Examples (7) and (8) above presented the problem of embedded clauses whose role in clause structure is signalled by the same structure markers that position nominal groups. The relevant parts of these are reworked as (23) and (24) below with a subjacency duplex realising the relevant clause function. This obviates the need to suggest, rather spuriously, that these embedded clauses are in fact a special kind of nominal group.
%20Korean%20&%20Tagalog.png)
Blogger Comments:
[1] As previously explained, there is no problem here. The adposition marks a clause rank function, and in these cases the function is realised by an embedded. The reason why the authors mistakenly think this to be a problem is methodological: instead of starting with function (Value) and asking how it is realised in form (Token), they start with form (Token) and ask what function (Value) it realises.
Again, these adpositions are not structure markers, but markers of functions (clause roles); see Matthiessen (1995: 370). Because they are not structure markers, they are irrelevant to the concerns of the paper: interpreting structure markers in terms of subjacency duplexes.
[2] To be clear, applying existing SFL theory, the participants in (23) and (24) are each realised by an adpositional phrase consisting of an embedded and an adposition, on the model of a prepositional phrase:
Again, Martin & Doran have merely rebranded an adpositional phrase as a subjacency duplex.
[3] Again, this seriously misunderstands rankshift. There is no suggestion that a clause that is embedded in a nominal group is a "special kind of nominal group". Such a clause is shifted to the rank of word, where, like words, it serves as an element of nominal group structure (Head/Thing).
Again, the authors' misunderstanding is methodological: instead of starting with function (Value) and asking how it is realised in form (Token), they start with form (Token) and ask what function (Value) it realises.
No comments:
Post a Comment