Fawcett On The Interplay Of Realisation And Instantiation In A Systemic Functional Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 41-2):

Let us return to Figure 4. Its significance is that it brings together, in a single diagram, two key pairs of concepts that correspond, broadly speaking, to two pairs of Saussurean concepts: meaning and form, and potential and instance. In a systemic functional grammar, meaning and form are related by the general relationship of realisation but, as we have seen, this relationship does not operate directly. Instead, it operates via the concept of instantiation. Instantiation occurs first at the level of 'meaning, when a traversal of the system network generates a selection expression of features, i.e. what Halliday has called an 'act of meaning' (Halliday 1993:4505). Then the realisation rules that specify the 'form potential' come into play and act upon the selection expression to realise it, and the final output from the grammar is the generation of a second 'instance', i.e., one unit that adds a layer of structure to the 'tree' representation of a text-sentence that is being built. 

Taken together, these concepts model the basic components of a systemic functional grammar, so that Figure 4 represents, at a fairly high level of abstraction, the main components of the model of language within which the alternative current theories of syntax in SFL can be set.

Blogger Comments:

This continues the discussion of Figure 4:

[1] This is misleading.  In a systemic functional grammar, stratal realisation doesn't "operate" and it doesn't do so "via the concept of instantiation"; this is Fawcett's misunderstanding only.  In a systemic functional grammar, realisation is an identifying relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction.  The notion of realisation "operating" derives from Fawcett's misunderstanding of the dimensions of SFL theory as interacting components, and the orientation of Fawcett's model to text generation by computer, rather than to human language itself.

Also in a systemic functional grammar, stratal realisation and instantiation are distinct dimensions, and, in terms of the theoretical architecture, form a matrix like the following:

[2] This is misleading.  This claim has not been supported by reasoned argument, merely asserted — and done so on the basis of theoretical misunderstandings.

[3] The terms 'first' and 'then' are misleading.  In a systemic functional grammar, there is no sequencing relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction.  The identifying relation is intensive, not circumstantial (temporal).  This again derives from Fawcett's misunderstanding of the dimensions of SFL theory as interacting components, and the orientation of Fawcett's model to text generation by computer, rather than to human language itself.

[4] This is misleading.  In a systemic functional grammar, realisation statements are located at the same level of symbolic abstraction as the network of features to be realised, not at a lower level.  Problematically, in Fawcett's model, a system network is realised by realisation statements.

[5] This is misleading.  In a systemic functional grammar, realisation statements apply to potential, not instances; the process of instantiation includes the activation of realisation statements.  Problematically, in Fawcett's model, a structure is an instance of realisation statements.  Problematically, in Fawcett's model, realisation statements specify an instance, rather than a realisation.  Problematically, in Fawcett's model, the realisation relation between paradigmatic axis (system) and the syntagmatic axis (structure) is confused with the instantiation relation between potential and instance.

[6] Given the theoretical (and logical) inconsistencies outlined above, it is very misleading to claim that Figure 4 genuinely represents a systemic functional grammatical model of language.