Misrepresenting Halliday (1961) On The Meaning Of 'Grammar'

Fawcett (2010: 3):

Before going any further, I should try to clarify the senses in which I am using the terms "grammar" and "syntax". In "Categories", the term "grammar" has a meaning close to a combination of the usual senses of the terms syntax and morphology. Here, however, I shall use the term "grammar" in the sense of 'a model of the sentence-generating component of language' …. And I shall use syntax in the sense of 'syntagmatic relations at the level of form, including inflectional morphology'.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading.  Even in Halliday (1961), the meaning of the term 'grammar' had been extended well beyond "a combination of the usual senses of the terms syntax and morphology", as demonstrated by the following quotes.  Halliday (2002 [1961]: 40-2):

Grammar is that level of linguistic form at which operate closed systems. Since a system is by definition closed, the use of the term “closed” here is a mnemonic device; but since “system” alone will be used as the name of one of the four fundamental grammatical categories it is useful to retain “closed system” when referring to the system as the crucial criterion for distinguishing grammar from lexis. … 

Any part of linguistic form which is not concerned with the operation of closed systems belongs to the level of lexis. The distinction between closed system patterns and open set patterns in language is in fact a cline; but the theory has to treat them as two distinct types of pattern requiring different categories. For this reason General Linguistic theory must here provide both a theory of grammar and a theory of lexis, and also a means of relating the two. … 

The fundamental categories for the theory of grammar are four: unit, structure, class and system. … 

The relation of these categories to each other and to the data involve three distinct scales of abstraction, those of rank, exponence and delicacy; … 

In discussing these I have used the terms “hierarchy”, “taxonomy” and ‘cline’ as general scale–types.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1961, 1985, 1994)

Fawcett (2010: 1):

The title of this book can be read as implying that Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) does not currently have an agreed theory of syntax, and that it is therefore in need of one. This is precisely the interpretation that I intend. 

There certainly was a theory of syntax at the inception of SFL, because the core of Halliday's "Categories of the theory of grammar" (1961) consists of just that. But later developments in Halliday's thinking have left most of the concepts presented in "Categories" with a curiously peripheral status, as we shall see in due course. And the concepts which have superseded them in Halliday's current model for use in representing structure at the level of form seem to hover — insightfully or unsatisfactorily, depending upon your viewpoint — somewhere between the levels of meaning and form. As we shall see in Chapter 5, Halliday's most recent restatement of the theory (Halliday 1993) has virtually nothing to say about structure at the level of form — i.e., syntax — and his recent major functional description of English (Halliday 1985 and 1994) similarly fails to provide a summary of the theory that underlies it.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is yet another instance of the logical fallacy of proof by repeated assertion.  No argument has been provided in support of the claim; see previous posts.

[2] The elements of clause structure in Halliday (1961) are Subject, Predicator, Complement and Adjunct (following Hill 1958: 256).  Halliday (2002 [1961]: 47):

In a few cases traditional names exist which can usefully serve as names for elements of structure, with the initial letter as the descriptive symbol. In the statement of English clause structure, for example, four elements are needed, for which the widely accepted terms subject, predicator, complement and adjunct are appropriate.

[3] This is misleading.  This early exploratory paper by Halliday, as the title announces, presents a general overview of the fundamental categories required of a theory of grammar, namely: unit, structure, class and system.  Halliday (2002 [1961]: 37, 41):

My purpose in writing this paper is to suggest what seem to me to be the fundamental categories of that part of General Linguistic theory which is concerned with how language works at the level of grammar, with brief reference to the relations between grammar and lexis and between grammar and phonology. …

The fundamental categories for the theory of grammar are four: unit, structure, class and system.

[4] This is misleading.  The elements of clause structure in Halliday (1961) — Subject, Predicator, Complement and Adjunct — do not have a "curiously peripheral status".  On the contrary, they feature as elements of structure in the clause as exchange (interpersonal metafunction).

[5] Because SFG is a functional grammar, grammatical elements are view 'from above', that is: from semantics, and labelled in terms of the function they perform.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a ‘semanticky’ kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

It will be seen later that Fawcett's model of syntax confuses function (Subject) and form (Verb).

[6] This is misleading.  Halliday (1985, 1994) explicitly locate grammatical form in the rankscale of clause, phrase/group, word and morpheme, and in the syntagms (sequence of classes) that realise the elements of structure, as when, in clause structure, Medium^Process is realised by the syntagm nominal group^verbal group.

[7] This is deeply misleading.  Both editions, Halliday (1985, 1994), are expositions of the theory that underlies the description of English.

Arguing By Repeating An Undemonstrated Claim

Fawcett (2010: xxiii):

Thus, whether or not one retains the intermediate level of 'multiple structure' representations of IFG in one's model of language, every systemic functional grammar requires a representation of syntax in a single, integrated structure, underpinned by a set of theoretical concepts such as those set out in Part 2 of this book.

Blogger Comments:

This repeats the still undemonstrated claim that the metafunctional clause structures of SFL theory are 'intermediate', and need to be integrated into a single formal syntactic structure.  This is a continuation of the logical fallacy known as proof by (repeated) assertion.

Misrepresenting The Theoretical Coverage Of The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: xxii-xxiii):

Where does this leave the representations of clause structure in IFG and the many derived works? It may be argued by some that the main value of such 'multiple structure' representations is that they provide the best available description of a language that foregrounds the concept that each clause is the realisation of several different broad types of meaning (or 'metafunctions', in Halliday's terms). On the other hand, a representation of the clause that shows (1) the various different types of meaning that it expresses at the level of semantics and (2) a single structure at the level of form provides an equally insightful representation of this important aspect of language, and presents no additional problems for the theory. Moreover it is in fact easier, in a fully generative SF grammar, to generate the final structures directly from the system networks than it is to do it via a 'multiple structure' representation. Chapter 7 includes an example of the alternative way of representing the many meanings in a clause, i.e., by showing the semantic features in their 'strands of meaning'. In this approach, then, there is no 'intermediate' structure, and the representation of syntax at the level of form is the final structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is demonstrably false.  A representation of the clause that treats function as semantic and form as lexicogrammar is not 'equally insightful', and does indeed present additional problems for the theory.

The most serious resultant additional problem and lack of insight is the absence of a rich and systematic account of grammatical metaphor, as when, in the simplest of examples, a process (semantics) is realised as a participant (grammar).  Grammatical metaphor was the principal motivation for the stratification of the content plane into semantics and lexicogrammar, each with its own system–structure cycle (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 429).  The importance of grammatical metaphor as a phenomenon includes the fact that it made scientific registers possible (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 545).

It will also be seen later that another shortcoming of the simpler Cardiff model is that it requires the export of much meaning out of semantics (and language) to 'knowledge of the world'.  This makes it a far less efficient theory — since it has less explanatory potential — as well as making it inconsistent with a fundamental tenet of SFL theory — that, in a semiotic theory of language, 'knowledge' is meaning.

[2] This demonstrates the motivation for Fawcett's simpler model: the ease of generating structures from systems, rather than providing a rich explanatory model of the complexity of language.

[3] This continues the unsupported assertion that the metafunctional function structures of the clause are "intermediate" structures.  This is another instance of the logical fallacy of proof by (repeated) assertion.

The Argument For A Single Integrated Representation Of Structure

Fawcett (2010: xxii):

To express matters in this way seems at first sight to provide a neat way to reconcile the two models of structure. To my considerable regret, however, I have to point out that this is not what I am proposing. This is because, once one recognises the need for this final type of representation, it leads on to further questions. If this final integrated representation is required — as it undoubtedly is — we have to ask questions such as:

1 What is the status in the theory of the intermediate 'multiple structure' representations of clauses in IFG?

2 Do they represent some sort of 'intermediate' structure between the representation in terms of systemic features and the final integrated representation? 

3 If so, are the 'multiple structures' needed at all? 

If the answer to the third question is "Yes", so that 'multiple structures' of the type shown in IFG are indeed to be treated as an integral part of the model of language, this entails the addition to the model of a new component. Its function would be to convert the 'multiple structure' type of representation into a single representation. But this leads in turn to further questions, such as:

4 Is such component used in the computer implementations of Halliday's theory, e.g., is it described in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991)? 

5 Is there any indication anywhere else in the literature of SFL as to what this component would be like? Indeed, we must also ask: 

6 Is there, in fact, any way in which it is possible to 'integrate' several different structures (as opposed to integrating their elements, which is already standard practice in the theory)?

Chapter 7 asks these questions, provides the answers, and then discusses the implications of these answers for the theory. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Still no argument has been provided as to why the three complementary function structures need to be integrated into a single syntactic structure.  It has merely been asserted to be true.  This is a version of the logical fallacy known as proof by assertion.

[2] This unsupported claim is presented as both:

• a motivation for these series of questions (see previous critique), and 
• one of the questions that logically follow from itself.

This is a version of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning (circulus in probando) or begging the question (petitio principii).

[3] Here Fawcett criticises his colleagues for not having done what he has not demonstrated needs to be done.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Structure

Fawcett (2010: xxi-xxii):

However, I shall also suggest that even a user of Halliday's approach who remains unconvinced by my argument also needs the set of concepts proposed here [author's bolding] (or a fairly similar set). This statement is likely to come as a surprise to many readers, i.e., to those who are familiar with Halliday's proposals for representing the structure of a clause by a set of several different structures — proposals which have not until now been publicly questioned by other systemic linguists. The reason why Halliday's model needs to incorporate the concepts proposed here is that his current structural representations in IFG and elsewhere are not, as he himself would agree, the final stage in the process of generation in his framework, but an intermediate one. In the final stage, the five or more different structures that he distinguishes must be integrated into a single representation [author's bolding]. And it is this integration into a single structure that the theory of syntax presented here provides.

Blogger Comment:

The claims here are that

• the metafunctional clause structures are only intermediate, because their final stage must be one single integrated representation, and that
• Halliday would agree with this.

Both these claims are untrue.  The metafunctions are at the heart of SFL theory, and represent important complementary perspectives on the function of language.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 74):

The clause, as we said, is the mainspring of grammatical energy; it is the unit where meanings of different kinds, experiential, interpersonal and textual, are integrated into a single syntagm.

Significantly, Fawcett provides

• no reasons as to why one single integrated representation is required — merely claiming Halliday's agreement with him as an endorsement — and 
• no cited evidence in support of what he claims to be Halliday's viewpoint.

Moreover, the use of the claim that Halliday would agree, as part of the argument, is a version of the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

Misrepresenting SFL Community Opinion On Structural Representation

Fawcett (2010: xviii, xxi):

Indeed, it is one of the most surprising facts about SFL that, after forty years of fairly widespread use in various fields of application, there is no general agreement as to how best to represent the structure of language at the level of form. This book makes clear proposals for a (partly) new theory of syntax, and in particular for the replacement of the method of representing structure that is used in Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994) by a simpler method. Moreover, the new theory of syntax is one that is equally relevant, I shall argue, to a model of language in which Halliday's current representations are retained. … 

In what I have said so far, I have been writing as if the theory of syntax to be presented here is an alternative [author's bolding] to Halliday's approach to structure. And this is indeed what it is, in that the method of representing the syntax of a text-sentence to be described here is ultimately an alternative to his 'multiple structure' method rather than a complement to it.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is neither surprising, nor a fact.  In a functional theory of language, structure is labelled in terms of function, not form.  Form is accounted for in SFL by the rank scale.  The relation between function and form is realisation — the intensive identifying relation of symbolic abstraction.  An element of function structure at a higher rank is realised by a class of form at the rank below (except in the case of rank-shift).  For example, a Senser, as an element of function structure at the rank of clause, is congruently realised as a nominal group.

[2] The notion of replacing a functional conception of structure with a formal one is inconsistent with the notion of a functional grammar.

Misrepresenting Halliday: Syntax

Fawcett (2010: xviii):

We shall find that there are also important alternative positions within Halliday's theory, and — most pertinently — that he gives us no adequate statement of a 'theory of syntax' in either of the two major recent publications in which we might expect to find one: his paper "Systemic theory" (1993) and his widely influential Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985, second edition 1994). Moreover, we shall find that this leads us to draw unexpected conclusions about the theoretical status of the representations of clauses in IFG, and so about what a theory of syntax for SFL should be like.

Blogger Comments:

Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, as the name implies, is a theory of language that gives priority to

• system (paradigmatic axis) over structure (syntagmatic axis), and
• function over form.

In SFL, grammatical form is construed by the rankscale of

• clause
• group/phrase
• word
• morpheme

In SFL, a distinction is made between structure (function) and syntagm (form). In the following clause, the theme, mood and transitivity lines of analysis constitute function structures, varying for metafunction, in contrast to the formal syntagm of prepositional phrase ^ nominal group ^ verbal group ^ nominal group that realises the elements of function structure.

in Butler’s view	the Cardiff model	represents		a substantial improvement [on the Sydney account]
Theme: marked	Rheme
Adjunct	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Resi-	Mood		-due
Angle: viewpoint	Identified Token	Process: relational		Identifier Value
prepositional phrase	nominal group	verbal group		nominal group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 39):

Such a sequence of classes is called a ‘syntagm’. … The significance of such a syntagm is that here it is the realisation of a structure: an organic configuration of elements, which we analyse in functional terms.

Praise For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: xxvi):

But the major landmark was Butler's impressive 2003 survey of the three current "structural-functional" theories of language that he considers most valuable, one of which is SFL. And, significantly, in many sections he provides separate accounts of the proposals of the Sydney and the Cardiff versions of SFL. Then, in his "final assessment", he states: 

In my view the Cardiff model represents a substantial improvement on the Sydney account. [...] There can be no doubt that SFG has lived up to its claim to be a text-oriented theory of language; [...] it has achieved a much wider coverage of English grammar than other approaches, this being especially true of the Cardiff grammar.' (Butler 2003b: 471)