The next two sections of Chapter 2 describe the differences between "maximal bracketing" and "minimal bracketing" — i.e., what Hudson earlier (1967/81:103) called the "few-ICs approach" vs. the "many-ICs approach (where "ICs" stands for "Immediate Constituents"). Here, we should understand that the term "bracketing" refers to a concept rather than a notation, but it is derived from the ultimately misleading concept that 'constituency' in syntax can be adequately represented by a linear representation of a bracketed string of words and/or morphemes. (See Section 11.2 of Chapter 11 for a discussion of alternative notations for representing the 'componence' part of 'constituency'.)
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, it is Halliday's discussion of maximal and minimal bracketing that provides the argument that explains why a functional approach necessarily entails adopting the ranked constituency approach (minimal bracketing); see previous post.
[2] This is misleading, because it is the exact opposite of what is true. Bracketing is a notation; it is a means — along with tree structure diagrams — of representing constituency analysis, whether immediate constituency or ranked constituency.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The linear representation of minimal or maximal bracketing expresses precisely the same constituency analysis as a tree diagram, which is Fawcett's preferred mode of representation.
[4] To be clear, as previously explained, Systemic Functional Grammar is not a theory of syntax.
[5] To be clear, Fawcett also (unwittingly) adopts the ranked constituency approach, but uses tree structures, rather than minimal bracketing, as his means of representation, but confuses formal constituents (clause and nominal group) with functional elements of structure (S/Ag, M, C/Af, h, dd, &). Fawcett (2010: 260):
In the above analysis, Fawcett interprets a graphological structure signal (Halliday 1994: 3) as a clause constituent (E).
No comments:
Post a Comment