Fontaine (2017: 9):
As an example of the need for more explicitness on lexical representation, let’s consider the treatment of phrasal verbs, a type of multi-word expression (MWE), see Moon (1997) for a discussion of the many types of MWEs. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014:413) define them as “lexical verbs which consist of more than just the verb word itself”.
Fawcett (2000) has a similar position but differs in how these forms are represented in the theory. He considers that the lexical items are effectively separate elements of the clause (i.e. main verb and main verb extension) but that these forms jointly realise the process.
If phrasal verbs are single lexical items, although orthographically expressed as two, then they should be analysed in the same way as any other multi-morphemic lexical item, such as unhappiness or understand.
The issue of their potential discontinuity is not necessarily a barrier to this approach. Evidence from neurolinguistics by Cappelle, Shtyrov & Pulvermuller (2010:200) supports the position “that language users store prefabricated chunks of lexical material which consist of more than one word and which can potentially be separated (e.g. heat the room up)”. If this is how these MWEs are stored, then grammatical description should reflect this and the theoretical framework should represent them as such. In other words, lexico-grammatical description should be, at least in part, based on (or include) what we know about the cognitive aspects involved, e.g. how linguistic items are stored.
Blogger Comments:
[1] As previously explained, the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with both SFL Theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999) and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman 1989: 228).
[2] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen's discussion of phrasal verbs is concerned with the word as grammatical unit — verb, preposition, adverb — not with the word as lexical item. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 413):
They are of two kinds, plus a third, which is a combination of the other two:
(i) verb + adverb, e.g. look out ‘unearth, retrieve’
(ii) verb + preposition, e.g. look for ‘seek’
(iii) verb + adverb + preposition, e.g. look out for ‘watch for the presence of’
[3] To be clear, Fawcett's 'main verb' and 'main verb extension' are concerned with the word as a grammatical constituent, not with the word as lexical item.
[4] To be clear, this is Halliday's model. Phrasal verbs realise the Process of a clause.
[5] To be clear, phrasal verbs are already modelled in SFL as single lexical items.
[6] To be clear, neurolinguistics and cognitive linguistics are founded on different assumptions about language which entail different approaches to modelling it. Importantly, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 595-9) analyse the model of cognitive science from the perspective of SFL Theory, showing, for example, how it reconstrues mental processes as material and relational processes. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 595-6):
Since figures of sensing are reified as participants, they can themselves be construed in participant roles. Here another feature of the folk model is taken oven its spatial metaphor is retained and further elaborated. Thus the mind is construed as a space where the metaphorical participants of sensing are involved in processes of doing & happening and of being & having: thoughts, concepts, memories, images are stored, located, retrieved, activated and so on.