Presenting Bare Assertions As Supporting Argument: Butler, Huddleston And Hudson

Fawcett (2010: 199-200):

Butler, in his useful discussion of this issue, is quite clear about what the answer should be. He points out that "if we are to account for the variety of structures available in a language, we shall have to elevate structural type to a more central position in the theory than Halliday suggests" (Butler 1985:34). And, referring to two papers by Halliday's two closest colleagues in the 1960s (Huddleston 1966/81 and Hudson 1967/81) he goes on to say that: "although neither [...] actually defines class, their discussion suggests that their criteria for classification are those of internal constituency".

It therefore seems that there is a basic difference here between, on the one hand, Halliday and those whose publications have been written with the goal of expounding and complementing IFG, and on the other hand almost all other grammarians who have worked on the analysis of English using SFL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim by Fawcett's supporter, Butler, is merely a bare assertion, unsupported by any argument as to why accounting for the variety of structures requires elevating structural type to a more central position in Systemic Theory. As the name suggests, Systemic Theory is concerned with modelling language as system, not structure, and structures are specified in the system through realisation statements. Halliday (1995[1993]: 272):

In systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms. Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features.

[2] To be clear, what the 1960s work of two non-Systemicists, Huddleston and Hudson, suggests to Butler is not argument as to why classifying units according to their internal structure has more explanatory potential than classifying them according to the function they realise. That is, this is another instance of the logical fallacy known as argumentum ab auctoritate, whereby authorities are cited instead of their arguments.

Moreover, to take the view 'from below' on this matter creates a theoretical inconsistency in a theory that gives priority to the view 'from above': system over structure, function over form.

[3] This is misleading, not least because Butler, Fawcett, Huddleston (1966) and Hudson (1967) come nowhere near constituting "almost all other grammarians who have worked on the analysis of English using SFL". Moreover, this is an attempt to deploy the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.