On Lexis And Functionally Motivated Syntagmatic Structure

Bateman (1998: 16):

Indeed, it is often claimed that lexis does not respect the organisational lines that a grammar would most naturally follow (cf., e.g., Wanner, 1997:154). If ‘dying’ and ‘kicking a bucket’, for example, are to be reached from the same point in a combined lexicogrammar, then difficult questions are raised about the kind of structural realisational consequences that a grammar may place on its less delicate features. If a lexical idiom can at any more delicate point in the grammar choose to ignore the natural functionally motivated syntagmatic structure expected at that point, then the grammar description is in danger of being severely compromised: the entire notion of a functionally motivated syntagmatic structure may be weakened considerably. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the euphemistic expression is 'kicking the bucket'.

[2] To be clear, such "difficult questions" are only raised by those who misunderstand SFL theory.  As a synonym for the lexical item 'die', 'kick the bucket' serves as a lexical item.  In this usage, it serves as the Process of a material clause:

Donald Trump	died	yesterday
	kicked the bucket
Medium Actor	Process: material	Location: time

That is, it does not have the same syntagmatic structure as the literal usage:

Donald Trump	kicked	the bucket	yesterday
Agent Actor	Process: material	Medium Goal	Location: time

One line of evidence for this distinction concerns agency and voice.  On this functional interpretation, the euphemistic instance is a middle clause, and so does not select for voice.  The literal instance, on the other hand, is an effective clause, and so does select for voice, as shown by its receptive agnate:

the bucket	was kicked	by Donald Trump	yesterday
Medium Goal	Process: material	Agent Actor	Location: time

In short, any claim that the euphemistic use of 'kick the bucket' has the same "natural functionally motivated syntagmatic structure" as the literal usage is without foundation.  Moreover, contrā SFL theory, it arises from prioritising the form of wording over its function.

[3] Here Bateman suggests that his taking a formal approach to syntagmatic structure undermines the notion of SFL syntagmatic structure as functionally motivated.