Fawcett (2010: 145):
Let us now summarise where the Sydney Grammar stands in relation to the searching questions asked in this chapter.
In answer to Question la, it is clearly desirable to have representations of a text at the levels of both form and meaning.
In answer to Question lb, it is natural for the semantic representation to show the different 'strands of meaning' (which do not necessarily run all the way through a clause), but the whole purpose of the representation at the level of form is to integrate the various types of meaning into a single structure, so that it is not appropriate to show the various strands of meaning at this level too. (The only reason for doing so would be if we did not have the descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning, which appears to be the case in the framework of current Sydney Grammar publications.)
The answer to Question 1c is that 'conflation' is an operation that relates two elements (or 'functions') in a clause rather than clause-length representations. The 'multi-strand' representations of the functional structure of clauses in IFG may be a helpful aid to some when thinking about the strands of meaning that are found in a text — if no better means is available — but they play no part in a generative systemic functional grammar. Indeed, it would be helpful if this could be made clear in future writings in the Sydney Grammar framework, e.g., in the next edition of IFG.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, form and meaning are levels in Fawcett's model, not SFL Theory. In the latter, the levels of language are the strata of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, and grammatical form is theorised as a rank scale.
[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the structure of each clause involves three lines of meaning, but not all clause constituents, groups and phrases, realise all three types of meaning.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The level of form is a level in Fawcett's model (Figure 4) only, and the integration of various types of meaning into a single structure might be the "whole purpose" of structural representation in Fawcett's model, but that is not the case in SFL Theory. In the latter, the three lines of clause rank structure are integrated in the syntagm of units, groups and phrases, that realise them.
[4] This very misleading indeed, since a "descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning" (semantics) was provided in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), which, though focused on ideational semantics, includes discussions on interpersonal and textual semantics.
[5] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the notion that "clause-length representations" are conflated is a figment of Fawcett's imagination, derived from his misunderstandings of the SFL theorising of formal constituency and functional structure.
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'multi-strand' representations in IFG are theoretically-consistent representations of the structures that realise the three metafunctional systems at the rank of clause. This is why they still form the backbone of later editions of IFG (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).
[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the structure of each clause involves three lines of meaning, but not all clause constituents, groups and phrases, realise all three types of meaning.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The level of form is a level in Fawcett's model (Figure 4) only, and the integration of various types of meaning into a single structure might be the "whole purpose" of structural representation in Fawcett's model, but that is not the case in SFL Theory. In the latter, the three lines of clause rank structure are integrated in the syntagm of units, groups and phrases, that realise them.
[4] This very misleading indeed, since a "descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning" (semantics) was provided in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), which, though focused on ideational semantics, includes discussions on interpersonal and textual semantics.
[5] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the notion that "clause-length representations" are conflated is a figment of Fawcett's imagination, derived from his misunderstandings of the SFL theorising of formal constituency and functional structure.
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'multi-strand' representations in IFG are theoretically-consistent representations of the structures that realise the three metafunctional systems at the rank of clause. This is why they still form the backbone of later editions of IFG (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment