David Rose On Interstratal Tension And A Structure Not Covered By IFG

David Rose summed up the preceding discussion on asflanet on 11 Feb 2024, at 09:25:

Annabelle’s first question was a great illustration. It distilled a complex explanation of the earth’s origin into a process with a couple of circumstances, which made us question the simple analysis of Actor, Process, Means and Time. This interstratal tension has been a focus of SFL research in recent years, especially Jing Hao’s and Yaegan Doran’s work on science.

Annabelle’s second question then revealed that the Time circumstance had a structure that is not covered in IFG. Personally, that made me look more closely at both the example, and what Halliday had to say about its grammatical domain. Alternative suggestions by Rosemary, Chris and Annabelle made me look even harder.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Annabelle's first question was

I'm keen to hear thoughts on the analysis of this clause:

The earth formed some 4,600 years ago from a vast cloud of gas and dust.

[2] This is misleading, because it is not true. This is the structure of the clause:

Although this analysis was questioned by David Banks, it was done so on the basis of theoretical misunderstandings, as previously demonstrated here.

[3] This is misleading, because it is not true. There is no "interstratal tension" here. This is a happening figure realised by a material clause, its congruent realisation.

[4] This is misleading, because it is not true. On the principles provided in IFG, this structure is simply a nominal group:

[5] To be clear, Rose did not need to look at all, let alone more closely or even harder. Rosemary provided the IFG interpretation of the structure as a nominal group, and ChRIS provided the evidence that the structure could not possibly be an adverbial group, as Rose would maintain, on the principles provided in IFG.