Fawcett (2010: 130):
There are differences in the sequence in which 'functions' are inserted in various versions of SF grammars, but what is constant across all such grammars — whether they are produced in the Sydney or the Cardiff frameworks — is that the phenomena that gets [sic] conflated are coterminous 'functional elements' (or 'functions' or 'elements') — and not structures.
Moreover, there is no generative systemic functional grammar in existence that includes a rule which conflates 'chunks' of the clause such as 'Residue', 'Rheme' and 'Given' with the various 'functions' in other 'strands'.
The fact is that Halliday, in his immensely influential but still exploratory work 'Options and functions in the English clause' (1969/81) appears to adopt an anomolous [sic] position. On page 143 he emphasises the concept that "the clause has a number of different but simultaneous structures" (while pointing out certain caveats, as indicated in the last subsection). But on the facing page he sets out a table of realisation statements that demonstrates clearly that the model is in fact one that simply conflates 'functions' — and not structures. In other words, his rules show how to generate the 'function' of 'Theme', but not the 'function' of 'Rheme'; they show how to give a Participant Role the 'function' of being 'New', but not how to assign the supposed function of 'Given' to whatever experiential element or elements it is relevant to — and similarly for the 'Residue'.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, as previously explained, the selection of clause features and the activation of realisation statements, the process of instantiation, is not temporally sequenced in SFL Theory. The application of the theory to computational text generation requires an adaptation of the theory to the limitations of computers, which, at the time of writing, do not learn language through interaction in a speech community.
[2] To be clear, this is true of SFL Theory, but contrary to what Fawcett has thus far been claiming.
[3] To be clear, this is true of SFL Theory, because no such rule is necessary. This is because all structures are integrated in the syntagm that realises them, and the terms 'Residue' and 'Rheme' are labels for negatives: 'not Mood' and 'not Theme', respectively.
[4] To be clear, 'Given' is not a function of the clause, and labels a negative: the portion of the information unit that is 'not New'.
[5] To be clear, there is no anomaly here. In Halliday's model, the clause does have a number of different but simultaneous structures, but it is only elements of structure that are conflated, not structures.
[6] See [4]. To be clear, it is not only participants, or indeed even experiential elements, that can be highlighted as New, as demonstrated by instances like:
[2] To be clear, this is true of SFL Theory, but contrary to what Fawcett has thus far been claiming.
[3] To be clear, this is true of SFL Theory, because no such rule is necessary. This is because all structures are integrated in the syntagm that realises them, and the terms 'Residue' and 'Rheme' are labels for negatives: 'not Mood' and 'not Theme', respectively.
[4] To be clear, 'Given' is not a function of the clause, and labels a negative: the portion of the information unit that is 'not New'.
[5] To be clear, there is no anomaly here. In Halliday's model, the clause does have a number of different but simultaneous structures, but it is only elements of structure that are conflated, not structures.
[6] See [4]. To be clear, it is not only participants, or indeed even experiential elements, that can be highlighted as New, as demonstrated by instances like:
- I say it is true (Process as New)
- I said put it on the table (Location as New)
- Of course it is! (comment Adjunct as New)
- I'm going anyway. (conjunctive Adjunct as New).
No comments:
Post a Comment