Fawcett Rests His Case Against The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 338):

Thus the present book, together with Fawcett (2000) and (forthcoming b), contributes to the 'rank scale debate' in two ways: one negative and one positive. 

On the negative side, it provides a fuller set of reasons than is given by any previous presentation of the case for not building into the grammar the concept of the 'rank scale' (and its accompanying concept of 'accountability at all ranks'). 

On the positive side, it states clearly what the nearest equivalent concept is — i.e., that the model is built around the concept of a set of units, each of which is capable of filling several elements of one or more higher units in a tree representation of a text-sentence (including a unit of the same class). But the 'filling probabilities' vary greatly, and these probabilities are as much a part of the grammar as the bare fact that a unit may fill an element.

I rest my case that it is now time to replace the concept of the 'rank scale'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett (forthcoming b) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

[2] To be clear, as this blog has demonstrated over and over, Fawcett confuses the rank scale of formal constituency with relations between form and function, and misunderstands the notion of 'accountability at all ranks', the principle that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 84) as "predictions as to what units will function as elements of what other units".

[3] To be clear, 'filling probabilities' are not the nearest equivalent concept to the rank scale, because 'filling probabilities' are concerned with form-function relations, whereas the rank scale is a way to model formal constituency. The alternative ("nearest equivalent") to ranked constituent analysis is immediate constituent analysis, as explained in Halliday (1994: 20-9).

[4] To be clear, as the term 'higher unit' discloses, in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, units are ranked on a scale from higher to lower: from text-sentence to clause to group/cluster to item.

[5]  Case dismissed. Release the prisoner. No conviction recorded.

Why 'Syntagmatic Probabilities' Are No Replacement For The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 338):

These systemic probabilities and the model's ability to vary them play a major role in the computer generation of text in the Cardiff Grammar. But from the viewpoint of the text analyst — whether a human or a computer — what is needed is the 'realisation' of these systemic probabilities as structural probabilities. In other words, probabilities that are ultimately semantic and paradigmatic have to be expressed in terms of probabilities that are formal and syntagmatic. And, within the wide range of syntagmatic probabilities at the level of form, is the particular set which states the relative likelihood that a given unit will fill a given element of another unit (or an element of the same class of unit higher in the structure). It is this aspect of the syntagmatic probabilities that replaces the concept of the 'rank scale'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of systemic probabilities realised as 'structural/syntagmatic probabilities' is inconsistent with Fawcett's model (Figure 4, p36), because probability is the quantification of potential, whereas Fawcett (incongruously) models syntagmatic structure as instance.

[2] To be clear, syntagmatic probabilities can not replace the concept of 'the rank scale' because the rank scale is a model formal constituency, whereas syntagmatic probabilities, as form-function relations, are not.

Misrepresenting 'Filling Probabilities' As An Alternative To The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 337):

Interestingly, the concept of the 'rank scale' plays no role in a generative SF grammar. Its main practical value has always been as a model (if a problematical one) that makes predictions that guide the text analyst in how the units in a text-sentence relate to each other. And for this purpose we can now use the set of units supplemented by the concept of filling probabilities that is described in Section 11.2 of Chapter 11 and exemplified in Appendix B. From one viewpoint they are simply a drastic re-interpretation of the 'rank scale' concept, but in essence they are a replacement for it, as a guide for use in text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. It is only in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar that the rank scale plays no acknowledged role.

[2] This is misleading, because the rank scale model of formal constituency is fundamental to SFL Theory since it is the means of modelling syntax and morphology. The rank scale provides the various entry conditions to grammatical systems and identifies the formal units that serve grammatical functions.

[3] This is misleading, because filling probabilities are concerned with form-function relations, not with form-form relations ("how units relate to each other"), they are neither a re-interpretation of the rank scale nor a replacement for it as a model of formal constituency.

Misrepresenting 'Filling' As An Alternative To The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 336-7, 337n):

Even if we set aside the case for abolishing the 'verbal group' set out in the last section, as well as the more general evidence of the value of a description of English such as that summarised in Appendix B, it is surprising that the evidence produced by Matthews, Huddleston and others summarised above has not persuaded Halliday to reconsider the status of the 'rank scale' concept.  

After all, it is clear that the strongest claim that can be made for it is that it characterises a tendency towards a pattern to which there are in fact a great many exceptions.  

One sometimes gets the impression that support for the 'rank scale' is maintained simply because of a general perception that 'there is no alternative'.²¹ 

But there now is an alternative: a simple unordered set of classes of unit, each of which is capable of filling several elements of one or more higher units, as presented in Section 10.2 of Chapter 10.

²¹ This is the 'TINA' attitude to change that is close to the heart of many a right-wing politician — and so not, one would assume, Halliday's.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason why the evidence produced by Matthews, Huddleston and others have not persuaded Halliday to reconsider the rank scale concept is that the evidence is no evidence at all, since it derives from theoretical misunderstandings, as demonstrated in previous posts.

[2] This is misleading. The rank scale is one of two ways of modelling formal constituency — the other being immediate constituent analysis (Halliday 1994: 20-8). In SFL Theory, it is the means of modelling morphology and syntax, which is why it leaves no room for Fawcett's 'functional syntax', which is why Fawcett is motivated to argue against its theoretical value. The theoretical value of the rank scale includes the fact that it identifies the entry conditions for networks at each rank, and, in doing so, identifies the formal units to which meanings are assigned.

[3] To be clear, this is a false impression, since the alternative to ranked constituent analysis (minimal bracketing) is immediate constituent analysis (maximal bracketing), as explained in Halliday (1994: 20-8).

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, Fawcett's notion of 'filling' is no alternative to the rank scale, because it is concerned with form-function relations, not with form-form relations (constituency). On the other hand, Fawcett's notion of 'higher' — and therefore 'lower' — units discloses the fact that his model ranks units on a scale from high to low.

[5] To be clear, Fawcett here invites the reader to associate the attitude he falsely attributes to Halliday, a lifelong communist, with the attitude of right-wing politicians. This is achieved textually by the punctuation, which places tonic prominence on the word 'assume', thereby making it the Focus of New information, and interpersonally through the most likely tone, tone 4, which expresses 'reservation' in declarative MOOD.

The Development Of Fawcett's Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 291-2):

In terms of the development of the present theory of syntax, it was the elevation of the system networks to model meaning that led to the reassessment of the role in the new framework of the existing syntactic categories. But it was the work in describing very large quantities of text that led to the establishment of the new meaning for class of unit, and so the recognition of the central place in the theory of the concept of filling (together with the other changes introduced in Fawcett 1974-6/81). And it took the challenge of the computer implementation of the lexicogrammar to show that the concept of a 'rank scale of units' had no role to play in the generative grammar — and so also no role in the use of the theory for describing languages or analysing texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, in SFL Theory, the systems of the clause are located on the lexicogrammatical stratum. It is only in the Cardiff Grammar that they are located at its level of meaning, though none of these systems have been produced in this volume.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The approach of classifying units in terms of structure ('from below') rather in terms of the functions they realise ('from above') is a theoretical decision taken before analysing data, not after it, since the data itself does not determine the theoretical orientation. Moreover, Fawcett's approach is inconsistent with a theoretical approach that prioritises function over form.

[3] Again, this is misleading, because it is not true. On the one hand, the theoretical decision to use ranked constituent analysis (a rank scale) or immediate constituent analysis precedes the analysis of data. On the other hand, Fawcett does use a rank scale of sentence-clause-group and cluster-item, despite his claims to the contrary. Moreover, Fawcett has demonstrated many times over that he does not understand the notion of a rank scale as a model of formal constituency.

"The Theory Proposed Here Is Rather Different"

Fawcett (2010: 286-7):

The theory proposed here is rather different. The key categories are class of unit, element of structure and item. But a 'class of unit' is defined by its internal structure, the major classes (of English) being the clause and the nominal, prepositional, quality and quantity groups.  

Moving down the layers of a tree diagram representation of a text-sentence, we find that 'unit' and 'element' occur alternately (these being related to each other by the similarly alternate relationships of componence and filling), until the lowest element in the tree is reached and the relationship of exponence relates that element to an item.  

There is no place in the formal representations for the concept of 'word class' (although terms such as "noun" and "adjective' are used as convenient short forms for referring to classes of item that are ultimately defined by the part of the system network from which they are generated). 

To this core framework must be added the general concept of probability. More specifically, the theory provides that the likelihood that a given unit will fill a given element should be expressed in probabilistic terms (as well as absolute terms where it has a zero probability). The claim is that probabilistic statements about the potential of each class of unit to fill an element are more accurately predictive than the 'rank scale' predictions — and so more useful when the theory is being employed for the analysis of text-sentences (whether by a human or by a computer).

Blogger Comments:

The regular reader would long ago have noticed the extent to which Fawcett just keeps on repeating the same claims over and over and over. This is a deployment of the logical fallacy known as the argument from repetition, also known as argumentum ad nauseam.

[1] As previously explained, this is taking the (formal) view 'from below', and is contrary to the (functional) view 'from above' that is taken in SFL Theory.

[2] As previously explained, a clause is a unit, not a class of unit. A class of this unit is the traditional notion of an adverbial clause.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's tree diagram combines his (vigorously denied) rank scale of sentence–clause–group & cluster–item with his proposed relations between these formal units and elements of function structure. 

The notion of componence misconstrues a formal unit as composed of functional elements; in SFL Theory, a formal unit is composed of lower ranked formal units, each of which realises an element of function structure in the higher ranked unit. 

The notion of filling corresponds, in SFL theory, to the relation between elements of clause structure and the syntagm of groups ± phrases that realise them, and the notion of exponence corresponds to the relation between elements of group and cluster structure and the words ("items") that realise them. 

And, as previously explained, Fawcett's notion of item confuses the grammatical and lexical notions of word, and misconstrues the meronymic relation between words and morphemes as co-hyponymy (words and morphemes as subtypes of item).

[4] To be clear, Fawcett does not supply any system networks that demonstrate how classes of item are generated.

[5] To be clear, this is still a bare assertion, still unsupported by evidence. Moreover, what Fawcett refers to as "rank scale predictions" is merely the rank scale itself: the modelling of formal constituency as clauses consisting of groups ± phrases, consisting of words, consisting of morphemes.

Summary Of What The Cardiff Grammar Abandons, Re-Defines And Introduces

Fawcett (2010: 285):

In summary, we can say that in the theory proposed here the concept of the 'rank scale' has been abandoned, together with its associated predictions about 'rank shift, and so also has 'delicacy' (in the sense of 'primary' and 'secondary' structure in syntax (as opposed to 'delicacy' in the system networks). "Exponence" has been re-defined in a way that enables it to be used in what is broadly its original Firthian sense, and the important new structural concepts of 'componence', 'filling' and 'exponence' have been introduced.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Despite his bare assertions to the contrary, it has been demonstrated that Fawcett's model ranks formal units on a scale from sentence to clause to group and cluster to item.

[2] This is misleading, because Fawcett does in fact use a rank scale, his cases of embedding do indeed constitute instances of rankshift, despite his bare assertions to the contrary.

[3] This is misleading, because the notion of delicacy of structure was a feature of Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961), but does not feature in SFL Theory.

[4] This is misleading, because the Firthian sense of 'exponence', which Halliday (1961) deploys, included both the notions of realisation and instantiation, whereas Fawcett uses it solely in the sense of realisation.

[5] Again, for the theoretical problems with these key relationships, see the relevant posts:

• here for componence
• here for filling, and
• here for exponence.

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.

Applying Fawcett's Realisation Operations

Fawcett (2010: 281-2):

The specification of the realisation operations that follows is essentially the same as that given in Section 9.2.1 of Chapter 9, the difference being that this list additionally identifies the type of relationship that corresponds to the operation. In their typical order of application, the major realisation operations are:

1 Insert a unit (e.g., "ngp") into the structure to 'fill' (or 'function at') an element or Participant Role (e.g., "cv") — so introducing to the structure the relationship of filling. (The topmost clause in a text-sentence fills the 'Sentence'.)

2 Locate an element (e.g., "S") at a given place in a unit — so introducing the relationship of componence.

3 Insert an element or Participant Role to be conflated with an existing element, i.e., to be located immediately after it and to be at the same place (e.g., "S/Ag") — so introducing the relationship of conflation.

4 Expound an element by an item — so introducing the relationship of exponence.

5 Re-set the preferences (i.e., the percentage probabilities on features in certain specified systems), including the preselection of features by the use of 100% and 0% probabilities — these probabilities being reset to their original percentages after the next traversal of the network.

6 Re-enter the system network at a stated feature — so possibly also introducing the recursion of co-ordination, embedding or reiteration.

The result of applying Operation 6 (and so in turn Operation 1) is to introduce to the structure either a single unit or two or more co-ordinated units. In either case the resulting structure may additionally involve the addition of more layers of unit, including the embedding of a unit inside another unit of the same class — depending on what choices have been made in the system network.

Blogger Comments:

These realisation operations can be tested for the clause Blessed are the meek.

1. Insert nominal group into clause structure to fill Subject
2. Locate Subject in final location of clause
3. Insert Affected (Medium) to be conflated with Subject
4. Expound the Head by an item: meek
5. Reset percentage probabilities (not provided by Fawcett)
6. Re-enter system network at stated feature (neither provided by Fawcett).

By this description, the nominal group is already structured before it is inserted into a clause that is already structured and includes a Subject. After one pass through an imaginary system network, all that is generated is the one item meek expounding the Head of a nominal group that fills Subject/Affected. In SFL Theory, in contrast, one pass through the system network of a clause specifies all the elements of a clause, not just one element.

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:

Fawcett's 'Recursion' Viewed Through The Lens Of SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 263):

There are three types of recursive relationship in English: co-ordination, embedding and reiteration. Reiteration is much less central to the grammar of English than the other two, and it is used more in other languages. But do 'recursive structures' in fact occur in language? Strictly speaking, they do not.

Recursion occurs when a choice in the system network leads to a realisation rule which specifies a re-entry to the system network and the choice of the same feature again. What we find at the level of syntax is two types of the 'repetition' of a class of unit and, in reiteration, the repetition of an item (as in He's very very happy.). All three of these are cases of the realisation at the level of form of recursively selecting the same feature in the system networks. The effect of choosing such a feature is to generate a unit alongside an existing unit (this being is co-ordination) or inside another unit (this being second embedding [sic]. In the strict sense of embedding, a unit fills an element of the same class (most frequently a clause filling an element of a clause, as illustrated in Appendix B). In co-ordination the two or more co-ordinated units are typically of the same class — but not necessarily, as we will see in the next section. (We shall recognise a looser sense of 'embedding' in Section 11.8.3.)

It is the relationship of filling that makes possible the first two types of recursion, and the relationship of exponence that enables reiteration to occur.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these claims are theory-dependent and represent Fawcett's position on the phenomena.

[2] In SFL Theory, RECURSION is a system that specifies complexing at all ranks. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438) provide a clause rank example:

Importantly, recursion does not necessitate "the choice of the same feature again".

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, these two types of repetition are both cases of complexing: the first at ranks above the word, the second at word rank.

[4] To be clear, SFL Theory makes a very important distinction between taxis ("co-ordination") and rankshift (embedding). This distinguishes, for example, non-defining relative clauses (taxis) from defining relative clauses (rankshift), and projected ideas (taxis) from pre-projected facts (rankshift).

[5] To be clear, contrary to this strict sense of embedding, Appendix B (p306) presents both a preposition group in Kew and a clause we've seen as elements (qualifiers) of a nominal group.

[6] To be clear, in this later discussion, it is the nominal group of a preposition group that is said to be embedded in a nominal group, thereby allowing him to overlook the prepositional group as an embedded unit. Fawcett (p264-5):

The second type of recursion is embedding. This occurs when a unit fills an element of the same class of unit — and also, in a looser sense, when a unit of the same class occurs above it in the tree structure. So we shall not say that we have a case of embedding in on the table, where the nominal group the table fills the completive of the prepositional group on the table … . However, if the table occurred in the box on the table, this is embedding in a looser sense of the term, because the nominal group the table fills the completive of the prepositional group on the table, and this in turn fills the qualifier of the higher nominal group the box on the table.

And, in an even looser use of the term, one could refer to any case in which a unit appears lower in the tree than the second layer as 'embedding'. Here, however, I shall normally use the term "embedding" in the sense of the occurrence (direct or indirect) of a class of unit within the same class of unit.

[7] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the "first two types of recursion", co-ordination and embedding, correspond to taxis and rankshift. However, clause complexes (taxis) do not realise ("fill") and element of a higher structure, though rankshifted units do. Fawcett's third type of recursion, reiteration, corresponds to a paratactic elaborating word complex realising ("expounding") an element of group structure.

Conflation, Filling And Componence In A Modern Systemic Functional Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 253-4):

Up to this point I have been writing as if it was the Subject or the Complement that is filled by a nominal group. But it is, strictly speaking, the Participant Role (PR) that is conflated with the Subject or the Complement that the unit below fills. This is because, in generation, it is typically the PR which predicts what the unit will be, and the likely semantic features of the entity to be generated. (The configuration of PRs in a clause is in turn closely tied to the Process type, which is typically realised in the Main Verb.) However, from the viewpoint of drawing tree diagrams when analysing text-sentences, it makes little difference whether you picture the unit as filling the PR or as filling the element with which it is conflated. …

The introduction of the relationship of 'filling' as a complement to that of 'componence' is probably one of the Cardiff Grammar's main contributions to developing a theory of syntax for a modern systemic functional grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if two elements are conflated, then the lower rank unit realises ("fills") both of them. For example, the nominal group people realises both the Subject and Carrier in the clause people are strange.

[2] To be clear, as previously observed, Fawcett's model of structure does not present a configuration of process and participants — an experiential structure — since there is no process and the participants are only construed as conflated with interpersonal elements.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the Process of experiential clause structure corresponds to the Finite and Predicator of interpersonal structure (as well as one or more Adjuncts, in the case of phrasal verbs). In Fawcett's model (e.g. p305), the Process can correspond to several elements, including the Operator, Negator, Infinitive Element, Auxiliary Verb, Auxiliary Verb Extension, Main Verb, and up to 3 Main Verb Extensions.

[4] This is true.

[5] This may well be true. However, there are several problems here:

• filling and componence both misconstrue function and form as the same level of symbolic abstraction;
• componence misconstrues functions as parts of forms;
• SFL does not model grammar in terms of syntax (Halliday 1985: xiv);
• the Cardiff Grammar is not a modern systemic functional grammar because
• it is not modern, but developed from Halliday's superseded Scale & Category Grammar;
• it is not systemic, because its priority is structure, not system; and
• it is not functional, because its priority is form, not function.

The Centrality Of 'Filling' To Fawcett's Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 252):

However, the concept of 'filling' is not completely absent from the Sydney Grammar. It has been present from the start in the wording by which the relationship of a unit to an element is described, in the use of "operates at" (e.g., Halliday 1961/76:64). An alternative term is "function as". Thus a nominal group would be said to "operate at" (or "function as") the Subject or Complement of a clause. But it is not given a place as a central concept in the theory, as it is here. The term 'filling' seems to be preferable to "operating-at-ness" or "functioning-as-ness".

Its centrality in the theory of syntax is shown by the fact that it functions as the direct complement to 'componence'. In other words, as your eye moves down a full tree diagram representation of a text-sentence (e.g., Figure 25 in Section 12.6 of Chapter 12), you find that the relationships between categories are alternately those of componence and filling, and that these two are repeated until the point at which the analysis moves out of the abstract categories of syntax to the rather more concrete (but still abstract) category of items (via the relationship of exponence, to which we shall come in Section 11.6).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, since Fawcett's notion of filling is not even slightly absent from SFL Theory. As previously explained, it corresponds to the realisation relation between a functional element at a higher rank and a formal unit at the rank below.

[2] To be clear, the term 'operates at' is from Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar, and misrepresents the relation between function and form in SFL Theory because it construes function and form as one level of symbolic abstraction instead of two (Value and Token).

[3] This is not misleading, because it is true. The term 'function as' is consistent with theory because it construes the higher level of symbolic abstraction, element, as Role: guise, which is the circumstantial counterpart of Value; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 326).

[4] To be clear, the centrality of 'filling' in Fawcett's model arises from his focus on form instead of function and his confusion of formal constituency with function-form relations, as previously demonstrated.

[5] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument, and on the other, it is misleading because it is untrue. As previously explained, 'function as' (2 levels of abstraction) is consistent with the architecture of SFL theory, whereas 'filling' (1 level of abstraction) is not.

[6] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's componence, filling and exponence arise from his confusing formal constituency with form-function relations. Componence misconstrues functions (elements) as constituents of forms (units); filling misconstrues functions (elements of clause structure) and forms (units) as the same level of symbolic abstraction; and exponence is the realisation relation between functions (elements of group structure) and forms ("items").

[7] From the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's Figure 25 (p289) analyses a projection nexus (clause complex) as a single clause:

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On "Filling" Notation

Fawcett (2010: 251-2):

Interestingly, there is an equivalent gap in the Sydney Grammar's notation for representing the outputs from the grammar. This arises from the surprising fact that there is no diagram in IFG — or in the equivalent diagrams in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) or Matthiessen (1995) — that shows how such a relationship should be represented in the full analysis of a text-sentence. In all of these works each unit is analysed in its own terms, almost as if the way in which they are to be related to the units above and below them in the structure is self-evident and has no complications. Filling is in fact a complex matter, and it very often happens that the possibilities as to what class of unit may fill an element depends, either in absolute or in probabilisitc [sic] terms, on choices in the generation of the unit above. The most obvious example is the restrictions on what may fill the Complements of particular Main Verbs (for which see Fawcett 1996).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true. Halliday (1994: 109) provides the following diagram illustrating both clause experiential function types and their realisations by classes of forms at the rank of group/phrase:

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 169) further elaborates the model for all three metafunctional structures:

[2] This is not misleading, because it is true. In SFL theory, each rank provides the entry condition to the systems of that rank, in which the structures of each rank are specified.

[3] This is misleading because, in SFL Theory, formal constituents are related to each other by the rank scale, and the relation between function structures at a higher rank and formal syntagms at the lower rank is specified as realisation.

[4] To be clear, in contradiction of SFL Theory, Fawcett here gives priority to the view 'from below', classes of form that realise functions, instead of the view 'from above', the functions that are realised by forms.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, Complement is an element of interpersonal structure at clause rank, which may be conflated with most, if not all, types of participant in experiential structures. Any restrictions on the class of unit that realises a Complement thus depend on the type of participant with which it is conflated.

Misconstruing Hypotaxis As Embedding

 Fawcett (2010: 251):

Filling may introduce a single additional unit to the structure, or it may introduce two or more co-ordinated units. (For co-ordination see Section 11.8.2). For example, an Adjunct that expresses 'Time Position' may be filled by a nominal group such as the day before yesterday, a prepositional group such as on Friday, a quality group such as quite recently, or a clause such as when I was last in London. (In the last case it introduces a clause that is embedded in another clause; see Section 11.8.3 for 'embedding'.) Alternatively, an element may be filled by two co-ordinated units, as in (I lost it) either last Monday or last Tuesday. …

In the Cardiff Grammar, the realisation operation that introduces this relationship of filling to a structure is "Insert a unit to fill Element X". The most surprising fact about the Sydney Grammar's list of realisation operations, as stated in their theoretical-generative publications, is the lack of any equivalent to this crucial operation (as discussed in Section 9.2.3 of Chapter 9).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To translate this into SFL Theory: a functional element of one rank may be realised by either a unit or a complex of units of the rank below. However, only in SFL theory, the complex may be either paratactic ("co-ordinated") or hypotactic.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, quite recently is an adverbial group.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the clause when I was last in London can be either rankshifted (embedded) or ranking:

Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar treats both of the above instance types as embedded, and so can not distinguish between them. Moreover, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar treats such clauses as embedded (rankshifted) in cases of hypotaxis, but as co-ordinated (ranking) in cases of parataxis. That is, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's model involves both reduced explanatory potential and theoretical inconsistency.

[4] This is misleading, because this fact is not surprising. As explained in the examination of Section 9.2.3 (here), Fawcett's realisation operation is unnecessary in SFL Theory, because a unit (clause, group, word, morpheme) is not "inserted" but selected from the rank scale in a system network.

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Function-Form Relations

Fawcett (2010: 251):

Filling is the relationship between an element and the unit that 'operates at' it — this being the unit below it in a tree diagram representation. It can be argued that it is the fact that the Cardiff Grammar gives this concept a central position in the theory of syntax that enables it to solve a range of problems for which more complex solutions are proposed by Halliday. Thus it is filling that makes possible both co-ordination and embedding, and it is the extensive use of these that enables us to do without the somewhat problematical concepts of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relation between an element (e.g. Senser) and the unit that "operates at" it (e.g. nominal group) is the realisation relation between function and form. A clause rank function structure, such as Senser ^ Process ^ Phenomenon, is realised by a group rank syntagm, such as nominal group ^ verbal group ^ nominal group.

[2] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that this relation between function and form is not part of the architecture of SFL Theory.

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. The realisation relation between function and form, in SFL Theory, is simpler, not more complex, than Fawcett's relation, filling, not least because that the latter is unnecessarily complicated by confusing formal constituency with function-form relations.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett (p272) relates his co-ordination and embedding to SFL tactic relations as follows:

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.

This "less problematical" approached will be carefully examined in the relevant future post.

Componence: Functions As Parts Of Forms

Fawcett (2010: 244):

In the next four sections we shall examine the three crucial relationships of componence, filling and exponence into which the 'consists of relationship between units must be broken down — and also the concept that models in the syntax itself the multifunctional nature of language, i.e., conflation.

Componence is the part-whole relationship between a unit and the elements of which it is composed. Thus the componence of the nominal group the man with a stick is dd h q; the componence of the prepositional group with a stick is ρ cv, and that of the nominal group a stick is qd h.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'consists of' relationship between units — in SFL Theory: the rank scale of forms — can not be broken down into componence, filling and exponence, because each of these three is concerned with the form-function relations, not with the constituency of forms (units); see further below.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's notion of componence confuses form (units) with function (element), and posits functions as parts of forms. The reason this is theoretically invalid is because form and function are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett's notions of filling and exponence are both the relation between function (element) and form (unit and item, respectively). That is, both involve the relation of different levels of symbolic abstraction, which in SFL Theory, is the relation of realisation.

Misrepresenting "The Main Use Of" The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 242):

In practical terms, then, the main use of the 'rank scale' concept has been as a model that makes predictions that guide the text analyst as to how the units of a text-sentence relate to each other — though these have sometimes caused problems for the analyst. However, statements of 'filling probabilities', as in Appendix B, meet the same need in a more effective manner.

All of the probabilities discussed so far are instantial probabilities, i.e., probabilities that certain patterns will occur in instances, i.e. in text-sentences. They are moreover probabilities at the level of form. In contrast with these are the probabilities on features in system networks, which we might refer to as potential probabilities, these being at the level of meaning. See Section 2 of Appendix C for a discussion of the relationship between the two.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, the rank scale is the means by which formal constituency is modelled. Most importantly, in a systemic functional grammar, each rank is the entry condition for the systems that specify function structures at that rank.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, all the "problems" raised by Fawcett derive from his confusing the rank scale of forms with function-form relations.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's 'filling probabilities' are concerned with the relation between function and form, not with formal constituency. As such, they do not "meet the same need in a more effective manner".

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's 'filling probabilities' are concerned with the relation between function (element) and form (unit) — not with form alone.

[5] To be clear, as Section 2 of Appendix C (p315) explains, in Fawcett's model, potential probabilities are paradigmatic probabilities, whereas instantial probabilities are syntagmatic probabilities. That is, this reflects Fawcett's confusion of axis (paradigmatic/syntagmatic) with instantiation (potential/instance), as previously demonstrated in the examination of Figure 4 (p36):

Misrepresenting Halliday On Rankshift (Embedding)

Fawcett (2010: 239-40):

It follows naturally from the statements which I have just made that there is no implication in the present theory of syntax that a unit is functioning in a highly marked manner when embedding occurs. In this theory it is expected that a clause will quite frequently occur as an element of another clause, or as an element of a group. This position is almost the opposite of that presented in IFG, where the picture is one of very severe limitations on the embedding of units within each other. Indeed, in IFG Halliday stipulates that it is not possible for a clause to fill an element of another clause (except indirectly, by filling the head of a nominal group that fills an element of the higher clause (IFG p. 242).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in stark contrast, in SFL Theory, rankshift (embedding) is seen as a powerful semogenic resource. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 10):

The units below the clause on the rank scale are all groups (nominal, verbal adverbial, etc.) or phrases (prepositional phrases), or else clauses that are shifted downwards on the rank scale to serve as if they were groups or phrases. Such down-ranking is known as rankshift. This has the powerful effect of expanding the resources of grammar by allowing the meaning potential of a higher-ranking unit to enrich that of a unit of lower rank. … Such rankshifted clauses construe what we call macro-phenomena.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a rankshifted (embedded) clause does not "occur as" an element of a clause or group, it realises it. This is because clause (form) and element (function) are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 427) identify the following types of embedding in SFL Theory:

[4] This is very misleading. In SFL Theory, a nominal group with a rankshifted clause as Head (or Postmodifier) is "directly" serving as an element of clause structure — just like any other nominal group. Moreover, IFG (Halliday 1994: 97) explicitly provides the following example of an embedded clause serving as Subject:

and Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 156) add the syntagm of groups to the analysis:

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On The Rank Scale And Function-Form Relations

Fawcett (2010: 239):

In this theory, then, there is no expectation that an element of a clause will necessarily be filled by a group. (For 'filling' as a theoretical concept, see Section 11.5.) Some clause elements are frequently filled by groups, a few are sometimes filled by groups, and some never are. And the same is true of groups. The frequencies vary greatly, so that in the question of what element a unit may fill is often better stated as a probability rather than as an absolute rule.

A further feature of the new theory is that, with respect to the groups, what matters most is not the fact that the unit is a group (as it is in the 'rank scale' model), but what class of group it is. Indeed, in the present framework the differences between the different classes of group (nominal, prepositional, quality and quantity) are just as important as the differences between them all, considered together as groups, and the clause. Indeed, each of the clause and the four classes of group recognised here for English may fill any one of various elements of structure in various classes of unit. Some of the constraints on what may fill what can be expressed by absolute rules, of course, but many others are better expressed as probabilities. In this version of SFL, then, the fact that a variety of different classes of unit may fill many of the elements of many on the units of a language such as English is not regarded as a problem (as it is in a 'rank-based' grammar) but as one of the great riches of human language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, throughout this extract, Fawcett confuses the relation between function (element of structure) and form (unit) with constituency relations between forms (the rank scale).

[2] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett uses 'filling' for the relation between elements of clause structure (functions) and the groups (forms) that realise them. From the perspective of Fawcett's source, Halliday's Scale & Category Grammar (1961), this realisation relation was termed 'exponence'. Fawcett also uses 'exponence', but only for the relation between elements of group structure and the items (words/morphemes) that realise them. That is, Fawcett inelegantly uses two distinct terms, filling and exponence, for the same relation between function and form.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory. On the one hand, the rank scale and the class of group are distinct issues. For example, it is possible to model formal constituency as a rank scale and classify groups either 'from above' (as in SFL Theory) or 'from below' (as in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar). On the other hand, classes of group are no less important theoretically merely because they are not predetermined by the use of a rank scale. However, what is even more important, in a functional grammar, is the function served by such formal units.

[4] This unsupported bare assertion is misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory. The fact that an element may be realised by different classes of unit is not a problem for a 'rank-based' grammar, as demonstrated by circumstantial Adjuncts that may be realised by either adverbial groups or prepositional phrases, or by Agents that may be realised either by nominal groups or prepositional phrases, or by topical Themes that may be realised by nominal groups, verbal groups, adverbial groups or prepositional phrases.