Fawcett (2010: 23):
While Halliday continues to use the derived concept of 'secondary structures' in IFG (as we shall see in Section 10.3.4 of Chapter 10), he took the innovatory step in "Categories" of interpreting 'secondary classes' as 'systems' (1961/76:67) — and so of relating the two paradigmatic concepts of 'class' and 'system' on the scale of delicacy. Thus, the elevation of the concept of 'system' to the level of 'meaning' (which we shall discuss in Section 4.3 of Chapter 4) also implies the elevation of the concept of 'class'.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. What Fawcett labels 'secondary structures' turn out (in his Chapter 10) to be three distinct phenomena mistaken for one:
- univariate logical versus multivariate experiential structure of the nominal group,
- interpersonal structure of the clause: Mood + Residue versus Subject + Finite + Predicator + Adjunct,
- element of textual structure of the clause: Theme versus textual/interpersonal/experiential subtypes versus further subtypes of each.
The first involves two complementary metafunctional perspectives on the nominal group, the second involves the two layers of the interpersonal structure of the clause, and the third involves the elaboration of subtypes of the Theme of a clause.
[2] This is confused. Class and system are not related on the scale of delicacy. The scale of delicacy is a dimension of system.
[3] The term 'elevation' is misleading here, and is the source of the false inference. In Section 4.3, Fawcett misinterprets Halliday's clause systems of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME as semantic instead of lexicogrammatical. This is because Fawcett confuses semantics with a view of the grammar from the perspective of semantics. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49) clarify:
Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a ‘semanticky’ kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment