Martin & Rose (2007: 116):
Where grammar-based approaches such as Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) treat conjunctions as a grammatical resource for linking one clause to the next, the perspective we take here models conjunction as a set of meanings that organise activity sequences on the one hand, and text on the other.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. In SFL theory, all content plane systems are 'grammar-based', since it is the grammar that construes the semantics. The difference here lies in the fact that the sources of the authors' ideas — Halliday and Hasan (1976), Halliday (1985, 1994), and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) — present these systems as grammatical, whereas Martin & Rose misunderstand their sources and rebrand their misunderstandings as Martin's discourse semantics.
[2] To be clear, the terminological slippage from 'conjunctions' (word class) to 'conjunction' (system) is strategic, not accidental, and calculated to deceive. In the authors' source material, 'conjunction' also refers to a system (a "set"): a grammatical system of the textual metafunction. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612):
[2] To be clear, the terminological slippage from 'conjunctions' (word class) to 'conjunction' (system) is strategic, not accidental, and calculated to deceive. In the authors' source material, 'conjunction' also refers to a system (a "set"): a grammatical system of the textual metafunction. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612):
No comments:
Post a Comment