Fawcett (2010: 174):
In Part 1 we considered a number of different approaches to syntax in SFL, and we made some surprising discoveries about the status of the 'multiple structure' representations in IFG. That prolegomenon to the new theory will, I hope, have changed your perspective on the two original questions that were asked in Section 1.2 of Chapter 1. Most importantly, we are now aware that the theory of syntax must contain both a theory of 'syntax potential' and a theory of 'instances of syntax'. The main question was:
(1) What theoretical concepts are required for the description of syntax in a modern, large-scale systemic functional grammar?
And, as a supplementary question of historical interest, we asked:
(2) How far are the founding concepts introduced by Halliday in "Categories" (1961/76) still valid in such a model?
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, in SFL the approach to syntax is to model it as a rank scale. Fawcett's model has no rank scale.
[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the "surprising discoveries" with regard to 'multiple structure' representations in IFG were Fawcett's misrepresentations of them, deriving from his misunderstandings, most notably his confusion of formal constituency with function structure.
[3] This is misleading, because it falsely presents a statement of Fawcett's model (Figure 4) as if it had been supported by reasoned argument in Part 1. More importantly, the relation between syntax potential (realisation rules) and instances of syntax (structure) is not instantiation, but realisation: the relation between the paradigmatic (realisation rules) and syntagmatic (structure) axes. This confusion alone invalidates Fawcett's model.
[4] It will be seen when Fawcett eventually comes to presenting his own theory, that his "modern" theory of syntax has more in common with Halliday's first theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), than the theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar.
[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the "surprising discoveries" with regard to 'multiple structure' representations in IFG were Fawcett's misrepresentations of them, deriving from his misunderstandings, most notably his confusion of formal constituency with function structure.
[3] This is misleading, because it falsely presents a statement of Fawcett's model (Figure 4) as if it had been supported by reasoned argument in Part 1. More importantly, the relation between syntax potential (realisation rules) and instances of syntax (structure) is not instantiation, but realisation: the relation between the paradigmatic (realisation rules) and syntagmatic (structure) axes. This confusion alone invalidates Fawcett's model.
[4] It will be seen when Fawcett eventually comes to presenting his own theory, that his "modern" theory of syntax has more in common with Halliday's first theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), than the theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar.
No comments:
Post a Comment