"The Generalisations That Halliday Gives Up"

Fawcett (2010: 333):

M&M make many valuable points in their "Response to Huddleston". The main weakness in the case that they present in the sections of their "Response" summarised above is this: they do not show how the generalisations that Halliday gives up in order to foreground the similarities between the 'hypotactic' and 'paratactic' analyses are to be handled in the grammar. If M&M are to 'defend' the position taken in IFG successfully, they need to address this question. But perhaps there should be less 'attacking' and 'defending', and more accepting of genuine 'problem examples', together with more exploring of comprehensive solutions to such problems, in the framework of a multi-component model?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday does not "give up" any generalisations in "foregrounding the similarities" of hypotaxis and parataxis. On the contrary, the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis provides a generalisation, the system of TAXIS (interdependency), which Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar lacks. Importantly, the distinction between interdependency and embedding provides a more detailed specification of the different types of grammatical environments in which the generalised meanings of expansion and projection are manifested.

[2] To be clear, it is Fawcett who chooses to construe M&M's 'Response To Huddleston" in terms of 'attacking' and 'defending', the former being his own preferred modus operandi.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the 'problem examples' that have been presented by Huddleston and Fawcett are not genuine 'problem examples' when examined with a sufficient grasp of SFL Theory.

Fawcett's Contention That The Notion Of A Rank Scale Depends On Hypotaxis

  Fawcett (2010: 333):

In other words, the analyses of dependent clauses that Huddleston advocates in his review of IFG are indeed possible ones within SFL. But the fact that SF linguists agree that we should explore the value of both 'hypotaxis' and alternative concepts within the theory does not absolve us from the obligation to try to decide whether 'hypotaxis' is needed in all or some or none of the cases for which Halliday proposes its use. The key point for the present debate is that, if we replace 'hypotaxis' by embedding in the examples discussed here (as Huddleston and I advocate), the case for retaining the concept of the 'rank scale' is greatly weakened. Thus it is not the case, as M&M suggest (p. 28), that "Huddleston's objections are descriptive, not theoretical".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the theoretical value of hypotaxis is its explanatory potential. For example, with regard to projection, the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis models the distinction between reports and quotes, and the distinction between hypotaxis and embedding models the distinction between reports and pre-projected facts.

[2] This bare assertion, unsupported by argument, is misleading, because it is untrue. Whether clauses are analysed as ranking (dependent) or rankshifted (embedded) can have no bearing whatsoever on the theoretical status of the rank scale. If hypotaxis were excised from the theory, and all dependent clauses were interpreted as embedded, such clauses can still be interpreted as rank units, shifted to the rank of another unit on a rank scale.

[3] To be clear, the sense in which this is true is that SFL Theory provides both hypotaxis and embedding as potential descriptions of language, and the linguist chooses which of these to deploy in the description.

Criticising Martin For The Wrong Reasons

 Fawcett (2010: 332-3, 333n):

As M&M very fairly point out, "Fawcett (1980), [...] working within a theoretical framework closely related to Halliday's, treats all of Halliday's hypotactic clauses through embedding, the very position which Huddleston espouses." After also indicating that Martin (1988) suggests an analysis of such examples in which the experiential analysis at clause rank is in these terms, they go on: "The theory can thus be seen to accommodate a range of approaches to the question of subordination" (M&M 1991:29). ¹⁹ 

¹⁹ However, I am surprised to find Martin advocating this idea, because it involves an insuperable problem. This is that the second part of his proposal is that there should be a "simultaneous analysis" (showing the 'logical' structure) at the 'rank' of the "clause complex". This is, as we have seen, a different 'unit' on the 'rank scale' from the clause, so that if Martin's idea were to be adopted there would even more serious problems for the concept of conflating these two structures than those already specified in Section 7.4 of Chapter 7. It may be that Martin would now wish to reconsider this proposal.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from Fawcett's description, Martin's problematic analysis of he said he'd go would be something like:

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously demonstrated. As the term 'clause complex' suggests, the rank at which this unit complex is located is 'clause'.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained in the examination of Fawcett's Section 7.4, in SFL Theory, it is only elements of structure that can be conflated, not entire structures. The notion of structure conflation is nonsensical because a structure is the relation between elements. 

Throughout Section 7.4, Fawcett confused the false notion of 'structure conflation' with the notion of the integration of the three metafunction structures through their realisation in a syntagm of clause constituents: groups and phrases.

[4] To be clear, even if Martin were the type to reconsider his own proposals, and capable of doing so, at 71 years, he does not have enough years left him to reconsider all the proposals he needs to reconsider. See, for example, the clarifying critiques of Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007).

Misrepresenting An Argument Against Parataxis As An Argument Against Hypotaxis

Fawcett (2010: 331):

In the second part of their case, M&M suggest a second analysis of Huddleston's example, i.e., as two co-ordinated clauses with ellipsis in the second, thus: He left before the debate or (he left) (at least) before the vote was taken. But again, I am afraid, I have to point out a problem. While their analysis appears at first to be another possible one, we need to take account of the fact that one can insert either to the left of before the debate, so that it becomes He left either before the debate or (at least) before the vote was taken. And this fact demonstrates clearly that the grammar must allow for the possibility of generating the prepositional group and the clause as jointly filling an Adjunct.

Thus M&M suggest that two possible analyses should be allowed (the first being Huddleston's and mine). They therefore do not address the question of which of the two is systemically preferable, and why. Moreover, Huddleston's criticism of IFG stands. In other words, he is right that Halliday's decision to treat all clauses embedded directly in clauses as 'hypotaxis' means that the Sydney Grammar cannot handle examples such as Huddleston's.

Finally, to demonstrate that Huddleston's example is not a 'special case', consider the following example with a simple 'additive' Linker: On average, people died earlier in those days, both from diseases such as diphtheria and because they worked such dreadfully long hours. Notice that here (as in Huddleston's example) the item both prevents the M&M analysis in terms of two co-ordinated clauses with ellipsis. The conclusion, then, must be that we should treat all such 'beta' clauses as embedded clauses. … Withe respect to the areas of the grammar described here, then, M&M fail to rebut Huddleston's critical comments. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is an argument about parataxis, and as such, not relevant to the question of hypotaxis. Moreover, this being the case, it could be equally directed against Fawcett's model of co-ordination.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, Huddleston's criticism does not stand, with regard to hypotaxis, because it is an argument about parataxis. On the other hand, SFL Theory (IFG, Halliday) does not treat all such "embedded" clauses as hypotaxis. By distinguishing between embedding (rankshift) and hypotaxis, SFL Theory provides such explanatory advantages as distinguishing between

• defining relative clauses (embedded) and non-defining relative clauses (dependent), and
• pre-projected facts (embedded) and reported projections (dependent).

The conclusion, then, is the distinction between rankshifted and dependent clauses has explanatory advantages over the lack of distinction.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Rankshift

Fawcett (2010: 330-1):

Here we shall consider M&M's response to Huddleston's "co-ordination" argument. This begins, perhaps surprisingly, with M&M's agreement that his analysis is indeed a possible one (i.e., the analysis in which before the vote was taken is treated as a clause embedded as an Adjunct). However, they move quickly on from this apparent olive branch to a robust defence of what they take to be the IFG position on this matter — claiming that Huddleston is wrong to criticise IFG for ruling out his analysis, because "there is nothing in Halliday's system to block this analysis" (p. 27). 

But on this matter Huddleston is right and M&M are wrong, as is shown by Halliday's own specification of the types of rankshift that his model permits. Thus he states (IFG p. 242) that "the relationship of an embedded clause to the 'outer' clause is an indirect one" — i.e., the embedded clause must fill an element of a group, not a clause. (See Section 11.8.5 of Chapter 11 for a summary of Halliday 's statement on this matter.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, if a clause is shifted to the rank of group, then it functions as a group and so serves as ("fills") an element of a clause. For example:

On the other hand, it is when a clause is shifted to the rank of word, that it serves as ("fills") an element of a group. For example:

[2] See the post on Section 11.8.5: Seriously Misrepresenting Halliday On Embedding.

How Huddleston Tackles The Problem

Fawcett (2010: 329, 329n):

Let us now look at how Huddleston tackles the problem (1988:145-6). He presents partially similar arguments for treating (1a) as being functionally like (2b). They are grammatical arguments, though they are not, of course, expressed in explicitly systemic terms. He cites 

(a) the 'thematisability' of the Time Position Adjunct in both (1a) and (2a); 

(b) the parallels as "focus of an interrogative" between Did he leave before they voted? and Did he leave before the vote? and 

(c) the fact that it is possible to co-ordinate a clause and a nominalised event, as in He left before the debate or (at least) before the vote was taken.¹⁷

¹⁷ It is not clear how Huddleston's second pair of examples is relevant. It surely cannot be the case that he believes that anything significant follows from the fact that a 'beta' clause may have a separate information unit (and so intonation unit). An example such as Did he leave, before they voted? is unusual but not unacceptable. But if Huddleston's example of the 'polarity seeker' type of "interrogative" was a slip and he actually intended to draw attention to the fact that When did he leave? is the "wh-interrogative" equivalent of both (1a) and (2a), then his point would clearly be relevant.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(2a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / during the vote.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

(2b, i-iii) Before / after / during the vote he left the room.

[1] To be clear, Huddleston's claim here is that the fact that a dependent clause can be thematised is evidence that it is embedded as a clause constituent. However, such thematisation is not universally available, but crucially dependent on the logico-semantic relation obtaining between the clauses. For example, thematisation of a dependent clause is not possible in the case of elaboration:

||| He doesn't always tell the truth || which undermines his credibility.|||

nor always possible in the case of enhancement:

||| These theories include the solar theory || whereby periodically the amount of nitrogen compounds is enhanced. |||

nor always possible in the case of projection:

||| Brutus thought || that Cæsar was ambitious |||

and, contrariwise, "thematisation" of a clause is possible for parataxis, in the case of projection:

||| "Well, I'm back" || he said. |||

[2] To be clear, as presented by Fawcett, Huddleston's point appears to be that the clause before they voted and the phrase before the vote both serve the same function in the clause because they both function as the "focus of an interrogative". 

However, though the term 'focus' is used in SFL Theory, this is not consistent with the SFL usage, since the information focus need not fall within the dependent clause or the prepositional phrase. So here Huddleston has merely used the interrogative agnate to repeat the same point he made for the declarative clause.

[3] To be clear, Huddleston's point here is irrelevant, because it is about parataxis, not about the question of hypotaxis vs embedding in (1a), (2a), (1b) and (2b).

[4] To be clear, the WH- interrogative When did he leave? is not criterial in deciding the question of hypotaxis vs embedding. Both (1a) and (2a) answer the question, the former with a dependent clause, the latter with a prepositional phrase. How the function of each is analysed depends on the theory being used.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [5]

 Fawcett (2010: 327, 328):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

Thus the lexicogrammatical evidence begins to mount up that, on the one hand, (1a, i) belongs systemically with (1a, ii-iii), and that, on the other, it belongs with (1b, i). 

Moreover, these two pairs of systemic relationships can both be handled in a natural way in the lexicogrammar. (We know this because we have implemented this approach in the generative grammar in COMMUNAL.) 

On the other hand, the lexicogrammatical evidence is that a different range of choices is available for modelling co-ordination between clauses ('parataxis') from the range for modelling 'dependent' relations (whether these are viewed as 'hypotaxis' or embedding). 

The case for foregrounding the parallels between 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' in the system networks therefore looks rather less convincing than it may have at the start of this study of the data.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett has provided no evidence that (1a,i) "belongs systemically with" (1a,ii-iii), and on the other hand, this is not in dispute, since these are agnates differing only in the relative time construed by the dependent clause (earlier vs later vs same).

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett has provided no evidence that (1a,i) "belongs systemically with" (1b,i), and on the other hand, it is true that, in SFL Theory, it does — though not in the way that Fawcett means. In (1a, i) 'earlier' time is realised through the ideational clause rank system of CLAUSE COMPLEXING, whereas in (1b, i), 'earlier' time is realised through the related ideational clause rank system of CIRCUMSTANTIATION.

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

[4] We know this because we understand how "these two pairs of systemic relationships" are modelled by SFL Theory.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the "range of systemic choices" for temporal enhancement is the same for parataxis and hypotaxis. The difference lies only in how agnate choices are realised.

[6] This is misleading, because it is not true, as demonstrated by this and four preceding posts.

Evidence For Hypotaxis vs Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 326-7):

I suggested earlier that a SF linguist should approach a problem of this sort by asking: "What evidence is there that we should give priority in the system networks to one of these relationships over the other?" Specifically, one should first collect together a body of examples that are closely related systemically to each of (la), (2a) and (3a). Then one should examine them to see how far they provide evidence 

(1) that the relationship in (la) is one of 'hypotaxis' rather than embedding, and 

(2) that the grammar does indeed make similar options available when relating clauses 'paratactically' to the options that are available when the relationship is 'dependent' (whether interpreted as 'hypotaxis' or embedding). 

Next, one should make a judgement as to which systemic relations should be given priority in the system networks (i.e., those that model meaning potential within the lexicogrammar), and finally one should make proposals as to how any relationship that has not been modelled in the grammar should be handled in the overall model.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, (1a) is He left the room before they voted. In SFL Theory, the second clause is analysed as a ranking clause that is dependent on the first clause. In Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, it is analysed as embedded as Adjunct in a single clause. That is, unrecognised by Fawcett, in his model, the clause is analysed as rankshifted so as to function in a ranking clause.

Importantly, it is not the data that determines whether the clause is dependent or embedded, but the theory, since the clause can be analysed either way, depending on the theory. That being the case, it is a question — if both are consistent with theory — of which theoretical construal has the more explanatory potential.

Fudging The Data

 Fawcett (2010: 326):

(I have slightly altered the wording of Huddleston's examples to create 'minimal pairs' that make the relevant contrasts fully explicit.)

(1a) He left the room before they voted. 

(2a) He left the room before the vote. 

(3a) He left the room, then they voted.

Huddleston's grammatical analysis of (la) — which is broadly similar to mine — is to treat it as a single clause in which the embedded clause before they voted functions as an Adjunct that identifies the 'time position' of the event of 'leaving' by relating it to an event that is already known to the addressee (the 'voting' event), in the same way that before the vote does in (2a). Indeed, Halliday and M&M would agree with Huddleston and me that, when the event of 'voting' is nominalised as in (2a), it serves this function and is therefore an Adjunct. So why, we might ask, do they not also treat before they voted in (la) as an Adjunct? Essentially, their approach is to interpret (la) as a relating of two events (rather than as a 'main' event that is located in time by relating it to another event) — and to claim that this 'relating' can be achieved either 'paratactically', as in (3a), or 'hypotactically' as in the second interpretation of (la).

Blogger Comments:

In SFL Theory, the three instances are analysed as follows:

[1] This is misleading, on two counts. On the one hand, Fawcett's slight alteration of the data does not create 'minimal pairs', and on the other hand, it does not make the relevant contrasts fully explicit. Instead, the contrast it makes explicit is one of time: 'earlier' ((1a) and (1b)) vs 'later' (1c), which is the irrelevant to the distinction between hypotaxis and embedding.

[2] To be clear, this is bare assertion unsupported by reasoned argument.

[3] This is not misleading, because it is essentially true.

Agreeing With Huddleston's Conclusion

Fawcett (2010: 324):

There is much in Huddleston's review, therefore, with which I disagree. However, it will be clear that I share his conclusion that most of the uses to which 'hypotaxis' has been put by Halliday are better handled by a simple embedding relationship (but one by co-ordination; see Section 11.9 of Chapter 11). And I also share his view (though for a set of reasons that only partly overlap with his) that "the constraints this [i.e., the requirement of 'accountability at all ranks'] imposes on the grammar have numerous unsatisfactory consequences" (Huddleston 1988:141). Indeed, I would also agree with his statement (though again for reasons that only partly overlap with his) that

the unsatisfactory nature of the constituent structures given in [IFG] derives in very large measure from their foundation in rank theory. (Huddleston 1988:155)

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, agreeing with someone's conclusion is not reasoned argument. Fawcett has still not provided Huddleston's actual argument, and it is clear from previous posts that Fawcett does not understand hypotaxis, especially with regard to how unit complexes relate to the rank scale.

The rhetorical purpose of providing Huddleston's conclusion before providing his argument is to prime the reader to prejudge the argument through prior alignment with the conclusion.

Huddleston's Suggestion That Halliday Should Treat Hypotactic Clauses As Embedded

Fawcett (2010: 317):

Firstly, Huddleston suggests that in He assumed that she was guilty, the clause that she was guilty functions as a Complement, just as too much is a Complement in He assumed too much. Similarly, he suggests that in He left before the vote was taken, the clause before the vote was taken functions as an Adjunct, just as before the debate does in He left before the debate. Huddleston's point is that Halliday should treat the dependent clause in such examples as functioning as an element of the matrix clause (i.e., as embedded) and not as a clause that is 'hypotactically' related to the rest of the main clause in a 'modifier-head' relationship. The relevance of this for the 'rank scale' is that, if his position is accepted, the amount of 'rank shift' in the grammar is thereby increased enormously, and the predictions made by the 'rank scale' concept are consequently weakened. We shall shortly consider more closely both Huddleston's reasons for taking the position that he does on this matter, and Matthiessen and Martin's reply. As you may have noticed, Huddleston's position is essentially the same as my own, as described in Section 11.9 of Chapter 11.

Blogger Comments:

 [1] To be clear, merely reporting Huddleston's suggestions, without the reasoning on which they are based, is not argument.

But note that the above clause that she was guilty can interpreted as a Complement in SFL Theory, if it is construed as a pre-projected fact: He assumed (the fact) that she was guilty. Importantly, the distinction between embedding and hypotaxis provides the means of distinguishing between pre-projected facts and projected ideas, whereas the approach advocated by Huddleston and Fawcett does not.

[2] This is misleading. The rank scale derives from taking a functional approach to formal constituency: the minimal bracketing of ranked constituent analysis (Halliday 1994: 20-8). Its "predictions" are not weakened by any increase in the amount of rankshift. On the contrary, the rank scale provides the principled means of accounting for rankshift in functional terms.

[3] This is misleading, because it is not possible to look more closely at reasons which have not yet been provided. That is, Fawcett falsely implies that the bare assertions he provides here, from Huddleston, are reasoned arguments.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett's Section 11.9 is titled 'How embedding and co-ordination can replace hypotaxis and parataxis'. Clarifications and critiques of the section can be viewed here:

• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion
• Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

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.

Fawcett's Argument For Treating Hypotactic Projections As Embedded

Fawcett (2010: 289, 290):

Firstly, this sentence contains just one case of embedding, in the strict sense of the term. This is the embedded clause that they'd lost all the money, which functions as the Phenomenon of the Process of 'guessing'. This is conflated with the Complement, so filling an element of the higher clause. In IFG the clause that they'd lost all the money would be described as serving the general logical function of 'modifying' the supposed 'head' clause of That very experienced reporter had guessed. Thus this second string of words would be said to be 'dependent' on the former without being embedded in it — even though the clause That very experienced reporter had guessed is clearly incomplete when it stands, alone i.e., without the Phenomenon that it "expects". It is not clear how Halliday would answer the criticism that the clause which this string of words initiates is incomplete, and that it can only be completed by modelling the dependent clause as a part of the overall clause of That very experienced reporter had guessed that they'd lost all the money.

In the Cardiff Grammar's view of the TRANSITIVITY of the main clause, the Process of the main clause is 'guessing' and the Phenomenon (which is conflated with the Complement) is that they'd lost all the money. Notice that the Phenomenon could also be the nature of the problem. In a functional grammar the way in which the Phenomenon happens to be filled on a given occasion should surely not lead to a different analysis of the structure of the clause, since the Process is, in both cases, 'guessing'.) For the full descriptive framework and a fuller explanation of why this approach to such examples has been adopted, see Fawcett (1997) on 'complementation' and Fawcett (in press).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is the analysis using Cardiff Grammar only.

[2] This is potentially misleading. In SFL Theory, the clause that they'd lost all the money serves as a reported projection, hypotactically related to the projecting clause That very experienced reporter had guessed. Whether it is a locution or an idea depends on whether the verbal group had guessed serves as a verbal or mental Process.

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

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The clause That very experienced reporter had guessed is not incomplete, as demonstrated by the fact that it is a complete response to the question Who had guessed?

[5] See [4].

[6] This is not misleading, because it is true — provided that the verbal group had guessed serves as a mental, not verbal, Process. In a verbal clause, the Range participant is Verbiage, not Phenomenon.

[7] To be clear, this is an instance of the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii), since Fawcett assumes the point he is trying to prove: that the second clause serves as Phenomenon in a clause, rather than as a reported projection in a clause complex.

[8] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.

Why Fawcett Rejects 'Hypotaxis'

Fawcett (2010: 284):

A second new concept in the Sydney Grammar is 'hypotaxis', which is contrasted with 'parataxis' (i.e., co-ordination in a broad sense of the term). As we saw in Section 2.6.1 of Chapter 2, 'hypotaxis' is a relationship between two units in which one is said to be 'dependent' on the other, but without being embedded in it (i.e., without filling one of its units). It is noteworthy that, while quite a number of Halliday's ideas have been adopted by other grammarians who are writing functionally-oriented descriptions of English such as Quirk and his colleagues, they have not taken over either of these ideas. And here, in the appropriate sections, I have explained why they are not used in the present theory. See Section 12.6 for a discussion of an example that in IFG would be analysed as containing 'hypotaxis' rather than embedding.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, the interdependency distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis is not "new" but foundational to SFL Theory ("the Sydney Grammar").

[2] To be clear, the traditional concept of 'co-ordination' corresponds to paratactic extension in SFL Theory (Halliday 1994: 230).

[3]  This is misleading. To be clear, one reason why Quirk and his colleagues have not taken up Halliday's ideas is that SFL Theory is not the model they use. Here again Fawcett indulges in the logical fallacy known as the argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

[4] This is misleading, because Fawcett has merely presented his alternative model; he has not yet presented an argument for rejecting the model of SFL Theory.

[5] To be clear, in that discussion (p290), Fawcett argues that a dependent clause must be embedded simply because it cannot stand alone as a single clause. In SFL Theory, this is precisely what distinguishes it from an independent clause.

Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

Fawcett (2010: 272):

To summarise: we treat four of Halliday's five types of 'hypotaxis' and two of his five types of 'parataxis' as embedding, and one type of 'hypotaxis' and his three 'expansion' types of 'parataxis' as co-ordination. Thus the features that generate these examples are found in various parts of the system network. This approach, then, is less novel than Halliday's, but it is equally systemic and functional. And it has all been implemented in COMMUNAL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the relation of the Cardiff Grammar's embedding and co-ordination to tactic and logico-semantic relations in SFL Theory is represented below: 

[2] To be clear, Fawcett neither provides the system network that generates his examples, nor names the features, nor specifies the various locations of these features in the network.

[3] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument. Moreover, it evades the issues of whether this approach is theoretically inconsistent or has less explanatory potential than the SFL approach.

How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement

Fawcett (2010: 271):

Within the 'expansion' type of 'hypotaxis', Halliday distinguishes 'elaboration', 'extension' and 'enhancement'. The last two are treated here as follows:

John [S] ran [M] away [Mex], whereas Fred stayed behind [A].

John [S] ran [M] away [Mex], because he was scared [A].

In other words, the two clauses embedded in an Adjunct express two of the many types of 'logical' relationship for which Adjuncts are used: the first is an Adversative Adjunct (cp. in contrast, on the other hand), while the second is a Cause Adjunct (cp. therefore, for this reason). And both are thematisable.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the Cardiff Grammar treats dependent clauses as embedded if they are extending or enhancing — though as co-ordinated if elaborating (see next post). The distinction between interdependency (taxis) and embedding is very important in SFL Theory. Halliday (1994: 242):

[2] To be clear, this confuses form (clauses) with function (Adjunct). On Fawcett's model, the two clauses are each embedded in a clause, and fill (realise) an Adjunct.

[3] To be clear, the claims here are that:

• the clause whereas Fred stayed behind serves the same function as in contrast and on the other hand
• the clause because he was scared serves the same function as therefore and for this reason.

These claims can be invalidated by substituting the (conjunctive) Adjuncts for the clauses:

• John ran away in contrast/on the other hand
• John ran away therefore/for this reason.

Clearly, the logical relation is expressed by the conjunctions in these clauses, whereas and because, not by the clauses themselves.

How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection

Fawcett (2010: 271):

The twin concepts of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' play such a large part in IFG (pp. 215-73) that it may be helpful to state how they are handled here.

Firstly, then, Halliday's two types of 'hypotactic projecting' clause ('locution' and 'idea') are handled as embedded clauses that fill a Phenomenon that is conflated with a Complement, thus:

John [S] said/thought [M] he was running away [clause filling C/Ph].

And his equivalent two types of 'paratactic projecting' clause are handled similarly — except that the embedded clause fills a sentence, which functions as an element in a simplified model of a 'move' in discourse (shown as "text"), and this in turn fills the Phenomenon/Complement (see Appendix B), thus:

He [S] said/thought [M] "I'll run away" [clause filling Σ in "text" filling C/Ph]

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, tactic relations obtain between units at all ranks, not just clause rank.

[2] Trivially, locutions and ideas are projected clauses, not projecting clauses; the verbal and mental clauses are the projecting clauses.

[3] Trivially, in SFL Theory, a Phenomenon is not the Range participant of a verbal clause. The Range of a verbal Process is termed Verbiage.

[4] Non-trivially, by treating all projected clauses as embedded, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar provides less explanatory power than SFL Theory, since it fails to distinguish between projections that are actually brought into semiotic existence by the verbal or mental Process of a clause: locution or idea, and those that are not: pre-projected facts serving as Verbiage or Phenomenon.

[5] To be clear, here Fawcett proposes that his clause He said/thought "I'll run away" 

• has the component Complement/Phenomenon,
• which is filled by the unit "text",
• whose components are Opening Quotation mark ^ Sentence ^ Closing Quotation mark, and
• whose Sentence is filled by an embedded clause.

And at this point, the embedded clause itself has not yet been analysed.

Cf SFL Theory:

[6] To be clear, Appendix B (p304) provides only the following assistance on this matter:

"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.

Seriously Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) And Halliday (1994) On The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 270):

The overall picture that one gets from IFG, then, is that the concept of the 'rank scale' is just as central in IFG as it was in "Categories", but with far stricter conditions on 'rank shift'. The Sydney Grammar handles as 'hypotaxis' what other grammars treat as the embedding of clauses.

On the other hand, we should also recall the apparent diminution of the focus on 'rank' in Halliday's later descriptions of the theory, which we noted when surveying the basic concepts of "Systemic theory" and IFG in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively. As we noted in Section 6.2.2 of Chapter 6, Halliday chooses to make the point, when discussing the concept of 'rank' in IFG, that

the issue is whether, in a comprehensive interpretation of the system, it is worth maintaining the global generalisation, because of its explanatory power, even though it imposes local complications at certain places in the description" (Halliday 1994:12).

In view of the changes to the SF model of syntax set out here, it is tempting to see this statement as an expression of Halliday's willingness to reconsider the concept of the 'rank scale' — though in reality such a change of position seems improbable. Yet it is hard to think of any other interpretation of the omission of the concept of the 'rank scale' from "Systemic theory" (Halliday 1993).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not misleading, because it is true.

[2] To be clear, this is still misleading, because it is still untrue. As previously demonstrated, this misrepresentation arises from Fawcett's failure to understand embedding in terms of rankshift and the principle of exhaustiveness.

[3] To be clear, this is still misleading, because it is still untrue, as previously demonstrated here in the examination of Fawcett's Chapters 5 and 6.

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday (1994: 12). On the one hand, Halliday was specifically concerned with a rank scale of writing systems, not lexicogrammar; and on the other hand, he was more generally concerned with the theoretical trade-off between the explanatory power of a global generalisation and the cost of creating local complications, such as the question as to whether one or two sub-sentence levels are motivated in such a hierarchy:

[5] This is deeply and seriously misleading, because it is the exact opposite of what is actually true. Halliday (1995 [1993]: 273):

The Problem Of Halliday Excluding What Fawcett Recognises As Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 269-70):

However, there is a further problem with Halliday's specification of the permitted types of embedding. This is that it excludes very many of the types of embedding that are recognised in the present grammar. These are shown in Appendix B, where the symbols at the top of the diagram for each class of unit show the elements of structure that it can fill.

It is of course precisely Halliday's purpose to exclude many of these — especially the ways in which a clause may occur within a clause). The reason is that he has changed his mind since "Categories" (as we saw in Section 2.6.1 of Chapter 2), so that he now wishes to handle such cases as 'hypotaxis' (in the way to be described in Section 11.9). 

Secondly, however, his specification excludes many of the ways in which a clause fills an element of a group, as is also shown in Appendix B. Finally, the specification excludes the many ways in which a group may fill an element of a group (or cluster), again as shown in Appendix B. In the last two cases the omissions may in part be due to the great emphasis in IFG on the clause, so that groups are inadequately covered.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. On the one hand, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett misrepresents Halliday's specifications of the types of embedding because of his failure to understand the rank scale and the principle of exhaustiveness. On the other hand, excluding the types of embedding recognised by the Cardiff Grammar is only a problem for SFL Theory if the types of embedding recognised by the Cardiff Grammar are valid in terms of SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, Appendix B does not identify the classes of unit that are embedded, merely the elements that may be "filled" (realised) by them.

[3] This is misleading. It is not "Halliday's purpose" to exclude 'ways in which a clause may occur within a clause'. Instead, Halliday makes the distinction between (i) cases in which a rankshifted clause is embedded in a ranking clause, and (ii) cases in which a ranking clause is tactically related to another ranking clause.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, it is true that IFG (Halliday 1994), in contradistinction to Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, places more emphasis on the clause than the group. This is because the clause, unlike the group, is the semogenic powerhouse of the grammar. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 10):

The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. For this reason the first half of this book is organised around the principal systems of the clause: theme, mood and transitivity. In Part II we move outward from the clause, to take account of what happens above and below it – systems of the clause complex, of groups and phrases, and of group and phrase complexes; and also beyond the clause, along other dimensions so to speak.

On the other hand, the question of whether or not groups are adequately covered in IFG (Halliday 1994) cannot be resolved by anyone demonstrably incapable of understanding Halliday's explication of the model.