Fawcett's Hoped-For Response To His Book

Fawcett (2010: 276):

In this book, then, I have set out an account of some of the major areas where we who work in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar wish to supplement or replace concepts relating to syntax proposed by Halliday. Moreover, I have tried to avoid merely presenting alternative approaches, and also to state the reasons for them. My hope is that those who work in the framework of the Sydney Grammar will resist the temptation to respond to this book as if it were an 'attack' on their model.¹  

Instead, I hope that they might undertake the experiment suggested near the start of Chapter 11, and work with the approach suggested here for a couple of hours or days — or even weeks, months or years (which is of course what my colleagues and I have done with Halliday's proposals). It is only in this way that one really discovers the merits and demerits of a description, and so of the theory that underlies it.

¹ It is unfortunate that the overwhelmingly dominant metaphor for academic discussion is that of combat. Why should it not be a co-operative enterprise, such as building a house together? See Appendix C for examples of the problems that may arise is [sic] academic 'debate.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, as this blog has demonstrated, Fawcett has largely failed in this attempt. See, for example, the posts on 11.9 How embedding and co-ordination can replace 'hypotaxis' and 'parataxis' (pp271-2), where no argumentation at all is made for his alternative approach.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, as this blog has demonstrated, Fawcett has only argued for his own model by misrepresenting the model he hopes to replace. This is a version of the logical fallacy known as 'arguing by default'. Dawkins (2021: 415):

Two rival theories, A and B, are set up. Theory A explains loads of facts and is supported by mountains of evidence. Theory B has no supporting evidence, nor is any attempt to find any. Now a single little fact is discovered, which A allegedly can't explain. Without even asking whether B can explain it, the default conclusion is fallaciously drawn: B must be correct. Incidentally, further research usually reveals that A can explain the phenomenon after all…

Moreover, Fawcett's argumentation has made copious use of bare assertions (evidence here), non-sequiturs (evidence here), and logical fallacies (evidence here).

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett frames negative responses to his proposals as unthinking 'attacks' rather than as reasoned argumentation based on evidence.

[4] To be clear, in the end, this blogger will have spent 5 years working with 'the approach suggested here', and in this way has 'really discovered the merits and demerits of the description, and so of the theory that underlies it'.

[5] To be clear, as is widely known in the SFL community, Fawcett is the number one violator of his own ethical prescription. A few examples here will illustrate the point.

See "Yet Another Serious Source Of Embarrassment For The Concept Of The Rank Scale":

Fawcett (2010: 256n): 

We might note that the data that we are about to consider are yet another serious source of embarrassment for the concept of the 'rank scale'.

See Robin Fawcett Negatively Appreciating Halliday And Matthiessen (2004):

On Wed, 2/7/08, Robin Fawcett wrote on the Sysfling List:

That suggests that IFG is becoming a less adequate guide as time passes, not a better one....

See Robin Fawcett Negatively Judging And Negatively Appreciating Halliday And Matthiessen (1999):

On 29 June 2011 at 08:42, Robin Fawcett wrote to Sysfling:

Indeed, if Michael Halliday and Christian Matthiessen had formed a clear view of the way in which the choices described in their Construing Experience through Meaning determine the choices in the major system networks of the lexicogrammar, they would surely have said so in that book. I have looked hard for a section that makes this connection, but I have yet to find it. This suggests that the model proposed there is simply one possible, half-complete hypothesis that needs to be subject to the normal process in science of development, testing, evaluation, revision (or rejection), retesting, re-evaluation, and so on.

On 9/1/12, Robin Fawcett wrote on the Sysfling List:

I would particularly like to support the calls for discussions to avoid being offensive, this being entirely unnecessary. Courtesy costs nothing.