'Form Potential' As A Separate Component

Fawcett (2010: 69):

When the 'form potential' component of a systemic functional grammar is shown as the separate component that it undoubtedly is (as in Figure 4), this helps to make it clear that the system networks are a different component from the realisation rules — and one that is at a higher level.

 Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fawcett indulges in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando):

the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

That is, Fawcett's argument is if P then P, where

P: 'form potential' is shown clearly as a separate component from system networks.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's logical fallacy here might be interpreted as a variant of proof by repeated assertion.  Moreover, as Halliday (1994: 89) points out: 'you only say you are certain when you are not'.

[3] As previously explained, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) misconstrues the same level of symbolic abstraction, grammatical features, as different levels of abstraction, depending on whether they figure in system networks or in realisation rules.  Moreover, Fawcett's model misconstrues the relation between realisation rules and what realises them — i.e. realisation — as the instantiation relation between potential and instance.