Fawcett's First Reason Why IFG-Style Multiple Structures Have Become So Widely Assumed To Be A Central Part Of The Theory

Fawcett (2010: 142):

Given that systemic functional grammars do not generate IFG-style multiple structures, how it is that such structures have become so widely assumed to be a central part of the theory? There are at least the following three reasons. 

The first, of course, is that Halliday himself seems to have assumed the insightfulness of this approach from the earliest days of the metafunctional hypothesis. Notice, however, that historically it emerged as an extension of the 'element conflation' approach, and not as a replacement for it. In Halliday (1969/8 l:138f.) he introduces both the 'element conflation model' and the 'structure conflation model'. Having shown in detail how 'element conflation' works (as described in Section 7.2), Halliday then writes that "the clause has a number of different but simultaneous structures" (as already cited in Section 7.2 above). It seems that in the few lines between these two quotations Halliday has switched from thinking in terms of the rigorous demands of building a generative grammar to the more open-ended task of trying to provide an insightful diagrammatic representation on paper. In other words, the two diagrams of the different structures given on pages 143 and 144 of Halliday (1969/81) give a significantly different picture of conflation from that given in the generative part of the paper. As I have already pointed out, the generative grammar does not generate the elements "Rheme", "Given" and "Residue", so that the two positions are only compatible if we interpret the 'multiple structures' of IFG as visual aids to help us to a better understanding of the view that the various 'strands of meaning' occur simultaneously in the clause, rather than as parts of the generative systemic functional grammar of the first part of the paper.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The "IFG-style multiple structures" of the clause do realise the clause systems that specify them; see the previous posts on "structure conflation" for the misunderstandings that lead Fawcett to believe otherwise. However, while the metafunctions are "a central part of the theory", structure is less so, since Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory gives priority to system over structure.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. Halliday nowhere introduces a "structure conflation model". As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's mistaken notion of "structure conflation" arises from confusing element conflation with the integration of the three metafunctional structures of the clause in the syntagm of group/phrase units that realise them. Fawcett's model lacks a rank scale, and so lacks the means of integrating the three structural lines.

[3] This is true.

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. Halliday's "diagrammatic representation on paper" is consistent with both element conflation and structural integration through rank scale relations.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. A previous quote from Fawcett (p130) makes clear that this claim rests on Fawcett's false notion of "structure conflation":

On page 143 he emphasises the concept that "the clause has a number of different but simultaneous structures" (while pointing out certain caveats, as indicated in the last subsection). But on the facing page he sets out a table of realisation statements that demonstrates clearly that the model is in fact one that simply conflates 'functions' — and not structures.

[6] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. "As I have already pointed out", these elements are "generated" as the complementary functions of Theme, New and Mood, respectively.

[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, there is only one position on the matter, since what Fawcett regards as a second position is his own misunderstanding of Halliday's model as entailing "structure conflation".

On the other hand, the "multiple structures of IFG" are both "visual aids to help us to a better understanding of the view that the various 'strands of meaning' occur simultaneously in the clause", and "parts of the generative systemic functional grammar of the first part of the paper". Or, more plainly, in SFL Theory, the three lines of clause structure realise the three metafunctional systems of the clause.