However, Halliday also uses the term system in a more general sense. In this second sense it denotes 'paradigmatic relations' (or 'options in meaning potential'), and it is in contrast with the term structure, which is itself to be understood in a broad sense that embraces all aspects of syntagmatic organisation at the level of form. But we should notice this is not the sense in which the term "structure" was used in "Categories". There it was used in a quite specific sense, i.e., one in which it was mutually defining with the concept of 'element'. In other words, a second "fundamental category" is now being used in a different sense.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this is the same construal of system. In this case, system is being theoretically located in terms of the axial relation between paradigmatic system and syntagmatic structure, rather than in terms of the instantiation relation between system and instance.
[2] This is misleading, because 'form' is a level in Fawcett's model of syntax, not in Halliday's functional linguistics. Halliday models form as a rank scale at the level (stratum) of lexicogrammar.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In Categories, Halliday (2002 [1961]: 46) writes
A structure is made up of elements which are graphically represented as being in linear progression; but the theoretical relation among them is one of order.
This is the same sense of 'structure' in Systemic Theory; e.g. the experiential structure of a clause is a configuration of elements, such as Senser ^ Process ^ Phenomenon. What is true is that the notion of structure is backgrounded in Halliday (1993), since the priority of Systemic Functional Theory is system, not structure (and function, not form).
[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents a fundamental category in a superseded theory (Scale & Category Grammar) as a fundamental category in the theory that replaced it (Systemic Linguistics).
No comments:
Post a Comment