Problems With The Term 'Quality Group'

Fawcett (2010: 206-7, 207n):

The term 'quality' is borrowed directly from the term used in the system network for the meanings that are realised in this unit. But, in a model of language in which the syntax is seen as the reflection of meaning, it is natural to introduce an explicitly functional label in this way. (The reason why this approach is not followed for the 'nominal' and 'prepositional' groups is that the labels that reflect the 'word class' tradition are so well established.) There is, of course, a long tradition in linguistics of using functional labels for categories that are in fact the realisations of meanings (as the term 'nominal" originally was), and there is certainly no reason to avoid using such labels — especially in an explicitly functional grammar such as the present one.¹² This discussion illustrates nicely the important fact — which is often overlooked — that it is not only the elements that are functional, but also the units.

¹² It has been suggested that we might call the group the "adjective-adverb group" to preserve the parallelism with the "nominal group", but it seems more natural, in the framework of an explicitly functional grammar, to use a label that directly expresses the type of meaning that this unit expresses.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett does not provide the system network featuring the term 'quality'. Moreover, in terms of ideational meaning, his Figure 12 (p210) only features 'situation', realised by clause, and 'thing', realised by nominal group. Interpersonal and textual semantics are not featured.

[2] To be clear, in Systemic Functional Theory, syntax is not seen as a "reflection" of meaning, since syntax and meaning are different levels of symbolic abstraction, whereas a phenomenon and its reflection are not. This suggests that Fawcett does not understand the principle of realisation.

[3] To be clear, introducing an explicitly functional label for a unit of form creates a theoretical inconsistency. In SFL Theory, forms are modelled as a constituency hierarchy, a rank scale, with constituents assigned functions in the unit of which they are constituents, as exemplified by an adverbial group serving the functions 'Manner' circumstance or 'comment Adjunct' in clause structure.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, an element is the function served by a unit; e.g. the element Senser is the function served by the unit nominal group.

[5] To be clear, a grammatical unit and its meaning are different levels of symbolic abstraction, and to label a grammatical form in terms of its meaning is to confuse levels of symbolic abstraction in the architecture of the theory. Moreover, units realise not just ideational meanings, but those of the interpersonal and textual metafunctions. But most importantly, this approach "leapfrogs" the more immediate grammatical functions realised by a 'quality unit', such as Attribute (participant), Manner (circumstance), Adjunct, and Theme or Rheme.