The First Stage In Text Analysis Using The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147):

It follows from this that the approach to analysing texts when using the Cardiff Grammar has certain significant differences from that of the current Sydney Grammar. The first stage is to analyse its functional syntax. This is shown in a single but richly labelled functional structure, as in the upper half of Figure 10. Thus the analyst does not go looking for a set of structures that correspond to each strand of meaning, as an IFG-style analysis of a clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the Cardiff Grammar approach to analysing texts gives priority to structure and form, whereas Systemic Functional Grammar gives priority to system and function, where the function of language is to make meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 48-9):

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective (Halliday, 1978: 130–131; 1996). But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise. All linguistic description involves such compromise; the difference between a systemic description and one in terms of traditional school grammar is that in the school grammars the compromise was random and unprincipled whereas in a systemic grammar it is systematic and theoretically motivated. Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning – it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features (for an early statement, see Halliday, 1966a). Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation…).

[2] To be clear, the "richly" labelled functional structure in Figure 10 (p148) is a confusion of a class of form (Main verb), experiential functions (Agent, Affected) — misanalysed — and interpersonal functions (Subject, Operator, Complement, Adjunct):

Moreover, in terms of SFL Theory, Fawcett's model misunderstands structure as a sequence of isolates rather than as a relation between elements (e.g. what is the relation between Agent and Operator?). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49, 83-4):

Structure is analysed in functional terms, explaining the part played by each element in the organic configuration of the whole. …

Theme, Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates; each occurs in association with other functions from the same strand of meaning. …

The significance of any functional label lies in its relationship to the other functions with which it is structurally associated. It is the structure as a whole, the total configuration of functions, that construes, or realises, the meaning. The function Actor, for example, is interpretable only in its relation to other functions of the same kind – other representational functions such as Process and Goal. … It is the relation among all these that constitutes the structure. In similar fashion, the Subject enters into configurations with other functional elements as realisation of the clause as exchange; and likewise the Theme, in realising the clause as message.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents the SFL approach to text analysis by shifting its priority from system to structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 54):

When we observe a language, we observe it as text – as a flow of speech or as (typically) discrete pieces of writing. Texts lie at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, and once we have observed and collected them and made them accessible to study (e.g. by transcribing spoken text), we can proceed by analysing them, noting patterns in these instances. (i) If we have access to an existing account of the system of the language (at the potential pole of the cline of instantiation), then we will analyse texts by relating instantial patterns in the system. In other words, we undertake the analysis of texts by means of the description of the system that lies behind them… , identifying terms in systems and fragments of structures that are instantiated in the text. … (ii) If there is no description to draw on, this means that we will gradually have to develop one based on the analysis of a representative sample of texts (a corpus…).