Fawcett's Argument Against The 'Structure Conflation' Model

Fawcett (2010: 136):

Note that the structure that is generated in Matthiessen and Batemen's [sic] generator is indeed a single integrated structure. Indeed, none of the grammars referred to in this section generate first a set of different structures (as is implied by representations such as those in Figure 7 of Section 7.2) and then conflate them. As the decriptions [sic] in all of the publications from Halliday (1969/91) to Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) show, it is a single structure that the grammar builds — and not a multiple one. 

If this is so — and there can be no doubt that it is — any grammarian who wishes to claim that the 'structure conflation' model has a theoretical status (rather than some other value) has a number of problems to solve.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. As Fawcett's Figure 9 demonstrates, Matthiessen & Bateman, like Halliday, provide three distinct clause structures, each differentiated from the others by metafunction: theme, mood and transitivity.

As previously explained, the three different function structures of the clause are integrated in the group rank syntagm that realises all three of them. (Fawcett will later argue against the theoretical value of a rank scale.)

[2] To be clear, 'structure conflation' is not a feature of SFL Theory. The notion is Fawcett's only, and arises from his misunderstandings of SFL Theory, as previously explained. That is, Fawcett is merely arguing against his own theoretical misunderstanding (a logically fallacious Straw Man).

[3] As previously noted, Figure 7 is Fawcett's misrepresentation of an SFL analysis in which he misconstrues information as a system of the clause, and the Scope (Mrs Skinner) of the Process as its Goal: