Misrepresenting The Cardiff Flowchart As Consistent With The Architecture Of SFL

Fawcett (2010: 118-9):

However, Halliday's words in "Systemic theory" go even further, clearly implying that it is not only possible to provide this second level of representation, but that it is also desirable. He states that 

in systemic theory the system takes priority [my emphasis]; the most abstract representation [...] is in paradigmatic terms. [...] Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features, the 'meaning potential'. (Halliday 1993:4505) 

And a few paragraphs later he foregrounds the importance of the representation of the systemic 'meaning potential' more strongly still, writing that 

the selection expression constitutes the grammar's description of the item [e.g., a clause]. (Halliday 1993:4505) 

This is heady stuff. However, the ambitious view of the essential nature of a semiotic system expressed in the above quotations is shared by all of those who work in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, and by many other systemic functional linguists. There are two important consequences that follow directly from accepting this position for our present concerns. Firstly, Halliday's words suggest that the diagram of language shown in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 can indeed stand as a summary of the framework that is common to both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars. Secondly, they show that Halliday believes that, if we are to make a full analysis of a clause, we must give equality — and indeed "priority" — to the features that have been selected in generating it — i.e., to the features that specify its 'meaning potential'. All this is, we should note, is what should happen "in principle"; we shall come shortly to what is currently done in practice. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion that the system takes priority is not a "view of the essential nature of a semiotic system".  It is a statement of an underlying principle on which Systemic Functional Linguistics is theorised.

[2] This is very misleading.  On the one hand, it is simply a non-sequitur, since giving priority to the system does not logically entail that Figure 4 "can indeed stand as a summary of the framework that is common to both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars".  On the other hand, Figure 4 cannot "stand as a summary of the framework that is common to both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars" because it is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL Theory and invalidated by its own internal inconsistencies, as previously explained (e.g. here).  Reminder:

[3] As previously explained, Fawcett misunderstands Halliday's 'meaning potential' (language as system) to be networks at the level of semantics.