The Implications Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [1]

Fawcett (2010: 157):

The main purpose of this chapter has been to clarify the status of the representations of clauses given in IFG and the derived works. We have also seen, in Section 7.9, that there is an alternative and more truly systemic means of representing the multifunctional nature of language, i.e., a representa[t]ion of the systemic features. In systemic functional grammar such a representation is inherently more revealing than any structural representation. As Halliday himself says, "the system takes priority; the most abstract representation [...] is in paradigmatic terms. Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features" (Halliday 1993:4505).

The consequence of having both a representation at the level of meaning and a representation of the single integrated structure — something that is required, as we have seen, in the Sydney model as well as the Cardiff model — is that the many lines of structure in an IFG analysis are, from both the theoretical-generative and the text-descriptive viewpoints, redundant. They are redundant because the analysis in terms of the features chosen in the system networks already displays clearly the different strands of meaning, as in the example of such an analysis in Figure 10.

Blogger Comments:

[1] We have also seen, in the examination of Section 7.9, that Fawcett's "alternative and more truly systemic means of representing the multifunctional nature of language" — Figure 10 — confuses systemic features with structural elements, thereby attributing features of the whole clause to elements of clause structure. These theoretical inconsistencies, alone, invalidate Fawcett's model.

[2] This is true, and Fawcett has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand what Halliday means by it. Despite the system taking priority in SFL Theory, Fawcett has focused instead on structure, not just in this chapter, not just in this entire book, but in his reworking of Halliday's theory — even to the extent of misrepresenting systemic features as structural elements (Figure 10).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as has been demonstrated previously, over and over. In the "Sydney model" (Halliday's version of his own theory), there is no need for an "integrated structure", since it is the realisation of the metafunctional clause structures in a syntagm of clause constituents, groups and phrases, that provides the skeleton onto which the functions are mapped. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstanding arises from his confusing formal constituency (the rank scale) with function structure. As will be seen, Fawcett argues against the theoretical value of a rank scale.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Fawcett's alternative analysis (Figure 10) does not make metafunctional clause structures redundant, because his semantic analysis, which displays paradigmatic features, does not present an analysis of syntagmatic structure: