Fawcett's Second Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146-7):

The second question was "In a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning, is it desirable — or indeed necessary — to show explicitly the multifunctional nature of language at both levels?" 

In the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, where the representation at the level of form is the final, integrated output, it is clear that the level of representation at which the multifunctional nature of language should be displayed is in the representation of the meanings — because at the lower level the various strands of meaning have already been integrated into a single structure. 

The effects on the structure of the various stra[n]ds of meaning can be discerned, of course, but it is the division of the selection expression of features chosen in the system networks into their various types of meaning that displays in the most straight-forward manner the multifunctional nature of language. It is therefore the role of the semantic representation to display the contribution of the various types of meaning to the text, and it is the role of syntax to show the integration of these intermittent 'strands of meaning' in a single structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning" is inconsistent with SFL Theory, because in the latter, the levels are the strata of meaning (semantics), wording (lexicogrammar), and sounding (phonology), all of which are levels of function, not form. This is because Systemic Functional Linguistics prioritises the function of language over its form. Linguistic form is modelled as rank scales on the strata of lexicogrammar and phonology. The Cardiff Grammar has neither rank scales nor a level of phonology.

[2] To be clear, this second "difficult" question that Fawcett poses is merely, like the first, one that elicits his own modal assessment ("desirable"/"necessary") of his own model, rather than a question as to the validity or consistency of the model.

[3] To be clear, in "a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning", it would be theoretically (and logically) inconsistent to present any functions whatsoever at the level of form. This is one reason why Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory does not include a level of form. 

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, in Fawcett's model, Figure 4 (p36), selection expressions (paradigmatic axis) are misunderstood as instances, and misaligned with structure (syntagmatic axis):

The consequence of these misunderstandings can be seen in Fawcett's analysis of a clause, Figure 10 (p148), where features of the entire clause are misrepresented as features of single structural elements:

[5] To be clear, this is a statement of Fawcett's model only, since the notion of 'syntax' is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of SFL Theory, as Halliday explained in the first two editions of IFG (1985: xiv; 1994: xiv):

∞

In Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, priority is given to higher levels of abstraction: system over structure, and function over form, in contradistinction to Fawcett's discussion of the Cardiff Grammar, where the focus is continually on lower levels of abstraction: (representations of) structure at the level of form.