Fawcett (2010: 321):
Finally, we should note that the position taken by Halliday himself on this issue is exploratory rather than dogmatic. He writes that "hypotaxis is in some ways intermediate between parataxis and [...] rankshift; in fact all hypotaxis could be regarded as rankshift" (1965/81:40). And over twenty years later (IFG p. 216) he introduces this aspect of his model with hedging expressions such as "the tendency is [...]", "we shall assume [...]", "we shall interpret [...]".
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Halliday takes a scientific approach by proposing hypotheses and then providing arguments to demonstrate why and how such hypotheses are valuable.
[2] This is deliberately misleading through selective omission — the logical fallacy known as contextonomy. What Halliday (1981 [1965]) actually wrote in this pre-Systemic paper was the following:
Hypotaxis is in some ways intermediate between parataxis and multivariate structure involving rankshift; in fact all hypotaxis could be regarded as rankshift, although this would result in very different bracketing of constituents and would obscure the important respects in which hypotaxis differs from rankshift and resembles parataxis. We may summarise the types of structure dealt with as follows:
No comments:
Post a Comment