Confusing Stratal Relations With Structural Relations

 Fawcett (2010: 214-5):

The second important consequence is that, since every syntactic unit realises a different class of semantic entity, we should expect that, in principle, every element in every class of unit will be different from every element in every other class of unit. Thus we shall not use the terms "modifier" and "head" for more than one class of unit, as some form-centred grammars do (sometimes supplemented by other general, quasi-functional terms such as "complement", "adjunct" and "specifier").  

Here the terms "head" and "modifier" are used only for nominal groups. So elements in the structure of other groups that may at first appear to be partially equivalent to the "modifier' and "head" of a nominal group are given different names, e.g., "temperer" and "apex" in the quality group. The reason is simple: they express different meanings. 

Thus the head of a nominal group such as large houses tells us the 'cultural classification' of the object in terms of the culture associated with the language, and the modifier large tells us 'what sort' of thing it is (here, specifically 'what size' it is). But the apex in a quality group such as very stupid tells us that the 'quality' is 'stupid' and the temperer very tells us the 'quantity' of that 'quality'. 

The important generalisation is that each element of structure appears — in principle — in one (and only one) class of unit, and this holds good both within each unit and across the different classes of unit.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this confuses a stratal relation (between syntactic unit and semantic entity) with the structural relations between elements in a unit. Elements of a unit function relative to other elements in the same structure, and such structures may be multivariate or univariate. As previously explained, in a univariate structure the relation between elements is iteratively one of modification, and this is why, in SFL Theory, it is applied across different classes of unit, such as nominal, verbal, adverbial, conjunction and preposition groups.

[2] This is misleading, because the implication here is that SFL Theory is a form-centred theory and the Cardiff Grammar is not. As this blog has demonstrated over and over, unlike SFL Theory, Fawcett's systemic-functional syntax gives priority to form over function (and structure over system).

[3] This is misleading, because the "quasi-functional" terms Complement and Adjunct name elements in both Fawcett's functional syntax and SFL Theory.

[4] To be clear, this creates a theoretical inconsistency since it posits different terms for the same structural relation, as a result of confusing stratal relations with structural relations; see [1].

[5] To be clear, this confuses the logical (univariate) structure of nominal groups, Modifier ^ Head, with the experiential (multivariate) structure, Epithet ^ Thing, and mistakes the meanings (semantics) they realise for culture (context).

[6] To be clear, this simply confuses degree (very) with quantity.

[7] To be clear, this clause is tautological, since it merely repeats the meaning of the previous clause, but as if it were new information.