Fawcett (2010: 96):
It is only in Chapter 2 that we reach the application of the 'constituency' concepts discussed in Chapter 1 to grammar itself, and Halliday simply presents the concept of a 'rank scale' of units from 'sentence' to 'morpheme' as "strengthening this conception of grammatical structure" (IFG p. 23). The concepts are simply presented to the reader, with no attempt to justify them as preferable to alternatives by supportive arguments. This is understandable in a work that is presented as a textbook but it does not help us in our quest to understand the theory that underlies the description. In fact they are open to challenge, as we shall see in Section 11.1 of Chapter 11.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is very misleading indeed, because it is deeply untrue. Halliday clearly sets out the reasons why a functional approach is based on a rank scale, that is: a ranked constituent analysis (minimal bracketing) rather than immediate constituency analysis (maximal bracketing). For example, Halliday (1994: 22-3):
Literally interpreted, the wording 'minimal bracketing' would presumably mean no bracketing at all. It does not mean that, of course; what it means is functional bracketing — bracketing together only those sequences that have some function relative to a larger unit. …
If we use maximal bracketing, we are taking the concept of bracketing as a powerful explanatory device; in other words, we are attempting to explain as much of grammar as possible in terms of constituent structure. The concept of constituency is being made to do a lot of work. If we use minimal bracketing, we are relegating the concept of bracketing to a less important role, requiring the notion of constituency to take us only a limited way in the explanation of the grammar, and no further. This means, of course, that we have to bring in other concepts to take over the burden of interpretation where constituent structure is no longer relevant. The concepts in question are, in the first instance, functional ones. …
The rank scale provides the basis for a constituent analysis of the 'minimal bracketing' type. In minimal bracketing, each node corresponds to a unit on the rank scale; this is why we refer to it as a 'ranked' constituent analysis. …
We can see now more clearly the difference between the two ways of bracketing. Maximal bracketing is a statement of the order of composition of the constituent parts. It expresses the idea that some constructions are more closely bonded than others, to the extent that, given any grammatical structure, it is possible to specify the order in which all the pieces are put together, pair by pair. …
It says nothing about the function that any of the pieces have in any construction; in fact it does not imply that they have any function at all. … This is in marked contrast to minimal bracketing, which means putting together as constituents only those sequences that actually function as structural units in the item in question.
It follows from this that, as we expressed it earlier, maximal bracketing is a way of explaining as much as possible about linguistic structure by means of the notion of constituency. … With minimal bracketing we are merely saying: combine those and two and tall and trees, in a single operation; the result is a group consisting of four words. This tells us very little, and so it suggests that if we are using minimal bracketing some other concept is being brought in in order to explain the grammatical structure. This is where the concept of FUNCTION is introduced. It will be necessary to to say something about the particular function that each part has with respect to the structure as a whole.
[2] As previously noted, Halliday (1994: xxvii, xxvi) explicitly states in the Introduction:
This is not an account of systemic theory… No attempt is made to 'teach' the categories.
[3] As will be seen, in the challenge in Section 11.1, Fawcett confuses formal constituent (rank unit) with functional element of structure, thereby invalidating his argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment