Misrepresenting Structure Marker 'Of' As An Experiential Function

Martin & Doran (2023: 18):

One of the main issues with these structure markers is that they do not neatly “fit” into the typical configurations of structure that SFL proposes. For example, one possibility for incorporating structure markers into the description of nominal groups is to assign them a function label, such as Focus Marker below. This treatment positions them as an additional element of experiential structure — i.e. as a constituent of the unit being analysed. This is in effect the strategy of what is often referred to as Cardiff grammar, which labels the Focus Marker in (1) as “v”, standing for what Fawcett calls the “selector” element of nominal group structure (Fawcett 1980: 204; cf. Fontaine and Schönthal 2020). 

This treatment as a Focus Marker is outlined for Halliday and Matthiessen’s Example (1) below, revising the terminology along the lines of that proposed in Martin et al. (2010:170) (so Focus rather than Facet) and incorporating both class and function labels to clarify the embedded nominal group involved. Following SFL notation the embedded group is enclosed in square brackets.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, structure markers may, or may not, serve as elements of structure. In the case of linkers and binders, the structure marker also serves as structural Theme. But in the case of the structure marker of, it serves no function other than marking a relation between nominal groups. That is, it does not serve as a functional element in nominal group structure.

[2] To be clear, the unnecessary rebranding of Halliday's 'Facet' as Martin's 'Focus' creates theoretical inconsistency by replacing an experiential category with a textual category. The inconsistency is further exacerbated by the the fact that the term 'Focus' is already used for New information in the information unit. As demonstrated by the 61 clarifying critiques here, Martin's modus operandi has long been to rebrand the work of his sources, thereby creating the potential of being credited with their ideas.

[3] To be clear, the problem with this approach is that the structure marker of does not serve any function in the nominal group the tops. Specifically, the function Focus Marker does not relate to the nominal group the tops, and so does not form a structure with it. Instead, of simply marks a relation between two nominal groups: the tops and the hills.

[4] To be clear, the problem with this treatment is that the structure marker of is not a constituent of 'the unit being analysed', the embedded nominal group the tops. Instead, it is a constituent of the prepositional phrase of the hills. Where, in the experiential analysis, the first nominal group is treated as embedded, of marks the relation between the two nominal groups.

[5] To be clear, Example (1) misrepresents the preposition of the prepositional phrase of the hills as a clitic of the nominal group the tops.