The Problem Of Conflating Non-Coterminous Elements

Fawcett (2010: 136-7, 137n):

Consider again the nature of the representations in Figure 7, which is a typical IFG-style analysis. The main problem with it is that so few 'functions' in one strand are coterminous with 'functions' in another strand. What, precisely, would the rule be like that 'conflated' all four of the Finite, the Predicator, the Process and the Goal with the Rheme? How would it be formulated in such a way that it could be generalised across many cases? The answer is that we do not know — and I for one do not think that it would be worth spending a lot of time in exploring this route, since we know that there is already in existence a simpler and more insightful alternative.¹⁹

19 It would be quite a simple matter, of course, to add to a computer implementation such as Matthiessen and Bateman's a small program that inserted the label "Rheme" in any box in the line of thematic meaning that was not already labelled, and to do the same for "Given" and "Residue". But this would be simply a cosmetic adjustment to make the output appear even more like that in a typical IFG representation, rather than the positive conflation of elements, such as happens in the 'element conflation' model. Matthiessen and Bateman are to be congratulated for resisting the temptation to make their computer output more like the IFG representations than they really are (e.g., as illustrated in Figure 9).

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

[1] Fawcett's assumption here, that each element of each function structure must be conflated with an element of every other function structure, derives from his mistaken notion of 'structure conflation'; see previous posts.

[2] To be clear, the model that Fawcett appraises as 'a simpler and more insightful alternative' is his own.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, the structural representations in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and in Halliday (1994) are functionally equivalent. In the former, 'not Theme' (etc.) is represented iconically by the absence of a label, whereas in the latter, 'not Theme' (etc.) is represented by a label: 'Rheme' (etc.). Moreover, the presence or absence of a label is irrelevant to the conflation of elements, since it is the elements that are conflated, not their labels.

[4] Here Fawcett again raises the issue of intellectual integrity. By positively judging Matthiessen & Bateman in this instance, he implicitly raises doubt on the issue with respect to other instances, thereby reinforcing his previous negative judgement (p135):

it seems clear that that Matthiessen and Bateman's only purpose in generating the Mood elements is to generate a second line of interpersonal structure, and so to make available a visual representation that looks a little more like an IFG analysis. In other words, the generation of the 'Mood' element is simply a cosmetic exercise.