Fawcett's Claim That 'The Representations In IFG Do Not Have A Solid Basis In The Theory'

Fawcett (2010: 137-8, 138n):

Where, then, does this leave the representations in IFG? 

The clear implication of these facts is that the representations in IFG do not have the solid basis in the theory that they surely should, if they are to be used as the standard method of describing texts in systemic functional terms. In other words, if generative systemic functional grammars do not build structures like this, IFG-style representations give a misleading picture of the systemic functional view of the structure of language.

As a specific example, we may say that it is positively misleading to label the portion of the clause that is not a Theme as the "Rheme", because the label "Rheme" simply means 'that which is not Theme' — or, more fully, 'the elements corresponding to this block are not one of the Themes'. Similarly, "Residue" simply means 'those elements that are not the Subject or the Finite' (or any other marker of interpersonal meaning). And essentially the same position holds for "Given".

To place the names of such supposed 'functions' in the long boxes in diagrams such as Figure 7 that would otherwise be empty is to sustain — on what we now see to be theoretically inadequate grounds — the initially attractive metaphor that each clause has several different structures, and so several different strands of meaning that run (virtually) all the way through (virtually) all of them.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's argument is that the lack of 'structure conflation' in SFL Theory undermines the theoretical validity of there being three lines of structure in the clause. As explained in previous posts, 'structure conflation' is neither a feature of the theory, nor a requirement of it, since all three clause structures are integrated in their realisation as a syntagm of units at group/phrase rank. This theoretical option is not available in Fawcett's model, however, since he also argues against the theoretical value of a rank scale.

[2] The term 'misleading' is significant here. Fawcett has twice previously primed the reader to expect impropriety by referring to a diagram of Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) as 'remarkably honest' (p131), and congratulating those authors 'for resisting the temptation to make their computer output more like the IFG representations than they really are' (p137).

[3] Here Fawcett correctly defines Rheme, Residue and Given as negatives, but simultaneously claims that it is misleading use them in this way.

[4] Here Fawcett misrepresents the elements of the Residue as not being markers of interpersonal meaning. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 143n) make clear, both the Mood and Residue elements realise the interpersonal meaning of the clause as proposition or proposal:

The combination of Mood plus Residue embody the proposition or proposal of the clause (with the Mood element as the key to the distinction between the two); but, as we shall see below, there are certain interpersonal elements of the clause that do not belong to either the Mood element or the Residue: the Vocative, and comment and conjunctive Adjuncts. These relate to, but are not part of the proposition/ proposal enacted by the clause.

[5] Here again Fawcett confuses a structural element with the method of labelling it. The function 'not Theme', for example, is an element of clause structure whether it is identified by the label 'Rheme' or by the absence of a label.