"A Theory Of The Type Described Here"

Fawcett (2010: 293):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresenting Halliday (1984)

Fawcett (2010: 55-6):

In just one area of meaning Halliday provided a small "semantic" network which 'preselected' options in what has always been the rather 'form-centred' MOOD network (Halliday 1984:13). This little network for the semantics of MOOD only had eight pathways through it, but Hasan & Cloran (1990) and Hasan (1992) have developed very much fuller system networks which can be regarded as expansions of it for use in describing children's language, all within the Sydney Grammar framework.*

* See Fawcett (1999:247-9, 258-9) for a discussion of some of the differences between Halliday's 'grammatical' network for MOOD and my much richer MOOD network, which is explicitly at the level of semantics. See Fawcett (forthcoming a) for the full version of the computer-implemented network for MOOD (which replaces that in Fawcett 1980:103).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on at least four counts.  Firstly, the semantic network in Halliday (1984) is that of SPEECH FUNCTION (Figure 2):


Secondly, the semantic network is clearly distinguished from the grammatical system of MOOD (Figure 3):


Thirdly, the term 'preselected' does not appear in Halliday (1984).  Its use here serves to blur the distinction between the two networks.

Fourthly, the use of the term 'semantics of mood' and the avoidance of the term 'speech function' also serves to blur the distinction between the two networks.

The reason for these attempted deceptions is that the validity of Fawcett's model — the Cardiff Grammar — depends on the MOOD network being semantic, not grammatical.

[2] To be clear, what Fawcett refers to geographically as 'the Sydney Grammar framework' is Halliday's version of his own theory.

[3] A MOOD network at the level of semantics mistakes wording for meaning and, more importantly, is unable to account for grammatical metaphor, as when a command (speech function, semantics) is incongruently realised as an interrogative clause (mood, lexicogrammar).

[4] To be clear, Fawcett (forthcoming a) is Functional Semantics Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Meaning. London: Continuum, and it is still "forthcoming" 18 years after the first edition of this publicaton.