Misconstruing Paradigmatic Selection Expressions And Syntagmatic Structures As Two Levels Of Instances

Fawcett (2010: 121):

Indeed, when Halliday is writing in theoretical-generative terms, he always writes with the assumption that there will also be a representation in terms of the systemic features. He cannot but do so, because if there is no selection expression of features there can be no input to the realisation rules (as we saw in Chapters 3 and 5). However, for text-descriptive purposes such as those for which IFG is intended, Halliday seems to take a different position. This is that, while it may in principle be desirable to represent the systemic features as well as the functional structures, it is either not possible or not necessary to provide this level of description. Section 7.8 will discuss the question of when it will become possible to provide a systemic description of English.

The implications of the argument so far for the representations given in IFG is that their status is somewhat diminished in importance. This is because they represent the grammatical structure of language — even though, to cite Halliday's words once again, "in systemic theory the system takes priority".

Blogger Comments:

[1] For the confusions involved in Fawcett's distinction between 'theoretical-generative' and 'text-descriptive', see the previous post here.

[2] To be clear, a representation of a clause in terms of systemic features is an identification of the paradigmatic features that classify that unit as potential or instance. In terms of the architecture of SFL Theory, this is distinct from a representation of a clause as a syntagmatic structure (that realises paradigmatic selections). As previously noted, once or twice, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) misconstrues structures as instances.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Fawcett's model as Halliday's model. It is only in Fawcett's model (Figure 4) that selection expressions (misunderstood as meaning instances) are the input for realisation rules (misconstrued as form potential).

[4] To be clear, Matthiessen's Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems (1995) already provides a (necessarily partial) systemic description of English.

[5] This is both misleading and a non-sequitur. Even ignoring all the theoretical misunderstandings in Fawcett's argument, it does not follow that the structural representations in Halliday (1994) are "somewhat diminished in importance" merely because system is given priority over structure in theorising language. The "importance" of the structural representations in IFG is that they are most directly related to text analysis, the purpose for which the book was written (Halliday 1994: x, xxvii).