Nominal Group Grammar: System and Structure

Abstract

In this introductory paper for this series of special issues, we review the development of nominal group description in SFL – focusing on its syntagmatic and paradigmatic modeling, and stepping through a number of the principles that underpin SFL description more broadly. We then explore a number of issues that have arisen in relation to nominal groups as more languages have been described in SFL, such as how to deal with structural markers that have typically been left aside in explicit SFL modeling, and how to reconcile logical and experiential perspectives on the nominal group. As part of this, the paper proposes analyses aimed at extending SFL again – in particular suggesting a clearer division of labor between the word rank and the group rank, and proposing a type of structure called ‘subjacency’ for non-iterative dependency structures. Our aim is to further promote SFL as an evolving model of language and to encourage researchers to further develop SFL descriptions of languages around the world.

Keywords:

• systemic functional linguistics
• nominal groups
• system
• structure
• types of structure

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This scale and category grammar of English was developed by Gregory in the mid-1960s and used in teaching and research in the English Department at Glendon College from that time.

2 This is in fact a simplification. Non-pronominal groups can have a range of word classes as a Thing in addition to a noun, including a verb (her excellent running) and an adjective (the deep blue).

3 The tension is also reflected in the uncertainty surrounding grammatical and ungrammatical possibilities for relativisation (e.g., ?he was exhausted from the tennis he’d just played three sets of).

4 Note that the realisation of graded as Epithet: word complex, indicates that if graded is chosen the first time, the Epithet is realized by a word complex. It is not meant to indicate that every recursive choice of graded inserts a new Epithet or word complex. Rather, for every choice of graded, there is another choice of word complex at the rank below which would then insert an extra word into the complex. The specific relation of this word and its structural function is here left unformalized, pending a more developed systemic and functional description of both the English group/phrase and word rank.

5 For non-English examples in this introduction a layer of Leipzig glossing has been provided for the benefit of readers familiar with such analysis. Leipzig glossing is not based on SFL and it is not part of the SFL description offered here (which is provided by the rows of analysis underneath the Leipzig glossing); however it serves as a useful lingua franca across theories.

6 gf indicates Goal focus

7 In this and subsequent examples ‘ntp’ labels the non-thematic participant and 'tp' labels the topic marking clitic.

8 Tagalog's -ng linker is here assimilated to the final /n/ of dahan-dahan 'slowly'; its hyphen is part of Tagalog graphology.

9 “ntobl” labels the non-topic marking oblique clitic or pronoun.

10 Alternatively we could insist that structures such as #β ^ α are treated as realising a subjacency duplex; this would mean adjusting the analysis in (59) so that both the Actor and the Goal are realized in class terms by a subjacency duplex, which is realized in turn in structural terms as #β ^ α.