David Rose On Adverbial Group Agnation

David Rose wrote to asflanet on 16 Apr 2024, 20:00:

agnation for the consumer

and again on 17 Apr, at 15:11:

... as subtypes of intensification

The nominal realisation is downranked and metaphorical (as with [in the past]). Like congruent adverbial realisations, it can be further intensified and combine with polarity and comparison (but not identically).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is part of Rose's argument that 4.5 billion years ago is an adverbial group. Here he claims that it is agnate with the adverbial group long ago, in that the two are related through the adverbial group system of intensification. There are two problems with this claim.

First, intensification is not a system of the adverbial group, so the two variants are not systemically related through intensification. Instead, 'intensification' describes a type of adverb serving as a Premodifier. Clearly, an embedded nominal group is not a type of adverb. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 420-1):

The items serving as Premodifiers are adverbs belonging to one of three types – polarity (not), comparison (more, less; as, so) and intensification. … Those of intensification indicate higher or lower intensity; they are either general intensifiers that are interpersonally neutral (very, much, quite, really, completely, totally, utterly; rather, fairly, pretty; almost, nearly), including the interrogative adverb how, or specific ones that derive from some interpersonally significant scale (amazingly, astonishingly, awfully, desperately, eminently, extraordinarily, horribly, incredibly, perfectly, terribly, terrifically, unbelievably, wonderfully).

Second, if the nominal group 4.5 billion years is interpreted as premodifying ago, then it specifies the temporal extent of ago, not its intensification.

Instead, 4.5 billion years [ago] is a nominal group that is agnate with the nominal group 4.5 billion years [in the past], since they differ only in how a feature of the QUALIFICATION system is realised: as an embedded adverbial group (ago) or an embedded prepositional phrase (in the past). Matthiessen (1995: 669):

On the basis of Matthiessen's network, the feature they both realise is enhancing qualification: time: past.

[2] To be clear, in the case of the two nominal groups, 4.5 billion km away and 4.5 billion years ago, the Qualifiers away and ago are embedded adverbial groups, not ranking adverbs (as Rose would have it). This can be shown by the potential for modification:

• 4.5 billion km further away [than that]
• 4.5 billion years longer ago [than that]

[3] As demonstrated above, it is the adverbial group ago that downranked like the prepositional phrase in the past, not 4.5 billion years.

[4] To be clear, this potential is available to nominal groups:

not so very many years [as that]

Mick O'Donnell On Non-Defining Relative Clauses [2]

On 18/9/13, Mick O'Donnell remarked about the linked post to previous post:

Except in this paraphrase, "A British nursery rhyme" is not a relative clause.

Paraphrasing is dangerous, two sentences can express the same ideational meanings but differ in grammatical form.

Blogger Comments:

 [1] The term 'relative clause' is from traditional grammar.  On the SFL model, ranking clauses like which is a British nursery rhyme are dependent elaborating finite clauses.  Such finite clauses have their non-finite agnates (counterparts), in this case being a British nursery rhyme as in:

• The house that Jack built, being a British nursery rhyme, is a cumulative tale.

As Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 403) point out for the non-finite agnates, 'when the non-defining clause is an 'intensive relational' one, the Process may be left implicit', as in:

• The house that Jack built, a British nursery rhyme, is a cumulative tale.

As Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 404) further point out, 'with non-finite elaborating hypotactic nexuses, there is a special construction where the dependent precedes the dominant', as in:

• A British nursery rhyme, the house that Jack built is a cumulative tale.

As they explain (ibid), 'these elaborating clauses are always 'intensive attributive relational' ones where the Process is implicit and the Attribute is typically the only explicit element of the clause', as in the example given above.  So the following two clause nexuses are agnates of each other — both are hypotactic elaborating clause nexuses, differing in textual prominence (and in finiteness in the dependent clause):

• The house that Jack built, which is a British nursery rhyme, is a cumulative tale.
• A British nursery rhyme, the house that Jack built is a cumulative tale.

[2] O'Donnell's use of the word 'paraphrase' suggests that he doesn't understand the important rôle that agnation plays in reasoning about grammar.