Was the theory described in "Categories", which had such an effect on so many linguists in the subsequent years, completely misguided? Of course not. The impressive thing about it is that it has proved sufficiently bendable (and mendable) for a new and more comprehensive theory to emerge from it. It is perhaps surprising that any of its concepts should have survived, given the fundamental nature of the change brought about by the elevation of the system networks to a higher level. Just as in language tout se tient (Meillet 1937), so it is also true that, in the models that we build to represent language, the function of every part depends upon the function of every other part. So it would be natural to expect that this major change would result in changes throughout the rest of the grammar. And this has happened — more clearly, however, in the present theory of syntax than in the Sydney Grammar.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), was partially misguided, though Fawcett has been able to "mend" it.
[2] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that the impressive thing about Halliday's superseded theory is that he has been able to change it.
[3] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that his theory is more comprehensive than Halliday's superseded theory. This is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.
[4] This is not misleading, because it is true.
[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The template for Fawcett's theory, Scale & Category Grammar, did not feature any system networks. Because they did not exist, they could not be elevated to a higher level.
[6] Strictly speaking, un système oú tout se tient.
[7] On the one hand, this is misleading, because it gives the false impression that the architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) is internally consistent. On the other hand, the comparison made with SFL Theory ("the Sydney Grammar") is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment