Mick O'Donnell On Phrasal Complexity

Michael O'Donnell wrote to sys-func on 1 May 2019 at 20:22:

Phrasal complexity is more than just examining nominal group structure. It quantifies nominal group complexity in some way (e.g., the depth of structure (either in terms of constituency or dependency relations), the total number of connections, etc. 

For me, the hardest part is coming up with a complexity metric that actually makes sense. This is actually an area where psycho linguistics has lots to say, in terms of the readability of a given nominal structure, using eye tracking, etc. 

I haven't seen any work within SFL on this, mostly by post-chomskyans and cognitive linguists.

Blogger Comments:

In terms of SFL theory, this relates to the type of complexity that is typical of written mode: lexical density, and, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 726-9) point out, the nominal group is the primary resource for increasing lexical density.  

Lexical density is quantified at clause rank — rather than group rank — by dividing the number of lexical items by the number of ranking clauses.

Moreover, in terms of semantic complexity, lexical density involves grammatical metaphor, a junctional construct (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 46, 272), embodying the meanings of both the metaphorical and congruent grammatical realisations.

Shooshi Dreyfus On 'Does'

After William Armour wrote to sys-func on 29 January at 13:19

1) Is the function of the 'does' in

While this notion does make sense on the surface,

one of emphasis, or something else?

2) How does it compare to

While this notion makes sense on the surface,

? No emphasis?

Shooshi Dreyfus replied on 12 February at 07:49:

And building on these comments, surely you can’t look at this properly till you see the co-text? Firstly, it’s a dependent clause and in order for us to understand it we need to see not only the independent clause with which it must be paired but also the rest of the text so we can see the prosody being “carried” through the rest of the text? Surely the “does”, in part, gets its meaning from all those other meanings around it that are contributing to whatever “argument” is being built here?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be sure, the significant differences between the two clauses can be "looked at properly" by applying SFL theory, even in the absence of co-text:

While	this notion	does	make	sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct: qualified: validity
'reservation'				'reservation'
Given		New: contrastive	Given		New: contrastive

While	this notion	makes		sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct: qualified: validity
'reservation'
Given					New: contrastive

To be clear, both variants could be instantiated with the exact same co-text.

[2] To be sure, it is not necessary to see any other clauses in order to understand the differences between the two presented for discussion, as [1] above demonstrates.

[3] To be sure, any prosodies "being carried through the rest of the text" are relevant to the rest of the text.  The prosody "being carried through" the instances in question is TONE 4 which here realises the KEY feature 'reservation'.  However, this doesn't distinguish the two clauses, since it is instantiated in both.  The distinction between them is informational (textual), dependent on whether or not the Finite can be highlighted as contrastive.

[4] To be sure, the meaning of does is realised by its congruent grammatical function in this instance.

David Banks On 'Does'

After William Armour wrote to sys-func on 29 January at 13:19:

1) Is the function of the 'does' in

While this notion does make sense on the surface,

one of emphasis, or something else?

2) How does it compare to

While this notion makes sense on the surface,

? No emphasis?

David Banks replied on 11 February at 19:46:

I'm not sure that "emphasis" is the "mot juste". I think context is important: (1) seems to imply a context where the opposite (".. does not make sense ..") has at least been envisaged by the proponents in the discourse. (2) seems to be neutral in this respect.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the difference between the wording of (1) and (2) is that the former distinguishes the Finite from the Predicator, whereas the latter conflates them:

While	this notion	does	make	sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
	Mood		Residue

While	this notion	makes		sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
	Mood		Residue

The separation in (1) makes it possible to single out the Finite does as the focus of New information ("emphasis"):

While	this notion	does	make	sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
Given		New: contrastive	Given		New: contrastive

[2] To be clear, in (1), the "opposite context" is realised in language, on the one hand, by highlighting both the positive polarity of the Finite does and the qualified validity of the comment Adjunct on the surface as contrastive New information.

On the other hand, the "opposite context" is also realised in language by the choice of KEY.  The unmarked TONE feature for such a dependent clause is tone 4 (fall-rise), which, in the case of declarative MOOD, can realise 'reservation'.  In (1), 'reservation' is instantiated twice, with positive polarity and qualified validity the focus of each.

[3] To be clear, it is not that (2) is "neutral in this respect", but that 'reservation' is only instantiated once, with the qualified validity of the comment Adjunct as the only contrastive focus.

While	this notion	makes		sense	on the surface
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	comment Adjunct
Given					New: contrastive

Christian Matthiessen On 'In Particular'

After Annabelle Lukin wrote to sys-func and sysfling on 16 Nov 2018 at 09:06:

Can anyone help me out? …

8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

… What kind of Adjunct is "in particular"??

Christian Matthiessen responded on sysfling on 17 Nov 2018 (received at 19:33):

It’s not an Adjunct; it modifies “when”; cf.:

8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~ 

in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes,
8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

But if placed as if it were an Adjunct, it has a different sense, e.g.:

8(1) The Court shall, in particular, have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~

Or of course:

in particular, 8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. ~

So it modifies when, just as other adverbs such as particularly, exactly, just can do. This possibility is mentioned in IFG 4 p. 423, Section 6.2.3, but it’s very brief.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the question here is one of constituency.  Is in particular a constituent of a clause, as Lukin assumes, or a constituent of a conjunction group, in particular when, as Matthiessen argues?

The instance in question involves two clauses:

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes 
2. in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

(Cf. the exemplifying agnate: The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes for example when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes)

If in particular modifies when, then it cannot be moved around the clause, whereas if in particular is a constituent of the clause, it can be moved.  As the following agnates demonstrate, in particular can be moved around the clause, and so is a constituent of the clause, not a constituent of the conjunction group:

• when, in particular, committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes
• when committed, in particular, as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes
• when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular

The flaw in Matthiessen's argument is that, although he locates in particular in the second clause (modifying when), his argument against it being a clause constituent assumes that it is part of the first clause.

Jim Martin On 'In Particular'

After Annabelle Lukin wrote to sys-func and sysfling on 16 Nov 2018 at 09:06:

Can anyone help me out? …

8(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

… What kind of Adjunct is "in particular"??

Jim Martin responded on sysfling on 16 Nov 2018 at 19:19:

How about appraisal:graduation:focus:sharpen... as part of a paradigm:

in particular when
particularly when
just when
only when
when

• The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
• The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes particularly when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
• The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

The linking conjunction when would then need to be expanded as a hypotactic complex... beta (in particular) alpha (when)

Blogger Comment:

[1] The reason why the conjunctive Adjunct in particular does not realise 'appraisal: graduation: focus: sharpen' is that, in this instance, there is no appraisal to 'graduate: focus: sharpen'.  For many more of Martin's misunderstandings of Appraisal Theory, see here.

(On the other hand, Martin (1992: 211) rebrands the conjunctive function of in particular as comparative: similarity: reformulation: rework: generality: local: particularise.)

[2] The reason why in particular does not modify when is that in particular — like a conjunctive Adjunct (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 158), but unlike a modifier in a conjunction group (not a hypotactic complex) — can be postponed to the end of the clause as an Afterthought:

The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes — when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular.

See also analysis here.