Fawcett's Difficulty In Understanding The Absence Of 'Insert Unit' In Halliday's Theory

 Fawcett (2010: 183):

It is hard to understand why the Sydney Grammar lists of realisation operations should not give Operation 1 at least the status of being a separate operation from 'preselection'. For a start, this operation will only generate units for the lower layers of a structure, so their realisation operations appear not to have any means of generating the initial unit of the clause. Moreover, even when we limit ourselves to lower units in the structure (such as how a nominal group comes to fill an element such as Subject, we should note that it is perfectly possible for the grammar to need to select a given feature on the next pass through the network without thereby also inserting a new unit, so that preselection must in any case be treated as a separate operation from the insertion of a new unit. 

It is therefore hard to understand why Halliday, Matthiessen and Bateman have no equivalent of Operation 1. The reason may possibly be connected with the fact that the emphasis in the Sydney Grammar is strongly on the generation of clauses. Perhaps this leads those working in that framework to take it for granted that all the choices being made in the system network are for the clause unless the rules state otherwise, so that the insertion of the initial clause does not get stated explicitly. Indeed, one surprising fact about the literature of the Sydney Grammar is that it contains no examples of generations of texts that involve a further layer of structure beyond that of a single clause — even in the fairly full description of the Penman Project given in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991). So there is no account of how the process of re-entry operates in the Sydney Grammar, whether for a clause or even for a simple nominal group. In practice, however, the computer implementation of the Penman model must have some equivalent operation to our Operation 1, or it would be unable to generate structures with more than a single layer (as it does when used in computer implementations). Indeed, the existing realisation operations refer to the generation of lower units (e.g., "Preselect nominal group" in Halliday (1993:4505) — though there are no worked examples.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's Operation 1 is 'Insert unit (to fill an element)'. The reason why SFL Theory has no equivalent is simply because a unit is selected from the rank scale within the system.

Each of these units serves as the entry condition to the systems of that unit. It is the rank scale that anchors the systems of the clause — theme, mood and transitivity — on the stratum of lexicogrammar, rather than semantics. Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar locates these grammatical systems at the level of semantics, and does not include a rank scale.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a nominal group realises the element Subject.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a unit such as a clause or group is instantiated in a single 'pass' through the simultaneous systems of that unit, so there is no need for re-entry in the instantiation of a single unit. In cases where units form complexes, the network is re-entered through a system of RECURSION, as illustrated for the highest unit, clause, by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

On The Absence Of Fawcett's Operations 1 and 6 In The Realisation Statements Of Halliday (1993)

Fawcett (2010: 182-3):

However, the most striking difference between the two sets of realisation operations is the omission from all three of the Sydney Grammar lists of our Operations 1 and 6. Operations 1 and 2 are in a sense the two fundamental operations, in that each adds one of the two major categories to the structure: Operation 1 adds a unit and Operation 2 an element. For example, the choice of the feature [situation] is realised by inserting the unit 'Cl' (for 'Clause'), and the choice of the feature [thing] is realised by inserting 'ngp' (for 'nominal group'). If there is no unit, there can logically be no elements, and so no structure. Thus the computer implementation of the Sydney Grammar must have such an operation, or it could not work. The odd thing is that it is not listed here. Operation 6 equally is crucial, because if the network is not re-entered only one layer of structure can be generated. 

The clue to the answer comes in Matthiessen and Bateman's description of what is covered by their term "preselection". For them, "preselections are instructions to re-enter the grammar to develop the function constituents of the clause as nominal groups, [...] and so on" (1991:108), so that their "Preselect" operation includes all three of (1) 'preselection' (in the strict sense of the term). (2) 're-entry' and (3) the insertion of a new unit. No doubt we can infer from this that Halliday's "preselect" operation includes the same three steps. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's Operation 1 is 'Insert a unit (to fill an element)' (p180). In SFL Theory, a unit (clause, group, word, morpheme) is selected from the rank scale in a system network. SFL Theory models the phenomena of syntax as a rank scale. Fawcett's model of syntax (allegedly) does not include a rank scale.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's Operation 6 is 'For an element, re-enter the system network' (p180). In SFL Theory, the selection of a given unit entails the selection of the features and the activation of realisation statements that specify all the elements of that unit. This includes structures that Fawcett regards as involving more than one "layer", such as clauses with textual and/or interpersonal Themes, where each is modelled as a simultaneous system within the network. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 162):

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue; see [1] above. Halliday's (1995 [1993]: 273) realisation statement is not concerned with inserting a unit, but with preselecting a feature at a lower rank:

• 'Preselect' some feature at a lower rank (e.g., preselect actor : human collective);

[4] To be clear, Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) involves the adaptation of SFL Theory to the limitations of computers for the purposes of text generation. As such, it is not equivalent to the SFL model of the human use of language.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) On The Realisation Statements 'Preselect' And 'Classify'

Fawcett (2010: 182):

Halliday's Operation (f) is roughly equivalent to our Operation 5, with the important difference that ours is expressed in terms of preferences — and preferences can set the probability of a feature being selected on re-entering the system network to any point on a scale from 0% to 100%. In contrast, the more limited concept of preselection implies an absolute probability (i.e., 100%) that the specified feature will be selected. Interestingly, it appears from Halliday's examples that his "Classify" operation is essentially the same as his "Preselect" operation, and both Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and Matthiessen (1995) simply omit "Classify" from their lists. The two are therefore treated as equivalent in Figure 11.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday's realisation statement (f) is

• 'Preselect' some feature at a lower rank (e.g., preselect actor : human collective),

whereas Fawcett's Operation 5 is

• Prefer certain features on re-entry to the system network , including preselection (= 100% preference). 

These are not 'roughly equivalent', because Halliday's statement does not involve re-entry, and because Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar does not include a rank scale.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday's realisation statement (d) is

• 'Classify' an element (e.g., classify process as mental : cognition);

As can be seen, 'classify' affects features of a given rank, whereas 'preselect' affects features of the rank below.

[3] It is therefore misleading to treat the two realisation statements as equivalent. In downplaying these differences between Halliday's realisation statements and Fawcett's realisation operations, Fawcett is downplaying the disadvantages of not including a rank scale in his model.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) On The Realisation Statement 'Lexify' In A Footnote

Fawcett (2010: 181-2, 182n):

The "Conflate" operation is clearly the same in both models, and Halliday's "Lexify" is equivalent to our "Expound". However, it is important to note that the example of 'lexification' is the exponence of the Subject by the item it (presumably for cases of 'empty Subjects' such as It's raining). In other words, it seems that the "Lexify" operation is not limited, as one might at first suppose, to lexical items, in the usual sense of that term, and that it can also introduce grammatical items to the structure. It therefore covers all types of  'item' — just as the operation "Expound" does in the Cardiff Grammar.⁴

⁴ It is surprising to find Halliday using this example, because it goes against the principle of 'total accountability at all ranks'. This requires, of course, that the Subject should be filled by a nominal group (or some other unit of that 'rank' or above). In the Cardiff Grammar the item it functions as the direct exponent of the Subject only in cases with an "empty Subject", such as It's raining and It's nice to see you, so perhaps this is the case in Halliday's example? But, if this is so, it breeches his 'rank scale' principle.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is untrue. There is no 'breeching' of 'total accountability at all ranks' or the 'rank scale' principle because, in all such examples, the Subject of the clause is realised by nominal group whose Thing/Head is realised by a word:

Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) On The Realisation Statement 'Order'

Fawcett (2010: 181):

Interestingly, Halliday's original version of his Operation (c) specifies that the task of locating elements in the appropriate sequence in a unit should be achieved by 'ordering' elements in relation to each other — but in "Systemic theory" he adds, after the words "order an element with respect to another", the further words "or to some defined location". This wording seems to suggest that Halliday may wish to extend his original approach to 'ordering' to include the Cardiff Grammar concept of a '(numbered) place in a unit' — and perhaps even to embrace the concept of a 'potential structure' (i.e., an 'ordered list of elements at places in a unit') — as introduced in Fawcett (1973/81). Since this concept has actually been used in the Penman implementation of the Sydney Grammar (as noted in Section 10.4.2 of Chapter 10), it is possible that Halliday's wording here may be intended to reflect the adoption in the Penman implementation of my concept of 'places'.

 Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, since 'operation' is Fawcett's term only, not Halliday's. Where Fawcett's term demonstrates that his model is limited to text generation by computers, Halliday's model is concerned with the system-&-process of human language, whose material substrate is biological, rather than technological.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The concept of a '(numbered) place in a unit' only arises from giving priority to the view 'from below' — structure over system, form over function — in a model that is concerned with adapting theory to the limitations of computers.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, potential is modelled as system, not structure. Halliday explicitly rejected the Chomskyan notion of language as an inventory of structures.

However, the notion of semantic 'structure potential', varying for genre (text type) appears in the work of Hasan (1985: 64ff), though Halliday himself did not adopt his wife's model. It can also be noted here that Martin (1992) misunderstands Hasan's 'Generic Structure Potential' as modelling genre, rather than semantics varying according to genre.

[4] To be clear, the Penman 'implementation of the Sydney Grammar' was an adaptation of SFL Theory to the limitations of computers.

The Cardiff Grammar's Rules For The 'Insertion' Of An Element

Fawcett (2010: 181):

Since this is so, the Cardiff Grammar's rules for the 'insertion' of an element tend to be attached to more delicate features in the system network than in the published versions of the Sydney Grammar. In other words, the realisation rule that inserts an element in a unit is attached to a feature that occurs at the point in the system network by which we know not only that the element will be present in the unit but also the precise place at which it will occur.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Fawcett's realisation rules are not located in system networks (meaning), but at a lower level of symbolic abstraction (form), despite the fact that they apply to network features at the higher level of symbolic abstraction (meaning). This contradiction alone invalidates the theoretical architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4).

Fawcett's 'Fetch' Operation

Fawcett (2010: 177-8):

In the Cardiff Grammar, there is a variant of Operation 4, which we shall call Operation 4a. This is the Fetch operation, and it is used to expound items when the item is not an ordinary word in the language that has a 'meaning', but a 'name'. Thus the 'meaning' of Mr White is nothing to do with the colour quality of 'white'. Rather it is something like 'formal', in contrast with Peter, which may be informal'. In order to expound such meanings, e.g., in a computer model of generation, the generation system must consult its 'knowledge' (or, to use a preferable term, its 'beliefs') in order to discover the specific title (realised as Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, etc) and family name of the referent, and then 'fetch' the relevant forms for use in the sentence generator. Hence the need to use a different type of operation in the generation of names.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, all wordings realise ("have") meanings.

[2] To be clear, this gives priority to the view 'from below', the expression 'white', rather than the view from 'above', the meaning realised by 'white' (surname vs colour). In SFL Theory, priority is given to to the view 'from above'.

[3] To be clear, 'formal' vs 'informal' does not distinguish the meanings of White vs Peter, but rather the different tenor variables of the situation type (cultural context), enacted by the choice of surname vs forename.

[4] To be clear, this only applies to a computer model of generation, not to the logogenesis of spoken, signed or written texts by flesh-&-blood human beings. Moreover, in SFL Theory, 'knowledge' and 'beliefs' are meanings (the semantic stratum of language).

Fawcett's 'Sentence' Element

 Fawcett (2010: 176-7):

While the system network models choices between meanings, the early choices are between the generalised meanings such as 'situation', 'thing' and 'quality', which are realised as the major syntactic units of the language. …

In generation, the first unit to be generated is always a clause. The 'element' that it fills is an element of an unusual sort, because it is not an element in a unit that is recognised in the model of syntax presented here. The element is the 'Sentence', and this term is interpreted as a placeholder for the 'element' of discourse structure (whichever it is) for which the text-sentence is being generated.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett does not present these system networks in this publication.

[2] To be clear, these 'generalised meanings' are experiential meanings only. Logical, interpersonal and textual meanings do not feature as 'generalised meanings' in Fawcett's unseen system network.

[3] As this wording demonstrates, this is a model of text generation, not of language itself.

[4] To be clear, in Fawcett's model of syntax, the clause fills an element in a unit that is not recognised in Fawcett's model of syntax.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the sentence is a unit of graphology, the expression plane system of written mode.

[6] To be clear, in Fawcett's model, a sentence is an element that is a placeholder for an element of discourse structure, though no such discourse structures are identified, and 'discourse structure' does not feature in his model (Figure 4).

Misunderstanding Axial Realisation As Instantiation

Fawcett (2010: 174):

Thus most of this chapter will be wholly oriented to the theoretical-generative strand of work in SFL. It might at first appear that Chapters 10 and 11 are oriented to the text-descriptive strand. However, they are only 'text-descriptive' in the sense that the emphasis is on the text-sentences that are the output from the operation of the grammar, and it is these that constitute the texts that are analysed in 'text-descriptive' work. These two chapters are also in fact primarily theoretical, in that the concepts covered there are the theoretical concepts that are required in the description of the structure of English that is needed by a computer for parsing a text — and, indeed, by a human text analyst. The concepts that characterise instances are therefore as much a part of the overall theory as the concepts required in the grammar itself to generate those outputs.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's theory of language is actually concerned with what computers and linguists require for parsing a text.

[2] As previously explained, Fawcett equates 'instance' with 'output', and consequently misunderstands structures (syntagmatic axis) as instances of realisation rules (paradigmatic axis).

Fawcett's Theories Of Syntax Potential & Instances Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 174):

In the rest of the present chapter I shall specify the theory of syntax potential that is required in a modern, large-scale systemic functional grammar — i.e., the concepts that are required in the grammar itself. Then Chapters 10 and 11 will provide an account of the theory of instances of syntax — i.e., the part of the theory that underlies the description of text-sentences. Finally, Chapter 12 will summarise the current theory in relation to its antecedents, including "Categories", offering an evaluation of its importance today.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, for Halliday (1985 & 1994: xiv), the term 'syntax' suggests an approach to theorising that is inconsistent with the approach to SFL Theory, 'such that a language is interpreted as a system of forms, to which meanings are then attached'. In SFL Theory, 'syntax' is modelled as a rank scale. Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar does not include a rank scale.

[2] As previously explained, Fawcett's 'instances of syntax' are not instances of potential, but syntagmatic structures that realise realisation rules. That is, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) confuses the realisation relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes with the instantiation relation between potential and instance.

[3] To be clear, the term 'text sentences', like the architecture of Fawcett's model (Figure 4), confuses instance (text) with structure (sentence). In SFL Theory, 'sentence' is theorised as a rank unit of graphology.

[4] Fawcett's evaluation of the importance of his own model will be evaluated in the examination of his final chapter.

Fawcett's "Surprising Discoveries"

Fawcett (2010: 174):

In Part 1 we considered a number of different approaches to syntax in SFL, and we made some surprising discoveries about the status of the 'multiple structure' representations in IFG. That prolegomenon to the new theory will, I hope, have changed your perspective on the two original questions that were asked in Section 1.2 of Chapter 1. Most importantly, we are now aware that the theory of syntax must contain both a theory of 'syntax potential' and a theory of 'instances of syntax'. The main question was:

(1) What theoretical concepts are required for the description of syntax in a modern, large-scale systemic functional grammar? 

And, as a supplementary question of historical interest, we asked:

(2) How far are the founding concepts introduced by Halliday in "Categories" (1961/76) still valid in such a model?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL the approach to syntax is to model it as a rank scale. Fawcett's model has no rank scale.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the "surprising discoveries" with regard to 'multiple structure' representations in IFG were Fawcett's misrepresentations of them, deriving from his misunderstandings, most notably his confusion of formal constituency with function structure.

[3] This is misleading, because it falsely presents a statement of Fawcett's model (Figure 4) as if it had been supported by reasoned argument in Part 1. More importantly, the relation between syntax potential (realisation rules) and instances of syntax (structure) is not instantiation, but realisation: the relation between the paradigmatic (realisation rules) and syntagmatic (structure) axes. This confusion alone invalidates Fawcett's model.

[4] It will be seen when Fawcett eventually comes to presenting his own theory, that his "modern" theory of syntax has more in common with Halliday's first theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), than the theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar.

Fawcett's Relevant Sources For A Modern Theory Of Systemic Functional Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 173):

Clearly, Halliday's important summary of current SFL in "Systemic theory" must be given due weight — especially because so many of the concepts that are new since "Categories" are present in the equivalent Cardiff Grammar work of Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993), as we noted in Section 5.5 of Chapter 5. Yet we must also take into account the evidence from Halliday's actual descriptive practice in IFG, even though it is harder to establish what the concepts are in this work. As we have noted, the concepts behind the representations of structure in IFG have more in common with the concepts of "Categories" than they have with "Systemic theory" — despite the great differences between the 'single structure' representation used in "Categories"-style analyses (as exemplified in Figure 1 in Chapter 2) and in the IFG-style analyses (as in Figure 7 in Chapter 7).

In addition, we must also draw on the evidence from work in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, both from the 'text-descriptive' work that is roughly equivalent to IFG from Fawcett (in press) and from the 'theoretical-generative' work such as that in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) that is the equivalent to Halliday's "Systemic theory".

Finally, we have noted at various points that work on the formalisation of systemic functional grammars in computers has had an important influence on the theory, and in both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars this has led to the further refinement of the categories and relationships that need to be recognised in the theory.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained, "Systemic theory" (Halliday 1993) and IFG (Halliday 1994) outline the same theory, but to different readerships, whereas "Categories" (Halliday 1961) outlines a different theory, Scale & Category Grammar, that was superseded by Systemic Functional Grammar. To be clear, Fawcett is here preparing the reader to view positively the fact that his modern theory of syntax has more in common with Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961) than Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] The strategic use of the term 'equivalent' here — for 'analogous' — is misleading, because it gives the false impression that work in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar is, in some sense, equivalent in terms of its theoretical assumptions and architecture to Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar.

[3] To be clear, adapting a theory of human language to the limitations of computers is not the same as modelling the language of humans. As demonstrated previously, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) has more in common with algorithms for text generation, than with models of human language.

Misrepresenting The Accounts Of Theories In Fawcett's Part 1

Fawcett (2010: 173):

In Part 1, we have examined four accounts of syntax in SFL. In Chapter 2 we looked at Halliday's "Categories of the theory of grammar" (1961/76), and in Chapters 5 and 6 we noted the considerable changes between the set of concepts presented in "Categories" and the concepts found in his "Systemic theory" (1993) and his An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994). Then in Chapter 8 of Part 1 I described the framework of concepts set out in my "Some proposals for systemic syntax" (Fawcett 1974-7/81) — this being a revision of the concepts of "Categories" that was made as an explicit response to two factors: the exciting changes which Halliday made to the theory in the 1960s (described in Chapter 4), and very large quantities of work in text analysis. 

We therefore have three 'post-Categories' accounts of SFL syntax. The question now arises as to which of the three should be drawn upon — and to what extent — in the task of establishing a modern theory of SF syntax.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue, not least because, as previously explained, (a) neither of Halliday's theories, Scale and Category Grammar or Systemic Functional Grammar is a theory of syntax and (b) Scale and Category Grammar is not Systemic Functional Linguistics. Moreover, the accounts in Halliday (1993) and (1994) are accounts of the same theory, written for different audiences, as previously explained. That is, the only account of "systemic syntax" that has been introduced — not examined — is Fawcett (1974-7/81).

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" was addressed to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after Halliday had devised his second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[3] To be clear, if it were consistent with SFL Theory to establish a "modern theory of SF syntax", then the modern version of SFL (e.g. Halliday 1993, 1994) "should be drawn upon". The reader is invited to guess whether this will be the case.

Syntax Potential

Fawcett (2010: 172):

The main topic of this chapter will be the theory of syntax potential that is required in a modern SF grammar. I first used this term in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 and it is modelled, as will be clear, on Halliday's characterisation of the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and the rest as meaning potential. In Figure 4 we contrasted the 'meaning potential' of the grammar with its 'form potential', and 'syntax potential' is simply one part of the form potential.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on several counts. Firstly, it is inconsistent with Halliday's notion of meaning potential, since Halliday models meaning potential as system, whereas Fawcett models syntax potential as realisation rules. Secondly, Halliday's notion of meaning potential refers to language as system, not just to the stratum of semantics (Fawcett's level of meaning). Thirdly, because Fawcett misunderstands 'meaning potential' to mean semantic systems, he gives here the false impression that Halliday characterises his own grammatical systems as semantic.

[2] Reminder:

To be clear, as previously explained, Fawcett's Figure 4 presents 

• form potential as realisation rules that involve meaning features,
• realisation rules (form) as the realisation of a system network (meaning), and
• structure as an instance of realisation rules.

Misunderstanding Instantiation

Fawcett (2010: 172):

As we saw in Chapter 3 — and most clearly in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of that chapter — any adequate theory of language must provide, for each level of language, for both the potential and the instances of that potential. In some theories of language, of course, it is assumed that it is precisely the task of the theory of the potential (the grammar) to specify the instances that can be generated from the potential (the sentences of the language). But I have argued — both in Section 6.5 of Chapter 6 and more fully in Fawcett (1994a) — that, if we want a theory that can be used for modelling both the understanding and the generation of language texts, we need to recognise that we require a different set of concepts when faced with the task of analysing an incoming string of words (i.e., parsing) from those that are needed when we are trying to model the grammar in use for generation. In the process of generation there is no equivalent of the problematical task of parsing, as is demonstrated in Fawcett (1994a).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Reminder:

To be clear, Fawcett's model misconstrues instantiation as a relation between system and selection expression, at the level of meaning, and a relation between realisation rules and structure, at the level of form. As explained in many previous posts, a selection expression can be viewed as potential or instance, as shown by the phonological selection expression [voiced, bilabial, stop], which is synthetically realised by the phoneme /b/, whether as potential or as instance. As also explained in many previous posts, the relation between realisation rules and structure is the relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes: realisation, not instantiation.

[2] To be clear, both the grammar and 'the sentences of language' can be viewed as potential or instance. For example, 'the sentences of language' can be viewed as potential (grammatical systems) or as instances (in texts). It appears that Fawcett misunderstands 'instance' to simply mean 'output'.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the system is both the means by which speakers make meaning and the means by which addressees understand it. The different requirements of text generation and text parsing derive from trying to accommodate the fact that computers are not humans. A theory of language models the language of humans; a model of text generation and parsing by computers is not a model of human language.

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

Fawcett (2010: 166-7):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fawcett's Two Types Of Sequential Relationship And Recursion

Fawcett (2010: 166):

Two types of sequential relationship between sister elements of structure are recognised in "Some proposals": the segmental relationship of adjacency and the discontinuous relationship that occurs when elements are non-adjacent. These are not explicitly mentioned in "Categories", but every theory of syntax must have adequate ways of handling the various types of discontinuity found in language. Part 2 will introduce these concepts in Section 11.7 of Chapter 11.

Finally, two types of recursion are recognised. The first is embedding, in which a unit is 'rankshifted' (to use Halliday's original term) to fill an element of structure in a unit of the same or a lower rank. The second is co-ordination, in which two or more units fill a single element of structure.

With the exception of the concept of 'rank' — and so the derived concept of 'rank shift' — all of these 'relationships' are retained in the model of syntax to be presented in Part 2, and a small number of additional concepts that are not included in "Some proposals" are added to them. There is no need, therefore, to discuss the concepts of "Some proposals" any further at this point.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL Theory proposes different structural relations for each metafunction, with 'segmental' describing experiential structures only. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

[2] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[3] To be clear, in formal theories, unlike SFL Theory, the term 'embedded' covers both rankshift and hypotaxis. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 382):

Such items are said to be ‘rankshifted’ – by contrast with ranking ones, which function prototypically as constituents of the higher unit. We may also use the term ‘embedded’, taken from formal grammars; but with the proviso that this term is often used to cover both rankshift (where the item is downgraded as a constituent) and hypotaxis (where the item is dependent on another one but is not a constituent of it. Here we shall use embedded only as an alternative term synonymous with rankshifted.

As will eventually be seen, Fawcett uses 'embedding' to include hypotactic relations between ranking clauses.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the traditional notion of co-ordination is treated as paratactic extension. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472).

The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known as co-ordination between clauses. It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but.

Fawcett (p272), on the other hand, uses co-ordination and embedding to replace parataxis and hypotaxis, depending on the logico-semantic relation involved:

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.

The problems with this approach will be identified when Fawcett's model is finally presented.

[5] To be clear, rank is the means by which SFL Theory models the phenomena of language known in other models as 'syntax'.

[6] To be clear, Fawcett's model includes embedding, but not rank-shift.

The Concept Of Rank In Fawcett's Models

Fawcett (2010: 165-6):

The concept of rank from "Categories" is retained in "Some proposals" — at least in relation to the clause and the group, which form the core of the model of syntax in all SFL descriptions (with far less work on the proposed 'morpheme-word' relationship). However, this small syntactic 'rank scale' is interpreted in a very different way from "Categories", because it is seen as the realisation of an equivalent semantic relationship between a 'situation' and the 'things' and 'qualities' that are its 'elements' at that higher level. And, as we shall see in Part 2, later work in this version of the theory was to reduce the role of the concept of a 'rank scale' to the point where it no longer has any status in the theory at all. … In the theory of syntax to be presented in Part 2 the concept of the 'rank scale' is replaced by the concept of probabilities in the relations between elements and units.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] This is potentially misleading, because SFL is not a theory of syntax. Halliday (1985: xiv):

[3] To be clear, this aspect of Fawcett's model is included in his Figure 12 (p210):

In SFL Theory, the semantic unit congruently realised by a clause depends on metafunction:

• figure (ideational)
• proposition/proposal (interpersonal)
• message (textual)

and ideationally, the semantic unit congruently realised by a group is an element (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999).

[4] To be clear, SFL Theory it is the rank scale that models the linguistic phenomena deemed 'syntax' in other theories.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, rank is the ordering principle of structure (syntagmatic order), whereas probability is the quantification of system (paradigmatic order). This will be elaborated further in the examination of Fawcett's model in Part 2.

Fawcett's Componence, Filling and Exponence

Fawcett (2010: 165):

8.4 The 'relationships' of "Some proposals" 

The first difference is that "Some proposals" recognises many more 'relationships' than the three 'scales' in "Categories". There are ten of them. 

One of its major innovations is to split Halliday's 'scale' of 'exponence' into three: componence, filling and exponence proper. To cite Butler's excellent summary of these concepts:

Componence is the relation between a unit and the elements of structure of which it is composed. For example, a clause may be composed of the elements S, P, C and A. Each of these elements of structure may be (but need not be) filled by groups. In the specification of a syntactic structure, componence and filling alternate until, at the bottom of the structural tree, the smallest elements of structure are not filled by other units. It is at this point that we need the concept of exponence, as used by Fawcett: the lowest elements of structure are expounded by items', which are [...] more or less equivalent to 'words' and 'morphemes' in Halliday's model. (Butler 1985:95) 

These three concepts, which today still form the basis of the Cardiff Grammar's model of syntax, are clearly exemplified in the top half of Figure 10. These concepts are necessary, in one form or another, in any adequate systemic functional model of syntax, and they will be illustrated, discussed and compared with their antecedents in the relevant sections of Chapter 11.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] To be clear, in Halliday's first theory, the term 'exponence' covered what were to become two distinct relations in his second theory: realisation and instantiation. On the one hand, exponence corresponds to the relation between an element of function structure and the class of unit that realises it. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 54, 57):

The exponent of the element S in primary clause structure is the primary class nominal of the unit group. …

The fact that by moving from structure to class, which is (or can be) a move on the exponence scale, one also moves one step down the rank scale, is due to the specific relation between the categories of class and structure, and not to any inherent interdetermination between exponence and rank.

On the other hand, exponence corresponds to the instantiation relation between theory and data. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 57):

Exponence is the scale which relates the categories of the theory, which are categories of the highest degree of abstraction, to the data.

[3] To be clear, 'componence' is the relation of composition, a type of extension. In SFL Theory, composition is modelled as a rank scale of forms, and is distinct from the function structures of the units on the rank scale.

[4] To be clear, one the one hand, Fawcett's 'filling' corresponds to the relation between an element of clause structure and the group that realises it, but treats these two distinct levels of symbolic abstraction, function and form as if both were at the same level. On the other hand, 'filling' suggests an active process, rather than an inert relation, and if this were a model of human language, rather than an algorithm for text generation, the process would be (an aspect of) instantiation.

[5] To be clear, Fawcett's 'exponence' corresponds to the relation between an element of group structure and the word (and morphemes) that realise it. That is, it is a different term for the same relation as 'filling': realisation.

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As can be seen below, while Figure 10 does exemplify Fawcett's notion of componence, a form (clause) composed of functions, it does not exemplify the filling of clause functions by groups or the exponence of groups by words and morphemes. (The 'text' line is the data being analysed, not an analysis of the data at group or word level.)

Systemic Syntax Without Systems

Fawcett (2010: 165):

The last of the three theoretical categories recognised in "Some proposals" (along with 'unit' and 'class of unit') was element of structure. Like 'unit', this term was used in essentially the same sense as in "Categories". However, the concept plays a far stronger part in the theory as a whole than it does in "Categories" because of the mutual dependency, in the present framework, of the definitions of a class of unit and its elements of structure. In "Categories", in contrast, a class of unit is defined by its potential for "operation in the structure of the unit next above" (1961/76:64).

In two of its 'categories', then, "Some proposals" is similar to Halliday (1961/76). While the concept of 'class of unit' is broadly similar, the criteria for recognising the 'class' of a 'unit' are very different, and the concept of 'system' does not appear at this level of description at all. However, there are even greater differences between the 'scales' of "Categories" and the 'relationships' of "Some proposals", as the next section shows.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] As previously explained, this downplaying of difference is misleading, because the difference between Fawcett's notion of 'class of unit' and Halliday's notion is indeed significant. Halliday (1961) takes the view 'from above', distinguishing classes of unit according to the functions they realise, whereas Fawcett takes the view 'from below', distinguishing classes of unit according to the structures that realise them. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 50):

What is theoretically determined is the relation between structure and class on the one hand and unit on the other. Class, like structure, is linked to unit: a class is always a class of (members of) a given unit: and the class–structure relation is constant – a class is always defined with reference to the structure of the unit next above, and structure with reference to classes of the unit next below. A class is not a grouping of members of a given unit which are alike in their own structure. In other words, by reference to the rank scale, classes are derived “from above” (or “downwards”) and not “from below” (or “upwards”).

Moreover, as the units 'quantity group', 'quality group' and 'tempering cluster' demonstrate, Fawcett confuses classes of units with their functions.

[3] To be clear, if the concept of system does not "appear" at the level of syntax, then Fawcett's claim that his model is a systemic model of syntax is invalid.

Classes Of 'Cluster' And No Classes Of 'Word'

Fawcett (2010: 164):

Three classes of the new unit of the cluster were tentatively recognised in the 1974-6 edition: the genitive cluster (e.g., her boyfriend's)', the proper name cluster (e.g., Dr Ivy Idle) and the tempering cluster (e.g., much less in much less painful). By 1981 the 'tempering cluster' had been absorbed into the 'quantity-quality group', and later still the data that it covers became part of the evidence for the need to introduce the 'quantity group'. Further classes of 'cluster' are added in the current version of the grammar, as described in Part 2.

There was no discussion in "Some proposals" of the concept of 'class of word', because 'words' are treated there as items rather than as syntactic units (1974-6/81:67). (See Part 2 for a fuller justification for taking the position that the relationship of morphemes to a word is not the same as that between, let us say, groups and clauses.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, like the notions of 'quantity group' and quality group, the notion of a 'tempering cluster' mistakes a function of a cluster (tempering) for a class of a cluster.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'word' is used for two distinct abstractions: lexical item and grammatical rank scale unit. The word as lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features — just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the features [voiced, bilabial, stop]. The word as grammatical unit is (i) a constituent of groups/phrases and realises elements of their function structures, and (ii) composed of morphemes. It is the word as grammatical unit that is differentiated by (grammatical) class.

[3] Fawcett's justification for his position will be critically evaluated in the examination of Part 2.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relationship of morphemes to a grammatical word, and of groups to clauses is the same: constituency. It is this commonality that allows Halliday to model syntax and morphology as a rank scale in both theories, Scale and Category Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar. For example, for Scale and Category Grammar, Halliday (2002 [1961]: 51) explains:

Traditionally these terms have usually referred to “grammar above the word” (syntax) and “grammar below the word” (morphology); but this distinction has no theoretical status. It has a place in the description of certain languages, “inflexional” languages which tend to display one kind of grammatical relation above the word (“free” items predominating) and another below the word (“bound” items predominating). But it seems worthwhile making use of “syntax” and “morphology” in the theory, to refer to direction on the rank scale. “Syntax” is then the downward relation, “morphology” the upward one; and both go all the way. We can then say, simply, classes are syntactical and not morphological.

Later Changes (1981) To Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974): Verbal, Quality & Quantity Groups

Fawcett (2010: 164):

However, by the 1981 edition I had made several changes to the model. Firstly, I had strengthened my position on the supposed 'verbal group', writing that even for text analysis the elements of the supposed 'verbal group' "would in my view be best shown as clause elements" (Fawcett 1974-6/81:31) (See Fawcett (2000) and (forthcoming b) for the full set of reasons and Appendix C for a summary of them.) Secondly the 'adjectival' and 'adverbial' groups, which were already shown in the 1974-6 edition as sharing a common structure, were brought together as the 'quantity-quality group' (since they typically express the meaning of a 'quantity' of a 'quality'). And thirdly the 'prepend group' had been re-named the "prepositional group". Later still, as Part 2 shows, I realised that, in order to provide an adequate description of English and other languages, we need to recognise both a quality group and a quantity group. See Tucker (1998) for the fullest explanation of the quality group in English and Fawcett (in press) for an introduction to both classes of group.

 Blogger Comments:

[1] As will be seen in the examination of Appendix C, Fawcett's argument against the verbal group (pp333-6) centres on misunderstandings involving the Finite element and phrasal verbs.

[2] To be clear, the notion of 'quality group' and 'quantity group' confuses class (of group) with function (of group).

[3] As previously noted, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 20 years after the first edition of this work.

The Concepts Of Unit And Class Of Unit In Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 163-4):

"Some proposals" recognises a number of units (in precisely the same sense of "unit" as in "Categories"). These units are related to each other on a 'rank scale', and for English they are: clause, group and cluster. The unit 'cluster' is a new unit that is lower on the 'rank scale' than the group; see below for examples. (The concept of 'unit', which is mutually defining with that of the 'rank scale', is not used in the framework to be proposed in Part 2.)

"Some proposals" uses the concept of class of unit in a way that is loosely similar to its use in "Categories". It relates the concept of 'class of unit' to 'unit' essentially as in "Categories", except that the criteria for recognising a given class of unit are the elements of its internal structure, rather than its potential for operation in the unit above, as in "Categories". (For a full discussion of the criteria for recognising classes of unit, see Section 10.2.2 of Chapter 10.) On this criterion, "Some proposals" recognises only classes of groups and clusters (and not clauses or words). Thus it recognises that, at the 'rank' of clause rank in English, there is only one 'class' of clause, so that the concept of 'class of unit' is not applicable to this unit. At group rank "Some proposals" initially recognised four classes. These were the nominal group (e.g., she, Ivy and the man in black), the prepend group (e.g., in black), the adjectival group (e.g., very quick) and the adverbial group (e.g., very quickly). In the 1974-6 edition I further suggested (1974-6/81:31) that "in an introductory analysis it is probably helpful to make use of the traditional S&C concept of the 'verbal group'"(e.g., might have seen).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] This downplaying of difference is misleading, because the difference between Fawcett's notion of 'class of unit' and Halliday's notion is indeed significant. Halliday (1961) takes the view 'from above', distinguishing classes of unit according to the functions they realise, whereas Fawcett takes the view 'from below', distinguishing classes of unit according to the structures that realise them. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 50):

What is theoretically determined is the relation between structure and class on the one hand and unit on the other. Class, like structure, is linked to unit: a class is always a class of (members of) a given unit: and the class–structure relation is constant – a class is always defined with reference to the structure of the unit next above, and structure with reference to classes of the unit next below. A class is not a grouping of members of a given unit which are alike in their own structure. In other words, by reference to the rank scale, classes are derived “from above” (or “downwards”) and not “from below” (or “upwards”).

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) does not recognise classes of words: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions.

[4] To be clear, although not acknowledged, this is also the case in Halliday (1961).

The Other Types Of 'Form' In Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 163):

"Some proposals" was written as a short description of the syntax of English, and it concludes with a summary of the theory that the description presupposed. The structure of the paper therefore reflects the view that theory should grow out of description — or, more accurately, out of the attempt to apply the concepts of an earlier theory (here "Categories") in a description. In my view, this interleaving of theory and description is one of the more effective ways to improve one's theory — as well as through the use of corpora and, as suggested in Section 1.2 of Chapter 1, large scale computer implementations. (See also the discussion of the relationships between theory, description and application in Halliday & Fawcett 1987b:1f.).

We must begin by relating the model of syntax to the model of language as a whole. Within a model of the sort presented in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3, "Some proposals" sees syntax as one of three ways in which meanings are realised as forms — the other types of 'form' being items and intonation or punctuation (depending on the channel of discourse).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) presupposed Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] To be clear, a linguistic theory is a model of language, and a linguistic description is the application of a theory to a particular language. For example, Halliday's IFG (1985, 1994) presents a theory of language which is applied to a description of English. That is, theory precedes description, and the description of data tests the theory that is designed to account for the data.

[3] To be clear, computer implementations of a theory, large or small, are concerned with adapting a theory of language to the limitations of machines. This is distinct from modelling language as a system that has evolved in the human species.

[4] Reminder:

[5] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) locates some aspects of the content plane — syntax and items (words and morphemes) — and some aspects of the expression plane — intonation or punctuation — at the same level of symbolic abstraction: form.

The omissions in these characterisations of phonology (rhythm and articulation) and graphology (orthography) will be examined when Fawcett eventually discloses his current model. For the moment, it can be seen, from Figure 4, where system networks are limited to his level of meaning, that Fawcett does not model phonology and graphology as systems.

"My Theory Of Syntax"

Fawcett (2010: 162-3):

The following words provide the key to understanding my original motivation for developing a framework for representing structure — a framework that was very different from the 'multiple structure' model that Halliday was developing at about the same time:

the syntactic categories [...] are those [...] needed to state with the greatest economy the realisation rules that express the options in the semantics (Fawcett 1974:4-5). 

Over twenty-five years later, my theory of syntax and the consequent description of English syntax have both developed in various ways, but those words still express exactly what I wish to say on this matter. It is because the description of the functional structure is necessarily complemented, in my approach, by a description in terms of a functional semantics that the syntax can — and should — be less "extravagant" (Halliday 1994:xix) than it is in Halliday's IFG. Moreover, I have discovered in the intervening time that this general principle holds just as strongly for the version of the grammar that is used for the computer model of natural language generation as it does for the version used for text analysis. The clear implication of all of this work is that we cannot provide a complete description of a text without providing both an analysis of its functional syntax and an account of the semantic features that have been chosen in generating it. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a statement that only applies to Fawcett's own model (Figure 4), in which structure is misunderstood as an "instance" of realisation rules which are, in turn, misunderstood as the form that realises systems. Both of Halliday's theories model syntax as a compositional rank scale on the stratum of lexicogrammar. As will be seen, Fawcett rejects the theoretical value of a rank scale.

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, Fawcett's syntax is only "less extravagant" than Halliday's function structures because Fawcett exports the majority of Halliday's grammatical functions to his level of meaning. When these exported functions are counted in the description, Fawcett's "less extravagant" model of the clause involves at least seven lines of description (Figure 10), compared with Halliday's "more extravagant" three (theme, mood, transitivity).

[3] To be clear, this is a personal recount presented as if reasoned argumentation.

[4] To be clear, this is again a statement of Fawcett's model, not Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar. In Systemic Functional Grammar, there is no "functional syntax", and what Fawcett terms 'semantic features' are features of lexicogrammatical systems. In the absence of grammatical metaphor, lexicogrammatical features are congruent with (agree with) semantic features. It is grammatical metaphor that motivates the distinction between semantic and lexicogrammatical systems.

A Second Motivation For Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 162):

There was a second motivation, however. This was that my attempts to apply Halliday's categories in the analysis of text at the level of form had led me to modify his description in a number of ways — and so in due course to think about the consequences of these descriptive changes for the theory upon which the description rested.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, neither Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, nor his second, Systemic Functional Grammar, postulates a level of form. The fact that Fawcett attempted to apply Halliday's categories at "the level of form" demonstrates that Fawcett did not understand either of Halliday's theories, and that his modifications to Halliday's "descriptions"  — and their consequences — derive from his inability to understand them.

[2] To be clear, as Fawcett acknowledges (p161) his "Some Proposals" (1974) presented his set of revisions to the concepts of "Categories", an outline of Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after Halliday had already devised an early version of his second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar. Scale and Category Grammar is not the theory on which Systemic Functional Grammatical descriptions rested.

The Purpose Of Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 161-2):

The purpose of "Some proposals" was to present the set of revisions to the concepts of "Categories" that I considered at the time (1974) to be required, in order to constitute a 'systemic syntax' that would complement Halliday's revolutionary proposal that the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME should be regarded as choices between meanings (as described in Section 4.3 of Chapter 4). As Butler wrote in 1985:

Halliday's most recent proposals [...] make it clear that the functional component networks are to be regarded as semantic, but we are given very little idea of what the lexicogrammar [i.e., the level of form] might now consist of [my emphasis] (Butler 1985:94).

"Some proposals" was a first attempt to fill this gap, and it probably reached its widest readership through Butler's generally approving summaries of its contents — first in Butler (1979), and then in Butler (1985:94-102). He makes the key point when he states, "[Fawcett's] approach to the recognition of syntactic categories is dictated by his commitment to the centrality of semantics" (Butler 1985:94). In this approach, then, a large part of the description of a text should be in terms of the semantic features that have been chosen in generating it (e.g., in the way described in Section 7.8 of Chapter 7).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the stated purpose of Fawcett's "Some proposals" was to present a set of revisions to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, despite the fact that it had been replaced by a new theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] As Halliday (1985: xiv) explained, the notion of syntax is inconsistent with the assumptions and mode of inquiry of SFL Theory, for reasons previously cited on this blog.

[3] To be clear, this refers to Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar, not his first, Scale and Category Grammar. In the earliest form of Systemic Functional Grammar, the metafunctional systems of the clause were mapped onto the grammatical rank scale of form (see [4] below). This was soon replaced by the relocation of these systems to the stratum of lexicogrammar, largely to provide a systematic account of mismatches between meaning and wording (grammatical metaphor). Because SFG is a functional grammar, the grammar is modelled in terms of its functions, and the function of the grammar is to realise meaning. 

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Even in the earliest version of SFG, where the metafunctional systems were located on the stratum of semantics, Halliday was explicit about what constituted the lexicogrammar. For example, Halliday (1978: 128-9):

Fourth, we shall assume that each component of the semantic system specifies its own structures, as the ‘output, of the options in the network (so each act of choice contributes to the formation of the structure). It is the function of the lexicogrammatical stratum to map the structures one onto another so as to form a single integrated structure that represents all components simultaneously. With negligible exceptions, every operational instance of a lexicogrammatical construct in the adult language — anything that realises text — is structured as the expression of all four components. In other words, any instance of language in use ‘means, in these various ways, and shows that it does so in its grammar.

Fifth, we shall assume that the lexicogrammatical system is organised by rank (as opposed to by immediate constituent structure); each rank is the locus of structural configurations, the place where structures from the different components are mapped on to each other. The ‘rank scale' for the lexicogrammar of English is:

 [5] This misleading, because in all of Halliday's theorising, lexicogrammar is the level of wording, not form; form is a level in Fawcett's model only. For example, in the earliest model of SFG, Halliday (1978: 128) writes:

We shall start with the assumption that the semantic system is one of three strata, chat constitute the linguistic system:

Semantic (the meaning)
Lexicogrammatical (the wording, i.e. syntax, morphology and lexis)
Phonological (the sound)

[6] As demonstrated above, there was no gap to fill. In both of Halliday's theories, grammatical form is modelled as a rank scale. The reason why Fawcett argues against a rank scale, is that it is the most obvious aspect of Halliday's theory that makes his own model redundant.

[7] To be clear, as the critical examinations on this blog demonstrate, contrary to the priorities of Systemic Functional Theory, Fawcett's "commitment to the centrality of semantics" involves prioritising form over function and structure over system.

[8] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, in Systemic Functional Grammar, the metafunctional systems of the clause are located on the lexicogrammatical stratum (rather than semantics), whereas in the Cardiff Grammar they are located at the level of meaning (rather than form). That is, what the Cardiff Grammar describes in terms of semantic features, Systemic Functional Grammar describes in terms of lexicogrammatical features.

Misrepresenting Critical Reactions To Fawcett (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 161):

It is ironic, therefore, that I should have been admonished in the mid-1970s by two senior systemic linguists at the time (though not by Halliday himself) for the changes that I suggested in "Some proposals" . The irony lies in the fact that my proposals were for a syntax whose representations were far more like those of the Scale and Category model than the proposals for representing structure that Halliday himself developed during the very late 1960s and the early 1970s. As we saw in Chapter 7, it was during this period that he shifted his representations of structure away from the model presented in "Categories" (in which the major clause elements were 'Subject', 'Predicator', 'Complement' and 'Adjunct') to the multiple structures used in IFG and widely elsewhere, in which an analysis in terms of such elements plays little or no role. The changes made by Halliday were far greater than the changes that I was suggesting in "Some proposals", and yet the position of my critics at the time seemed to be that I should not be suggesting any changes to "Categories" at all! The fact is that, even though Halliday's changes were already well under way by the mid-1970s, the key role of "Categories" as the founding document of the new theory seems to have placed it beyond criticism for many. On the whole, then, I think that my critics' response shows that the admittedly provocative use of the term "iconoclastic" in the subtitle of "Some proposals" was justified. 

However,"Some proposals" was really not as revolutionary as its critics felt it to be. With the benefit of a further twenty-five years of hindsight, I see now that, far from being too critical of "Categories", "Some proposals" did not go as far as it should in proposing changes, as we shall see in due course.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. By the mid-1970s, Halliday had replaced his Scale and Category Grammar with a new theory: Systemic Functional Grammar. In proposing a syntax at that time, Fawcett was inconsistent with both theories. In proposing changes to the first theory, Fawcett was ignoring the fact that that theory had been superseded.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. In the new theory, Systemic Functional Grammar, the elements Subject, Predicator, Complement and Adjunct (± Finite) constitute the interpersonal structure of the clause.

[3] To be clear, the changes made by Halliday were so great that they resulted in a new theory. Fawcett's suggestions for changes to "Categories" were suggestions for changes to the superseded theory.

[4] This is misleading. Scale and Category Grammar was the earlier theory from which Halliday developed his new theory. An old theory (e.g. Newton's Universal Gravitation) is not the founding document of the theory that replaces it (e.g. Einstein's General Relativity).

[5] To be clear, Fawcett's use of 'iconoclastic' couches support for a theory in terms of belief, rather than, say, in terms of explanatory potential, self-consistency, reasoned argumentation and evidence.

[6] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. Here Fawcett misrepresents his critics as deeming his proposals as revolutionary, despite the fact that, in advocating the old theory, his proposals were reactionary.