Fawcett's Approach To Realisation Rules As "The Only One That Is Workable In A Large-Scale SF Grammar"

Fawcett (2010: 68):

This second approach [i.e. Fawcett's realisation rules as form potential] is in fact the only one that is workable in a large-scale SF grammar. The reason is simple: it is that the number of realisation rules that require conditions grows as the grammar is extended to cover the less frequent linguistic phenomena. Thus it often happens that an action in building a part of the structure is dependent on the co-selection of one or more other features. 

As the coverage of the grammar grows fuller, then, it has to encompass more and more exceptions to the general rule, and the place of the general concept of 'conditions on realisation rules' becomes correspondingly more important. It is interesting to study the nature of the realisation rules presented in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) from this viewpoint.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there may be many viable approaches to realisation rules, but Fawcett's is not one of them.  This is because, as previously demonstrated, his approach (Figure 4) confuses realisation with instantiation, and misconstrues one level of symbolic abstraction — grammatical features (in systems and rules) — as two distinct levels (meaning and form).

[2] This misunderstands the SFL notion of system.  A well-formed system, in principle, covers all linguistic phenomena of the domain stipulated by its entry condition, across all frequencies — or more precisely, since a system models potential, across all probabilities, since feature frequencies in texts are instances of feature probabilities in the system.

[3] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's argument in this regard is based on one of his own system networks (Figure 2, Appendix 1), which is inconsistent both with SFL theory, misconstruing 'deixis' as a system of 'thing', and with the principles of a system network, misconstruing lexical items such as 'student' as grammatical features.  That is, Fawcett has merely demonstrated his own inability to devise system networks and to locate realisation statements in them at their point of application.

[4] Yes.  It is.

Summary Of The Argument For Realisation Rules As A Separate Component

Fawcett (2010: 68):

To summarise so far: the insistence that realisation rules must not contain conditional features so that they can be simple enough to be written in on the system network makes the additional 'wiring' in the network quite complex, and the greatly preferable alternative is to place all of the realisation rules together in a separate component — i.e., the component that specifies the 'form potential' — as shown in Figure 4 and demonstrated in Figure 2 of Appendix A.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, whether realisation rules are included in system networks, or listed separately, are just two ways of representing the same linguistic complexity.  As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's argument does not determine which representation is preferable, since it is based on a network of his own (Figure 2 of Appendix A) which is not consistent with the principles of a system network.

[2]  This a non-sequitur.  To be clear, representing realisation rules separately from system networks does not entail theorising them as separate component in the model (Figure 4).

More importantly, locating realisation rules as a component of form potential is inconsistent with the dimensions of Fawcett's own model.  Firstly, it misconstrues features and the rules that apply to them as different levels of symbolic abstraction, meaning and form.  And secondly, it misconstrues the realisation relation between the paradigmatic axis (realisation rules) and syntagmatic axis (structure) as instantiation (potential to instance).

On The Value Of Conditional Features In Realisation Rules

Fawcett (2010: 68):

This example of the alternative approaches to a relatively simple part of the grammar demonstrates clearly the value of the use of conditional features in realisation rules. But it also underlines the value of respecting the distinction between the use of the system network notation for representing systemic relationships of choice, and the mis-use of them (as it seems to me to be) to represent conditions on realisation. It is clearly preferable in the case we are considering here, as it is in any model, to have different notations for the two different concepts. This is why, in Appendix B, system networks are used to model choices in meaning (as in Figure 1) and tables are used to model the realisation rules (as in Figure 2). Indeed, this follows the pattern established in Halliday's early grammars (e.g., 1969/81 and 1970/76b).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the example Fawcett uses violates the principles of genuine system networks, and as a consequence, arguments made using it are thus examples of the 'straw man' logical fallacy, and do not apply to system networks.

[2] To be clear, the point at issue is how the conditions on the activation of realisation statements are to be represented.  In SFL theory, the conditions are represented by the wiring of networks and the location of features in the network.  In Fawcett's model (Figure 4), realisation rules are incongruently located at a different (lower) level of symbolic abstraction (form) than the features (meaning) to which they apply.

[3] To be clear, this is the opposite of what is true.  Fawcett's example does not underline the value of this distinction, since it actually demonstrates that it is even possible to incorporate realisation rules into his own misunderstanding of a system network; see previous post.

[4] These are bare assertions, unsupported by evidence or argument.

[5] As previously noted, in this matter, Fawcett misrepresents a presentational limitation in early publications as a theoretical distinction.

Rewiring Fawcett's Network To Include Realisation Rules

Fawcett (2010: 67-8):

There is an alternative solution, and we shall explore it here briefly in order to demonstrate that it is not a desirable answer to the question of how best to model conditions on realisations. It is to model the conditions by the use of the conventions of a system network. Continuing with the example from Appendix B, we would need to extend the existing relatively simple network in Figure 1 in the following ways. We would need to add (1) a right-opening 'and' bracket after each of [mass], [singular] and [plural], and (2) a right-opening 'or' bracket after [near]. Then (3) a line would need to be drawn from each of the three 'and' brackets associated with [mass] and [singular] to a new left-opening 'or' bracket, with (4) a further line running from the latter to a new left opening 'and' bracket. This would also be entered by a line from the right-opening 'or' bracket by [near] (5). Then (6) a dummy feature (standing for the meaning 'near-and-singular-or-mass') would need to be inserted to the right of the left-opening 'and' bracket. This would be a case of what is termed a 'gate', i.e., a feature that is in the system network but which is not part of a system.* Next, we would need to draw a line from the right-opening 'and' bracket by [plural] to a second new left-facing 'and' bracket (7), and (8) this would also be entered by a line from the second branch of the right-opening 'or' bracket' by the feature [near]. Then (9) a second 'dummy' feature would be placed to the right of this left-opening 'and' bracket, standing for the meaning 'near-and-plural'. As a result of the addition of all this new 'wiring' it would be possible to insert two realisation rules which would not have conditions attached to them, i.e., one that stated that the feature 'near-and-singular-or-mass' would be realised by the item this, and one that said that ' near-and-plural' is realised by these.

* Clearly, this concept is an anomaly in a systemic grammar; see Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993:126) for a discussion of the concept of 'gate', which is widely used in the computer implementation of Halliday's version of SFG in the Penman Project to minimise the use of conditions on realisation rules (e.g., Mann & Matthiessen 1983/85). However, its theoretical status requires further clarification, discussion and justification before it is given the status in the theory that is accorded to the concept of a system.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here again Fawcett uses his own network, which, as previously demonstrated, violates the principles of the system network, in order to argue against the inclusion of realisation statements in genuine system networks.  However, what Fawcett actually demonstrates is that it is even possible to include realisation rules in such a network — at least, for those that specify grammatical items rather than structural realisations.

[2] To be clear, in rewiring Fawcett's network, there is no need for "a right-opening 'and' bracket" after the features [singular] or [plural], in this example, because only one wire extends from each of these features.