Fawcett (2010: 90-1):
Let us now summarise the place in "Systemic theory" of the more specifically 'structural' concepts from "Categories". The categories of 'unit', 'class (of unit)' and 'element' are not included in the presentation of the "basic concepts". Moreover, while the term "element" is used in presenting the realisation statements, it has a different sense from that in "Categories".
On the other hand, "Systemic theory" includes a set of seven 'realisation operations'. While the latter are related to the "categories" that are missing in "Systemic theory" — in the sense that they generate the structures that exemplify the missing categories — the relationship is not self-evident. In Section 9.2.1 of Chapter 9 we shall see exactly how a revised set of realisation operations can generate all of the specific categories and relationships that are needed to specify the instances at the level of form in a modern systemic functional grammar.
Thus two sets of concepts are required in a full theory of syntax: (1) the theoretical concepts that specify the syntax potential, and (2) the theoretical concepts that specify the instances. The theory of 'syntax potential' will be presented and discussed in Chapter 9 of Part 2, and the theory of 'instances of syntax' will be set out in Chapters 10 and 11.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Halliday's term 'element' retains the same meaning across the two theories, and Fawcett's misunderstanding on the matter arises from confusing 'element' with 'constituent'.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the "categories" that Fawcett mistakenly thinks are missing in Halliday (1993) are those that serve as the entry conditions to the systems at each rank: clause, group/phrase, word and morpheme.
[3] To be clear, Fawcett's 'instances of form' (in Figure 4) refers to 'one layer of a richly labelled tree structure'. As previously noted, this confuses instance (of potential) with the structure (realising system).
[4] This is misleading, because it falsely presents this non-sequitur as a conclusion entailed by the preceding discussion.
[5] To be clear, Fawcett (p172) identifies 'syntax potential' as part of 'form potential', which, in turn, he (p36) identifies as 'realisation rules/statements' (Figure 4). However, it turns out (p175) that 'realisation operations' and 'potential structures' are the two parts of 'syntax potential'. This compositional inversion will be examined further in the analysis of Fawcett's Chapter 9.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the "categories" that Fawcett mistakenly thinks are missing in Halliday (1993) are those that serve as the entry conditions to the systems at each rank: clause, group/phrase, word and morpheme.
[3] To be clear, Fawcett's 'instances of form' (in Figure 4) refers to 'one layer of a richly labelled tree structure'. As previously noted, this confuses instance (of potential) with the structure (realising system).
[4] This is misleading, because it falsely presents this non-sequitur as a conclusion entailed by the preceding discussion.
[5] To be clear, Fawcett (p172) identifies 'syntax potential' as part of 'form potential', which, in turn, he (p36) identifies as 'realisation rules/statements' (Figure 4). However, it turns out (p175) that 'realisation operations' and 'potential structures' are the two parts of 'syntax potential'. This compositional inversion will be examined further in the analysis of Fawcett's Chapter 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment