Finally, we should note that here we use the quantity group to analyse structures for which Halliday introduces the two units of the 'conjunction group' and the 'preposition group' (1994:211-2). The purpose of the first is to handle the relatively rare cases of internal structure within Binders ("subordinating conjunctions") such as almost as soon as (where as soon as is the "conjunction"), and the second is for the equally rare case of structure within a preposition. I know of no cases where a Linker ('co-ordinating conjunction') has internal structure (items such as and so, and and then being treated as single items that include a space, like the preposition in spite of). Logically, in view of the 'rank scale' principle, an IFG-style analysis should treat every case of a one-word conjunction or preposition as an element of one or other of these two classes of group — but there is no sign that Halliday would in fact do so.
Blogger Comments:
[1] See the earlier post Fawcett's Quantity Groups Reanalysed Using SFL Theory.
[2] To be clear, all classes of group are proposed in accordance with the theoretical principle of exhaustiveness. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 84):
The general principle of exhaustiveness means that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (cf. Halliday, 1961, 1966c). But not everything has a function in every dimension of structure; for example, some parts of the clause (e.g. interpersonal Adjuncts such as perhaps and textual Adjuncts such as however) play no role in the clause as representation.
[3] This is a serious misunderstanding of the rank scale. To be clear, the purpose of preposition group is not to handle structure within a preposition. (Structure within a preposition is realised by morphemes.) A preposition group is an expansion of a preposition, with a Modifier^Head structure, with a preposition serving as Head, as in right beneath. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):
Conjunctions also form word groups by modification, for example even if, just as, not until, if only. These can be represented in the same way, as β ^ α structures (or α ^ β in the case of if only). …Prepositions … form groups by modification, in the same way as conjunctions; e.g. right behind, not without, way off as in right behind the door, not without some misgivings, all along the beach, way off the mark.
[4] This is misleading, because wordings such as and so and and then are indeed conjunction groups "with internal structure". Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 478):
The combination of enhancement with parataxis yields what is also a kind of coordination but with a circumstantial feature incorporated into it; the most frequently occurring subtypes are those of time and cause. The circumstantial feature is typically expressed (a) by the conjunctions then, so, for, but, yet, still; (b) by a conjunction group with and: and then, and there, and thus, and so, and yet; …
[5] Clearly, the wording 'a space' is another instance that demonstrates that Fawcett's view on language is 'from below', in this instance from graphology. As previously explained, this is the direct opposite of a functional approach, where the view is 'from above': the functions being realised.
[6] This is almost true. In SFL Theory, every one-word conjunction or preposition realises an element of its respective group; see [7].
[7] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. In SFL Theory, a one-word conjunction or preposition serves as the unmodified Head of a conjunction or preposition group:
No comments:
Post a Comment