However, Halliday makes a claim in this section that runs counter to the view of syntax to be taken here, and we shall address it at this point. The claim is that grammars which use "maximal bracketing" (e.g., most grammars in the tradition that uses 're-write rules' such as "S -> NP VP") tend also to use 'class' labels (such as "noun phrase") in their tree diagrams, while grammars that use 'minimal bracketing' (i.e., most grammars in the functional tradition) tend to use 'functional' labels (such as "Subject"). At first this may seem to be a neat matching of two pairs of concepts, but in fact it does not correspond to the way in which descriptions of structure are made in a modern SF grammar — even in Halliday's own version. The reason is that in all SF grammars — including IFG — the concept of 'class of unit' is as central as the concept of 'element of structure'.
Indeed, the way in which the book itself is structured demonstrates this point — even though the concept of 'class of unit' is hardly mentioned outside the discussion in Chapter 2. Thus all of Part I of IFG is about the clause (a 'class of unit'), and each of the various chapters of Part II is defined in relation to the clause ("above", "below", "beside", "around" and even "beyond" the clause). And the sections of Chapter 6, which is about groups and phrases, are all identified in terms of the 'class of unit' that is being described. Thus, even though the concept of 'class of unit' is itself barely mentioned, the whole book is, in a sense, structured around it. As we shall see in Part 2, 'class of unit' is one of the two core categories, with 'element of structure', that are required in a modern theory of SF syntax.
Thus, while Halliday is right in pointing out that the formal, 're-write rule' tradition in linguistics typically ignores the concept of 'element' in favour of 'class', he goes too far in suggesting that 'functional grammars' necessarily foreground 'element' (or "function" in the sense of 'functional element') over 'class of unit'.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, what Halliday (1994: 27) actually writes is:
Maximal bracketing is associated with class labelling
Minimal bracketing is associated with functional labelling
[2] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. Halliday's version of Halliday's theory uses functional labelling (e.g Actor, Process, Goal) for the structures at each rank (e.g clause).
[3] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. Because Systemic Functional Grammar is a functional theory, elements of function structure are more "central" to the theory than classes of form.
[4] To be clear, IFG is organised in terms of the rank scale because each rank provides the entry condition to the paradigmatic system of functions that are realised syntagmatically as function structures.
[5] To be clear, 'clause' is a unit, as distinct from a class of unit, such as 'adverbial clause'.
[4] To be clear, IFG is organised in terms of the rank scale because each rank provides the entry condition to the paradigmatic system of functions that are realised syntagmatically as function structures.
[5] To be clear, 'clause' is a unit, as distinct from a class of unit, such as 'adverbial clause'.
[6] As we shall see in the examination of Part 2, Fawcett confuses constituency (e.g nominal group) with element of function structure (e.g. Subject).
[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Chapter 2 of IFG (Halliday 1994: 17-36) says nothing whatsoever about the "formal 're-write rule' tradition in linguistics".
[8] This is misleading. What Halliday (1994: 27-8) actually writes is:
In using maximal bracketing (immediate constituency analysis), the grammarian is trying to explain as much as possible by reference to the notion of constituency; this means putting a bracket where each successive construction can be shown to occur, whether or not that item is functional in the context of the larger structure. With minimal bracketing (ranked constituency analysis), only those items are identified that have some recognisable function in the structure of the larger unit. This means that the notion of constituency is being made to carry less of the burden of interpretation. The concept of constituent structure is much weaker in a functional grammar than a formal one.
No comments:
Post a Comment