Fawcett (2010: 91-2):
Let me now summarise the differences between "Categories" and "Systemic theory". They could hardly be greater. The fact is that "Systemic theory" presents an almost completely new set of "basic concepts". These are: 'system' and 'system network' (but both in the 'meaning potential' sense), 'instantiation', 'selection expression', 'realisation' and 'structure' (the last being used in a highly generalised sense that is quite different from its precise sense in "Categories"). Thus the list of "basic concepts" in "Systemic theory" does not mention two of the four original "fundamental" categories at all ('unit' and 'class'), and the two that are included as "basic concepts" now have significantly different meanings ('system' and 'structure'). The concept of 'element' is referred to, as we have seen, but it is not presented as a "basic concept", and it has a significantly different sense from that of the term "element" in "Categories".
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, "Categories" (Halliday 1961) and "Systemic theory" (Halliday 1993) expound two different theories: Scale And Category Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar, respectively. Fawcett's comparison of them in setting up the context for his own theory exemplifies the rhetorical strategy known as the red herring logical fallacy.
[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett confuses meaning potential (language as system) with meaning as level of symbolic abstraction (the semantic stratum).
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The sense of 'structure' is the same in both theories, but it is expanded in Systemic theory, due to the innovation of the notion of 'metafunction'. In the earlier theory, structure is limited to what will become interpersonal structure in the later theory, whereas it is supplemented with the structures of the other metafunctions in the later theory.
[4] To be clear, the terms 'unit' and 'class' are formal categories, whereas Systemic Functional Grammar gives priority to function, as Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272) makes clear. On the other hand, the two concepts are inherent in rank, which is listed as a basic concept (op. cit.: 273).
[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272) explains:
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, 'element' features in the basic concept 'realisation statements', and on the other hand, it is used in precisely the same sense as in the earlier theory. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstanding arises from confusing (structural) 'element' with (rank) 'constituent.
[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett confuses meaning potential (language as system) with meaning as level of symbolic abstraction (the semantic stratum).
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The sense of 'structure' is the same in both theories, but it is expanded in Systemic theory, due to the innovation of the notion of 'metafunction'. In the earlier theory, structure is limited to what will become interpersonal structure in the later theory, whereas it is supplemented with the structures of the other metafunctions in the later theory.
[4] To be clear, the terms 'unit' and 'class' are formal categories, whereas Systemic Functional Grammar gives priority to function, as Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272) makes clear. On the other hand, the two concepts are inherent in rank, which is listed as a basic concept (op. cit.: 273).
[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272) explains:
[Systemic theory's] immediate source is as a development of scale and category grammar. The name 'systemic' derives from the term 'system; in its technical sense as defined by Firth (1957); system is the theoretical representation of paradigmatic relations, contrasted with 'structure' for syntagmatic relations. In Firth's system-structure theory, neither of these is given priority; and in scale and category grammar this perspective was maintained. In systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms. Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features.
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, 'element' features in the basic concept 'realisation statements', and on the other hand, it is used in precisely the same sense as in the earlier theory. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstanding arises from confusing (structural) 'element' with (rank) 'constituent.
No comments:
Post a Comment