Fawcett (2010: 155-6):
13. The 'multiple structures' showing strings of 'functions' for each strand of meaning are therefore redundant.
14. However, while they are not necessary, there might still be some reason why they are desirable. The reason that seems most likely to be justifiable is that they may help the student of language to picture some central aspect of language, such as the fact that clauses — or, more accurately, several elements of structure in a typical clause — express several different meanings at the same time.
15. However, the concept of 'strands of meaning' in a clause can be modelled in an equally insightful (and more accurate) way as part of the representation of the semantics of the clause (as exemplified in Figure 10 of Section 7.8). When guidelines for analysing clauses in these terms (and also in setting out such representations) are available, there will be no logical reason to continue using 'multiple structures' for this task — especially if it is agreed, as proposed here, that the concept that a clause consists of a set of several different 'functional structures' should no longer be a part of the theory.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the theoretical value of metafunctional structures of the clause lies in their explanatory power: modelling the functional relations between the elements of structure according to metafunction.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, Fawcett's model is neither "equally insightful" nor "more accurate". As Figure 10 (p148) demonstrates, Fawcett' syntax mixes experiential elements (Agent, Affected) with interpersonal elements (Subject, Operator, Complement, Adjunct) with formal constituents (Main verb). This theoretical inconsistency has the further defect of being inconsistent with the SFL notion of structure as the relation between elements.
Moreover, Fawcett's semantic structure mixes syntagmatic elements (e.g. agent, affected, subject, theme) with paradigmatic features (e.g. positive, unassessed). This theoretical inconsistency has the further defect of misattributing features of the entire clause to individual elements of the clause.
[3] As previously observed, these guidelines (Fawcett in press and Fawcett forthcoming) are still unavailable, 20 years after the first edition of the work under discussion.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, Fawcett's model is neither "equally insightful" nor "more accurate". As Figure 10 (p148) demonstrates, Fawcett' syntax mixes experiential elements (Agent, Affected) with interpersonal elements (Subject, Operator, Complement, Adjunct) with formal constituents (Main verb). This theoretical inconsistency has the further defect of being inconsistent with the SFL notion of structure as the relation between elements.
Moreover, Fawcett's semantic structure mixes syntagmatic elements (e.g. agent, affected, subject, theme) with paradigmatic features (e.g. positive, unassessed). This theoretical inconsistency has the further defect of misattributing features of the entire clause to individual elements of the clause.
[3] As previously observed, these guidelines (Fawcett in press and Fawcett forthcoming) are still unavailable, 20 years after the first edition of the work under discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment