Misrepresenting The Conflation Of Functional Elements

Fawcett (2010: 113):

Let us now examine Figure 7 more closely. It show four clearly separated lines of box diagrams (one containing two lines of structure within it), such that each of the four major lines corresponds to one of four major types of 'meaning'. The two basic assumptions upon which such a diagram rests are (1) that there should be a separate structural representation for each major strand of meaning (including two completely distinct structures within 'textual' meaning), and (2) any one 'element' of the clause is likely to consist of the 'conflation' of two or more 'functions' from two or more different lines of meaning. For example, the description in Halliday (1994:30f.) of the duke in the duke gave my aunt this teapot states that, in his approach, the three 'functions' of 'Subject', 'Actor' and 'Theme' are typically — but not necessarily — mapped onto one another to form a single 'element' of the clause (just as the same three 'functions' are in Figure 7).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Reminder:

A functional analysis (with syntagm) that is consistent with SFL Theory is presented below for contrast:

we	would	visit	Mrs Skinner	every Sunday
Theme	Rheme
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	Adjunct
Mood		Residue
Actor	Process		Scope	Extent
nominal group	verbal group		nominal group	prepositional phrase

[2] This is misleading. The clause has only one textual structure (Theme^Rheme).  Information is not a system of the clause, but of the information unit — whether or not the information unit happens to be coterminous with the clause.

[3] To be clear, the "element" that is the conflation of different functions is a formal constituent of the clause, represented as a unit of the syntagm.  For example, it is the initial nominal group onto which the three functional elements of Theme, Subject and Actor are mapped.