Fawcett (2010: 225-6):
It is important to emphasise that in such cases the "raised" element does not actually become an element of that higher unit; it simply occupies a place in that unit. As will now be clear, it is the fact that the theory contains the concept of 'place' as well as 'element' and 'class of unit' that makes it possible to handle this otherwise problematical phenomenon in a principled manner. It is not clear from the published works of Halliday, Matthiessen etc. how such problems would be handled in the Sydney Grammar, either descriptively or in a generative version of the grammar.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the claim here is that the who in who were you seen by? does not serve as structural element of the clause. That is, the claim here is that who does not serve as the Theme, Senser or Complement of this clause, and, consequently, that these elements are absent from this clause. In other words, the incongruous claim here is that the clause who were you seen by? has no Theme, no Senser and no Complement.
[2] As can be seen from the previous post, and from [1] above, the concept of 'place' is unwarranted theoretically, and leads to unintended absurdities such as the clause who were you seen by? having no Theme element.
[3] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 137) are quite explicit on the matter:
In the selection of the WH- element, the category of Complement can extend to include the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase. Here the WH- element is conflated with the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstantial Adjunct in the clause. Since the WH-element is thematic, the minor Complement of the prepositional phrase is given the status of Theme, while the minor Predicator appears within the Rheme, in the position the Adjunct has when it is not thematic …
See the previous post for exemplifying clause structures.
No comments:
Post a Comment