Confusing Experiential With Logical Structure And Misconstruing Form As Function

Fawcett (2010: 196):

In many theories of syntax there is an assumption that each unit has an element that is obligatorily present (often called the 'head'). This reflects the traditional assumption that a unit is essentially the 'expansion' of a word — a concept which is replaced here by recognising the fact that each element realises one aspect of the unit's meaning, as explained in Section 10.2.1. But among formal grammarians — i.e., those who are influenced by formal language theory (i.e., the theory of 'formal' languages) — there is a tendency to transfer the characteristics of formal languages to natural languages, and so to construct theories for parsing natural languages on the basis of such assumptions (e.g., 'head-driven parsers'). However, the data of natural language texts suggest that such concepts express strong tendencies rather than absolute rules.

On the other hand, the concept of an element that is typically present in a given class of unit is useful (e.g., when the theory of syntax is to be used by a parser), and on those occasions when we need to refer to such an element we shall call it, informally, the pivotal element of the unit. Examples of nominal groups that have no heads include the very rich and five in Give me five (see Fawcett in press for the reasons for these analyses). And for a discussion of the Main Verb as the pivotal element of the clause, see Section 10.4.2.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's claims here are that

• his model replaces logical structure with experiential structure, and
• only experiential structure "recognises the fact that each element realises one aspect of the unit's meaning".

On the first claim, it will be demonstrated that Fawcett confuses logical and experiential structure; see below. On the second claim, logical structure construes meaning in terms of the relation of modification, which thus also "recognises the fact that each element realises one aspect of the unit's meaning".

[2] To be clear, the structural element that is "typically" present is the Head, since this is the element that is optionally modified. That is, on the one hand, Fawcett rejects logical structure, while on the other, he uses one of its elements, the Head, and renames it the Pivot.

[3] To be clear, these nominal groups do have Head elements (logical structure); what they do not have are Thing elements (experiential structure). That is, Fawcett's model confuses logical and experiential structure.

[4] To be clear, 'Fawcett in press' (Functional Syntax Handbook) is still unpublished, 20 years after the first edition of this book.

[5] To be clear, on the one hand, this unwittingly construes the clause as a logical structure, since 'Pivot' is demonstrably Fawcett's term for 'Head'; see above. On the other hand, it misconstrues a class of form (main verb) as an element of function structure.