Matters Arising Within Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory And Its Community Of Users
Friday, 27 February 2015
Monday, 23 February 2015
Friday, 20 February 2015
How Are The Paradigmatic And Syntagmatic Axes Related?
System is more abstract than structure:
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 22):
It will be clear that [system] is a more abstract representation than that of structure, since it does not depend on how the categories are expressed.
so syntagmatic organisation realises paradigmatic organisation:
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 24):
Structural operations — inserting elements, ordering elements, and so on — are explained as realising systemic choices. … When we speak of structural features as ‘realising’ systemic choices, this is one manifestation of a general relationship that pervades every quarter of language. Realisation derives from the fact that a language is a stratified system.
Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 13):
… on the one hand, syntagmatic organisation realises paradigmatic organisation; on the other hand, types in a network of paradigmatic organisation correspond to fragments of syntagmatic specification …
Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Symposium
Origin
late 16th century (denoting a drinking party): via Latin from Greek sumposion, from sumpotēs ‘fellow drinker’, from sun- ‘together’ + potēs ‘drinker’.
Tuesday, 17 February 2015
Nominal Groups: The Modifying Relation Is Inherently Ascriptive (Intensive, Possessive Or Circumstantial)
Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 183):
Experientially, there is a ‘carrier’ — the Thing — and there are ‘attributes’ — Epithets and other modifiers. However, participants are construed not only experientially but also logically, which means that the Thing (typically) serves as a Head that can be modified by successive attributes and that this modifying relation is inherently ascriptive. […] There is the same range of types of ascription as are found in ascriptive figures, and these can be interpreted in terms of the different categories of expansion.
expansion of Thing
|
Deictic
|
Epithet
|
Classifier
|
Thing
|
Qualifier
|
elaboration
(intensive)
|
these
|
nutritious
|
swedes
|
||
these
|
Mexican
|
mangoes
|
|||
kitchens
|
of distinction
|
||||
extension
(possessive)
|
my aunt’s
|
teapot
|
|||
the
|
stems
|
of the leek
|
|||
the
|
table
|
leg
|
|||
enhancement
(circumstantial)
|
these
|
18th C
|
vases
|
||
some
|
mangoes
|
from Mexico
|
|||
a
|
chicory-like
|
plant
|
Monday, 16 February 2015
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Thursday, 5 February 2015
Facts Vs Reports
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 482):
Whereas any clause that is projected by another clause, verbal or mental, is either a quote (paratactic) or a report (hypotactic, or embedded if the process is a noun), any clause that has the status of ‘projected’ but without any projecting process is a fact and is embedded, either as a nominalisation serving as Head or as Postmodifier to a ‘fact’ noun serving as Head.
Labels:
Clarification,
Clause,
Experiential,
Logical,
Projection,
Report
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
Frequency Vs Usuality
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 264):
In the temporals there is an additional category of ‘frequency’, how many times?. This is related to the interpersonal category of usuality, but it is not identical to it; usuality is a modal assessment referring to position on a scale between positive and negative (always/never), whereas frequency is the extent of the repetition of the process. The categories of extent and usuality may, however, work together, as in a narrative where habitude is established.
Labels:
Clarification,
Clause,
Experiential,
Interpersonal
Monday, 2 February 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)