We turn now from 'class of unit' to 'element of structure'. In "Categories" the "fundamental category" was said to be the concept of the 'structure' of a unit, but in the present theory it is recognised that the more specific and so more useful notion is the concept of element of structure. In Halliday (1956/76) element had been one of the key concepts, but in "Categories" it was curiously sidelined in favour of the less specific concept of the structure of a unit. The concept of 'element of structure' is nonetheless present throughout IFG, and it is impossible to envisage a SF grammar that did not give it a central role. This, then, is the second major category in the present theory of syntax.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is not true that 'element' was "sidelined in favour the less specific structure of a unit" in Halliday (1961). To be clear, Halliday (2002 [1961]: 41) identifies the fundamental categories of Scale-&-Category grammar as unit, structure, class and system, and then discusses structure in terms of elements (Halliday (2002 [1961]: 46-9). It is this that Fawcett misrepresents as a "sidelining" of 'element' in favour of 'structure'.
[2] To be clear, on the one hand, this is nonsensical, because, since 'element' and 'structure' are mutually defining, one cannot be more useful than the other. On the other hand, it is misleading, because it gives the false impression that Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar has some advantage over its source, Halliday's Scale-&-Category Grammar, despite the fact that both theories (necessarily) use both concepts.
[3] This is not misleading, because it is true. In SFL Theory, it is the relation between functional elements that constitutes the structure. Moreover, elements are the syntagmatic functions (e.g. Phenomenon) assigned to forms (e.g. nominal group), and as functional theory, SFL is concerned with the functions of forms.
No comments:
Post a Comment