The Need For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL: The Argument Summarised [1]

Fawcett (2010: 152-3):

We are now in a position to bring together the main steps of the argument that is presented this book. 

1. Scale and Category Grammar (S&C) was essentially a theory of syntax, and so an account of the structure of language at the level of form (as we saw in Chapter 2). 

2. A modern, computer-implementable theory of language must have levels of form and meaning, providing for both a 'potential' and 'instances' of the potential at both levels (as described in Chapter 3). 

3. Halliday's development of the theory into Systemic Functional Grammar involved (1) placing the concept of 'system' at the centre of the theory, (2) presenting the resulting system networks as choices between meanings, and (3) seeing each clause as the realisation of several different 'strands of meaning' (as outlined in the first half of Chapter 4).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously demonstrated here. Even Halliday's initial theory went well beyond mere syntax. Moreover, any argument that includes Scale and Category Grammar is an instance of the Red Herring logical fallacy, since this was a distinct theory from Systemic Functional Grammar, and hence irrelevant to considerations of the latter.

[2] This is misleading, because it merely restates Fawcett's model (Figure 4), giving the false impression that its theoretical architecture has been established by reasoned argument. Moreover, Fawcett's model is invalidated by multiple internal inconsistencies, such as the confusion of axis with instantiation, as previously demonstrated here.

[3] This is misleading, because it couches Halliday's theory in terms of Fawcett's model, which only distinguishes meaning and form, and only has systems at the level of meaning. Halliday distinguishes three levels of language — meaning, wording and sounding — with lexicogrammatical systems as systems of wording. It is only in the absence of grammatical metaphor that meaning and wording are in accord ('congruent').

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Fawcett's theoretical priority, the syntagmatic axis, as Halliday's theoretical priority. In Systemic Functional Grammar, priority is given to the paradigmatic axis, such that a clause is modelled as conjoint metafunctional systems that specify structural realisations.