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.