An Addendum To The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL

Fawcett (2010: 156-7):

As an addendum to the line of argument set out here, we should note that there are important theoretical differences between the Cardiff Grammar and the Sydney Grammar (within the general framework summarised in Figure 6 in Section 4.9 of Chapter 4). The most important difference is in way in which the various 'strands of meaning' are represented. While the Cardiff Grammar represents the meanings systemically — i.e., in terms of the features that have been chosen in the system networks that constitute the 'meaning potential' of the language — Halliday represents the meaning by 'functions'. His use of this concept for representing meanings can be traced back to the stage in the development of the theory in which it was believed that the realisation of the features in the system networks necessarily took place in two stages: in the first the grammar would use the 'selection expression' of features that were chosen on a traversal of the system network to create an unordered string of 'functions' (and of conflated functions), and in the second these 'functions' would be ordered in sequence.²⁶

²⁶ See Berry (1977:29-31) for an introductory account of this version of the model. The fullest implementation by far of the concept of realisation in two stages is that described in Hudson (1971), which had 76 such 'functions' (these being explicitly at the level of form, however). In a later work Hudson reduced them to just three (Hudson 1976), and this constitutes a little subsidiary evidence for the position taken here, i.e., that it is unnecessary for a systemic grammar first to generate 'functions' and then to order them.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is true, as the careful examination on this blog demonstrates. For example, the "Sydney Grammar" is the theory that Halliday painstakingly created, whereas the "Cardiff Grammar" is merely Fawcett's alteration of the theory that Halliday painstakingly created. More importantly, as demonstrated over and over again, Fawcett repeatedly misrepresents Halliday's model, while his own model, Figure 4, is invalidated by its own internal inconsistencies.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. The discussion in Section 4.9 is not concerned with Halliday's "Sydney Grammar", but with an earlier development (c1970) that was soon superseded, as previously explained. Figure 6, in which Fawcett has added the label 'COMBINED' to Halliday's diagram, otherwise displays the earlier model:

[3] To be clear, as this blog demonstrates, this is not the most important difference between the Cardiff Grammar and Halliday's version of his own theory, but it nicely illustrates the type of misunderstandings that invalidate Fawcett's version of Halliday's theory. As previously explained, Fawcett represents 'strands of meaning' — that is, structures — as systemic features.  As well as confusing the syntagmatic with the paradigmatic axis, this results in features of the clause being  represented as features of clause constituents.

Halliday's 'functions', on the other hand, are elements of function structure, with each structure of the clause being the relation between elements.

[4] To be clear, this "concept for representing meanings" is the syntagmatic dimension of the theory. As previously explained, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) misrepresents the relation between system and structure as a (stratified) relation between potential and instance:

[5] To be clear, other people's interpretations of earlier versions of Halliday's theory do not represent the "Sydney Grammar". That is, the inclusion of this in Fawcett's argument constitutes the logical fallacy known as a red herring.

[6] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday's theory. To be clear, the grammar does not first generate "functions" — i.e. elements of function structure — and then order them. In SFL Theory, the grammar is modelled as a system of choices, with different choices specifying the different structures that realise them.