On The Representation Of Structure In SFL

Fawcett (2010: 138-9):

Conflation is, by all current SF definitions, an operation that applies only to individual, coterminous elements. If this is so — and the theoretical writings of both the chief architect of SFL and the major implementers of both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars leave no room for doubt that it is — we are left with the following question: "What is the role of the representations of functional structure in IFG?"

To ask this is to question one of the basic assumptions about the representation of language that Halliday has been making since the late sixties. Yet it is not, I shall argue, one of those assumptions that is fundamental to the theory, because the concept that such representations are designed to display (i.e., the multifunctional nature of language) can be displayed equally well — and in fact more appropriately — in a representation of the level of meaning (as we shall see in Section 7.8). It is the multifunctional nature of language — and not its representation in a particular manner — that is to be placed among the fundamental concepts of SFL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is true. In SFL Theory, the realisation rule 'conflate' only operates on elements of structure that are realised by the same unit of form at the rank below, as when the elements of different metafunctional clause structures, such as Theme, Subject and Actor, are realised by the same nominal group.

[2] To be clear, the realisation rule 'conflate' has no bearing on the rôle of structural representations. That is, the question is a non-sequitur.

[3] To be clear, the role of the representations of functional structure in IFG is to represent theoretical construals of language.

[4] To be clear, this confuses representing language with theorising language. A representation of language is less abstract than language, since a representation is a token of a value, whereas a theory of language is more abstract than language, since theorising assigns theoretical values to language tokens.

[5] This is seriously misleading. To represent metafunctional clause structures at the level of semantics (Fawcett's 'meaning') instead of lexicogrammar (Fawcett's 'form') is to represent not only a different theorisation of language, but one which is inconsistent with SFL Theory.

[6] As we shall see in the examination of Section 7.8, Fawcett's "more appropriate" representation of clause structure confuses function (e.g. 'Subject') with form (e.g. 'Main verb'), at the level of syntax (form), and confuses syntagmatic structural elements (e.g. 'theme') with paradigmatic features (e.g. 'positive') at the level of semantics (meaning), as demonstrated his Figure 10 (p148):