Why The Cardiff Grammar Is Not A Modern Systemic Functional Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 273):

Chapters 9, 10 and 11 have described and discussed the concepts that are required in a modern SF grammar — together with a number of other concepts that have been proposed at various points in the development of SFL and that play no part in the new theory of syntax (such as the 'rank' and 'hypotaxis').

I suggest, therefore, that the concepts that are required in a modern systemic functional grammar are essentially the same as those found in the Cardiff Grammar (or some closely similar set). Moreover, as we saw in Chapter 7, the Sydney Grammar requires, to complete it, the concept of a single structure — i.e., a structure that is able to integrate the 'multiple structure' representations in IFG and the many derived works in a single structure. Thus any full account of a theory of SF syntax must recognise some such set of concepts associated with a single structure as those of the theory presented here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, only 3 of the preceding 11 chapters actually present Fawcett's model. The first 8 chapters — as well as parts of the following 4 — are concerned with misrepresenting SFL Theory in ways that suit Fawcett's argument, as demonstrated throughout this blog.

[2] As previously demonstrated, despite his claims to the contrary, Fawcett does operate with a de facto rank scale of forms — text, clause, group/cluster, item — even if this is masked by the inconsistencies in the model. Moreover, because Fawcett regularly confuses form and function, he has also presented functions in terms of rank.

While it is true that, in the Cardiff Grammar, Fawcett has replaced hypotaxis with embedding (for extension, enhancement, projection) and co-ordination (for elaboration), he neglects to mention that parataxis also plays no rôle in his model, replacing it with embedding (for projection) and co-ordination (for expansion).

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett modestly suggests that his model, the Cardiff Grammar, is what is required for a modern systemic functional grammar. However, as this blog has demonstrated, there are many reasons for rejecting this suggestion. For example,

• the theoretical architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) is internally inconsistent; 
• the Cardiff Grammar is not "modern", since it is a development of Halliday's first theory, Scale-&-Category Grammar (1961), not his final theory Systemic Functional Grammar; 
• the Cardiff Grammar is theorised 'from below' (structure and form) rather than 'from above' (system and function), making it inconsistent with SFL Theory; 
• the Cardiff Grammar is a theory of syntax, whereas SFL Theory is not;
• not one of Fawcett's critiques of SFL Theory withstands close scrutiny, since all are based on (motivated) misunderstandings of the theory. 

Most importantly, it should be kept in mind that Scale-&-Category Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar are both Halliday's intellectual creations, whereas the Cardiff Grammar is merely Fawcett's reworking of a Halliday creation. Fawcett's terminology of 'Sydney Grammar' and 'Cardiff Grammar' misleads by giving Fawcett's derived model the same intellectual standing as Halliday's original model.

[4] As we saw in the examination of Chapter 7, this is misleading because it is untrue. In SFL theory, the three metafunctional structures of the clause are integrated into a single syntagm of group/phrase rank units that realise them. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 74):

The clause, as we said, is the mainspring of grammatical energy; it is the unit where meanings of different kinds, experiential, interpersonal and textual, are integrated into a single syntagm.