One notable fact about most published description of English using SFL is that the accounts given of the groups are very much less full than those of the clause. It therefore seems possible that in a future revision of IFG Halliday may take to its logical conclusion the change in criteria signalled in Halliday (1963). As one indication of the advantage of changing, consider the fact that, in Halliday's current approach there can be no equivalent of the useful summary of English syntax given in Appendix B, because generalisations based on the internal structure of units have little or no place in his theory of syntax.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the focus on the clause in SFL Theory arises from the sense in which the clause is the 'central processing unit' of the grammar. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 10):
The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. For this reason the first half of this book is organised around the principal systems of the clause: theme, mood and transitivity.
[2] This is misleading. As previously demonstrated, Halliday (1963) outlines these alternative criteria for classifying units, which Fawcett uses, before making clear that these are the criteria that he does not take up. Such a conclusion would, therefore, be far from logical.
[3] To be clear, the theoretical advantage of using Fawcett's criteria for classifying units is being able to use his criteria to classify units, whose tree structures are usefully summarised in Appendix B. This is an instance of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.
[4] This not misleading, because it is true.
[5] This is misleading. As previously explained, Halliday's SFL Theory is not a theory of syntax. Halliday (1985 & 1994: xiv):
No comments:
Post a Comment