Fawcett (2010: 29-30):
In pages 35-39 of Halliday (1965/81), Halliday discusses the complexities of alternative interpretations of Example (a) and similar examples, with the intention of showing that 'hypotaxis' represents the structural relationships more clearly than an analysis with embedding would. However, that discussion does not throw up any problems that are not equally well represented in the framework proposed in Part 2. Indeed, in many cases such relations are better represented by embedding. Thus the analysis of If you'd telephoned before I left, I'd have come would simply show if you'd telephoned before I left as a thematised Adjunct. And examples such as If before I left you 'd telephoned, I'd have come can be handled equally straightforwardly (though they would cause discontinuity in Halliday's model). See Section 11.9 of Chapter 11 for my analyses of the set of examples for which Halliday uses 'hypotaxis', and see Fawcett (in press) for the full presentation of this alternative approach.
Blogger Comments:
[1] Fawcett's report of Halliday's intention is inconsistent with Halliday's epistemological position. The issue is not which analysis "represents the structural relationships more clearly", but which analysis is the more functional; which analysis has the more explanatory power.
[2] An alternative analysis that creates "discontinuities" in the theory is not "equal" to one that doesn't.
[3] This is merely a bare assertion, made without any supporting evidence.
[4] Section 11.9 of Chapter 11 provides no arguments in support of Fawcett's alternative analyses.
No comments:
Post a Comment