Fawcett (2010: 26):
The first two concepts are a pair of ideas that have come to play a major role in Halliday's later model of grammar — and especially in the framework that he uses for analysing text-sentences in IFG. These are 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'.
In what follows, I shall use 'scare quotes' around these terms as a sign that they — or rather one of them, i.e., 'hypotaxis' — will have no role to play in the framework presented here. However, since the two terms are so closely bound up together in Halliday's theory, it will be safer to avoid 'parataxis' too. The types of relationship between units that 'parataxis' provides for are essentially the same as those covered by co-ordination, in a broad sense of the term that includes 'asyndetic co-ordination' (as described in Quirk et al. 1985:918) as well as co-ordination with overt markers such as and. I shall therefore normally use the term "co-ordination" rather that "parataxis".
Blogger Comments:
This is misleading. The traditional notion of coordination is not equivalent to parataxis, but to the combination of parataxis and the logico-semantic relation of extension. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):
The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known as co-ordination between clauses. It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but. We can recognise three major subtypes of paratactic extension, (i) addition, (ii) variation and (iii) alternation.
Unlike coordination, parataxis also combines with the other two relations of expansion, elaboration and enhancement, as well as the other major logico-semantic relation, projection, as in the case of a quoting nexus. Traditionally, coordination contrasts with subordination, which largely corresponds to the SFL category combination of hypotactic enhancement. The distinction between taxis and logico-semantic relations is an important one that potentially obtains between units in complexes at all ranks in the grammar: clause, group/phrase, word and morpheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment