Fawcett (2010: 74):
Then, in the second half of the chapter, we surveyed the effect of Halliday's adoption of the concept that there is a higher set of system networks than those of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME. First we noted that this has led him to express increasingly strongly the view that the relationship between these system networks and the structures that are generated from them is only one of realisation by "extension" or by "analogy".
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the 'higher set of system networks' than the grammatical systems of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME are the systems of the semantic stratum, such as the interpersonal system of SPEECH FUNCTION and the ideational systems set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).
[2] This is misleading. To be clear, the reason why the relation of realisation also applies to the relation between system and structure is because it is the very same relation: the fundamental semiotic relation of symbolic abstraction between a higher level Value (system) an a lower level Token (structure).
See also what Halliday actually said, in this regard, in the earlier clarifying critique: (Accusing Halliday Of) Confusing Axial Realisation With Instantiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment