If after making this small investment of time the reader's decision is that the original approach to, let us say, the 'rank scale' is superior to the approach taken here (in which the nearest equivalent is 'filling probabilities'), it would be helpful to future generations if the reasons could be given for maintaining that approach, in the light of the evidence offered here (and in Appendix C for the 'rank scale').
Indeed, we should not assume that the outcome to an exchange of views will necessarily be 'victory' or 'defeat'. One possible type of outcome is what has been called a 'transcending solution', i.e., the emergence from the discussion of a better idea than either party held at the start (so not a mere compromise), and this may well be a possibility in some areas. At other times, of course, we must hope for the humility, in both ourselves and our interactants, to say "Yes, I now see that the weight of the evidence is on your side, so I shall change my position."
It is my hope, then, that the effect of the publication of the work that has been developed in the framework described here will not be to separate further these two versions of the theory, but rather to provide ways of helping the theory as a whole to make the further improvements over the standard model (as represented currently by Halliday 1994 and Matthiessen 1995) that are clearly needed to make the theory stronger and more usable for the new century.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this blogger has made a huge investment of time and provided reams of evidence demonstrating that Fawcett's theory is internally inconsistent and based on misunderstandings of Halliday's two theories. It can only be hoped that this will prove "helpful to future generations".
[2] To be clear, here Fawcett frames the relative intellectual value of theories in combative terms of victory and defeat (of a personal position).
[3] To be clear, the close examination of Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar on this blog suggests that this is not a possible outcome.
[4] The reader is invited to consider whether or not Fawcett has himself in mind in his hope for humility.
[5] To be clear, the SFL Community has, for the most part, ignored Fawcett's model, so the question of a further separation of SFL Theory and the Cardiff Grammar is largely irrelevant. Indeed, it could be argued, on the evidence here, that the continued existence of the Cardiff Grammar crucially depends on it being ignored instead of critically examined.
On the other hand, from a personal point of view, this blogger can confirm that the effect of closely examining Fawcett's book has been to deepen his understanding of SFL Theory, its development, its self-consistency, and its explanatory potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment