The Lack Of Discussion On The 'Structure Conflation' Model

Fawcett (2010: 137):

In other words, the fact is that the work of all of those who have worked on building generative versions of SFL — including Halliday himself — has been done in the 'element conflation' model rather than in the 'structure conflation' model. Indeed, there is no discussion in the 'theoretical-generative' strand of work in SFL as to how the 'structure conflation' model of language might work, and nor is there any discussion (other than that in Section 7.4.1 of this chapter) of what might be involved if it was to be attempted. 

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

Blogger Comments:

[1] This true. There is no discussion of the 'structure conflation' model in SFL publications (other than Fawcett's) because 'structure conflation' does not figure in SFL Theory. As the numerous preceding posts have demonstrated, the notion only arises through Fawcett's own misunderstandings of SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's argument against the 'structure conflation' model is an argument against his own misunderstanding of SFL Theory. This makes it a logically fallacious Straw Man argument. Consequently, any problems with the representations of clause structure in IFG remain unidentified by Fawcett.