However, the concept of 'filling' is not completely absent from the Sydney Grammar. It has been present from the start in the wording by which the relationship of a unit to an element is described, in the use of "operates at" (e.g., Halliday 1961/76:64). An alternative term is "function as". Thus a nominal group would be said to "operate at" (or "function as") the Subject or Complement of a clause. But it is not given a place as a central concept in the theory, as it is here. The term 'filling' seems to be preferable to "operating-at-ness" or "functioning-as-ness".
Its centrality in the theory of syntax is shown by the fact that it functions as the direct complement to 'componence'. In other words, as your eye moves down a full tree diagram representation of a text-sentence (e.g., Figure 25 in Section 12.6 of Chapter 12), you find that the relationships between categories are alternately those of componence and filling, and that these two are repeated until the point at which the analysis moves out of the abstract categories of syntax to the rather more concrete (but still abstract) category of items (via the relationship of exponence, to which we shall come in Section 11.6).
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, since Fawcett's notion of filling is not even slightly absent from SFL Theory. As previously explained, it corresponds to the realisation relation between a functional element at a higher rank and a formal unit at the rank below.
[2] To be clear, the term 'operates at' is from Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar, and misrepresents the relation between function and form in SFL Theory because it construes function and form as one level of symbolic abstraction instead of two (Value and Token).
[3] This is not misleading, because it is true. The term 'function as' is consistent with theory because it construes the higher level of symbolic abstraction, element, as Role: guise, which is the circumstantial counterpart of Value; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 326).
[4] To be clear, the centrality of 'filling' in Fawcett's model arises from his focus on form instead of function and his confusion of formal constituency with function-form relations, as previously demonstrated.
[5] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument, and on the other, it is misleading because it is untrue. As previously explained, 'function as' (2 levels of abstraction) is consistent with the architecture of SFL theory, whereas 'filling' (1 level of abstraction) is not.
[6] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's componence, filling and exponence arise from his confusing formal constituency with form-function relations. Componence misconstrues functions (elements) as constituents of forms (units); filling misconstrues functions (elements of clause structure) and forms (units) as the same level of symbolic abstraction; and exponence is the realisation relation between functions (elements of group structure) and forms ("items").
[7] From the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's Figure 25 (p289) analyses a projection nexus (clause complex) as a single clause:
No comments:
Post a Comment