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.

How To Identify The Thing (And Head) Of A Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):

… while the Thing … is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause … It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.

To demonstrate: 

Here it is clearly the word picture that serves as Thing, since it was the picture that was eaten by the llama, not Dorian Grey.

For Matthiessen (1995: 656-7), on the other hand, it is Dorian Grey that serves as Thing in such nominal groups:

Yaegan Doran On Sundanese Nominal Groups

Sundanese nominal groups: A textual grammar

Yaegan Doran

The Australian Catholic University

This talk considers the nominal group in Sundanese, a Malayo-Polynesian language of West Java, Indonesia. In particular, it builds a meaning-based description of Sundanese nominal groups, focusing in particular on textual meaning. Born of educational concerns associated with literacy programs, this talk describes the nominal group not only in terms of the formal syntagms at play, but also their functions; not only the paradigmatic choices that are available, but how they are taken up in text; and not only the grammar by itself, but how it realises meanings in discourse. The aim is to develop a richly co-textualised and metafunctional description of Sundanese nominal groups that can explain text patterns from a range of genres and registers.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this paper did not discuss the textual meaning of the nominal group. Instead, it was concerned with reference, which is not a system of the nominal group, though the nominal group, along with the adverbial group, is a grammatical domain in which reference items are located.

One reason why reference is not a system of the nominal group is that it is not realised by a structural relation within the nominal group. Instead, reference is realised by a non-structural relation between a reference item and a referent which may not even be in the text (exophoric reference), let alone in the same nominal group.

This confusion was compounded by the fact that Doran used Martin's model of reference (identification), though without acknowledging the fact, which is (purportedly) discourse semantics, not grammar. Moreover, as explained in great detail here, Martin's model mistakes nominal groups for reference items, mistakes ideational denotation for textual reference, mistakes interpersonal deixis for textual reference, and mistakes non-reference ("presenting reference") for reference.

Deixis Vs Reference

Personal and demonstrative DEIXIS is a system of the nominal group, personal and demonstrative REFERENCE is not a system of the nominal group.

Personal and demonstrative DEIXIS serves an interpersonal function, personal and demonstrative REFERENCE serves a textual function.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 367):

Many languages embody these two forms of deixis in the structure of the nominal group. The two are closely related, both being (as indicated by the term ‘deixis’) a form of orientation by reference to the speaker – or more accurately, to the ‘speaker-now’; the temporal-modal complex that constitutes the point of reference of the speech event.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 623):

The textual status at issue in the system of reference is that of identifiability: does the speaker judge that a given element can be recovered or identified by the listener at the relevant point in the discourse or not? If it is presented as identifiable, then the listener will have to recover the identity from somewhere else. If it is presented as non-identifiable, then the listener will have to establish it as a new element of meaning in the interpretation of the text.