Thus Halliday continues to use the "Categories" concept of having a 'primary', 'secondary' and if necessary a 'tertiary' structure within each strand of text analysis. However, it is not clear how far this concept still has its former central role in Halliday's current theory. While it is not mentioned in the summary of "Systemic theory" given in Halliday (1993), it is there by implication in his realisation operation "Split" (for a discussion of which see Section 9.2.3 of Chapter 9). And the concept that there is a 'primary' and a 'secondary' structure plays a fairly prominent role in the examples of clause analysis in IFG, often appearing twice in the analysis of a single clause (once for MOOD and once for THEME, whenever there is a case of 'multiple Theme'). Its main justification seems to be that it is thought to add insight to the description. (The theory does not require it, as I have shown in Section 9.2.3 of Chapter 9).
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is not true. The notion of primary and secondary structures, conceived of in terms of delicacy (elaboration) of structure, was a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961) only. In SFL Theory, there are no primary and secondary structures, and the principle behind the layered structures of Mood and Theme is composition (extension), not delicacy (elaboration).
[2] To be clear, adding insight to a description is a positive quality of a theory. See previous posts on Mood and Theme for the theoretical motivations for layered structuring that are unknown to Fawcett.
[3] This is misleading, because it is not true. See, for example, two of the previous clarifying critiques of Section 9.2.3, 'A comparison of the realisation operations in the two frameworks':
No comments:
Post a Comment