defined by their realisations as classes (and vice versa)
Analysis:
The argument is invalid, because neither conclusion follows from the premiss. The Premiss makes a claim about relations between form, whereas Conclusion #1 makes a claim about the axial relation between functions, features and structures, and Conclusion #2 makes a claim about the realisation relation between function and form.
The premiss is invalid because it is false. In SFL Theory, rank units are distinguished 'from above': in terms of their functions in the structure in the rank above. 'Nominal' is distinguished as the class of group that congruently serves the function 'participant'; 'verbal' is distinguished as the class of group that congruently serves the function 'process'; and 'adverbial' is distinguished as the class of group that congruently serves the function 'circumstance'.
Conclusion #1 is invalid, because it is false. The features of a rank unit (Value) are realised by the function structure of the unit (Token), so in terms of 'definition', this conclusion is the exact opposite of what is true, since a definition is a Value assigned to a Token, not the reverse.
Conclusion #2 is invalid, because it is false. Different functions (Value) are realised by different classes of form (Token), so in terms of 'definition', this conclusion is the exact opposite of what is true, since a definition is a Value assigned to a Token, not the reverse.
[2] To be clear, like the two conclusions above, this again has the realisation relation backwards. It is the Thing function (Value) that is congruently realised by a nominal group (Token), not the other way 'round.
[3] To be clear, 'entity' an 'occurrence' are essentially rebrandings of 'participant' and 'process' in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) by Martin's former student Hao. To reframe this in terms of SFL Theory, a noun (word) realises a Thing (nominal group) which realises a participant (clause) which, in a congruent clause, realises a participant (figure) on the semantic stratum. By the same token, a lexical verb (word) realises an Event (verbal group) which realises a Process (clause) which, in a congruent clause, realises a Process (figure) on the semantic stratum.
[4] To be clear, subclasses of noun are not criteria for different types of nominal group, but different formal realisations (Token) of the function Thing (Value).
[5] As demonstrated above, Rose's self-congratulation here is unwarranted.
[6] This is misleading. To be clear, Rose here is unwittingly giving the very same view as the 'old authority' known as 'traditional grammar', and the 'old authority' known as Halliday (1985, 1994). For example, Halliday (1994: 313):
The misinterpretation of possessive pronouns as Deictic determiners was introduced into IFG3&4 by Matthiessen. Compare the above table with the following in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628):
