Fawcett's Final Three Promises

Fawcett (2010: 294):

In due course I intend to publish, with colleagues, at least three further books. One will give a full account of the generative version of the Cardiff Grammar, as implemented (in Prolog) in the computer. The other, to be jointly written with Huang Guowen, will provide an in-depth treatment of the generation of one of the more challenging constructions in English. It is the one exemplified in It is this book that gives you the best picture of how we see the various components of language generation working together in the production of a text-sentence, and it describes every component that is required, from the belief system, through the discourse planner to the sentence planner that incorporates the lexicogrammar. In due course I also hope to write an introductory book about the Cardiff Grammar with Gordon Tucker, drawing especially on Tucker (1998) and the two handbooks. Our hope is that this set of books will provide both a full guide to analysing texts in functional terms at the levels of both form and meaning, and a theoretical-generative account of a modern systemic functional model of language.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, 21 years after the first edition of this book, these promised works are still unpublished.

This completes the examination of the body of Fawcett's work. The posts that follow examine the three Appendices.

"A Theory Of The Type Described Here"

Fawcett (2010: 293):

All in all, we can say that a theory of the type described here — together with the theory of system networks and their realisation as illustrated in Appendix A and in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) — provides a principled analysis of English syntax that is at every point explicitly functional. It therefore continues the line of development that extends from "Categories" through "Language as choice in social contexts" and, in some measure "Systemic theory". And since the theory of system networks and of the realisation component are clearly quite close in the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars — at least, so long as Halliday continues to regard the networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc. as modelling the 'meaning potential' — it is in the theory of syntax that one of the major differences between the two is to be found.

The other great difference, of course, is the answer to the question "What further components does each model have above the system networks for TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc? But that must await another book!

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. Moreover, there is much evidence that this is not the case, as demonstrated by Fawcett's focus on syntax and form, and his rejection of the three function structures of the clause as proposed in SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, "the theory of system networks and their realisation as illustrated in Appendix A" will be examined in future posts. But as a foretaste, the only system network that Fawcett provides in this entire publication (p298) construes every noun in English not only as a feature in the network , but also as a feature of either 'mass' or 'count':

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The Cardiff Grammar diverges from this line of development at its very beginning, Scale & Category Grammar (1961). By 1977 (Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts), Halliday had already devised the SFL model of stratification that Fawcett does not use, and the metafunctional clause structures that Fawcett rejects.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as the system network above, and the previous examinations of Fawcett's realisation operations demonstrate.

[5] This is misleading, because, although it is true that these systems model 'meaning potential' in Halliday's understanding of the term, language as system, they have never modelled it in Fawcett's misunderstanding of the term, as the semantic stratum.

[6] This is not misleading, because it is not untrue.

[7] To be clear, the "component" that SFL Theory "has above" the system of MOOD is the system of SPEECH FUNCTION; e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

By the same token, the "component" that SFL Theory "has above" the system of TRANSITIVITY is the model of the figure; e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 53):

For the the "component" that SFL Theory "has above" the system of THEME, see the discussion of the text base in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-413).

[8] To be clear, this book is still awaited, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.

Misrepresenting IFG On Nominal Groups Embedded In Nominal Groups

Fawcett (2010: 289, 290):

The second part of Figure 25 that I shall comment on is the quality group very experienced. Here one group, a quality group, functions to fill an element of another group, a nominal group. Texts in English are in fact full of nominal groups that have within them other groups — and not just as qualifiers, which is all that IFG states is permitted. See Tucker (1998) for the fullest treatment in any theory of language of adjectives and the structures into which they enter. He demonstrates conclusively the value of the approach taken here to this major and hitherto understudied area of syntax — an area for which he has now provided the definitive description in SFL terms.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, Fawcett's quality group is an Epithet, which from a logical perspective, involves submodification:

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, less importantly, rankshifted nominal groups serving as Qualifier are relatively rare; it is rankshifted prepositional phrases and clauses that most frequently serve as Qualifier. On the other hand, more importantly, IFG (Halliday 1994: 195, 196) provides the following examples of rankshifted nominal groups serving as elements other than Qualifier:

[3] To be clear, no matter how valuable the work of Tucker, it cannot represent "the definitive description in SFL terms", because it is framed within the approach of the Cardiff Grammar, which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with SFL Theory.

Probabilistic Filling Relationships

Fawcett (2010: 283-4):

Appendix B summarises the main facts of what filling relationships are possible. In other words, statements about where a unit can and cannot occur have to be made for each unit and for each element that it may fill. This approach to the relations between units seems to correspond more closely to the patternings that we find in naturally-occurring texts than the picture that emerges when one tries to apply the 'rank scale' hypothesis that is embodied in "Categories" and IFG. In Appendix B, the differences in the probability that a unit will fill one element or another are indicated for conversation, and we must expect that some adjustments will be needed for other registers, such as academic writing.

However, the ultimate source of these probabilities is in the generative grammar. Here the probabilities are shown as percentages on features in systems, so that the theoretical-generative version of the model is capable of great refinement. Indeed, the probabilities can be changed in the light of specific contextual or systemic contexts. (See Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993 for a fuller picture.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. On the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, it is nonsensical, because Fawcett has the relation between data and theory backwards. The "patternings that we find in naturally-occurring texts" depend on which theory is used to construe the data as patternings.

[2] To be clear, the ultimate source of these probabilities is the data.

The Fourth Fundamental Category Of The Cardiff Grammar: Place

Fawcett (2010: 279):

A fourth category that is required in the present theory is that of place, in the sense of the numbered position (or 'slot') in a unit at which an element is positioned. Interestingly, Halliday refers in passing to 'place' in "Categories", but it is not presented as a significant category, and nor is it given any role in his later work. Yet this concept has come to play an essential role in the generative versions of SF grammar — especially in providing the conceptual framework, with 'class of unit' and 'element of structure', for explaining the phenomenon known as 'raising' (as noted in Section 11.7 of Chapter 11). The first appearance of the concept of 'place' in the sense defined here was in Fawcett (1973/81) and it was later described formally in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993). However, the concept was also used, it appears, in Mann and Matthiessen's computer implementation of Halliday's grammar (as explained in Section 10.4.2 of Chapter 10).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading, because Halliday (1961) and Fawcett do not mean the same thing by 'place'. For Fawcett (p279) 'place' refers to

…the numbered position (or 'slot') in a unit at which an element is positioned.

For Halliday (2002 [1961]: 46):

A structure is thus an arrangement of elements ordered in places. Places are distinguished by order alone: a structure XXX consists of three places. Different elements, on the other hand, are distinguished by some relation other than that of order: a structure XYZ consists of three elements which are (and must be, to form a structure) place-ordered, though they can be listed (X, Y, Z) as an inventory of elements making up the particular structure.

[2] This is misleading. The only "generative versions of SF Grammar" that feature Fawcett's concept of 'place' are those of Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar.

[3] See the previous post The Key Rôle Of 'Place' In Handling 'Raising' Phenomena.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett has produced no evidence that Mann & Matthiessen used his concept of 'place' in the Penman Project. But, in any case, the functionality of an adaptation of a theory to the limitations of computers is not an argument for its incorporation into a theory of human language.

The Two Sorts Of Changes That The Cardiff Grammar Makes To SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 275-6):

There are two sorts of changes that we who contribute to the Cardiff Grammar have made to the 'standard theory', as summarised in IFG. The first sort arises because the programme of exploration that Halliday sketched out had not been carried out in the Sydney framework, perhaps through a shortage of personnel. An example is the development of very large system networks for 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (1961/76:69) by Tucker and myself, assisted by others who have worked on the COMMUNAL Project such as Carlsen, Osman, Ball, and Neale. The work by Tucker, Lin and myself on incorporating probabilities into the system networks also falls into this category, in that Halliday has occasionally pointed out the importance of probabilities in language while leaving the implementation to others (one exception being Halliday & James 1993). 

In other cases, however, we have found it necessary to take a different approach Halliday's, in order to enable the model to reflect the data with greater coverage and, we think, more insightfully. It was for this reason that Tench developed his revised and extended version of Halliday's 1960s model of intonation (Tench 1996), and that Huang and I developed an explicitly functional approach to the experiential enhanced theme construction (Halliday's 'predicated theme' and formal grammar's 'it-cleft' construction); see Fawcett & Huang (1995), Huang (1996) and Huang & Fawcett (1996).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on two fronts. On the one hand, the Cardiff Grammar takes Scale-&-Category Grammar as its underlying template, not SFL Theory. On the other hand, the types of differences between the Cardiff Grammar are considerably more than two, as demonstrated by the arguments on this blog.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, contrary to the claim, this is not a change to SFL Theory, merely work carried out on the basis of the theory. On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to seriously doubt Fawcett's claim. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 67):

If we maintain the grammarian’s viewpoint all the way across the cline, lexis will be defined as grammar extended to the point of maximum delicacy. It would take at least a hundred volumes of the present size to extend the description of the grammar up to that point for any substantial portion of the vocabulary of English; and, as we have noted, the returns diminish the farther one proceeds.

[3] To be clear, Halliday retired in 1987, twenty-three years before the 2nd edition of Fawcett's book.

[4] Again, on the one hand, contrary to the claim, this is not a change to SFL Theory, merely work carried out on the basis of the theory. On the other hand, it is misleading to imply that probabilities play the same role in the Cardiff Grammar (e.g. 'filling probabilities') as they do in SFL Theory (e.g. instantiation probabilities varying for register).

[5] To be clear, as demonstrated here, the different approach taken by Fawcett is motivated by his misunderstandings of SFL Theory, and the bare assertions that his model provides "greater coverage" of the data and is more insightful can only be maintained by those who cannot follow the reasoning on this blog.

[6] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that the model of predicated Theme in SFL Theory is not explicitly functional.

"The Fact That The Coverage Of Groups Is Far Fuller In The Cardiff Grammar"

Fawcett (2010: 270):

One of the major differences between the Sydney and the Cardiff frameworks is the fact that the coverage of groups is far fuller in the Cardiff Grammar than it is in the Sydney Grammar. See especially Tucker (1998) for a definitive description of the quality group and Fawcett (in press) for a fairly full account of all four of the classes of group that are recognised in the Cardiff Grammar. In large measure, it is the evidence from this mass of descriptive detail that has led us to replace the predictions of the 'rank scale' by probabilities as to what classes of unit fills what elements of structure.

Thus there is still considerable scope for the further development of the description of groups in the Sydney Grammar, and it may be that as this happens the over-narrow predictions set out in IFG will be replaced by a more wide-ranging statement — possibly expressed in terms of probabilities, as here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, is misleading. On the one hand, as previously demonstrated, every group structure of the Cardiff Grammar has an SFL counterpart. On the other hand, the Cardiff Grammar posits additional classes of group, quality and quantity, which, as previously demonstrated:

• are theoretically redundant,
• complicate the description unnecessarily, and
• introduce theoretical inconsistencies.

Moreover, as far as nominal groups are concerned, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the Cardiff Grammar fails to distinguish between embedding and submodification, as previously demonstrated.

[2] This is misleading, because it is not true. Fawcett's "over-narrow predictions" are the limitations on embedding that he falsely ascribes to SFL Theory, as a result of his failure to understand embedding in terms of rankshift and the principle of exhaustiveness, as previously demonstrated.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On The Nominal Group

Fawcett (2010: 207):

As we saw in Section 10.2.5, Halliday treats the type of unit that has an adjective as its 'pivotal element' as a 'nominal group' — despite the fact that its internal structure is clearly similar to that of his 'adverbial group'. Thus Halliday describes the group very lucky as a nominal group that has the adjective lucky as its "head" — while also stating that such units are "sometimes referred to distinctively as adjectival groups" (1994:194). However, a few pages later in IFG he also recognises that examples such as more easily (and so presumably very cleverly too) are what he terms "adverbial groups", saying that they have a "modifier-head" structure. He recognises that this class of unit may have the "postmodification" of "comparison" (1994:210) — and yet he fails to mention that a group with an adjective at its "head" may also have this type of "postmodification" — and indeed that both types of "quality group" may also have other elements (a finisher and one or two scopes) also, as Appendix B shows. This area of IFG appears, frankly, to be internally inconsistent and to require considerably more work. Perhaps the next edition of IFG will draw on the major contribution within SFL to this area by Tucker (1997 and 1998).

See Appendix B, Fawcett (in press) and especially Tucker (1998) for a fuller picture of the quality group.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is not misleading, because it is true.

[2] This is very misleading indeed, and clearly, deliberately so, because Fawcett has previously acknowledged that Halliday does not classify units on the basis of their internal structure, but on the function they serve in the structure of the unit above on the rank scale.

[3] To be clear, this is merely an acknowledgement of the alternative view from which Fawcett's model derives.

[4] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. Halliday (1994) explains nominal group postmodification (pp192-3), and then Epithet as Head of the nominal group on the following page (p194). And for those unable to join the dots, he provides a specific example (p210):

[5] This is misleading. To be clear, here Fawcett is claiming that Halliday is inconsistent in his own modelling because he fails to mention Fawcett's model, the quality group, which, as previously demonstrated, is inconsistent with Halliday's model.

[6] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. As demonstrated above, Fawcett's conclusion is made on the basis of the three misleading claims identified above in [2], [4] and [5].

[7] To be clear, the latest edition of IFG, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 376) acknowledges Tucker's work, with clues on how to re-interpret it in a manner that is consistent with SFL Theory:

Tucker (1998) provides a detailed, lexicogrammatical and semantic description of adjectives in English, with system networks showing the potential for construing qualities.

[8] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this work, and the fuller picture of the quality group in Appendix B (p307) is given as: 

It can be seen that Fawcett's quality group includes not only conjunctions ('&') and clause-rank interpersonal Adjuncts (indeed), but punctuation marks ('e') from the stratum of graphology. Moreover, in presenting the Numerative fiftieth as the apex ('a') of a quality group, it misconstrues it as representing a quality at the level of meaning.

Fawcett's Summary Of His Comparison Of His Operations With SFL's Realisation Statements

Fawcett (2010: 185):

Let me summarise. Leaving aside the "Split" and "Expand" operations of the Sydney Grammar, which are either unworkable or unnecessary, the Sydney Grammar has an equivalent for every realisation operation in the Cardiff Grammar except the first (though these are not always in a one-to-one relationship, as we have seen). These realisation operations are important concepts in the theory, as their treatment in both Halliday (1993) and Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) clearly demonstrates. 

However, these 'operation' concepts are a part of the grammar itself, so that they are relevant only indirectly to the outputs from the grammar — i.e., to a description of the structure of the text-sentences that are the instances of the potential specified in the grammar. Essentially, their function is to generate the relationships between the categories that we shall establish in Chapter 10. It is in Chapter 11 that we shall meet the relationships again. And it is perhaps significant that the first concept to be discussed there — that of 'rank' — has no equivalent among the realisation operations and will be rejected, while all of those to be considered in Sections 11.2 to 11.8 do have such a relationship.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously demonstrated.

[2] This is misleading, because it falsely presents Halliday's original model ("the Sydney Grammar") as if it were the derivative model (Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar).

[3] To be clear, this is both a non-sequitur and untrue. It is a non-sequitur because their being part of the grammar does not logically entail that realisation 'operations' are only indirectly relevant to the structures they specify; for example, the PROCESS TYPE system is also part of the grammar, and yet it is "directly relevant" to the experiential structure of the clause. And it is untrue because 'operations' (realisation statements) "directly" specify how system selections (paradigmatic axis) are realised structurally (syntagmatic axis).

[4] To be clear, here again Fawcett misunderstands the realisation relation between system and structure as the instantiation relation between system and instance — and he does so despite the fact that his term 'realisation operations' explicitly identifies the relation as realisation, not instantiation.

[5] To be clear, the claim that Fawcett's realisation operations (listed below) generate relationships between categories will be tested in the examination of Chapters 10 and 11.

1. Insert a unit (to fill an element). 

2. Locate an element at a place in a unit.

3. Conflate an element or Participant Role with an existing element. 

4. Expound an element by an item.

4a. Fetch a name to expound an element. 

5. Prefer certain features on re-entry to the system network , including preselection. 

6. For an element, re-enter the system network.

[6] To be clear, in SFL Theory, rank is not an "equivalent" of realisation statements. The rank scale provides the entry conditions to the systems of each rank, and realisation statements accompany features in those networks. Moreover, the rank scale is the means by which SFL Theory models form — i.e. syntax and morphology — and so is the theoretical dimension that makes Fawcett's model of syntax redundant. So it is hardly surprising that Fawcett rejects the 'concept' of rank. 

Fawcett's Relevant Sources For A Modern Theory Of Systemic Functional Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 173):

Clearly, Halliday's important summary of current SFL in "Systemic theory" must be given due weight — especially because so many of the concepts that are new since "Categories" are present in the equivalent Cardiff Grammar work of Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993), as we noted in Section 5.5 of Chapter 5. Yet we must also take into account the evidence from Halliday's actual descriptive practice in IFG, even though it is harder to establish what the concepts are in this work. As we have noted, the concepts behind the representations of structure in IFG have more in common with the concepts of "Categories" than they have with "Systemic theory" — despite the great differences between the 'single structure' representation used in "Categories"-style analyses (as exemplified in Figure 1 in Chapter 2) and in the IFG-style analyses (as in Figure 7 in Chapter 7).

In addition, we must also draw on the evidence from work in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, both from the 'text-descriptive' work that is roughly equivalent to IFG from Fawcett (in press) and from the 'theoretical-generative' work such as that in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) that is the equivalent to Halliday's "Systemic theory".

Finally, we have noted at various points that work on the formalisation of systemic functional grammars in computers has had an important influence on the theory, and in both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars this has led to the further refinement of the categories and relationships that need to be recognised in the theory.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained, "Systemic theory" (Halliday 1993) and IFG (Halliday 1994) outline the same theory, but to different readerships, whereas "Categories" (Halliday 1961) outlines a different theory, Scale & Category Grammar, that was superseded by Systemic Functional Grammar. To be clear, Fawcett is here preparing the reader to view positively the fact that his modern theory of syntax has more in common with Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961) than Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] The strategic use of the term 'equivalent' here — for 'analogous' — is misleading, because it gives the false impression that work in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar is, in some sense, equivalent in terms of its theoretical assumptions and architecture to Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar.

[3] To be clear, adapting a theory of human language to the limitations of computers is not the same as modelling the language of humans. As demonstrated previously, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) has more in common with algorithms for text generation, than with models of human language.

Later Changes (1981) To Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974): Verbal, Quality & Quantity Groups

Fawcett (2010: 164):

However, by the 1981 edition I had made several changes to the model. Firstly, I had strengthened my position on the supposed 'verbal group', writing that even for text analysis the elements of the supposed 'verbal group' "would in my view be best shown as clause elements" (Fawcett 1974-6/81:31) (See Fawcett (2000) and (forthcoming b) for the full set of reasons and Appendix C for a summary of them.) Secondly the 'adjectival' and 'adverbial' groups, which were already shown in the 1974-6 edition as sharing a common structure, were brought together as the 'quantity-quality group' (since they typically express the meaning of a 'quantity' of a 'quality'). And thirdly the 'prepend group' had been re-named the "prepositional group". Later still, as Part 2 shows, I realised that, in order to provide an adequate description of English and other languages, we need to recognise both a quality group and a quantity group. See Tucker (1998) for the fullest explanation of the quality group in English and Fawcett (in press) for an introduction to both classes of group.

 Blogger Comments:

[1] As will be seen in the examination of Appendix C, Fawcett's argument against the verbal group (pp333-6) centres on misunderstandings involving the Finite element and phrasal verbs.

[2] To be clear, the notion of 'quality group' and 'quantity group' confuses class (of group) with function (of group).

[3] As previously noted, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 20 years after the first edition of this work.

Fawcett (in press) and Fawcett (forthcoming a)

Fawcett (2010: 150-1):

Very large quantities of text analysis in terms of the Cardiff Grammar have been undertaken over the last twenty-five years as part of its development — most at the level of functional syntax (e.g., in the major text-analysis project described in Fawcett & Perkins 1980), but also in the last decade at the level of meaning (a good example of the latter being Ball 1995). Tucker (1998) provides a very fine introduction to the treatment of adjectives and of all of the structures into which they may enter in Cardiff Grammar terms, but since Fawcett (1974-6 /81) there has unfortunately not been a publication that offers overall coverage of either level of description.

However the publication of Fawcett (in press) will make publicly available both a broad coverage grammar of functional syntax and full guidelines for analysing texts in these terms. Then Fawcett (forthcoming a) will make available, in a form that is usable for text analysis, the major system networks for English, in a systemic functional grammar in which the networks constitute the level of semantics. This volume will also provide guidelines for using the system networks for the semantic description of texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This promised 'in press' publication

• Fawcett, Robin, in press. Functional Syntax Handbook: Analysing English at the Level of Form. London: Continuum.

remains unpublished, 20 years after the first edition of the publication under review. It is current publication date is listed as November 2022, having previously been promised for January 2022, November 2021 and January 2020.

[2] This promised 'forthcoming' publication

• Fawcett, Robin, forthcoming a.  Functional Semantics Handbook: Analysing English at the Level of Meaning. London: Continuum .

also remains unpublished, 20 years after the first edition of the publication under review. No expected publication date is currently available.

Fawcett's Argument Against The 'Structure Conflation' Model

Fawcett (2010: 136):

Note that the structure that is generated in Matthiessen and Batemen's [sic] generator is indeed a single integrated structure. Indeed, none of the grammars referred to in this section generate first a set of different structures (as is implied by representations such as those in Figure 7 of Section 7.2) and then conflate them. As the decriptions [sic] in all of the publications from Halliday (1969/91) to Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) show, it is a single structure that the grammar builds — and not a multiple one. 

If this is so — and there can be no doubt that it is — any grammarian who wishes to claim that the 'structure conflation' model has a theoretical status (rather than some other value) has a number of problems to solve.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. As Fawcett's Figure 9 demonstrates, Matthiessen & Bateman, like Halliday, provide three distinct clause structures, each differentiated from the others by metafunction: theme, mood and transitivity.

As previously explained, the three different function structures of the clause are integrated in the group rank syntagm that realises all three of them. (Fawcett will later argue against the theoretical value of a rank scale.)

[2] To be clear, 'structure conflation' is not a feature of SFL Theory. The notion is Fawcett's only, and arises from his misunderstandings of SFL Theory, as previously explained. That is, Fawcett is merely arguing against his own theoretical misunderstanding (a logically fallacious Straw Man).

[3] As previously noted, Figure 7 is Fawcett's misrepresentation of an SFL analysis in which he misconstrues information as a system of the clause, and the Scope (Mrs Skinner) of the Process as its Goal:

On The Compatibility Of The Cardiff Grammar With SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 93):

However, before we leave the topic of "Systemic theory", it is important to bring out the impressive extent to which the set of concepts that it foregrounds are similar to the equivalent set of concepts in the Cardiff Grammar framework, e.g., as set out in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993). …

As we saw in Section 4.9 of Chapter 4, the stage in the develo[p]ment of Halliday's model at which it most resembled the current Cardiff Grammar was that reflected in Halliday (1970/76b) and what I have described as the "pivotal paper" of "Language as choice in social contexts" (1977/78).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fawcett assesses the extent to which his version of Halliday's theory is consistent with Halliday's theory as 'impressive'.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue; see the post Fawcett's Claim That His Model Is 'Fully Compatible' With Halliday (1977/8).  Moreover, Halliday's theory has changed significantly in the meantime, now featuring two 'system-structure cycles' in order to account for grammatical metaphor, as previously explained.

Misrepresenting The Relation Between Theory And The Work That Contributes To It

Fawcett (2010: 77-8):

We can take the view of language presented in "Systemic theory" as broadly representative of three closely related bodies of work: (1) the work in the mid-1960s by Halliday, Henrici, Huddleston and Hudson that was to develop into the set of concepts presented in "Systemic Theory"; (2) the formalisation and computer implementation of these concepts by Mann, Matthiessen and others, as first described informally in Mann & Matthiessen (1983/85) and later more fully in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and (less formally) in Matthiessen (1995); and (3) — with some differences — the set of concepts used in the Cardiff Grammar, as first described in Fawcett (1973/81 and 1980) and defined most clearly in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993). It is the first two bodies of work that "Systemic theory" reflects most closely. 

Blogger Comments:

Here Fawcett confuses theory ('the view of language') with work carried out in the developmental history of the theory.  Halliday (1993) sets out the theory itself in Sections 2-4, and lists works involved in the development of Systemic theory in Section 5.

More importantly, Fawcett misrepresents the relation between Systemic theory and such work, in as much as his identification construes the theory as decoded by reference to these works, including his own. This can be demonstrated by the following agnate clauses:

systemic theory	broadly	represents	three closely related bodies of work
Identified Token	Manner: degree	Process: relational	Identifier Value

systemic theory	most closely	reflects	the first two bodies of work
Identified Token	Manner: degree	Process: relational	Identifier Value

On the one hand, this is invalid, since it construes the theory as less abstract than the work that expresses it; and on the other hand, it is misleading, because it identifies the theory in terms of work, like Fawcett's, which may or may not be consistent with the theory.

In terms of the theoretical architecture of SFL linguistics, theory (context) is realised by the language that expresses it, with each instance of such language (individual text) realising an instance of theory.

systemic theory	is realised	by language
instances of systemic theory	are realised	by instances of language
Identified Value	Process: relational	Identifier Token

(That is, Systemic theory is encoded by reference to the language that expresses it.)

Moreover, it can be seen that, if different texts realise different instances of theory, the question arises as to whether such instances of theory are valid or not.  And that is the question that this blog asks with regard to the instance of Systemic theory realised in Fawcett (2000, 2010).

∞

It will be seen, in later posts, that this misrepresentation is a strategic necessity for Fawcett's argument in this chapter.

Fawcett's Approach To Realisation Rules As "The Only One That Is Workable In A Large-Scale SF Grammar"

Fawcett (2010: 68):

This second approach [i.e. Fawcett's realisation rules as form potential] is in fact the only one that is workable in a large-scale SF grammar. The reason is simple: it is that the number of realisation rules that require conditions grows as the grammar is extended to cover the less frequent linguistic phenomena. Thus it often happens that an action in building a part of the structure is dependent on the co-selection of one or more other features. 

As the coverage of the grammar grows fuller, then, it has to encompass more and more exceptions to the general rule, and the place of the general concept of 'conditions on realisation rules' becomes correspondingly more important. It is interesting to study the nature of the realisation rules presented in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) from this viewpoint.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there may be many viable approaches to realisation rules, but Fawcett's is not one of them.  This is because, as previously demonstrated, his approach (Figure 4) confuses realisation with instantiation, and misconstrues one level of symbolic abstraction — grammatical features (in systems and rules) — as two distinct levels (meaning and form).

[2] This misunderstands the SFL notion of system.  A well-formed system, in principle, covers all linguistic phenomena of the domain stipulated by its entry condition, across all frequencies — or more precisely, since a system models potential, across all probabilities, since feature frequencies in texts are instances of feature probabilities in the system.

[3] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's argument in this regard is based on one of his own system networks (Figure 2, Appendix 1), which is inconsistent both with SFL theory, misconstruing 'deixis' as a system of 'thing', and with the principles of a system network, misconstruing lexical items such as 'student' as grammatical features.  That is, Fawcett has merely demonstrated his own inability to devise system networks and to locate realisation statements in them at their point of application.

[4] Yes.  It is.

Rewiring Fawcett's Network To Include Realisation Rules

Fawcett (2010: 67-8):

There is an alternative solution, and we shall explore it here briefly in order to demonstrate that it is not a desirable answer to the question of how best to model conditions on realisations. It is to model the conditions by the use of the conventions of a system network. Continuing with the example from Appendix B, we would need to extend the existing relatively simple network in Figure 1 in the following ways. We would need to add (1) a right-opening 'and' bracket after each of [mass], [singular] and [plural], and (2) a right-opening 'or' bracket after [near]. Then (3) a line would need to be drawn from each of the three 'and' brackets associated with [mass] and [singular] to a new left-opening 'or' bracket, with (4) a further line running from the latter to a new left opening 'and' bracket. This would also be entered by a line from the right-opening 'or' bracket by [near] (5). Then (6) a dummy feature (standing for the meaning 'near-and-singular-or-mass') would need to be inserted to the right of the left-opening 'and' bracket. This would be a case of what is termed a 'gate', i.e., a feature that is in the system network but which is not part of a system.* Next, we would need to draw a line from the right-opening 'and' bracket by [plural] to a second new left-facing 'and' bracket (7), and (8) this would also be entered by a line from the second branch of the right-opening 'or' bracket' by the feature [near]. Then (9) a second 'dummy' feature would be placed to the right of this left-opening 'and' bracket, standing for the meaning 'near-and-plural'. As a result of the addition of all this new 'wiring' it would be possible to insert two realisation rules which would not have conditions attached to them, i.e., one that stated that the feature 'near-and-singular-or-mass' would be realised by the item this, and one that said that ' near-and-plural' is realised by these.

* Clearly, this concept is an anomaly in a systemic grammar; see Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993:126) for a discussion of the concept of 'gate', which is widely used in the computer implementation of Halliday's version of SFG in the Penman Project to minimise the use of conditions on realisation rules (e.g., Mann & Matthiessen 1983/85). However, its theoretical status requires further clarification, discussion and justification before it is given the status in the theory that is accorded to the concept of a system.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here again Fawcett uses his own network, which, as previously demonstrated, violates the principles of the system network, in order to argue against the inclusion of realisation statements in genuine system networks.  However, what Fawcett actually demonstrates is that it is even possible to include realisation rules in such a network — at least, for those that specify grammatical items rather than structural realisations.

[2] To be clear, in rewiring Fawcett's network, there is no need for "a right-opening 'and' bracket" after the features [singular] or [plural], in this example, because only one wire extends from each of these features.

                     

The Hypothesis That Grammatical Systems Can Be Developed Into A Model Of Semantics

Fawcett (2010: 58-9):

In the work done over the last fifteen years by my colleagues and myself at Cardiff, one of our main goals has been to develop a new model of a SF grammar that tests the hypothesis that the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on are capable of being developed into a fully adequate model of semantics. Indeed, the very large computer implementation of a grammar (including lexis, intonation and punctuation) that we have built at Cardiff operates on precisely these principles. The first stage of this work was described in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) and related papers, and many aspects of the later stages have been reported in the many other papers listed in Fawcett (1998).  As a result of all this work by the many members of the team, I am convinced that, in Halliday's own words (1994:xix), the "choices in the grammar [i.e., the system networks] can be essentially choices in meaning without the grammar thereby losing contact with the ground".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the theoretical motivation for distinguishing semantic systems (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 1999) from lexicogrammatical systems (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014) is the resultant ability to systematically account for grammatical metaphor as an incongruence between the two levels of symbolic abstraction.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 237) explain:

Of course, what we are recognising here as two distinct constructions, the semantic and the grammatical, never had or could have had any existence the one prior to the other; they are our analytic representation of the overall semioticising of experience — how experience is construed into meaning. If the congruent form had been the only form of construal, we would probably not have needed to think of semantics and grammar as two separate strata: they would be merely two facets of the content plane, interpreted on the one hand as function and on the other as form.

[2] The citing of work carried out in Fawcett's framework is here presented as an argument in its favour.  In terms of logical fallacies, this is the fallacy of relevance known as an appeal to popularity:

Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken.

The Generation Of Instances Of Form

Fawcett (2010: 41):

In a fuller grammar the first unit to be generated would be a clause, and then one or more realisation rules would specify re-entry to the system network of meaning potential (as shown by the loop-back arrow on the left side of Figure 4), in order to generate one or more nominal groups (or even an embedded clause) to fill the relevant elements of the clause (as described in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993). The 'tree structures' in the bottom right box in Figure 4 are labelled sufficiently richly to express the various functions that each element serves, and they are, it will be clear, the instances at the level of form.

Blogger Comments:

This continues the discussion of Figure 4:

[1] By definition, a realisation rule specifies a realisation (a lower level of symbolic abstraction), and so, not a re-entry to a system network at a higher level of abstraction (meaning) than form.

[2] The claim that 'tree structures are instances at the level of form' is merely a bare assertion, since no supporting argument is provided.  As Figure 4 illustrates, Fawcett incoherently regards tree structures as instances of realisation rules.  As the term 'realisation rule' makes plain, the relation between the rule and what it specifies is realisation, not instantiation.

The Reasons Why Fawcett Prefers The Term 'Realisation Rule'

Fawcett (2010: 40n):

At various points in his writings, Halliday contrasts the systemic functional view of 'language as a resource' with the Chomskyan view of 'language as a set of rules'. Hence his strong preference for the term "realisation statement" over "realisation rule". Like many other systemic functional linguists, however, I take the view that, in defining the 'resource', we necessarily use a type of 'rule'. Thus a system network is itself a set of 'rules' about what features may be chosen under what conditions. This was first demonstrated in a fully explicit manner in the appendices to Hudson (1976), and similar 'rules' are found in the representation of the system network in a computer implementation in Prolog (as described in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993). And realisation statements are even more obviously a type of 'rule'. In other words, while a systemic functional grammar does not have 'phrase structure rules' and 'transformational rules', it does have other types of rule. Here, then, we shall treat the terms "realisation rule" and "realisation statement" as interchangeable.

Blogger Comment:

[1]  The word 'rule' is problematic because encompasses two distinct types of modality: modulation  (obligation) and modalisation (usuality/probability).  As modulation, it also encompasses two distinct types of speech function: command and (modulated) statement; and the latter nullifies the distinction between 'rule' and 'statement'.

The term 'realisation statement', on the other hand, has the advantage of both specifying statement, rather than command, and encompassing probability (modalisation) as a property of system potential.

[2] This is an instance of the logical fallacy known as Argumentum Ad Populum, since it invokes the beliefs of (unspecified) others as support for the proposition.

[3] On the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument: the logical fallacy known as Ipse Dixit.  On the other hand, it is demonstrably false, since the notion of 'defining' does not entail the notion 'rule'.

[4] The use of thus here is misleading, since it gives the false impression that the statement that it begins follows logically from the preceding unsupported bare assertion.

[5] Since this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument, the reference to Hudson (1976) constitutes an instance of the logical fallacy known as Appeal To Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundum).

To be clear, a system network is organised on the basis of logical relations, such as:

• elaboration (delicacy)
• extension: alternation (disjunct options)
• extension: addition (conjunct options)
• enhancement: condition (entry conditions)

and to "read out" a traversal of a network is to produce statements of the type:

if X, then either Y or Z, and if both Z and A, then B or C.

For strict sense in which statements are a type of rule, see [1] above.

[6] Here Fawcett cites his own work as evidence in support of his own view.  This might be interpreted as the logical fallacies known as Appeal To Accomplishment and, on the basis of this critique, False Authority.

[7] This is another bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument.  For the strict sense in which realisation statements are a type of rule, see [1] above.

[8] On the one hand, this is another bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument.  On the other hand, it makes use of the logical fallacy known as Argument From Repetition (Argumentum Ad Nauseam).

[9] Here Fawcett, having purported to argue for 'rule' over 'statement', concludes by regarding the alternatives as interchangeable.