Mistaking A Structure Marker For A Functional Element

  Fawcett (2010: 212):

Note however that, despite the small size of the item expounding the genitive element, it serves a function that is equivalent to a preposition, through its expression of the relationship of 'generalised possession' (i.e., 'part-whole' relationships, etc, as well as 'ownership'). Compare the dog's back legs and the back legs of the dog.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the preposition of in the nominal group the back legs of the dog is not a functional element but a structure marker. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 341, 425):

Note that the structure the cooking of the rice, where the Medium follows of, is not an exception; of is functioning here, as it typically does, not as preposition but as structure marker – cf. genitive ‘s in the rice’s cooking. …

The exception is prepositional phrases with of, which normally occur only as Postmodifier; the reason is that they are not typical prepositional phrases, because in most of its contexts of use of is functioning not as minor Process/Predicator but rather as a structure marker in the nominal group (cf. to as a structure marker in the verbal group).

[2] To be clear, the part-whole relation obtains within the nominal group, not within the cluster, thereby invalidating the notion of the cluster as the unit that construes (generalised) possession.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these are both nominal groups, one with a nominal group — the dog's — embedded as Deictic, and the other with a prepositional phrase — of the dog — embedded as Qualifier: