Perhaps, you might think, the concept of 'structure' in the "Categories" sense would still be reflected in "Systemic theory" through the presence of the term element, with which it is mutually defining? The term "element" does indeed appear in "Systemic theory", but once again it is used in a somewhat different sense (as I shall explain shortly). But the most surprising fact of all about the concept of 'element' in "Systemic theory" is that it is not presented as one of the "basic concepts". It is simply employed in defining other concepts — rather as if it was considered to be a non-theoretical concept whose meaning the reader is expected to interpret without guidance. In "Systemic theory", then, the concepts of both 'structure' and 'element' are used in different senses from those with which they were used in "Categories".
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday (1993: 272-3) uses 'element' in the same sense: as an element of structure, such as Subject, Finite, Theme, Process etc.
[2] This is misleading in two ways. On the one hand, Halliday (1993: 272-3) presents 'element' in his discussion of the "basic concept" of Systemic Theory, systems, where it features in realisation statements. On the other hand, it is not surprising that the concept should be presented this way, especially in a brief encyclopædia article, because what distinguishes Systemic Theory from Scale and Category Grammar (1961) is the 'shift to a paradigmatic orientation' (p273). (Fawcett's orientation is to structure and form, rather than system and function.)
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as demonstrated above for 'element', and in the previous post for 'structure'. That is, Fawcett has misrepresented Halliday (1993) on both matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment