The First Of Two Possible Effects Of Semantic Systems On Fawcett's Flowchart

Fawcett (2010: 60):

It would be reasonable, if this higher level of system networks really is necessary, simply to add the higher level to the model illustrated in Figure 4 of Chapter 3. This would require the addition of the following sub-components: (1) a new higher system network (a second 'meaning potential'), which would generate its own set of features after each traversal of the network), (2) the selection expression of the 'instances' that have been chosen, (3) a 'realisation component' that states what the effect of each choice is (i.e., 'preselection' rules, which would specify that if Feature X is chosen in the higher network, Feature Y must be chosen in the lower network), and (4) the output from the operation of that component, i.e., the list of features to be chosen in the lower network. The result of this change would be to add the components decribed [sic] here above the model shown in Figure 4 of Chapter 3. This is the first of the "two possible effects" referred to in the title of this section.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This higher level of system networks (semantic stratum) really is necessary if grammatical metaphor is to be systematically accounted for, and if knowledge is to be included in the SFL model of language.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 429):

… grammatical metaphor is a central reason in our account for treating axis and stratification as independent dimensions, so that we have both semantic systems and structures and lexicogrammatical systems and structures. Since we [unlike Fawcett] allow for a stratification of content systems into semantics and lexicogrammar, we are in a stronger position to construe knowledge in terms of meaning. That is, the semantics can become more powerful and extensive if the lexicogrammar includes systems.

[2] This is misleading.  It would not be reasonable, because, as previously demonstrated, the flowchart depicted in Fawcett's Figure 4 is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory.

[3] This is misleading.  Here Fawcett describes how he would change his flowchart to accommodate the SFL distinction between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar), as if such changes are relevant to the architecture of SFL theory.  That is to say, Fawcett's presumption is that Halliday's stratified model of language has to conform to Fawcett's self-inconsistent flowchart.