Friday, 3 September 2021

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Delicacy And Structure

Fawcett (2010: 284):
Finally, Halliday's term delicacy is, in the present theory, restricted solely to relationships within the system networks. However, Halliday continues to use the concept in his structural descriptions of clauses in IFG (as pointed out in Section 2.4 of Chapter 2 and Section 7.2 of Chapter 7). The disadvantage of this is that it adds one or more extra lines of structure to a clause, so introducing unnecessary complexity to the analysis.
However, each of the two current theories has added new structural concepts of its own. The Sydney Grammar has added the concept that a clause (and, potentially, each of the other units) has a multiple structure, i.e., it has several structures, each of which corresponds to a different broad type of meaning (roughly, to each 'metafunction', but with two for the 'textual' 'metafunction').


Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is also true in SFL Theory.

[2] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue. The notion of 'structural delicacy' features solely in Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961). In SFL Theory ("IFG"), the structures that Fawcett refers to, such as Subject and Finite constituting Mood, the structural relation is recognised as one of composition (extension), not delicacy (elaboration), as previously explained in the examination of Sections 2.4 and 7.2.

[3] This is misleading, because providing a more detailed analysis of structure is not, of itself, a disadvantage, especially if it increases the explanatory potential of the model, as it does in this case.

[4]  This is misleading. To be clear, this concept was foundationalnot added — to SFL Theory ("the Sydney Grammar").

[5] This is misleading. To be clear, in SFL Theory, units have multiple structures, which is not synonymous with "a multiple structure", this misunderstanding being one source of Fawcett's false notion of "structure conflation".

[6] This is misleading. To be clear, there is only one textual structure of the clause, though this single structure may include textual, interpersonal and experiential components.

No comments:

Post a Comment