The Need For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL: The Argument Summarised [5]

Fawcett (2010: 154-5):

8. Halliday recognises that the 'multiple structures' of IFG — which we shall assume for the moment to be capable of being generated by the grammar — must ultimately be merged into a single structure at the level of form. 

9. However, there are several serious problems in reconciling Halliday's multiple structure representations with this position. No advocate of it has yet stated what it actually means when one says that the various structures get conflated with each other — other than treating all such 'functions' as elements of a 'flat tree' representation of constituency, which would be the dismemberment of those structures rather than a 'conflation of them. Such a conflation has not even been achieved with simple clauses, either in the framework of a computer implementation or as a theoretical exercise (as I have shown in Section 7.4). On the basis of this evidence and my own failure to find a way to make this approach work, I make two proposals:

(1) 'multiple structures' with non-coterminous elements cannot be integrated in the manner proposed by Halliday, so that another solution to the problem of generating a single structural output must be sought; and 

(2) even if such structures could be integrated, something like an updated version of S&C-type syntax would be required to achieve this — i.e., a syntax such as that to be described in Part 2.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday's model. In SFL Theory, there is no merger of structures, no structures at the level of form, and no level of form. Instead, the three metafunctional clause structures are all realised by the same syntagm of units at the rank below the clause (group/phrase) — at the level (stratum) of lexicogrammar.

[2] This is misleading, because 'this position' is not Halliday's position; see [1].

[3] To be clear, the reason why no-one has tackled the problem of structure conflation is that structure conflation is not part of SFL Theory. The notion only arises through Fawcett's misunderstandings of Halliday's notions of structure and constituency, as previously demonstrated.

[4] Here Fawcett repeats his incomprehension of 'flat tree' constituency.  'Flat tree' constituency describes ranked constituent analysis (minimal bracketing) as opposed to immediate constituent analysis (maximal bracketing); see Halliday (1994: 20-4). That is, it refers to the rank scale of forms in SFL theory. Elements of function structure, on the other hand, are not formal constituents, but the functions (e.g. Sayer) that formal constituents (e.g. nominal group) realise.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. See the earlier post Misconstruing The Conflation Of Elements As The Dismemberment Of One Element.

[6] To be clear, here Fawcett proposes solving a non-existent problem in SFL Theory by using an approach that is inconsistent with SFL Theory (syntax) that is derived from Halliday's superseded theory (Scale and Category Grammar).