Fawcett (2010: 80-1):
Thus, when Halliday was asked to write an account of 'systemic theory' for the Encyclopaedia of Languages and Linguistics, it was natural that he should draw primarily on the theoretical-generative strand of the theory. However, this leaves unanswered the question of why the aspects of the theory that are relevant to the 'text-descriptive' work that is presented in IFG are so different from the aspects presented in "Systemic theory".
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, what Fawcett previously (p79) described as "most striking" is now described as 'natural'.
[2] This is misleading. On the one hand, all "aspects of the theory" are potentially "relevant to the 'text-descriptive' work", whether theory is being used to describe a language or to analyse text.
On the other hand, the reason for the different presentation of theory in Halliday (1993) and in IFG (1985, 1994) is that these texts are instances of different registers, each realising a different context. For example, in terms of tenor, the addressee of Halliday (1993) is the general reader, whereas the addressee of IFG is an undergraduate linguistics student taking a course in Systemic Functional Grammar.
[1] To be clear, what Fawcett previously (p79) described as "most striking" is now described as 'natural'.
[2] This is misleading. On the one hand, all "aspects of the theory" are potentially "relevant to the 'text-descriptive' work", whether theory is being used to describe a language or to analyse text.
On the other hand, the reason for the different presentation of theory in Halliday (1993) and in IFG (1985, 1994) is that these texts are instances of different registers, each realising a different context. For example, in terms of tenor, the addressee of Halliday (1993) is the general reader, whereas the addressee of IFG is an undergraduate linguistics student taking a course in Systemic Functional Grammar.
No comments:
Post a Comment