Fawcett's Powerful, Theoretically Well-Motivated And Computer-Tested Models Of Language

Fawcett (2010: 64):

Thus Figure 4 expresses the powerful, theoretically well-motivated and computer-tested models of language that have been implemented in both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars. In contrast, the view of language summarised in Figure 5 (which is what Halliday's re-interpretation of his earlier insight entails) loses precisely the major insight of his revolutionary changes in the 1960s, as summarised in Sections 4.1 to 4.4 of this chapter — i.e., the insight that there is a relationship of realisation between the system networks of meaning potential and the structural outputs.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The word 'thus' here is misleading, because it gives the false impression that the misunderstandings that preceded it validate the conclusion that follows it.

[2] As demonstrated over and over on this blog, Fawcett's flowchart (Figure 4) misrepresents the architecture of SFL theory and misunderstands the notions of instantiation and realisation, both axial and stratal.



[3] As demonstrated in preceding posts:

• Halliday did not reinterpret his earlier insights,
• Figure 5 does not represent Halliday's interpretation of SFL architecture,
• Figure 5 is Fawcett's own invented 'Straw Man' which he fallaciously argues against on the false pretext that he is arguing against Halliday's model.

[4] Here again Fawcett, like his Figure 4, confuses system in relation to instance (instantiation) with system in relation to structure (axis).  In Halliday's model of his own theory, the relation between system and structure is realisation.