On Fawcett's "Fact" That The Multifunctionality Of Language Lies At The Level Of Meaning Rather Than Form

Fawcett (2010: 121-2):

We shall now turn briefly to Question lb, i.e., "Should the representation show the multifunctional nature of language?" The answer to this question goes a long way to explaining why the representations in IFG are as they are — and it is as follows. Given (1) that the multifunctional nature of language is a central principle of the systemic functional model of language, and (2) that the representation of functional structure is the only type of representation that has so far been developed to the point where it can be made generally available through publication (for use in describing texts, etc), it is useful that it should show, if it is possible to do so without misrepresenting the model, the multifunctional nature of text. 

However, as we shall see in Section 7.8, the picture of what is both possible and desirable changes when we have the option of showing the multifunctional nature of language in the representation of the meaning potential, i.e., at the level of meaning. The question then becomes: "If the multifunctional nature of language is shown in the representation at the level of meaning, is it also necessary — or even appropriate — to show it at the level of form too?" My answer is that the multifunctionality of language lies at the level of meaning rather than form, and that a representation such as that in Figure 10 in Section 7.8 reflects this fact more accurately than the IFG-style diagram in Figure 7.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents a question about levels in Fawcett's model, meaning and form, as a question about levels in Halliday's model (semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology).

[2] To be clear, on the one hand this contradicts Fawcett's previously stated view that, in his own model, the forms Complement and Adjunct (see Figure 10 below) are experiential elements, in terms of metafunction:

In contrast, the concepts of 'Complement' and 'Adjunct' — but not 'Predicator' — have a central role in the Cardiff Grammar. Here, a Complement is an 'experiential' element of the clause that is 'predicted' by the Process (i.e., a Participant Role), while an Adjunct is one that is not (i.e., a Circumstantial Role) — or an element expressing a different type of meaning.

On the other hand, it denies the metafunctional distinctions of the tone group in phonology: the interpersonal system of TONE versus the textual systems of TONALITY and TONICITY.

[3] To be clear, a representation such as that in Figure 10 in Section 7.8 (p148):

misrepresents what Fawcett takes to be (paradigmatic) features of semantic systems (e.g. repeated past, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) as elements of (syntagmatic) function structure. Moreover, some of what Fawcett takes to be (paradigmatic) features of semantic systems (e.g. agent, subject theme, unmarked new) are, instead, elements of (syntagmatic) function structure.