Fawcett (2010: 221):
The problem with the first method is that if, in a given instance, the element that is used as the 'anchor' point for placing another element were to be either missing from the unit or located in an untypical position in it, then the statement for placing any 'dependent' element in the structure would become much longer. This is because it would have to include a set of conditional rules, whose role would be to specify what should be done under various possible scenarios if the 'anchor' element were not to be both (1) present and (2) in its typical place. And these conditional rules would become exponentially more complex as the grammar was extended to handle the great range of possible variations in the sequence of elements in the English clause that occurs in natural language texts — especially in the varying positions of the various types of Adjunct. Indeed, it is only practicable to use this first approach in a highly limited sub-set of cases — i.e., (1) where the grammar is small (e.g., one that has been developed for illustrative purposes such as that in Halliday 1969/81) and (2) where every unit recognised in the grammar has at least one element that is both (a) obligatorily present and (b) always occurs in the same position.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because ordering realisation statements (e.g. Finite^Subject) only apply to features whose realisation statements also specify the insertion of both elements (e.g. +Subject, +Finite).
[2] This is misleading, because ordering realisation statements specify the relative ordering of elements, and an atypical location of one element does not affect the relative ordering of the elements.
[3] To be clear, these claims are irrelevant, since they derive from the misunderstandings identified above ([1] and [2]).
No comments:
Post a Comment