How The Cardiff Grammar Operates In Its Full, Generative Version

Fawcett (2010: 149):

Let us now look for a moment at how the Cardiff Grammar operates in its full, generative version. The first stage is the selection of the features in the system network, i.e., the creation of a selection expression. The 'key' features that have been selected in the present example are displayed in the lower half of Figure 10. The realisation rules then integrate the various partial 'strands of meaning' that are represented by these features into a single functional structure (e.g., as shown in the top half of Figure 10). This involves the conflation of some elements with each other and with participant roles, such as the conflation of the Agent ("Ag") with the Subject ("S"). Notice that, in contrast with the 'structure conflation' version of the Sydney Grammar, there is no expectation that every element — or almost every element — will be conflated with an element in another strand of meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as the wording above demonstrates, the Cardiff Grammar is not a model of language, but a sequenced set of procedures for computer-mediated text generation, as represented in Figure 4 (p36):

[2] To be clear, despite this being "how the Cardiff Grammar operates in its full generative version", Fawcett does not provide either (a) the system networks of features from which selection expressions are derived or (b) the realisation rules that specify precisely how paradigmatic semantic features are realised syntagmatically at the level of form. Figure 10 (p148) merely presents an end product to be taken on trust:

[3] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true, and as such, misrepresents Halliday's version of his own theory ("the Sydney Grammar"). As previously explained, there is no "structure conflation" in SFL Theory, not least because structure conflation is nonsensical in a theory that views structure as the relation between elements. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstanding derives from his confusion of clause constituents (the units of the rank scale) with elements of clause function structures, and from his view of structure as a sequence of isolated elements.