Fawcett (2010: 173):
In Part 1, we have examined four accounts of syntax in SFL. In Chapter 2 we looked at Halliday's "Categories of the theory of grammar" (1961/76), and in Chapters 5 and 6 we noted the considerable changes between the set of concepts presented in "Categories" and the concepts found in his "Systemic theory" (1993) and his An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994). Then in Chapter 8 of Part 1 I described the framework of concepts set out in my "Some proposals for systemic syntax" (Fawcett 1974-7/81) — this being a revision of the concepts of "Categories" that was made as an explicit response to two factors: the exciting changes which Halliday made to the theory in the 1960s (described in Chapter 4), and very large quantities of work in text analysis.
We therefore have three 'post-Categories' accounts of SFL syntax. The question now arises as to which of the three should be drawn upon — and to what extent — in the task of establishing a modern theory of SF syntax.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue, not least because, as previously explained, (a) neither of Halliday's theories, Scale and Category Grammar or Systemic Functional Grammar is a theory of syntax and (b) Scale and Category Grammar is not Systemic Functional Linguistics. Moreover, the accounts in Halliday (1993) and (1994) are accounts of the same theory, written for different audiences, as previously explained. That is, the only account of "systemic syntax" that has been introduced — not examined — is Fawcett (1974-7/81).
[2] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" was addressed to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after Halliday had devised his second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.
[3] To be clear, if it were consistent with SFL Theory to establish a "modern theory of SF syntax", then the modern version of SFL (e.g. Halliday 1993, 1994) "should be drawn upon". The reader is invited to guess whether this will be the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment