Beatriz Quiroz Correctly Identifying A Descriptive Inconsistency Introduced Into IFG3 & IFG4

Beatriz Quiroz wrote to SYSFLING on 27 Dec 2024, at 07:23:

As far as I could recall when I was a grammar tutor un Sydney, both demonstratives and possessives are described as realising the Deictic function (whether they function as Head or as Modifier) in the English nominal group.

In IFG4 this is the case, certainly. The Thing, on the other hand, it's said to be realised by common nouns, proper nouns and personal pronouns (p. 383).

However, on Table 9.9, on reference expressions in English, it's suggested demonstrative 'pronouns' realise the 'Thing/Head' as well (p. 626). Would this mean pronominal uses of demonstratives realise the Thing, not Deictic? Why possessive pronouns would still be analysed as Deictic, according to this table?

Martin et al (2010) (DFG) suggest pronouns could be analysed as Deictic/Thing (although they don't mention pronominal uses of demonstratives and possessives) (p. 167). According to p. 169, however, cases in which demonstratives realise the Head would be treated as elliptical nominal groups without a Thing. This is consistent with how IFG4 treats elliptical nominal groups (p. 390) in the chapter on groups and phrases.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is all unproblematic.

[2] To be clear, Table 9.9 in IFG4 does analyse a demonstrative pronoun as Thing/Head and not Deictic:

However, this is a theoretical inconsistency introduced into IFG3 and IFG4 by Matthiessen. The source of the inconsistency can be identified by comparing IFG1/2 with IFG3/4. In Halliday (1985: 295; 1994: 313), demonstrative pronouns are characterised as Head, but not Thing:

However, in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 556) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629), Halliday's table has been altered so that demonstrative pronouns serve as Thing, as well as Head:

and it is this misreading of Halliday (1994) that informs Table 9.9 in IFG4.

[3] To be clear, Table 9.9 suggests that possessive pronouns — like mine — would be analysed as Thing/Head, and possessive adjectives — like my — would be analysed as Deictic/Premodifier or Head.

The Grammar Liberation Front (GLF) Meets The Punctuation People’s Brigade (PPB)

Scene: A shadowy underground bunker. On one side of the room sits the Grammar Liberation Front (GLF), armed with stacks of red pens and leather-bound grammar guides. Across the table, the Punctuation People’s Brigade (PPB) sits with holsters of apostrophes and belt-fed semicolon dispensers. The tension is thick.

GLF Leader: "Right, comrades. First item on the agenda: the split infinitive crisis. The PPB refuses to recognise our authority on this matter. How do you respond, Colonel Comma?"

PPB Leader: (Sharply) "We respond by defending the people's right to split infinitives wherever they damn well please! To boldly go, to truly believe, to actually care—it’s freedom in action!"

GLF Leader: "Freedom? Freedom to butcher the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare? I’ll not sit idly by while you obliterate centuries of grammatical tradition!"

PPB Member #1: (Tapping a large book) "Centuries? The split infinitive wasn’t even a thing until Latin-obsessed Victorians got their knickers in a twist! And don’t think we’ve forgotten your tyranny with the Oxford comma!"

GLF Member: (Leaping up) "The Oxford comma saves lives! ‘Let’s eat, Grandma’ versus ‘Let’s eat Grandma.’ Need I say more?"

PPB Member #2: "Oh, give it a rest! No one ever actually misunderstands those sentences. You just like feeling superior!"

GLF Member: "I’ll feel superior when you learn to use your quotation marks correctly, you heathens! Double quotes for dialogue, single quotes for everything else!"

PPB Member #3: "How dare you! Single quotes are perfectly acceptable in British English, you prescriptive swine!"

GLF Leader: (Slamming a fist on the table) "This is exactly why we need grammatical unification. You lot can’t even agree amongst yourselves. And don’t think we haven’t noticed your semicolon abuse."

PPB Leader: (Standing dramatically) "Semicolons are the bridge between sentences! They are the poetry of punctuation, and I will not have them reduced to a mere afterthought!"

GLF Member: (Sneering) "Poetry? They’re the passive-aggressive smirk of punctuation!"

(A PPB member flips the table. Red pens and apostrophe ammunition scatter everywhere. Chaos erupts as the GLF and PPB charge at each other, hurling grammar guides and punctuation marks like projectiles. A stray ellipsis rolls dramatically across the floor.)

Neutral Observer: (Cowering behind a thesaurus) "For heaven’s sake, we’re all fighting for the same cause! Can’t we unite against the real enemy?"

GLF Leader: (Panting mid-brawl) "And who would that be?"

Neutral Observer: (Whispering) "The Emoji Collective."

(Silence falls. The thought of rogue smiley faces and unregulated thumbs-up icons strikes fear into everyone. Slowly, they lower their weapons.)

PPB Leader: (Grimly) "We have to set aside our differences. For the language."

GLF Leader: "Agreed. But mark my words—if you misuse a hyphen, I’ll be back for you."

---

Cue a tentative truce, as the GLF and PPB join forces to combat the terrifying anarchy of emojis and texting abbreviations. Because nothing unites like a common enemy… especially one that ends every sentence with "LOL."