Fawcett (2010: 83):
The fourth "fundamental category" in "Categories" is 'class' — and this concept too is missing from the list of "basic concepts" in "Systemic theory". This absence is equally surprising, because the concept of 'class of unit' is essential to any generative SF grammar. The reason is that the way in which such grammars work is that each pass through the system network builds the structure of a given class of unit. For example, the class of unit that the simple system network in Figure 1 of Appendix A generates is the nominal group, and it cannot generate any other class of unit. The class of unit that is generated in all of the illustrative generative grammars that Halliday presents is the clause (e.g., Halliday 1969/81). "Systemic theory" is oriented to the use of the theory in generation so that the concept of 'class (of unit)' is, in a sense, presupposed throughout, yet the fact is that it is not presented as a "basic concept".
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the reason why 'class' is not presented as a "basic concept" in Halliday (1993) is because Systemic Theory is "basically" a functional theory, rather than a formal theory, and 'class' is the categorisation of form.
This, of course, does not mean that 'class' is not accounted for by the theory. SFL models grammatical form as the rank scale, where it distinguishes classes, most explicitly at group and word rank; e.g. nominal vs verbal vs adverbial vs preposition vs conjunction group.
[2] To be clear, as already demonstrated, Fawcett's system network is inconsistent with SFL theory, not least because it construes lexical items as grammatical features of the nominal group.
[3] To be clear, here Fawcett mistakes a rank unit ('clause') for a class of rank unit (e.g. 'adverbial clause').
No comments:
Post a Comment