Fawcett (2010: 132-3, 133n):
The importance of establishing these facts is as follows. Despite the similarity in appeararance [sic] of the representation in Figure 9 to those in IFG, it is clear from both the verbal description in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and from the diagram showing "successive states of the blackboard" (their Figure 9.15 on their page 108) that in their account of the generation of a clause (or any other unit) there is no stage at which there are co-existing sets of different functional structures which must later be integrated. And this is the case with all SF generators. 13
13. For our present purposes, we shall ignore the "Moodtag" in the Matthiessen and Bateman analysis, because it raises additional theoretical and descriptive problems. These arise because their analysis suggests that the elements labelled "Moodfinite" and "Moodsubject" function directly as elements of the clause, rather than being elements of a clause that is embedded within the 'Tag', as it would be in the Cardiff Grammar analysis. See Fawcett (1999) and (in press) for the Cardiff Grammar's analysis of such 'tags', and for the evidence that they should be modelled as embedded clause of a 'truncated' type.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Fawcett is here arguing against a theory of language on the basis of how the theory is adjusted to fit the limitations of computers in generating texts. More importantly, he misunderstands the model, since clause structures are integrated in the syntagm of group rank units that realise them. (Strategically, Fawcett again switches terminology from the 'conflation' of structures, the misunderstanding that invalidates his argument, to the 'integration' of structures, a genuine principle of the theory.)
[2] To be clear, this is how Moodtags are analysed in SFL Theory: as functional elements of the clause whose Subject and Finite they reprise, and whose presence and polarity depend on the mood features of that clause.
[3] To be clear, the question here is whether the 'Tag' itself is an element of the clause whose Mood element it reprises. If it is, then the 'Tag' functions "directly" as an element of the clause, whether or not it is said to be realised as an embedded clause. If it is not, then Fawcett's nonsensical suggestion is that a 'Tag' is a clause realised by an embedded clause.
[2] To be clear, this is how Moodtags are analysed in SFL Theory: as functional elements of the clause whose Subject and Finite they reprise, and whose presence and polarity depend on the mood features of that clause.
[3] To be clear, the question here is whether the 'Tag' itself is an element of the clause whose Mood element it reprises. If it is, then the 'Tag' functions "directly" as an element of the clause, whether or not it is said to be realised as an embedded clause. If it is not, then Fawcett's nonsensical suggestion is that a 'Tag' is a clause realised by an embedded clause.
No comments:
Post a Comment