Classifying Forms (Personal Pronouns) In Terms Of Formal Categories (Case)

Martin (2013: 22-3):

As far as NUMBER and GENDER are concerned it is a regular part of the system; but as far as CASE is concerned it is an exception. The usual strategy for showing exceptions of this kind in SFL is to use a marking convention that blocks specific combinations of features. We can read the 'I' superscript on the feature [neuter] along these lines and connect it to the 'T' superscript on [nominative] (read as 'if [neuter] then [nominative]', and so not [accusative]). Note that this means arbitrarily describing it as [nominative], and lacking an accusative form. …  

CASE is introduced as a third system, simultaneous with NUMBER and GENDER below. The if/then marking convention has been deployed in the network, but realisations have been informally provided as a list, rather than being tied to specific features (except for you).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is again classifying form (a pronoun) in terms of formal categories (case) instead of systemising functions.

[2] Note that this means misrepresenting the data, since it is the accusative form as well as the nominative form. That is, it is a misuse of the conditional marking.

[3] To be clear, these are not functions, but forms specified by formal categories. Martin's motivation for modelling forms instead of functions will become clear in the review of his Tagalog PERSON systems.