Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Structure And Conflation

  Fawcett (2010: 279):

At this point we might remind ourselves that, in the new framework that is proposed here, the multifunctional nature of language is displayed in the analysis of a text at the level of meaning — so avoiding the problems that arise from the challenge of (1) generating and (2) integrating five or more different structures (as described in Chapter 7). This is achieved by arranging the features that have been chosen in generating it in separate lines, as in Figure 10 in Chapter 7. And we should also remind ourselves that the the application of the realisation operations attached to the semantic features generates a single, integrated output structure, so making it both undesirable and unnecessary to generate 'intermediate' structures such as those found in IFG.

The conclusion, therefore, is that single, coterminous elements are the only categories that can be conflated with each other — and this brings out yet more strongly the centrality in the theory of the concept of 'element of structure'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, 'in the new framework that is proposed here', the systemic meanings of all metafunctions are incongruously realised structurally by elements of the interpersonal metafunction: Subject, Complement, Adjunct, Finite ("Operator") and Predicator ("Main Verb"), though, as Figure 10 shows, the experiential elements of Agent and Medium ("Affected") are incongruously presented as both syntactic elements and semantic features.

[2] This is misleading. On the one hand, as previously demonstrated, these problems are imaginary, since they arise from Fawcett's misunderstandings of SFL Theory. On the other hand, because Fawcett has exported most of what is lexicogrammar in SFL Theory to semantic systems, and not provided those semantic systems (or realisation rules), he has hidden any the potential problems that arise in such a model.

[3] To be clear, as acknowledged by Fawcett, and illustrated in Figure 10, the Cardiff Grammar incongruously presents paradigmatic features as syntagmatic elements of structure. This is inconsistent in terms of axis. Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 10, the Cardiff Grammar incongruously conflates categories of different levels of symbolic abstraction: Subject (syntax) with Agent (semantics), and Complement (syntax) with Affected (semantics). This is inconsistent in terms of stratification.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett does not provide these realisation operations. On the other hand, in Fawcett's model (Figure 4), realisation operations are located at the level of form, not meaning (semantics).

[5] This is misleading, because the metafunctional structures in IFG are not intermediate structures, but construals of the different metafunctional meanings realised in the clause. Fawcett's misrepresentation in this regard arises from his inability to understand that these structures are integrated in a syntagm of clause constituents, as previously explained.

[6] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that this is not the case in SFL Theory. Fawcett has falsely claimed that SFL conflates structures rather than elements. Moreover, Fawcett's model incongruously conflates his semantic features (Agent, Affected) with his syntactic elements (Subject, Complement).

[7] To be clear, this is a non-sequitur, because the conflation of elements says nothing at all about the centrality of the notion of 'element of structure' in a theory, since conflation can be posited in any theory that features the notion of 'element of structure' — whether as central or peripheral in the theory.