Misrepresenting Ranges As Mediums

Martin (1992: 313):

Further examples [of phrasal verbs as elaborations] are introduced in Table 5.10; the relevant Medium is provided in parentheses to clarify the phrasal interpretation.

Table 5.9. Elaboration in the verbal group
Verbal group event	=	particle	(medium)
sum		up	(the problem)
beat		up	(the class)
line		up	(the dogs)
see		through	(the disguise)
meet		up with	(a friend)
look		into	(the matter)
talk		over	(the issue)
run		away with	(the game)

 Blogger Comments:

According to SFL theory, four of the eight "Mediums" are Ranges.

they	summed up	the problem
Medium	Process	Range
Sayer		Verbiage
Token		Value

they	saw through	the disguise
Medium	Process	Range
Senser		Phenomenon

they	looked into	the matter
Medium	Process	Range
Senser		Phenomenon

they	talked over	the issue
Medium	Process	Range
Sayer		Verbiage

Misconstruing Expansion Relations Realised In The Nominal Group

Martin (1992: 311-2):

A similar process of elaboration is found in Classifier°Thing structures in nominal groups (Halliday 1985: 164-5).  … A number of examples are presented in Table 5.8 and contrasted with descriptive Epithet°Thing structures in parentheses.  Note that a frying fish is not usually a kind of fish, but rather a fish that is frying.

Table 5.8. Elaboration and extension in the nominal group
Nominal group classifier	=	thing	(epithet + thing)
frying		pan	(frying + fish)
spectator		fleet	(visiting + fleet)
deciding		race	(good + race)
nominal		group	(difficult + group)
red		wine	(nice + wine)
brick		wall	(green + wall)
first		prize	(lousy + prize)
tenor		saxophone	(new + saxophone)

 Blogger Comments:

[1] The logical difference between Classifier–Thing relations and Epithet–Thing relations is not the expansion opposition of elaboration versus extension.  The genuine Epithets here, like most of the Classifiers, elaborate the Thing, rather than extend it.  It is the same logical relation that obtains in intensive relational clauses: the race was good, this group is difficult, the wine is nice, the wall is green, the prize was lousy, the saxophone is new.

[2] The examples frying fish and visiting fleet are Classifier^Thing structures, not Epithet^Thing structures.  This is demonstrated by their inability to be intensified *a very frying fish, *a very visiting fleet.  (Cf a very good race, a very difficult group etc.).  Unlike Epithets, Classifiers do not accept degrees of intensity (Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 320).

[3] The nominal group frying pan classifies a Thing ('pan') according to its purpose ('frying').  The expansion relation is thus one of cause: purpose, which is a type of enhancement, not elaboration.

[4] The nominal group spectator fleet classifies a Thing ('fleet') according to its composition ('spectators'), which is a type of extension, not elaboration.

Misconstruing Logico-Semantic Relations Realised In The Clause [2]

Martin (1992: 311):

Table 5.7 illustrates a number of these Process ° Range constructions.  Note the way in which they contrast with the Process ° Medium structures in parentheses.  From the point of view of field, the Process ° Range:process structure involves just one meaning (which is realised through two lexical items, one elaborating the other; the Process ° Medium structures on the other hand involve two meanings, and an action and the participant that action is mediated through).

Table 5.7. Elaboration and extension in the clause
Clause process	=	range:process	(process + medium)
play		tennis	(play + the ball)
sing		song	(sing + her x to sleep)
score		run	(score + some dope)
ask		question	(ask + Mary x to tea)
tell		story	(tell + him off)
take		bath	(bathe + the baby)
do		dance	(dance + her x over)
make		friend	(befriend + John)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The view from field is irrelevant to whether or not 'the Process ° Range:process structure involves just one meaning'.

[2] A 'Process ° Range:process structure' construes two meanings: a process and a range of the process — not one.

[3] In the case of a verbal Process, the Range (Verbiage) is related to the Nucleus by projection, not elaborating expansion.

[4] In SFL theory, logico-semantic relations obtain between the Nucleus and participants (and circumstances) outside the Nucleus — not between the Process and Medium within the Nucleus. There are no extending relations between the Nucleus and other participants (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 174-5).

[5] 'Friend' is an entity, not a process.

[6] In such construals, 'Mary' functions as Beneficiary (Receiver), not Medium — the omitted Sayer is the Medium.  The Receiver is related to the Nucleus by enhancement, not extension.