Fawcett (2010: 123-4):
We shall begin by asking how the representations of structure found in an IFG-style analysis fit into the theoretical-generative model of language that is used by Halliday and others. Specifically, we shall make explicit the implications of taking the position that the several strands of functional structure found in such representations are part of the generative grammar. In other words, we shall make a leap of faith (but only for a couple of pages) and assume that somewhere there is (or will be in the future) a systemic functional grammar that is capable of generating structures such as those in Figure 7 of Section 7.27
Adopting such an approach requires, as we shall see, the addition of a new component to the overall model of language and a new 'level' — or perhaps we should say 'stage' — in the representation of instances. The three stages of representation in such a model would be as follows:
1. the selection expressions for each unit (such as a clause), i.e., the features that display the unit's meaning potential (which could if we wished be displayed according to the clause's strands of meaning, as in the lower half of Figure 10 in Section 7.8), 2a. a set of several different structures, each corresponding to a major strand of meaning, and each consisting of a number of 'functions' (e.g., as in Figure 7 of Section 7.2, and as currently in IFG), 2b. the single structure into which these must finally be integrated (e.g., as in the last line of Figure 6 in Section 4.9 of Chapter 4, or in the upper half of Figure 10 of Section 7.8).
Thus the first type of representation corresponds to the 'selection expression' of features chosen in the system network, i.e., to the instance at the level of meaning in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3. However, each of the second and third types can be seen as corresponding, in their way, to the instance at the level of form in terms of Figure 4 in Chapter 3 (which is why they are labelled "2a" and "2b", rather than "2" and "3").
But what is the relationship of the last two to each other? Does the Sydney Grammar first generate a set of several different structures for each clause, one for each line of analysis in Figure 7 of Section 7.2, and does it then bring into operation a set of 'mapping rules' which match up all of these structures and then integrate them into a single structure? This is the clear implication of Halliday's statement (cited earlier in Section 4.9 of Chapter 4) that
it is the function of the lexicogrammar to map the structures onto one another so as to form a single integrated structure that represents all components [= 'components of the grammar, in the sense of 'metafunctions'] simultaneously. (1977/78:128)
If this was indeed how the Sydney Grammar worked, it would require another major component in the grammar itself to perform this complex task of 'mapping'. But is it?
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. What Fawcett actually does is ask how (his misunderstanding of) Halliday's model of clause structure fits his own model (Figure 4), which, as previously demonstrated, is invalidated by its own internal inconsistencies.
[2] This is misleading. Grammatical systems that specify clause structures appear in Matthiessen (1995) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014).
[3] This is misleading. Here Fawcett misrepresents his own model (Figure 4) as Halliday's model, and adjusts it so as to generate metafunctional clause structures.
[4] To be clear, on Halliday's model, the three metafunctional structures of the clause are integrated by the syntagm of units at the rank below — such as nominal group ^ verbal group ^ prepositional phrase — that realises (represents) the elements of clause structure.
[5] This is misleading, since neither Figure 6 nor Figure 10 is consistent with the model of structure in Halliday (1994). Figure 6 is from Halliday (1970) and represents a superseded stage of the model (with the word 'combined' strategically added by Fawcett):
[2] This is misleading. Grammatical systems that specify clause structures appear in Matthiessen (1995) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014).
[3] This is misleading. Here Fawcett misrepresents his own model (Figure 4) as Halliday's model, and adjusts it so as to generate metafunctional clause structures.
[4] To be clear, on Halliday's model, the three metafunctional structures of the clause are integrated by the syntagm of units at the rank below — such as nominal group ^ verbal group ^ prepositional phrase — that realises (represents) the elements of clause structure.
[5] This is misleading, since neither Figure 6 nor Figure 10 is consistent with the model of structure in Halliday (1994). Figure 6 is from Halliday (1970) and represents a superseded stage of the model (with the word 'combined' strategically added by Fawcett):
and Figure 10 is Fawcett's model, not Halliday's:
No comments:
Post a Comment