Misconstruing Nominal Group Modality As Comparative Reference

Martin (1992: 117-8):

The final comparison system to be considered relates participants to relevant proposals (see Halliday 1985: 235-47) and is realised by too and enough.  These items assess quantity or quality with respect to the amount or degree necessary to enable a presumed proposal; this function is perhaps clearest when the proposal is embedded in the same nominal group as in [3:42] and [3:43]:

[3:42]  The boy was too upset [[to eat his breakfast]].
[3:43]  The boy had enough time [[to finish it]].

Too realises [difference]; [3:42] means that the boy was upset to a degree different from that required to eat his breakfast.  Enough on the other hand realises [semblance]; [3:43] means that the boy had the amount of time identical to that he needed to finish.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, contrary to the implication, Halliday (1985: 235-47) says nothing about comparison, and does not endorse the theoretical misunderstandings presented here by Martin.

[2] To be clear, in modifying the Head of a nominal group in terms of modality — possibility, necessity — these grammatical items function interpersonally.

[3] To be clear, neither of these embedded non-finite clauses realises a proposal (command or offer); both would realise propositions (statements) as ranking clauses: the boy ate his breakfast, the boy finished it.

[4] To be clear, this is 'difference' in the most general sense of one semiotic feature being different from another.

[5] To be clear, too in [3:42] means 'to a higher degree than is possible' (for eating breakfast).  It does not function as a comparative reference item because it makes no comparison of upset with to eat his breakfast.

[6] To be clear, this misunderstands the meaning of 'semblance'. In English, 'semblance' means 'the outward appearance or apparent form of something, especially when the reality is different'.

[7] To be clear, enough in [3:43] serves the same function as sufficient: a post-Deictic of modulation, as shown by the agnates (the) required and (the) necessary.  It does not function as a comparative reference item because it makes no comparison of time with to finish it.

Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [3]

Martin (1992: 117):

The distinction between [similarity] and [identity] also accounts for the difference between so and that where they realise comparison in Attributes.  Both are colloquial in register.  So realises similarity and points to the non-verbal context, often to an iconic measuring gesture:

[3:40]  The frog was about so big.

That realises [identity] and depends on information recoverable from either the verbal or non-verbal context; it is exclamatory in intensity:

[3:41]  You mean he was that stupid!

 Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading.  Having falsely presented this distinction in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 76) as his own work — see the two previous posts — Martin reinforces this falsehood by purporting to argue for the value of "his" distinction.

plagiarism (noun) 

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. 

synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation;

See also Jim Martin "Honouring" The Late Ruqaiya Hasan where Martin falsely accused the late Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium organised to honour her.

[2] This confuses the nominal group structure that realises Attributes (experiential metafunction) with comparative reference (non-structural textual metafunction).  Comparative reference involves a cohesive relation between a reference item and some reference point by which a comparison is made (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 632-3).  (Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION purports to theorise the semantics of reference.)

[3] Any referential function of so in this constructed instance is demonstrative, not comparative, since it serves the same function as this in The frog was about this big.  The item is exophoric to a gesture that indicates the size of the frog.

[4] Any referential function of that in this constructed instance is demonstrative, not comparative, since it serves the same function as that in You mean he was stupid to that extent.

That is, Martin has used two instances of demonstrative reference ([3] and [4]) to illustrate a distinction in comparative reference that he has falsely presented as his own work.

[5] Trivially, this misconstrues speech function (exclamatory) as intensity.

Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [2]

Martin (1992: 117):

The feature [semblance] could be further subclassified, into [identity] and [similarity].  This makes it possible to note the ways in which the features [presenting] and [presuming] condition its realisation; such occurs only in the context of presenting reference, same only in the context of presuming reference.

	PRESENTING	PRESUMING
SIMILARITY	a similar frog; such a frog	the similar frog;
IDENTITY	an identical frog; an equal amount	the identical frog; the equal amount; the same frog/amount

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here again Martin presents a distinction in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 76) as his own work, rebranding his misunderstanding of their grammatical distinction as his discourse semantic distinction.

plagiarism (noun) 

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. 

synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation;

See also Jim Martin "Honouring" The Late Ruqaiya Hasan where Martin falsely accused the late Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium organised to honour her.

[2] To be clear, Martin's distinction between presenting and presuming reference is his rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's grammatical distinction between non-specific and specific deixis, misunderstood as reference and relocated to his discourse semantic stratum; see previous posts.

[3] As these constructed examples demonstrate, reference is here misunderstood as feature of nominal group structure.  No attempt is made to provide, in a constructed co-text, a frame of reference by which something is 'the same or different, like or unlike, equal or unequal, more or less' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 632).

Presenting Halliday & Hasan's Ideas As Martin's Ideas [1]

Martin (1992: 116-7):

As far as the nature of the comparison itself is concerned, this may be on the basis of similarity or difference.  With general comparison this is the contrast between such, same, equal, similar, identical realising [semblance] and other, different, else realising [difference].  Where the comparison is experientialised, [difference] is realised either through the comparative morpheme -er or through submodification of a two or more syllable adjective with more or less; [semblance] is always realised through submodification in this context:

so/as/such/equally/similarly/identically + adjective.

The following paradigm exemplifies this crossclassification.

	QUANTITY	QUALITY
DIFFERENCE	fewer frogs	bigger frogs
SEMBLANCE	as many frogs	such big frogs
	β    α	β      α

Blogger Comments:

[1] The similarity vs difference opposition is not the basis of all comparative reference, merely the general (vs particular) type.  More importantly, Martin misleadingly presents these ideas as if they are his own; see Halliday & Hasan (1976: 76).

[2] This is a rebranding of the grammatical distinctions in Halliday & Hasan's (1976: 76) ' general comparison' as discourse semantics, with Martin's 'semblance' subsuming the original features 'identity' and 'similarity'.

[3] Martin's "experientialised" comparison is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976: 76) 'particular (non-deictic)' comparison, and Martin's 'quantity' vs 'quality' opposition is a rebranding of their 'numerative' vs 'epithet' opposition, with these grammatical distinctions rebranded as discourse semantics.  Most importantly, Martin misleadingly presents these ideas as if they are his own.

plagiarism (noun)

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. 

synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation;

See also Jim Martin "Honouring" The Late Ruqaiya Hasan where Martin falsely accused the late Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium organised to honour her.