Misrepresenting Elaboration

Martin (1992: 314):

As far as analysing lexical cohesion with specific fields in mind is concerned, all of the elaborating structures discussed above can be taken as realising single message parts.  This is the main source of incongruence between message part and lexical item as these units are being defined here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, field specificity is irrelevant for analysing lexical cohesion — as it is for all non-structural resources of the textual metafunction in the grammar.

[2] As demonstrated in recent posts (since 10/10/15), many of the 'elaborating structures' did not involve elaboration, and genuine elaboration relations were misclassified as extension or enhancement.

[3] In SFL theory, 'incongruence' is a technical term that refers to a metaphorical relation between the two levels of content, semantics and lexicogrammar.  Here it is applied to a non-metaphorical (congruent) relation between a proposed experiential unit at the level of (discourse) semantics, and the output of the most delicate systems of the lexicogrammar.

Misconstruing Elaboration As Enhancement

Martin (1992: 314):

These pre-nominal structures contrast with qualifying ones in which facet, measure, isolation and type are coded as distinct participants; the latter can be treated as involving two message parts:

ONE MESSAGE PART : TWO MESSAGE PARTS ::
the top of the ridge : the ridge x on the top ::
a herd of buffalo : buffalo x in the herd ::
the biggest of the melons : the melons x that were the biggest ::
that kind of beer : beer x of that kind ::
the train's passengers : the passengers x on the train

Blogger Comments:

In the case of the defining relative clause that were the biggest and of that kind, the expansion relation between the Thing and the Qualifier is elaboration, not enhancement,.

Misconstruing Extension (Possession) As Elaboration

Martin (1992: 314):

Finally, possessive Deictics can be taken as elaborating where the relationship between the participant realised by the Deictic and that realised through the Thing are in part whole relation rather than an ownership one: the train's passengers or its wheels but not his passengers or its kittens.

Blogger Comment:

Logically, both composition (part/whole) and possession (ownership) are types of extension, not elaboration, in SFL theory.

Misconstruing Extension (Composition) As Elaboration

Martin (1992: 313-4):

With nominal groups, one further set of elaborations to consider are realised through Pre–Deictic, Pre–Numerative, Pre–Epithet and Pre–Classifier structures.  The first three of these code part/whole relations and the last class/subclass ones.  Like Classifier°Thing structures, from the point of view of field these function simply as grammatical resources for isolating particular parts or classes of people, places and things.

Pre–Deictic            the top of = the ridge, the back of = the garden

Pre–Numerative     a herd of = buffalo, a mouthful of = food

Pre–Epithet            the last of = the questions, the biggest of = the melons

Pre–Classifier        that kind of = beer, this sort of = thing

Blogger Comments:

[1] The part/whole relation — composition (meronymy) — is a type of extension, not elaboration.

[2] In SFL theory, these are now termed 'facet' expressions and classified as extended Numeratives.

[3] In SFL theory, these are now termed 'measure' expressions and classified as extended Numeratives.  The first example is an 'aggregate' expression, whereas the second is a 'portion 'expression.

[4] In SFL theory, this is an ordering Numerative or 'ordinative'.

[5] In SFL theory, these are now termed 'variety' expressions and classified as extended Numeratives.

[6] These are nominal group functions, not structures.

[7] Only the first two involve part/whole relations: 'last' is not part of the whole 'questions'; 'biggest' is not part of the whole 'melons'.

[8] The point of view of field is irrelevant to these grammatical functions.

Misconstruing Enhancement (Cause) As Elaboration

Martin (1992: 313):

The same verbs [go and come] are similarly elaborated at group rank.  The verbal group complexes involved specify types of coming and going with respect to leisure activities:

go/come = swimming, skiing, snorkelling, jogging, running, sailing, handgliding [sic], surfing, drinking, etc.

Blogger Comments:

The leisure activities listed do not 'specify types of coming and going'; for example, 'drinking' is not a type of 'coming and going'.  Instead, the leisure activities represent the cause (purpose or result) of coming or going.  The expansion relation is thus enhancement, not elaboration.

Misconstruing Enhancing Circumstances As Elaborating Ranges

Martin (1992: 313):

Having taken this step, a number of related grammatical structures present themselves for treatment along similar lines.  At clause rank, there is a class of locative phrases which can be interpreted as subclassifying the Process whose ritual destination they provide.  These are associated with verbs of motion (especially go and come); their destination is realised through an unmodified nominal head (e.g. come to tea).  A number of these "locative Ranges" are listed below:

go/come = to/from work/school/class/uni/theatre/daycare;
                  to/from training/practice/football/hockey;
                  to/from dinner/tea/lunch/breakfast/supper;
                  to/from bed

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, these 'locative phrases' are circumstances of Location: spatial: motion: towards/away from.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 265-6).

[2] These 'locative phrases' cannot be interpreted as 'subclassifying the Process' because, for example, 'to tea' is not a type of 'come'.  Instead, they construe the spatial location: motion of the unfolding of the process.  Accordingly, the expansion relation is enhancement, not elaboration — and it obtains between the circumstance and the Nucleus.

[3] These are circumstances of Location, not "locative Ranges".  The distinction is exemplified below:

Ben	crossed	the mire
Medium	Process	Range

Ben	fell	into the mire
Medium	Process	Location

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.