Fawcett (2010: 59n-60n):
I should point out that, when Halliday adds a further level of system networks above the existing level, he neces[s]arily also add[s] a further component to the model, to enable the grammar to 'map' the choices made at one level onto the choices available at the lower level. However, he does not describe what this extension to the model entails, so I shall attempt to provide a summary of this in the next section. A further problem is that Halliday uses the term 'preselection' in two senses. The first is the standard sense of the 'preselection' that occurs in a realisation rule which 'pre-selects' a feature to be chosen on a subsequent traversal of the network (as we shall see in Chapters 5 and 9). But his second use is for the 'preselection' of a choice in a network that results from a choice in a higher component. It is of course important to keep a clear distinction between the levels (or strata) of language and the layers of structure within syntax. In the Cardiff Grammar, therefore, we use "preselection" only in the established sense of the relationship between layers of the tree structure. We use the terms "predetermine" and "predetermination" for the relationship between any higher component in the process of generation and the choices in the system network.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is manifestly untrue. The semantic networks Fawcett alludes to are presented in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), which devotes 618 pages describing "what this extension to the model entails".
[2] This is misleading, because it is manifestly untrue. There is only one sense of 'preselection' in the two usages cited by Fawcett: the selection of one feature entails the selection of another. That is, the probability of their co-selection is 1. The theoretical location of the features involved is irrelevant to the meaning of the term. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 375):
[3] This is misleading, because it presents Fawcett's reinterpretation of a term introduced into SFL by Halliday as the established sense.
[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, there is no causal relation between strata. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 25):
[6] To be clear, in SFL theory, this process is the process of instantiation: the selection of features during logogenesis, the unfolding of text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.
[2] This is misleading, because it is manifestly untrue. There is only one sense of 'preselection' in the two usages cited by Fawcett: the selection of one feature entails the selection of another. That is, the probability of their co-selection is 1. The theoretical location of the features involved is irrelevant to the meaning of the term. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 375):
More specifically, inter-stratal realisation is specified by means of inter-stratal preselection: contextual features are realised by preselection within the semantic system, semantic features are realised by preselection within the lexicogrammatical system, and lexicogrammatical features are realised by preselection within the phonological/graphological system.
[3] This is misleading, because it presents Fawcett's reinterpretation of a term introduced into SFL by Halliday as the established sense.
[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, there is no causal relation between strata. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 25):
In any stratal system (i.e. any system where there are two strata such that one is the realisation of the other) there is no temporal or causal ordering between the strata. … the relationship is an intensive one, not a causal circumstantial one.[5] To be clear, in Fawcett's model (Figure 4), because system networks are located at the highest level, meaning, there is no higher component.
[6] To be clear, in SFL theory, this process is the process of instantiation: the selection of features during logogenesis, the unfolding of text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment