Fawcett (2010: 133-4, 133n):
The procedure described in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) is first to generate the 'function' of 'Mood' in the 'primary' structure of the interpersonal line of structure, and then, apparently straight away (judging by the 'blackboard' representation in their Figure 7.15 on page 108), they insert the 'function' of 'Finite' by the use of what they term the "Expand" operator. The effect of this is to build the Finite into the secondary structure as what they term a "subconstituent" of the higher 'function' of 'Mood'.14 A later realisation statement then adds the 'Subject' as a second 'subconstituent' of the 'Mood' 'function' in the same way, and then another finally orders them with respect to each other.
14. The Finite is therefore in effect a 'function', while not being, oddly, a direct 'function' in a 'unit', in the usual manner. However, it seems that in some unspecified way it must still count as a direct 'function' of the clause, because it later gets conflated with the direct clause 'function' of Process. (This is necessary because the word is in the text is both the Finite and the Process, as Figure 9 shows.)
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. To be clear, this describes an application of SFL Theory to the generation of texts by computer. It is not a description of the theory as a model of human language.
[2] This is misleading. The word 'direct' is a red herring here. The Finite is an element of the interpersonal function structure of the unit 'clause', and in this instance, is realised by a verbal group. The fact that the Finite is a component of the element 'Mood', does not make any less direct an element of clause structure, and Fawcett offers no argument in support of his bare assertion.
No comments:
Post a Comment