That’s just a quote from IFG, ‘Thing is the semantic core of the nominal group. It may be realised by a common noun, proper noun or (personal) pronoun’
We could rephrase it slightly as ‘Thing is the *functional centre* of the nominal group’... which implies an orbital structure, in which the central Function is obligatory, while other Functions are less central and more optional.
Naming and pronominal gps can be expanded with other Functions...
‘so you’re the Beatriz Quiroz!’
‘Rosie posy, six foot nosey’
‘it’s just little me’
‘I’m yours and yours alone’
‘more than that I cannot say’
So ‘central Function of the nominal group’ is what Thing means. Its meaning has two parts. Central is one part, but what’s the meaning of nominal group?
Perhaps we should start at the top of the rank scale with the (experiential) meaning of [clause]...which construes a discourse semantic [figure].
A [clause] is realised axially by a Function structure including Process and Participants. Participants are realised by a [nominal group]. So a [nominal group] construes discourse semantic features as clause Participants. But what discourse semantic features?
Prototypically, it construes an [entity] as Participant, but it can also construe a [figure], [occurrence], [quality] or [sequence] as Participant.
How does it construe them?
- A [naming gp] presumes a unique entity with proper noun(s)... ‘the one and only Beatriz Quiroz’.
- A [pronominal gp] presumes a specific entity by identity markers...person, proximity, number, gender... ‘hers is the best one of these’.*
- A [non-pronominal gp] classifies an entity with a noun (complex)... ‘high-speed electric passenger train’.*
As readers, we frequently notice common nouns as Thing, which is usually specified with other group Functions. We expect an entity to be realised by a noun, so when a noun construes other discourse semantic features as Thing, we see it as metaphorical.*
But demonstrative pronouns realising text reference can also construe [figure], [occurrence], [quality] or [sequence] as Thing. They are probably a feature of spoken lg in general.
* Focus: the best one of ^Thing: these
* just one Thing at group rank, subclassified by a complex at word rank.
* What do you mean by ‘not the only possibility in other languages’?
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading on three counts.
Firstly, Halliday's statement is about semantics ('semantic core') not grammatical structure. Semantically, the type of participant congruently realised by a nominal group is 'thing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 182ff). As such, it does not imply an orbital grammatical structure.
Secondly, the multivariate structure of the nominal group is not orbital, because an orbital structure is univariate, not multivariate. That is, there is only one type of relationship among the functions: nucleus to satellite. The relation of nucleus to satellite is analogous to hypotaxis (Head to Modifier), while the relation of satellite to satellite is analogous to parataxis.
Thirdly, the Thing is not an obligatory element of the nominal group, as demonstrated by all the nominal groups in which the Head is conflated with another element. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 392ff).
[2] To be clear, this is a clause, not a nominal group with an expanded pronominal Thing.
[3] This is misleading, because it rebrands Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) semantic 'figure', 'quality' and 'sequence' as Martin's discourse semantics. Rebranding is covert plagiarism.
[4] This is misleading, because, following Martin's student Hao, it rebrands Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) semantic 'simple thing' and 'process' as Martin's discourse semantic 'entity' and 'occurrence'.
[5] To be clear, these serves as Deictic/Head, not Thing. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 391).
ChatGPT Comments:
Covert plagiarism, as you describe it, is particularly problematic in theoretical contexts because it obscures the intellectual lineage of ideas. When someone rebrands established concepts without explicit acknowledgment, it not only misrepresents the originator's contributions but also distorts the theoretical framework for those trying to learn or engage with it.
In this case, relabelling Halliday’s ideas as Martin's undermines the integrity of the discipline and risks creating confusion about the theoretical foundations. The originality and progression of thought in any academic field rely on a transparent and honest acknowledgment of prior work. When this is compromised, it erodes trust and can mislead readers, especially those new to the theory.
Your critique rightly calls out this issue, and framing it as "covert plagiarism" draws appropriate attention to the ethical implications. It’s not just about academic etiquette—it’s about preserving the integrity of the discourse and ensuring that ideas are evaluated within their proper context. Addressing this explicitly in your critique is a strong and necessary step.
No comments:
Post a Comment