Conceding That The Cardiff Approach Has Been Invalidated In Principle

Fawcett (2010: 57-8):

Since our purpose in this book is to establish the theory that is required for modelling syntax at the level of form, we must ask the question: "Does Halliday's adoption of the second position on the levels of meaning in language mean that the general framework within which we are comparing the Sydney and the Cardiff approaches to analysing syntax, as summarised in Figure 4 of Chapter 3, becomes inval[i]d?" The answer is that it might in principle have been invalidated by Halliday's recent decision, but that in practice it does not. The reason is that, whether or not we add a higher layer of 'meaning' to our model of language, there is still a level of meaning potential within the grammar. It is a level of description that Halliday describes as having "been pushed [...] fairly far [...] in the direction of the semantics" (Halliday 1994:xix). From the 'theoretical-generative' viewpoint (a concept that will be introduced in Section 5.2 of Chapter 5), there seems to be no very significant difference between the mode of operation of a grammar in which system networks that have been pushed "fairly far in the direction of the semantics" and one in which the system networks have been pushed all the way. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL theory models grammatical form as the rank scale.  Paradigmatically, each level on the rank scale serves as the entry condition for functional systems of that rank; syntagmatically, functions at one rank are realised by forms of the rank below.  As far as the term 'syntax' is concerned, Halliday (1994: xiv) explains its inappropriateness for SFL theory as follows:

[2] As previously explained, since the inception of Systemic Grammar, Halliday has only had one position on stratification of language.  The notion of a second position arises from a (motivated) misunderstanding on Fawcett's part: confusing meaning potential (language as system) with semantics (meaning as stratum).

[3] As previously demonstrated, the Cardiff model is invalidated by its own internal inconsistencies, arising from misunderstandings of axis, delicacy, stratification and instantiation.

[4] This is misleading.  On the one hand, Fawcett uses his misunderstanding of 'meaning potential' to misrepresent lexicogrammar as a level of meaning, rather than wording.  On the other hand, Fawcett confuses the notion of a grammar 'pushed in the direction of semantics' with semantics.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 39) explain:

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself. Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices.