Misrepresenting SFL As A Constraint-Oriented Theory

Fawcett (2010: 282-3):

But how well does the 'rank scale' way of generalising about relationships between units reflect the patterns of syntax found in English texts? 

The theory presented here is based on the well-tested assumption that we can make more useful generalisations in terms of the concept of class of unit (in its present sense) and element of structure, together with the concept that the relationship between a unit and the element that it fills is probabilistic rather than absolute. 

Thus the present theory of syntax makes much weaker claims as to what is and is not permitted than the IFG version of the theory does. 

Indeed, it is designed to enable the overall description of a language to celebrate the flexibility and richness of structure in language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this has the relation backwards. The syntagmatic patterns that are found in English texts depend on the model of formal composition that is used: ranked constituency (SFL Theory) or immediate constituency (Formal syntax).

[2] This is misleading. What is assumed is Fawcett's model, and the claim that it enables "more useful generalisations about patterns of syntax found in English texts" is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence — as, indeed, is the claim that the assumption is "well-tested".

[3] The word thus here is misleading, because it falsely construes a logical relation between the previous claim and the non-sequitur that follows. The overall rhetorical effect is to misrepresent two bare assertions as a reasoned argument.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a bare assertion, however trivial, unsupported by argument. On the other hand, it misrepresents SFL Theory as modelling language in terms of constraints ("permitted") — as in a Formal grammar — instead of in terms of choice.

[5] This is misleading, because, having just misrepresented SFL Theory as a theory of constraints, Fawcett falsely claims that his theory, unlike SFL Theory, is able to "celebrate the richness of structure in language". If Fawcett's theory were a systemic-functional theory, it would be more concerned with the flexibility and richness in the choice of meaning in language.