We have seen that, in his response to Matthews' comments, Halliday (1966) allows that Matthews may have a valid point with respect to Linkers such as and. In IFG, however, he makes an alternative proposal (p. 211). He introduces a new class of group, the 'conjunction group', which is to fill a Linker or Binder. He is right that this is needed (at least for Linkers), but one wonders whether the proposal has the additional attraction of enabling him to handle Linkers within the 'rank scale' rather than as 'markers', and so to defend the original 'rank scale' concept. However, while Binders occasionally require an internal structure (as Appendix B shows), Linkers do not. (I assume here that Halliday would treat and so, etc. as a single item, as I would). Halliday's new class of group does not help here, nor does it help with Adjuncts that express logical relations such as therefore and however. Moreover, the structure that he suggests for the 'conjunction group' is simply "β α". The problem here is that this makes it a 'hypotactic' relationship, so that an example such as immediately after is treated as a 'word complex' rather than a group. In other words, such a structure does not constitutes a group in Halliday's theory, but a 'unit complex' that occurs between a simple word and a simple group.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue, since this is not an alternative proposal. Linkers and binders are classes of conjunctions, which serve as the Head of conjunction groups, which can function as structure markers in continuing clauses of a clause complex.
[2] This misunderstanding is misleading, because it is untrue. For Halliday, linkers and binders are word classes, classes of conjunction, whereas conjunction groups consist of conjunctions and serve as structural Themes or conjunctive Adjuncts at clause rank. In short, group rank units — conjunction groups — don't realise ("fill") word rank units — linkers and binders — except where rankshift is possible.
[3] This is misleading because it misrepresents theorising with the rank scale as defending the rank scale.
[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, binders and linkers are classes of words, which therefore consist of morphemes. Any internal structure of a word is a configuration of functional elements served by morphemes.
[5] To be clear, this non-sequitur is a bare assertion unsupported by argument. Moreover, it is demonstrably untrue, if only because conjunction groups are proposed as the formal units that serve the clause function of conjunctive Adjunct.
[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday (1994: 211):
Conjunctions also form word groups by modification, for example even if, just as, not until, if only. These can be represented in the same way, as β ^ α structures (or α ^ β in the case of if only). Note however that many conjunctive expressions have evolved from more complex structures, e.g. as soon as, in case, by the time, nevertheless, in so far as. These can be treated as single elements without further analysis. They are themselves, of course, subject to modification, e.g. just in case, almost as soon as.
To be clear, in SFL Theory, the 'Head Modifier 'structure is the logical structure of all groups: nominal, verbal, adverbial, conjunction and preposition. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):
Parataxis and hypotaxis are general relationships that are the same throughout the grammar: they define complexes at any rank (clause complex, group or phrase complex, word complex; in addition hypotaxis defines the logical organisation of groups.
The logical structure models the group along the lines of a word complex (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 362), which is why they are called groups (of words), not phrases. By the same token, it is because prepositional phrases cannot be modelled as logical structures that they are called phrases, not groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment