Fawcett (2010: 147):
For the reader who is familiar with Halliday's work, it may be helpful to think of the structure of a clause as being represented in the present approach rather as a group is represented in IFG. In other words, the 'metafunctions' "are not represented in the form of separate whole structures, but rather as partial contributions to a single structural line" (Halliday (1994:179). This does not deny the fact that many elements of the clause constitute the simultaneous realisation of several different types of meaning. In Figure 10, for example, the word We simultaneously realises the Subject and the Agent — and, as we shall see in a moment, the Subject itself is the realisation of two meanings.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this flatly contradicts Fawcett's previous insistence (p146) that the metafunctional nature of language should only be represented at the level of meaning:
In the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, where the representation at the level of form is the final, integrated output, it is clear that the level of representation at which the multifunctional nature of language should be displayed is in the representation of the meanings — because at the lower level the various strands of meaning have already been integrated into a single structure.
[2] To be clear, this again confuses constituents of the clause (groups and phrases), which can realise "several different types of meaning", with elements of clause structure, such as Theme or Subject, which cannot. A Theme realises textual meaning only; a Subject realises interpersonal meaning only.
[3] As previously observed, in the clause We would visit Mrs S every Sunday, we serves as the Medium through which the Process unfolds, with Mrs S serving as the Range or domain of the Process. There is no external cause of the Process construed as a participant (Agent). Reminder:
No comments:
Post a Comment