"Using The Cardiff Grammar As The Baseline For Constructing A Modern Theory Of SF Syntax"

Fawcett (2010: 185-6, 186n):

In Chapters 10 and 11 we turn to the concepts that are required for the specification of 'instances of syntax'. As we have seen, these concepts are drawn on in a computer model of parsing such as that described in Weerasinghe & Fawcett (1993), Weerasinghe (1994) and Souter (1996). However, these concepts are also referred to in the realisation rules, and are in that sense presupposed by them.

As will by now clear, we shall be using the Cardiff Grammar rather than the Sydney Grammar as the baseline for constructing a modern theory of SF syntax.⁵ 

⁵ Apart from the reasons that follow from our findings in Chapter 7, there are two more reasons for this. Firstly, the Cardiff Grammar has taken the revolutionary proposals for changes to the theory made by Halliday in the 1960s (as summarised in Chapter 4) significantly further than the Sydney Grammar has. It has full implementations of (1) explicitly semantic system networks, (2) the concept of lexis as "most delicate grammar", (3) the integration into the system networks of the meanings realised in intonation and (4) the integration of meanings realised in punctuation. Secondly, the Cardiff Grammar provides a much fuller specification than the Sydney Grammar does of the syntactic concepts that are required, both for language in general and for the description of English in particular — especially in its recognition of classes of group and cluster that are not provided for in the Sydney Grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, Fawcett's 'instances of syntax' are actually structures, not instances. Fawcett's model (Figure 4) confuses the realisation relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes with the instantiation relation between potential and instance.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar is his model of syntax. Halliday's "Sydney Grammar" — SFL Theory — models syntax (and morphology) as a rank scale, but Halliday (1985: xiv) explains why the term 'syntax' is inappropriate for a functional grammar:

[3] To be clear, Halliday's work in the 1960s was concerned with Scale and Category Grammar, not with Systemic Functional Grammar. That is, Fawcett's claim is actually that his Cardiff Grammar takes the proposals of Halliday's superseded theory further than Halliday's current theory does.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett does not present any of his 'explicitly system semantic networks' in this entire publication. In SFL terms, such networks are actually the grammatical networks, and can be found in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014). For genuinely semantic networks, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

[5] To be clear, Fawcett has nowhere demonstrated, in this publication, how he models 'lexis as most delicate grammar', and it does not figure in his theoretical architecture (Figure 4). Moreover, since Fawcett locates grammatical systems at his level of meaning, his model is committed to lexis as most delicate semantics, not grammar.

[6] To be clear, Fawcett does not present any of the system networks of the meanings realised in intonation in this entire publication. For an SFL approach to intonation, see Halliday & Greaves (2008).

[7] To be clear, Fawcett does not present any of the 'integration of meanings' realised in punctuation in this entire publication.

[8] This misleading. The 'Sydney Grammar' (SFL Theory) does not provide any specifications 'of the syntactic concepts that are required, both for language in general and for the description of English in particular', largely because SFL Theory is not a theory of syntax; see [2] above.

"The Role Of 'Some Proposals' In Developing A Modern SF Theory Of Syntax"

Fawcett (2010: 166-7):

Let me now summarise this short chapter. "Some proposals" began the work of overhauling the concepts first presented in "Categories" in the light of the requirements of a modern theory of SF syntax — a theory in which the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and the rest are regarded as modelling the level of meaning. As I wrote at the time, "the syntactic categories [...] are those [...] needed to state with the greatest economy the realisation rules that express the options in the semantics" (Fawcett 1974:4-5). The new ideas that it introduced have all proved their value, both in the construction of computer parsing systems (Weerasinghe & Fawcett 1993, Weerasinghe 1994 and Souter 1996) and in the hand analysis of texts by myself, my teaching colleagues, members of a large team of researchers in a study of the language of children aged 6-12, and many generations of students. 

However, later work has shown that in some cases the revisions were not drastic enough (e.g., the retention of the concept of the 'rank scale'). Yet in most cases the concepts established in "Some proposals" have passed the test of twenty-five years of use in various fields of application as a descr[ip]tion of English, as well as in describing various other languages, and they are the central concepts in the theory of syntax for a modern systemic functional grammar that I shall present in Part 2.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" addressed Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after Halliday had devised his second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar, in the light of the requirements of a theory of syntax, despite the fact that neither of Halliday's theories is a theory of syntax, as previously explained.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME are located at the level of wording (lexicogrammar), not meaning (semantics). As Halliday (1985: xvii) explains:

The relation between meaning and wording is not, however, an arbitrary one; the form of the grammar relates naturally to the meanings that are being encoded. A functional grammar is designed to bring this out; it is a study of wording, but one that interprets the wording by reference to what it means.

[3] To be clear, this is a statement about Fawcett's model only (Figure 4), where realisation rules involving features of meaning are construed as the form that realises systems of meaning.

[4] To be clear, here Fawcett positively assesses his own model.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the rank scale is the means of modelling what other theories model as syntax.