Fawcett's Argument Against Realisation Rules In System Networks

Fawcett (2010: 66-7):

Let us look at a simple example, taken from the little grammar in Appendix B. Consider the realisation rule for the feature [near] in Figure 2 of Appendix B. The rule states that, if either [singular] or [mass] is also chosen, the realisation is that the deictic determiner (dd) will be expounded by the item this, but that if the feature [plural] is co-selected it will be expounded by these. 

In this particular example, the conditional features happen to occur in a sub-network that is 'higher' on the page than the one in which the feature [near] occurs. This might lead you to think that this makes it possible for the realisation rule for the feature [near] to fire as soon as it is chosen, on the grounds that the grammar already 'knows' whether the conditional features have or have not been chosen. However, the features that function as 'conditions' could equally well occur in a part of the network to be traversed later, so that we cannot proceed on this assumption.* 

* Neither approach would be acceptable in the Sydney Grammar, however, because there is a strong insistence on the concept that, in principle, all systems are entered simultaneously. If this is the case, the grammar would not know whether a possible conditional feature had or had not been co-selected at the time when the feature [near] was chosen. (The computer implementation of the Cardiff Grammar currently operates on the assumption that the 'higher' system networks are traversed before the lower ones, but they could be reformulated if it ever became possible to apply the computational concept of 'parallel processing' to system networks.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix A:

To be clear, this network is not consistent with the principles of SFL theory.  For example, the network

• confuses Thing with Deictic + Thing in a nominal group,
• misunderstands delicacy, in that it presents examples of mass nouns as more delicate features of the feature [mass], and examples of count nouns as more delicate features of the feature [count], and
• presents grammatical classes (mass, count) of nouns as semantic features.

That is, Fawcett's argument that realisation rules cannot be located in system networks only applies to misunderstandings of system networks, such as this devised by Fawcett himself.  As such, Fawcett's argument  here is merely another deployment of the Straw Man fallacy.

A system network, featuring realisation statements, that is consistent with the principles of SFL, from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 366), is presented below for comparison:



[2] As previously explained, Fawcett misunderstands system networks as flowcharts, and it is this misunderstanding that leads him to be concerned with the temporal order of feature selection.  To be clear, system networks are networks of relations.  It is the instantiation process that unfolds in time, during logogenesis, not traversals of system networks.