Fawcett (2010: 55):
In the first approach, then, the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on are held to be choices in meaning, and so "the semantics" — very much as in the model proposed here.
In the second approach, which we shall call the 'two-level model of meaning', the existing networks are held to be choices within the grammar (or the 'lexicogrammar') — albeit in a grammar that is described as having been "pushed [...] fairly far" towards the semantics, and whose networks Halliday still describes as modelling "meaning potential" (Halliday 1994:xix). These lower level choices in 'meaning' are said to be "preselected" by choices in a higher system network, which is itself the level of semantics.
Blogger Comment:
[1] As previously explained, the 'first approach' is Fawcett's misrepresentation of Halliday's grammatical networks as semantic networks.
[2] As previously explained, the 'second approach' is Halliday's actual model, wherein the said networks are grammatical systems.
[3] As previously explained, the wording 'two levels of meaning' misunderstands the principle of stratification. To be clear, in SFL theory, the upper level of the content plane of language is meaning (semantics), and the lower level of the content plane of language is wording (lexicogrammar). Lower level choices are choices in wording, not meaning.
[2] As previously explained, the 'second approach' is Halliday's actual model, wherein the said networks are grammatical systems.
[3] As previously explained, the wording 'two levels of meaning' misunderstands the principle of stratification. To be clear, in SFL theory, the upper level of the content plane of language is meaning (semantics), and the lower level of the content plane of language is wording (lexicogrammar). Lower level choices are choices in wording, not meaning.
[4] As previously explained, by the wording 'meaning potential', Halliday refers to language as system, not the stratum of semantics. Halliday (1994) is titled An Introduction To Functional Grammar, and its introduction includes a discussion headed Grammar and Semantics (xix-xx), and the stratal distinctions of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology (xiv).
(Trivially, the wording 'meaning potential' does not appear on the page cited by Fawcett: Halliday (1994: xix).)
The reader is invited to consider why Fawcett repeats these misrepresentations of Halliday's model over and over and over and over, instead of just getting on with setting out his own theorising.
(Trivially, the wording 'meaning potential' does not appear on the page cited by Fawcett: Halliday (1994: xix).)
∞
The reader is invited to consider why Fawcett repeats these misrepresentations of Halliday's model over and over and over and over, instead of just getting on with setting out his own theorising.
No comments:
Post a Comment