The problem for the text analyst who is using SF grammar is that of how best to represent all three of (1) its functional syntax, (2) its meanings and (3) the multifunctional nature of language.
As we have seen, the Sydney Grammar's approach is to present each clause as having several different functional structures, one for each of the five to eight lines of analysis that are recognised in that approach. (There are not just three or four, as many of the writings of Halliday and others imply). In this view every clause is a conflation of several different structures, each roughly of clause length (give or take an element or two). Any one element in such a structure is said to be capable of being conflated with other elements in other structures — including ones that are not coterminous. This approach produces attractive diagrams that illustrate the 'strands of meaning' metaphor of language. However, such diagrams are essentially a misrepresentation of the real position, because it is only some functional elements in some of the functional structures that are recognised in this version of the theory that can be conflated in this manner, and there are long stretches in several of the strands of meaning in which there is nothing to be said about the meaning (i.e., the boxes labelled 'Rheme', 'Given' and 'Residue', in Sydney Grammar analyses).
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Systemic Functional Grammar. On the one hand, 'functional syntax' is a component of Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar only, and, as Halliday (1985/1994: xiv) has explained, is inconsistent with the theoretical approach of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory. On the other hand, the 'multifunctional nature of language' is not distinct from meaning, but its metafunctional differentiation.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously explained. In the "Sydney Grammar" (Halliday's version of the theory he himself created), clause structure involves three strands of meaning: theme (textual), mood (interpersonal) and transitivity (experiential). Fawcett inflates this by counting mood and theme twice, and by mistaking information as a structure of the clause.
[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously explained. In Halliday's theory, there is no "structure conflation", and given that structure is the relation between elements, structure conflation is nonsensical.
[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously explained. In Halliday's theory, element conflation is a realisation rule that specifies structural realisations of systemic choices. This is not specified for all elements, and it only applies to elements that are realised by the same syntagmatic unit ("coterminous elements").
[5] This is misleading, because 'strands of meaning' is a congruent realisation of the theory, not a metaphorical rendering that stands for something else.
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday's structural diagrams are faithful representations of his theory. The only misrepresentations here are Fawcett's, as multiple lines of evidence on this blog have demonstrated.
[7] This is misleading, because it misrepresents a statement that is consistent with Halliday's model as inconsistent with it.
[8] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, Rheme and Residue (clause) and Given (information unit) are single elements. The notion of "long stretches" betrays the fact that Fawcett view is of formal constituents, not functional elements. On the other hand, and more importantly, the meaning of each of Rheme and Residue (clause) and Given (information unit) involves what might be termed 'negative structural complementarity':
[5] This is misleading, because 'strands of meaning' is a congruent realisation of the theory, not a metaphorical rendering that stands for something else.
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday's structural diagrams are faithful representations of his theory. The only misrepresentations here are Fawcett's, as multiple lines of evidence on this blog have demonstrated.
[7] This is misleading, because it misrepresents a statement that is consistent with Halliday's model as inconsistent with it.
[8] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, Rheme and Residue (clause) and Given (information unit) are single elements. The notion of "long stretches" betrays the fact that Fawcett view is of formal constituents, not functional elements. On the other hand, and more importantly, the meaning of each of Rheme and Residue (clause) and Given (information unit) involves what might be termed 'negative structural complementarity':
- Rheme ("not Theme") structurally complements the Theme element of the clause,
- Residue ("not Mood") structurally complements Mood element of the clause,
- Given ("not New") structurally complements New element of the information unit.
No comments:
Post a Comment