The Logical Conclusion Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [1]

Fawcett (2010: 155):

This is the point that the argument has reached so far. Let us now follow it through to its logical conclusion: 

10. Since it is agreed that, within Halliday's approach, the multiple structures must be integrated into a single structure as the final stage in generation, the next logical step is to ask whether it is in fact possible to first generate the type of multiple structure representation found in IFG as an intermediate stage between the systemic features and the single representation, and then to generate from the multiple structures the single integrating structure (which would require the architecture illustrated in Figure 8 in Section 7.4.1). If the answer were to be that it is possible (which I doubt), we would then need to ask whether this way of generating the final integrated structure is either necessary or desirable. The alternative that should be considered is to generate it directly by realisation rules that take as their input the semantic features chosen in the system network. 

11. This is precisely what is done in the very large computer-implemented Cardiff Grammar (as we saw in Section 7.8). The fact that it is possible to generate text-sentences directly from systemic features demonstrates that there is no need first to generate multiple structures of the type illustrated in IFG and then to integrate them into a single structure. 

12. We therefore know that it is not necessary to generate multiple structures of functions as an intermediate stage. This fact is particularly welcome, given that it is not possible to build a component that will convert seven or more different non-coterminous structures into a single structure (for the reasons given in Section 7.4.1).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained, in Halliday's approach, there is no requirement that the metafunctional clause structures be "integrated into a single structure as the final stage in generation". Fawcett's claim arises from his misunderstandings of formal constituency and functional structure, and is motivated by the fact that his own model has a "single structure as the final stage in generation". That is, his own model is posited as solving a non-existent problem he wrongly attributes to Halliday's model.

[2] This is misleading, because the architecture of Figure 8 is a reworking of Fawcett's model (Figure 4), not Halliday's, and is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL Theory. See, for example, Fawcett Adjusting His Model To Accomodate His Misunderstanding Of Halliday.

[3] This is misleading. The metafunctional clause structures in IFG are "directly generated by" (realise) systemic features — those of clause rank, on the stratum of lexicogrammar. The theoretical motivation for distinguishing grammatical systems from semantic systems is the explanatory power that the distinction provides for understanding grammatical metaphor.

As previously explained, Fawcett's model, Figure 10, misrepresents systemic features as structural elements, thereby misattributing features of the whole clause to individual elements of clause structure.