Fawcett (2010: 41):
In a fuller grammar the first unit to be generated would be a clause, and then one or more realisation rules would specify re-entry to the system network of meaning potential (as shown by the loop-back arrow on the left side of Figure 4), in order to generate one or more nominal groups (or even an embedded clause) to fill the relevant elements of the clause (as described in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993). The 'tree structures' in the bottom right box in Figure 4 are labelled sufficiently richly to express the various functions that each element serves, and they are, it will be clear, the instances at the level of form.
Blogger Comments:
This continues the discussion of Figure 4:
[1] By definition, a realisation rule specifies a realisation (a lower level of symbolic abstraction), and so, not a re-entry to a system network at a higher level of abstraction (meaning) than form.
[2] The claim that 'tree structures are instances at the level of form' is merely a bare assertion, since no supporting argument is provided. As Figure 4 illustrates, Fawcett incoherently regards tree structures as instances of realisation rules. As the term 'realisation rule' makes plain, the relation between the rule and what it specifies is realisation, not instantiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment