Fawcett (2010: 122):
So far in Section 7.3 we have so far been concerned with the question of whether a representation of a text by a single (though multifunctional) level of analysis is adequate. And the answer has been that we should, in principle, represent a text in terms of its systemic features, because, in Halliday's words, "the system has priority". And I have suggested that it is preferable to show the multifunctional nature of language at the level of meaning, since it is in fact the "strands of meaning" (IFG p.34) that we wish to model.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, by "representation of a text", Fawcett means a representation of an analysis of clause structure in terms of the three metafunctions.
In terms of SFL Theory, "a single level of analysis" is an analysis of language in terms of the lexicogrammatical stratum only, without regard to semantics (or phonology/graphology). Such an analysis of the content plane is adequate in the absence of grammatical metaphor, because, in such circumstances, the semantics and lexicogrammar are in agreement (congruently related).
[2] To be clear, even though, in SFL Theory, "the system takes priority", Fawcett's perspective is firmly focused on structure, even to extent of representing systemic features as elements of structure (Figure 10), as previously demonstrated.
[3] As previously noted, this contradicts Fawcett's earlier claim that two elements at his level of form, Complement and Adjunct, are classed as experiential.
[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'the three distinct kinds of meaning that are embodied in the structure of a clause' (Halliday 1994: 34) constitute an analysis at the level of wording (lexicogrammar), not meaning (semantics). This is because grammatical forms are viewed 'from above', and so are identified in terms of the meanings they realise, such as nominal group serving as Subject, etc. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):
In terms of SFL Theory, "a single level of analysis" is an analysis of language in terms of the lexicogrammatical stratum only, without regard to semantics (or phonology/graphology). Such an analysis of the content plane is adequate in the absence of grammatical metaphor, because, in such circumstances, the semantics and lexicogrammar are in agreement (congruently related).
[2] To be clear, even though, in SFL Theory, "the system takes priority", Fawcett's perspective is firmly focused on structure, even to extent of representing systemic features as elements of structure (Figure 10), as previously demonstrated.
[3] As previously noted, this contradicts Fawcett's earlier claim that two elements at his level of form, Complement and Adjunct, are classed as experiential.
[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'the three distinct kinds of meaning that are embodied in the structure of a clause' (Halliday 1994: 34) constitute an analysis at the level of wording (lexicogrammar), not meaning (semantics). This is because grammatical forms are viewed 'from above', and so are identified in terms of the meanings they realise, such as nominal group serving as Subject, etc. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):
Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning – it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment