However, the present theory introduces several concepts that are not found explicitly in any of "Categories", "Systemic theory" or IFG. These include the central roles given to the three key relationships of 'componence', 'filling' and 'exponence'; the recognition that classes of unit are determined by their internal structure; the fact that many units fill many elements of many other units (so that 'embedding' is seen as a valuable resource for constructing meanings).
In addition the theory incorporates a number of well-recognised concepts that are not mentioned in those works, such as 'discontinuity' in units. The familiar concept of 'co-ordination' occurs in both theories, but in IFG it is included in 'parataxis' (which is contrasted systemically with "hypotaxis").
Blogger Comments:
[1] For the theoretical problems with these key relationships, see the relevant posts:
[2] To be clear, as previously explained, this "recognition" is inconsistent with SFL Theory, though consistent with Formal theories, since it takes the view 'from below' (structural realisation) instead of the view 'from above' (the functions being realised).
[3] This is misleading, because it presents what is recognised by both theories as something that is solely recognised by Fawcett's model. The difference between the theories lies in the units recognised, and what constitutes genuine embedding.
[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The extent to which it is untrue can be demonstrated by the following figures from Halliday (1994) which illustrate cases of discontinuity in the structure of units.
p81:
p97:
p98:
p113:
p118:
- paratactic elaboration
- hypotactic elaboration
- paratactic extension
- paratactic enhancement.
No comments:
Post a Comment