Martin (1992: 134):
Grammaticalising Phoricity
As far as nominal group structure is concerned, phoric items function in all places except the Classifier. Reminding phoricity is realised through the Deictic and Thing; relevance phoricity is realised through Deictic, Post-Deictic, Numerative and Epithet — with supersets presumed by the Deictic, Numerative and Epithet and relevant sets by the Post-Deictic, Numerative and Epithet.
Blogger Comments:
[1] On the one hand, this misunderstands the concept of grammaticalisation, the process of becoming grammatical, which in SFL terms, is the movement of lexicogrammatical potential from the more delicate 'lexical zone' to the more general 'grammatical zone' over semogenetic time. Here Martin uses 'grammaticalising' merely to mean 'looking (at phoricity) from a grammatical angle'.
On the other hand, it is misleading, since the entire discussion has been concerned with grammar (nominal group and clause functions, etc.). Given that Martin's aim is to argue that his system is discourse semantic, and not grammatical, this misunderstanding serves Martin's interest.
[2] To be clear, reference (phoric) items do not function as part of nominal group structure; this misunderstanding arises from confusing the deictic function of determiners (interpersonal, nominal group structure) with the reference function of determiners (textual, non-structural). Rather, the nominal group is one of two domains in which reference items appear. The other domain, the adverbial group, is ignored by Martin's model, which means that it does not provide the semantic counterpart of what is realised by reference items in this domain.
[3] To be clear, 'reminding phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) personal and demonstrative (co-)reference, misunderstood, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics.
[4] To be clear, 'relevance phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics.
[5] To be clear, the actual grammatical domains in which co-reference ("reminding phoricity") items and comparative reference ("relevance phoricity") appear are identified by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 626):
On the other hand, it is misleading, since the entire discussion has been concerned with grammar (nominal group and clause functions, etc.). Given that Martin's aim is to argue that his system is discourse semantic, and not grammatical, this misunderstanding serves Martin's interest.
[2] To be clear, reference (phoric) items do not function as part of nominal group structure; this misunderstanding arises from confusing the deictic function of determiners (interpersonal, nominal group structure) with the reference function of determiners (textual, non-structural). Rather, the nominal group is one of two domains in which reference items appear. The other domain, the adverbial group, is ignored by Martin's model, which means that it does not provide the semantic counterpart of what is realised by reference items in this domain.
[3] To be clear, 'reminding phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) personal and demonstrative (co-)reference, misunderstood, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics.
[4] To be clear, 'relevance phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood, and relocated from non-structural grammar to structural discourse semantics.
[5] To be clear, the actual grammatical domains in which co-reference ("reminding phoricity") items and comparative reference ("relevance phoricity") appear are identified by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 626):
No comments:
Post a Comment