"The Network"

Fawcett (2010: 302):

The brief summary given here shows only what happens for one unit. If the output is to be a sentence with more than one layer of structure — as is typically the case — then the network will first be entered to generate a clause and its elements, and then re-entered to generate any 'lower' unit that is required. This may be a nominal group, as here, or one of the other various types of group. The important point is that each such re-entry to the network adds a new unit to the structure, each with its own internal structure. And, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions in the main part of the book, language has an amazing ability to generate units within units — clauses within clauses, groups within groups, clauses within groups, and so on. Yet the simple principles for generating structure that have been illustrated here are sufficient (with a small number of extensions) to cover all of these cases.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Fawcett does not supply this network. Given that the same network is said to specify the structures of both clauses and groups, it cannot be any network already devised by Halliday or Matthiessen.

"This Little Grammar"

Fawcett (2010: 302):

Clearly, this little grammar leaves out a rather large proportion of the many complex meanings that can be expressed through the nominal group in English. Equally clearly, it ignores various problems, such as the plurals of words like box and the irregular plurals of men and women, etc. All of these matters are covered in the full lexicogrammar from which this simplified one has been taken. The fact that this little lexicogrammar is very limited in its coverage of English nominal groups is unimportant, because our purpose here is simply to illustrate the basic principles of how a grammar that is founded on the concept of 'choice between meanings' actually works. The key concept, then, is that the system network of a language (or any other sign system) defines the meaning potential of that language, and the realisation component defines the form potential. But when such a lexicogrammar is set to work it also specifies the instances that are possible at the levels of both meaning (in the selection expression of semantic features) and form (in the structured strings of word forms that are the output).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this little grammar leaves out almost all of the grammar of English.

[2] To be clear, this has to be taken entirely on trust, because Fawcett has not produced any evidence of "the full lexicogrammar" in a book that is purported to set out his theory.

[3] To be clear, the fact that this little lexicogrammar is very limited is important, because the absence of a full description casts serious doubt on Fawcett's claim that his theory is a viable alternative to SFL Theory.

[4]  To be clear, this is merely a pretext for not supplying a full description, because explaining the formalism does not preclude the possibility of supplying the systems that model the content of this book.

[5] To be clear, here Fawcett once again confuses 'meaning' as a level of symbolic abstraction (vs form) with language as 'meaning potential' (vs instance): the system pole of the cline of instantiation.

[6] As previously explained, selection expressions — like [voiced, bilabial. stop] — constitute potential as well as instance.

[7] As previously explained, Fawcett's model misconstrues syntactic structures as instances of realisation rules.

Problems With Fawcett's Realisation Component

Fawcett (2010: 299):

This selection expression of features becomes the input to the realisation component. This is the bottom left box in Figure 4 (in Chapter 3), and it contains two main types of statement: (1) realisation rules, as given in Figure 2, and (2) potential structures, which simply show the sequence in which those elements that are fixed in sequence must appear (such as those in the nominal group).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Reminder:

[2] To be clear, in this model, a selection expression is an instance of a system network, and this instance at the level of meaning is in a realisation relation with potential at the level of form (the realisation component).

[3] To be clear, in this model, syntagmatic structures are instances of realisation rules. On the principle of instantiation, an instance of a potential realisation rule is an actual realisation rule.

"The Way To Use A System Network"

Fawcett (2010: 298-9):

The system network corresponds to the top left box in Figure 4 (in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3). The way to use a system network is to 'traverse' it, starting with the leftmost feature. Whenever an 'and' bracket is encountered, all the systems to its right must be entered, so that the pathway through the network typically becomes a set of branching pathways.

When you have completed a traversal of the network, you will have collected a selection expression of semantic features such as:

[thing, count, plural, student, nearness to performer, un-near].

Notice that features are typically written in square brackets, to show their status as features. This output from the network corresponds to the top right box in Figure 4 (in Chapter 3) — i.e., it is an instance of this little lexicogrammar's meaning potential.

Blogger Comments:

 [1] Reminder:

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the creation of text does not involve the traversal of a network. A system network sets out how features are related to each other, and does so in terms of logico-semantic relations:

• enhancement: condition (entry condition) 
• extension: alteration (disjunction)
• extension: addition (conjunction)
• elaboration (delicacy).

It is only the focus of attention of a viewer of the network that makes such a traversal.

[3] To be clear, a selection expression constitutes a bundle of features, either as potential or instance. For example, the phonological selection expression [voiced, bilabial, stop] specifies (is realised by) the phoneme /b/, whether as potential, or as instance in text.

Object, Thing And Nominal Group

Fawcett (2010: 297):

As we have seen in the main text, a thing is a semantic unit that is typically expresses an object in the belief system and that is realised at the level of form by a nominal group. While the source grammar for "things" has over 150 systems that are realised grammatically (and many thousands more that are realised lexically), the present grammar has just four systems that are realised in grammar and two that are realised in lexis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, semantically, it is 'participant' that is realised in lexicogrammar as a nominal group (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 177), and 'thing' is a type of participant (op. cit.: 182):

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, there is no 'belief system' above the system of semantics, and 'object' is a type of 'simple thing' and distinguished as either material or semiotic; Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 190):

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, grammar and lexis are united as lexicogrammar, and lexical items are the synthetic realisations of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features, just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the phonological features [voiced, bilabial, stop].