Fawcett's Claim That The Cardiff Grammar Provides A Much Fuller Account Of Group Functional Structures

 Fawcett (2010: 202):

It is interesting that, despite the fact that the two grammars are based on the same systemic functional principles, they take such a different approach to the grammar of groups. As I have said, the Cardiff Grammar's approach is as it [is] because of our commitment to relating the elements of the syntactic units to their meaning potential in the system networks — and so to the 'conceptual units' of logical form in the belief system. But it also provides a much fuller account of their functional structures, and this may be because the Cardiff Grammar focusses on the analysis of groups as well as clauses — whereas in IFG and the many derived works the emphasis is overwhelmingly on the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously noted, for example,

• the Cardiff Grammar is a development of Halliday's pre-Systemic theory, Scale & Category Grammar, as Fawcett himself admits;
• the Cardiff Grammar is a theory of syntax, whereas SFL Theory is not;
• the Cardiff Grammar gives priority to lower orders of abstraction, structure and form, whereas SFL Theory gives priority to higher orders of abstraction, system and function;
• the Cardiff Grammar architecture (Figure 4) is not only inconsistent with the architecture of SFL Theory, it is inconsistent in its own terms;
• the Cardiff Grammar posits a 'belief system' that is realised in language, whereas SFL Theory does not — Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 3) going so far as to describe such a view as 'illusory'.

[2] As previously explained, the Cardiff Grammar views groups 'from below', classifying them according to how they are realised structurally, whereas SFL Theory views groups 'from above', classifying them according to the function they serve at clause rank. Only the latter approach is consistent with the principles of a systemic functional theory of language.

[3] To be clear, if this were true, the Cardiff Grammar would classify groups according to the meanings they realise, instead of according to how they are structured syntagmatically.

[4] As previously noted, Fawcett's use of the term 'meaning potential' confuses the semantic stratum (meaning) with the system pole of the cline of instantiation (language as meaning potential).

[5] Cf Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 2-3):

In modelling the meaning base [semantics] we are building it 'upwards' from the grammar, instead of working 'downwards' from some interpretation of experience couched in conceptual terms, and seen as independent of language. We contend that the conception of 'knowledge' as something that exists independently of language, and may then be coded or made manifest in language, is illusory. All knowledge is constituted in semiotic systems, with language as the most central; and all such representations of knowledge are constructed from language in the first place.

[6] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

[7] This is very misleading indeed, because, despite Fawcett's implication, SFL Theory gives "a full account" of group structures as well as clause structures. The reasons for the centrality of the clause in SFL Theory are provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 10):

The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. For this reason the first half of this book is organised around the principal systems of the clause: theme, mood and transitivity. In Part II we move outward from the clause, to take account of what happens above and below it – systems of the clause complex, of groups and phrases, and of group and phrase complexes; and also beyond the clause, along other dimensions so to speak.

The perspective moves away from structure to consideration of grammar as system, enabling us to show the grammar as a meaning-making resource and to describe grammatical categories by reference to what they mean. This perspective is essential if the analysis of grammar is to be an insightful mode of entry to the study of discourse.