Misunderstanding And Confusing Realisation And Instantiation

Fawcett (2010: 61):

Taking this position brings with it a serious problem. We shall address it now, because it is a problem which, like the introduction of the higher level of meaning, has the potential to make it impossible to compare the representations at the level of form of the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars. 

The problem is as follows. In his earlier descriptions of the grammar (1969/81) and (1970/76b), Halliday showed the relationship between the system networks and the output structures to be one of realisation. But in his this [sic] second approach to the representation of meaning the relationship must logically be regarded as one of instantiation. This is because system and structure are presented in the new model as being at the same level of language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  As previously demonstrated, Halliday has only had one view on this matter, and Fawcett's misrepresentations derive from his own misunderstandings of stratification.

[2] This is true.  In Halliday's model, the relation between the paradigmatic axis and the syntagmatic axis, between system and structure, is realisation.

[3] Fawcett's use of the word 'output' is the source of his confusion, since it confuses two distinct dimensions of SFL theory:

• syntagmatic structure as the "output" of paradigmatic system (realisation),
• instance as the "output" of systemic potential (instantiation).

[4] Fawcett's argument is as follows:

Premiss (reason): because system and structure are presented as being at the same level of language

Conclusion (result): the relationship must logically be regarded as one of instantiation

To be clear, the conclusion does not follow from the premiss.  Presenting system and structure as being of the same level of language does not logically entail that the relation between them is necessarily one of instantiation (the relation between system and instance).

This also confirms — along with his flowchart (Figure 4) — that Fawcett does not understand the theoretical dimension of instantiation.

[5] To be clear, in SFL theory, system and structure are modelled as the same level of language, whether at the level of semantics, lexicogrammar or phonology.  However, they are modelled as different levels of symbolic abstraction within that level of language, such that the lower level Token, structure, realises the higher level Value, system.

This also confirms — along with his flowchart (Figure 4) — that Fawcett does not understand the theoretical relation of realisation.