The Notion Of Clause Elements Realised By Words

 Fawcett (2010: 227):

Halliday's concept of the 'rank scale' predicts, as we saw first in Chapter 2, that elements of clauses should be filled by groups. In the view of language taken here, however, elements of the clause are frequently expounded directly by items. In Fawcett (2000 and forthcoming b), I set out the many reasons why we should treat certain elements of the clause in English as being expounded directly by items. I suggest, for example, that modal verbs such as may and might directly expound the Operator (which is very broadly equivalent to Halliday's "Finite") and that lexical verbs such as love and walk directly expound the Main Verb. Thus in Don't be caught! all three items expound elements of the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, elements of clause structure are realised by groups (and phrases). That is, a clause element (function) and a group (form) are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett (forthcoming b) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is the element of group structure that is realised by a word. For example, in verbal groups, the Finite element is realised by the finite class of verb, the Auxiliary element is realised by the auxiliary class of verb, and the Event element is realised by the lexical class of verb:

And the verbal group realises the Process element of experiential clause structure, which conflates with the Finite and Predicator ("Operator and Main Verb") elements of interpersonal clause structure: