On There Being "No Conflation Of Non-Coterminous Elements"

Fawcett (2010: 134):

Thus, after the conflation rules have been applied, the structure of the clause the new system is more reliable than the old one (omitting the 'Moodtag isn't it), as generated by Matthiessen and Bateman, can be represented very simply as follows: 

Theme/Subject/Carrier + Finite/Process + Attribute. 

Thus two of the three elements are formed from conflated 'functions' and the third consists of a single 'function'. If you compare this economical representation with the corresponding part of the representation in Figure 9 above, you will see that, from the generative viewpoint, it contains all the necessary information. The key point is that Matthiiessen [sic] and Bateman's generator operates in essentially the same way as the one described in Halliday (1969/81) — and that there is no conflation of non-coterminous elements. 

Indeed, Matthiessen and Bateman do not make clear precisely what role the IFG-like diagram given in Figure 9 plays in the process of generation. It may well be that their main reason for generating it was to provide a satisfactory visual representation of the structure for those who are expecting something that resembles an IFG-style analysis, rather than because it is necessary for the process of generation. 

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

[1] This is true. In SFL Theory, elements of clause structure can only be conflated if they are integrated by being realised as the same group rank unit, as in the realisation of Theme, Subject and Carrier as the same nominal group. However, Fawcett misleadingly presents this as if it were a problem for the theory, rather than a principle of it.

[2] To be clear, the rôle of such diagrams is to represent a computer-generated clause structure in terms of the model used: SFL Theory.