Fawcett's Representations Of Clause Features As Structural Elements

Fawcett (2010: 141): 

To describe such representations as "mental constructs" does not imply that they have no role to play in establishing an understanding of the nature of language. Indeed, many scholars would take the view that IFG provides the best available broad-coverage functional description of English that we have today. However, the recognition of their current value does not exclude the possibility that there may be other and better systemic functional represent[at]ions of texts — and specifically ones that focus on the direct use in the representation of a clause of the features that have been selected in the system networks. Section 7.8 will outline one such alternative that is currently being prepared for publication. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, all theories are "mental constructs" and representations of theory, such as representations of the SFL model of clause structure, are representations of "mental constructs".

[2] To be clear, "better systemic functional representations of texts" do not include representations of clause structure, such as Fawcett's Figure 10, that confuse systemic features (paradigmatic axis) with structural elements (syntagmatic axis).