Fawcett (2010: 143):
In summary, we can say that the main focus of interest among most systemic functional linguists is the description of texts. When one is working on text analysis, what matters most is that one has as one's working tool the most insightful method of analysis that one can find. The approach to representing structure in IFG has one great advantage over others (such as an updated Scale and Category analysis, e.g., as advocated in Morley 2000). This is, of course, that it provides a clear visual image of the multifunctional nature of language — and so a clear mental construct. Moreover, it is currently the only SF framework for describing language that is available in published form (i.e., in IFG and the various derived publications). This fact has led to the widespread acceptance of IFG-style analyses as the only 'correct' SF analyses — and so, coincidentally, to the widespread acceptance of the 'structure conflation' model.
Furthermore, it seems probable that most inquirers into the nature of SFL have ignored works such as Halliday's "Systemic theory" (1993) and Matthiessen & Bateman's Text Generation and Systemic Functional Linguistics. (1991) — and yet it is in such works that we find the statements that define the Sydney version of the theory. On the other hand, even these works fail to bring out the fact (as we have seen it to be) that there is no theoretical-generative SF grammar that is capable of either (1) generating multiple structures of the type illustrated in IFG and (2) integrating them into a single structure.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, any "correctness" of the model of clause structure in IFG (Halliday 1994) lies in it being consistent with SFL Theory.
[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents both SFL Theory and the text linguists who apply SFL Theory. As previously explained, the notion of 'structure conflation' does not feature in SFL Theory, and as such, there is no acceptance of the model whatsoever.
[3] This is misleading. To be clear, "the Sydney version of the theory" is Halliday's own version of the theory he himself painstakingly devised, whereas other "versions" are merely alterations to Halliday's theory based on misunderstandings, such as those exposed on this blog. For "statements that define" Halliday's version of his own theory, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) and IFG (Halliday 1985, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).
[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue on two counts, since metafunctional clause systems do "generate" metafunctional clause structures, and since integrating them into a single structure is not a requirement of the theory. To be clear, clause structures are integrated in the formal syntagm (of group/phrase rank units) that realises them.
[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents both SFL Theory and the text linguists who apply SFL Theory. As previously explained, the notion of 'structure conflation' does not feature in SFL Theory, and as such, there is no acceptance of the model whatsoever.
[3] This is misleading. To be clear, "the Sydney version of the theory" is Halliday's own version of the theory he himself painstakingly devised, whereas other "versions" are merely alterations to Halliday's theory based on misunderstandings, such as those exposed on this blog. For "statements that define" Halliday's version of his own theory, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) and IFG (Halliday 1985, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).
[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue on two counts, since metafunctional clause systems do "generate" metafunctional clause structures, and since integrating them into a single structure is not a requirement of the theory. To be clear, clause structures are integrated in the formal syntagm (of group/phrase rank units) that realises them.
No comments:
Post a Comment