"SFL Needs To Offer Detail On Multiword Expressions And On Polysemy Vs Homonymy"

Fontaine (2017: 10):

However, the nature of lexical representation is not clearly articulated in SFL. As Davidse (2017:79) makes very clear, “linguistic theories specify one’s fundamental assumptions about language and the nature of the linguistic sign. It is within these assumptions that the facts of a language are described – that is, its categories identified and interpreted”. The preference in lexical representation for homonymy or polysemy is not theory neutral, there are assumptions related to each position. SFL needs to offer detail on multiword expressions (MWEs) and on polysemy vs homonymy.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory, which accounts for its lack of articulation in SFL Theory.

[2] This is very true. This is why it is very important to understand the assumptions of the theory being used.

[3] This is very true. The assumptions on which lexical representation and modelling lexis in terms of homonymy and polysemy are based are those of other theories, and are not consistent with the assumptions of SFL Theory.

[4] To be clear, as already explained, the notions of polysemy and homonymy view the lexical item 'from below', which is inconsistent with SFL Theory, which views the lexical item 'from above': the meaning it realises. Polysemy views the lexical item as grammatical form that realises many meanings, whereas homonymy views the lexical item as (shared) phonological form.

The approach of SFL Theory to multi-word expressions, such as phrasal verbs, is systemic. For example, the experiential function of put up with as a Process is argued by reference to its agnate tolerate.

"The Treatment Of Phrasal Verbs"

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.