Fawcett (2010: 102):
Thus all three of the 'categories' of 'unit', 'class of unit' and 'element (of structure)' are in fact alive and well in IFG, and the 'rank scale' is also there in the background for use when needed. Moreover, while the concept of 'delicacy' is never mentioned, it is illustrated throughout IFG whenever MOOD is analysed, in the sense of an analysis in terms of 'primary' and 'secondary' structures. (For a discussion of the relevance of 'delicacy' to 'structure', see Section 10.3.4 of Chapter 10.)
We might say, then, that IFG is a description of English that is based on the concepts of "Categories" — but with the addition of the concepts of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' from Halliday (1965/81).
However, there is one highly significant difference that is not covered by what has been said so far. It is that it is assumed in "Categories" that a clause has a single structure, where the typical elements were "S Ρ C A", etc. But in IFG, as we shall see, a clause is seen as having simultaneously five or more different structures. The problems raised by these representations will be our major concern in the next chapter.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, as already explained, in SFL theory, delicacy is a dimension of systems, not structures, and is a type of elaboration (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 144-5). In applying the term to Mood structure — e.g. Subject and Finite as components of Mood — Fawcett confuses delicacy (elaboration) with composition (extension).
[2] To be clear, this grossly misrepresents the degree of difference between the two theories: Category & Scale Grammar (Halliday 1961) and Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday 1994). Among the most important differences are the introduction, in the latter theory, of system and metafunction as major organising principles.
[3] This is misleading. To be clear, in IFG, the clause has three lines of structure:
[2] To be clear, this grossly misrepresents the degree of difference between the two theories: Category & Scale Grammar (Halliday 1961) and Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday 1994). Among the most important differences are the introduction, in the latter theory, of system and metafunction as major organising principles.
[3] This is misleading. To be clear, in IFG, the clause has three lines of structure:
- experiential (transitivity),
- interpersonal (mood), and
- textual (thematic).
"As we shall see", Fawcett will misrepresent:
- information as a system of the clause,
- mood structure as two structures, and
- thematic structure as two structures.
No comments:
Post a Comment