Fawcett (2010: 321n):
¹² Many of those who accept Halliday's approach to 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' relations in structure would claim that the categorisations of relations between clauses (and other units) into 'projection' and 'expansion' (and then of the latter into 'elaboration', 'extension' and 'enhancement') are independently self-justifying. But there are in fact different ways of analysing all of these phenomena that many others, including myself, consider to be more insightful. See Section 11.9 of Chapter 11 and Fawcett (1996) and (in press) for examples of these.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because no-one who understands Halliday's model — including its epistemological assumptions — would claim that the logico-semantic relations of expansion and projection are "independently self-justifying". To be clear, the theoretical value of these distinctions lies in their explanatory potential, which is substantial. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 127) point out:
expansion and projection are trans-phenomenal categories in the sense that they are manifested over the system as a whole — not merely in different logical environments across ranks but also experientially.
For example, expansion and projection are manifested in relational processes:
- elaboration as intensive,
- extension as possessive, and
- enhancement and projection as circumstantial.
Similarly, expansion and projection are manifested in circumstances:
- elaboration as Role,
- extension as Accompaniment,
- enhancement as Extent, Location, Manner, Cause, Contingency, and
- projection as Matter, Angle.
Moreover, expansion is manifested in the textual systems of cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion. In the case of the latter:
- elaboration is manifested as repetition, synonymy, hyponymy,
- extension is manifested as meronymy, and
- enhancement is manifested as collocation (in many cases).
See also Table 10-3 in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 670-2).
[2] To be clear, this is a bare assertion unsupported by argument.
[3] To be clear, Section 11.9, How embedding and co-ordination can replace 'hypotaxis' and 'parataxis', clearly has considerably less explanatory potential than the logico-semantic relations of expansion and projection (see [1]). Moreover, clarifications and critiques of the section can again be viewed here:
- How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection
- How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement
- How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"
- How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion
- Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis
[4] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished 21 tears after the first edition of this volume.
No comments:
Post a Comment