The Considerable Gap In The "Sydney Grammar" Framework

Fawcett (2010: 144-5):

The implicit assumption of most writings in the framework of the Sydney Grammar is that an IFG-style analysis of what we might call 'the implied functional structures' is sufficient — and, presumably, that an analysis in terms of the features would add relatively little. Yet this situation is strikingly at odds with Halliday's claim — a claim that expresses the core concept of systemic functional theory — that "the system takes priority". The IFG-style method of analysis is therefore simply the only currently available way to show 'strands of meaning' — though it is one that is now seen to lack a base in the theory.

Thus th[e] position is that there is a considerable gap in the Sydney Grammar framework between, on the one hand, Halliday's theoretical statements about the centrality of system networks in the theory and, on the other, the provision of publications that show the text analyst how to go about the task of describing the meaning potential of texts in terms of their systemic features.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading. On the one hand, the functional structures exemplified in IFG are not "implied"; they are explicitly presented as theory-consistent analyses. On the other hand, there is no implication that structural analyses are "sufficient", not least because what is sufficient depends on the function of the analysis.

[2] To be clear, text analysis in terms of features, rather than structures, is text analysis using the paradigmatic dimension of the theory, rather than the syntagmatic dimension. A paradigmatic analysis provides, for example, the means of making a systematic comparison of texts that instantiate different registers.

[3] This non-sequitur is misleading, because it is untrue. The fact that system is the organising principle of SFL Theory does not logically entail that text analysis should be restricted to the paradigmatic dimension of the theory.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As multiple previous posts have demonstrated, Fawcett's assessment that "IFG-style" structural analyses "lack a base in the theory" derives from his own misunderstandings of conflation, rank-based formal constituency and function structure.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Demonstrations of text analysis in terms of systemic features are provided in Matthiessen (1995), which Fawcett has already acknowledged, and in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004), which he has not.

[6] As previously noted, Fawcett's use of the term 'meaning potential' confuses the semantic stratum (meaning) with language as system (meaning potential). The meaning of texts is instantial, not potential.