Fawcett's Distinction Of 'Theoretical-Generative' Vs 'Text-Descriptive' Aspects Of A SF Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 78):

Interestingly, we shall find that, in what we shall term the 'theoretical-generative' aspect of a SF theory of syntax, there are fewer important differences between the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars than there are in the 'text-descriptive' aspect. By the end of this chapter we shall see how it is that there can be a fairly close similarity between the two models with respect to one aspect of the theory, while there is not in the other.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As will be seen, Fawcett's distinction between the 'theoretical-generative' aspect of theory and the 'text-descriptive' aspect of theory confuses two distinct dimensions:

• the distinction between theory and description, and
• the distinction between potential and instance.

	theory	description
linguist as grammarian	language as potential	a language as potential
linguist as discourse analyst	language as instance	a language as instance

That is, Fawcett's notion of a 'text-descriptive aspect of theory' conflates the focus on instances of language ('text') with the practice of describing particular languages ('descriptive').

On the distinction between theory and description, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 55) write:

While a description is an account of the system of a particular language, a theory is an account of language in general. So we have descriptions of various languages such as English, Akan and Nahuatl; but we have a theory of human language in general. This introduction to (systemic) functional grammar is both an introduction to the general theory of grammar and to the description of the grammar of a particular language, English. The theory includes the ‘architecture’ of grammar – the dimensions that define the overall semiotic space of lexicogrammar, the relationships that inhere in these dimensions – and its relationship to other sub-systems of language – to semantics and to phonology (or graphology). Thus, according to systemic functional theory, lexicogrammar is diversified into a metafunctional spectrum, extended in delicacy from grammar to lexis, and ordered into a series of ranked units.

On the different foci of the linguist as grammarian on potential and the linguist as discourse analyst on instance, Halliday (2008: 84-5, 126) writes:

I shall refer from time to time to "the grammarian" and "the discourse analyst", which makes it sound as though these have to be different people; but it is obvious, I hope, that the same person may take on both rôles, and probably most of us do, unless we adopt a rigidly formalist approach. … the power of the text resides in the system, because it is the system that determines the meaning and the significance of the ongoing choices made by writers and speakers. It is a mistake to restrict our angle of vision to just one perspective or the other, or to treat the discourse analyst and grammarian as if they inhabited two different realms of intellectual being.

[2] This is misleading.  Only Fawcett's model is a theory of syntax.  Halliday (1994: xiv) explains why he rejects the term:

[3] It will be seen, by the end of this chapter, that Fawcett actually uses his confused distinction to make comparisons between Halliday's pre-Systemic theory, Scale and Category Grammar (1961), and Halliday's exposition of Systemic theory (1993).