So you say in IFG4 [selective] and [non-selective] may not be LG choices? And that they are instead be comparable to ET [non-directed] and [directed] respectively? It does make sense, but I wonder... Because Table 6-3 in the same section of IFG4 shows non-specific determiners and that table does include [selective] and [non-selective] for [non-specific: partial] - something that is inconsistent with the system network shown on p. 366.
And yes, the kind of DS semantic discussion in IFG on determiners is something that most non-SFL grammarians at this point take into account when looking at determiners, at least in Spanish.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this does not make sense, since features in lexicogrammatical systems, like those of the nominal group are, by definition, are lexicogrammatical, not semantic.
[2] This is misleading, because it is not true. There is no inconsistency, since Table 6-3 merely provides features that specify non-specific DEIXIS and which are not provided for that system in Figure 6-2. The feature 'selective' just means there are more delicate selections to be made, and so can appear anywhere in a network where such a distinction needs to be made.
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 366, 368):
[3] To be clear, there is no discourse semantic discussion in IFG on determiners or on anything else, because IFG, as the name suggests, is an introduction to Halliday's functional grammar, not an introduction to Martin's discourse semantics.
No comments:
Post a Comment