Misrepresenting Halliday As Inconsistent With The SFL Model Of Language

Fawcett (2010: 60):

Nonetheless, there has been a knock-on effect of Halliday's adoption of the second position which leads him to describe the grammar in a way that appears to be in conflict with the general SFL model of language proposed in Chapter 3 and in expressed in Figure 4. The next section describes this problematical change of position by Halliday, and the simple alternative.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday, since, as previously demonstrated, Halliday only ever had one position on this matter (the stratal location of his grammatical networks).

[2] Here Fawcett presents his own model (Figure 4) as the benchmark by which to assess Halliday's version of Halliday's theory.  As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's model is invalidated by its internal inconsistencies with regard to the theoretical dimensions of axis, instantiation and realisation.

[3] The question of whether Halliday's version of Halliday's theory is problematical, and the question whether Fawcett's proposed alternative is valid, will be examined in the review of the next section.