Fawcett's Reasons For The Lack Of Discussion Of Solutions To Problems In SFL

Fawcett (2010: 312-3, 313n):

We need to ask why there has been so little discussion of alternative systemic functional solutions to problems in SFL. The reason is partly the example that is set by Halliday himself. He, like many others, has a strong dislike for the type of supposedly 'hard-nosed' combative argumentation that was so popular in the heyday of Chomskyan linguistics. This may be at least part of the reason why Halliday has only rarely responded to criticisms, and why he hardly ever comments adversely on alternative proposals from within SFL — and so why there is so little 'debate' in SFL. 

On the rare occasions when he does reply to a criticism, his typical response is to concede courteously that the point needs consideration (as he did with respect to Matthews' idea of treating Linkers such as and as "markers"), while at the same time continuing to assert the value of the original concept. The problem is that, with the passage of time and the repeated re-presentation of the original concept (both his own works and, often, in the various introductions to his ideas by others) the criticism gets forgotten and the original concept, despite its weaknesses, survives.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason there has been so little discussion of the problem of the rank scale is that the only people who think it a problem are those who cannot understand it. On the other hand, alternative solutions to non-problems have been proposed, not only by Fawcett, but also by others, most notably Martin.

[2] This speculation confuses debate, in general, with one particular type of debate — the type exemplified by Matthews (1966) and Fawcett (2010: 238n, 256n):

… its existence is therefore an embarrassment for the 'rank scale' concept …

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'.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. When Halliday later formulated Systemic Functional Grammar, he did indeed treat these as structure markers. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611):

The logico-semantic relation is marked by a conjunction – either by a non-structural one that is used only in this way, i.e. only cohesively, such as for example, furthermore, consequently; or by a structural one whose prototypical function is to mark the continuing clause in a paratactic clause nexus. … the latter are simply analysed as structure markers and are obligatorily thematic as structural Theme.

[4] To be clear, as this blog has demonstrated, this is not true in the case of either the rank scale or structure markers.

∞

It might be mentioned that Fawcett and his fellows are not so keen to have Fawcett's "solutions" discussed. See, for example, here.