Misrepresenting Halliday's Earlier And Later Grammatical Theories As A Single Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 92):

At this point in our exploration of Halliday's presentation of his ideas about syntax, we might reasonably conclude that Halliday has completely changed the "basic concepts" of his theory. This, however, would be a mistake, as we shall see in the next chapter. Indeed, before we draw our final conclusions about what sources it will be useful to consult in building a theory of syntax for a modern systemic functional grammar — and so before we draw our final conclusions about the extent to which the concepts of "Categories" are still valid today — we must bring certain other bodies of work into the picture. These are: (1) the theoretical concepts that underlie IFG, since this work constitutes the major manifestation of the 'text-descriptive' strand of the work in the Sydney Grammar framework, and (2) the fullest statement of the requirements of a theory of SF syntax yet made, i.e., Fawcett (1974-6/81), together with the subsequent revisions to that work. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  As previously noted, Halliday has explicitly explained (1985, 1994: xiv) why his grammatical theory is not a theory of syntax.  In misrepresenting Halliday, Fawcett is falsely presenting his own theory, of syntax, as consistent with Halliday's theory.

[2] This is misleading, since it misrepresents two distinct theories, Scale and Category Grammar (Halliday 1961) and Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday 1993), as a single theory.

[3] To be clear, the theoretical concepts that have been carried over into the current theory (Systemic Functional Grammar) from the previous theory (Scale and Category Grammar) are outlined in the work Fawcett has just reviewed (Halliday 1993).

[4] To be clear, the theoretical concepts that underlie IFG are outlined in the work Fawcett has just reviewed (Halliday 1993).