Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

Fawcett (2010: 272):

To summarise: we treat four of Halliday's five types of 'hypotaxis' and two of his five types of 'parataxis' as embedding, and one type of 'hypotaxis' and his three 'expansion' types of 'parataxis' as co-ordination. Thus the features that generate these examples are found in various parts of the system network. This approach, then, is less novel than Halliday's, but it is equally systemic and functional. And it has all been implemented in COMMUNAL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the relation of the Cardiff Grammar's embedding and co-ordination to tactic and logico-semantic relations in SFL Theory is represented below: 

[2] To be clear, Fawcett neither provides the system network that generates his examples, nor names the features, nor specifies the various locations of these features in the network.

[3] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument. Moreover, it evades the issues of whether this approach is theoretically inconsistent or has less explanatory potential than the SFL approach.