Confusing Word Complexing With Group Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 264):

Occasionally we need to allow for embedding in co-ordinated structures, as in examples such as ten boys and girls (where ten quantifies both the boys and the girls). The linker and is attached to girls (for the reasons given above) and the two nominal groups of (1) boys and (2) and girls jointly fill the head of a higher nominal group whose quantifying determiner is ten.

One notable characteristic of co-ordination is that the semantic and syntactic similarities between two units often result in a partial syntactic parallelism — and that this in turn often leads to ellipsis. Thus, in The thieves have stolen our TV and drunk all my whisky, the two elements of they (and not, it should be noted, the thieves) and have have been ellipted from the second clause. Ellipsis in co-ordinated clauses can become quite complex, as in Ivy is going out with Paul and not Fred. Here, to provide an adequate analysis, we need to reconstruct the ellipted elements, as follows: Ivy is going out with Paul and (she is) not (going out with) Fred. It is often the presence of the Negator not or an Adjunct that alerts the analyst to the presence of an ellipted clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, in this instance, boys and girls is a ranking — not embedded — extending paratactic word complex realising the Thing/Head of a nominal group.

[2] To be clear, since this is clause rank ellipsis, it is an element of clause structure, the Mood element comprising Subject and Finite, that has been ellipsed in this instance:

On the basis of the first clause, the ellipsed Subject is the thieves, not they. Since the speaker did not select this personal reference item as the Subject of the first clause, it cannot be understood as the Subject of the second clause, without presuming a reference that was not actually made.

[3] The ellipsed Subject here is Ivy, not she; see [2] above.

[4] To be clear, a more reliable diagnostic of clause rank ellipsis is the absence of one or more Mood or Residue elements from clause structure.

Problems With Fawcett's Recognition Criterion For Groups

Fawcett (2010: 202):

Typically, a group is capable of functioning as a complete referring expression — in the sense that it can stand on its own, after ellipsis, as a natural-sounding answer to a question such as Who's this?, Where did you put it?, What is she like? and How much do you love him?, each of which can be responded to by one of the four classes of group. 

The main exception to this generalisation is that quantity groups with certain items as their 'amount' occur only within quality groups and other quantity groups, and consequently cannot stand alone (e.g., far too is very unlikely as an answer to the question How heavy was it?). 

Thus the ability to function as a referring expression is a useful guideline when trying to identify a stretch of words in a text that constitutes a clause or group, and not an absolute test of one.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the ability of a group to function as a referring expression is its potential to realise a function at clause rank. This is the criterion that Halliday uses to classify groups, but the criterion that Fawcett rejects. That is, Fawcett's criterion for identifying groups ('from above') is inconsistent with his criterion for classifying groups ('from below'). Moreover, this constituency relation between clause and group implies a rank scale of forms, which Fawcett also rejects. Furthermore, Fawcett's criterion also justifies the verbal group — e.g. What do you usually do at night? Sleep — which Fawcett also rejects.

[2] To be clear, this exception would suggest that it is theoretically inconsistent to treat such syntagms as groups.

The Topmost Unit On A Scale That Is Not A Rank Scale

 Fawcett (2010: 190n):

¹ In other words, the topmost unit in a representation of syntax is always a clause — even though the topmost unit in a given text-sentence may appear to be a nominal group because of ellipsis.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, if the clause is the topmost unit, and a nominal group is not the topmost unit, then there is a scale on which there are higher and lower units. That is, despite Fawcett's claims, his model makes use of a rank scale — though inconsistently, as will be seen.