Clearly, Halliday sees the concepts of "Categories" as also being the concepts that underlie IFG — but with certain additions such as the concepts of 'multiple structures' and the two relationships between units of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'. Let us now compare the two frameworks — i.e., the one that is derived from "Categories" and exemplified most fully in IFG (which we shall call "the IFG framework") and the one proposed here.
First, in both theories the original "Categories" concept of 'system' has been removed from the theory of syntax, as a result of its elevation to the role of modelling meaning potential. However, even though both theories are derived from the remaining concepts of "Categories", the conceptual core of each is quite different.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, if Halliday saw Systemic Functional Grammar as basically Scale & Category Grammar "with certain additions", he would not have been motivated to come up with a new name for his new theory.
[2] This is misleading on two fronts. Less importantly, Systemic Functional Grammar is not a theory of syntax, as Halliday (1985: xiv) makes clear. More importantly, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett misunderstands 'meaning potential' to mean semantics, he is here making the knowingly false claim that the grammatical systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY have been elevated to the stratum of semantics in SFL Theory. Semantics is where Fawcett desperately wishes to locate them, but not where Halliday actually locates them.
[3] This is not misleading, because it is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment