Misrepresenting The Relation Between Theory And The Work That Contributes To It

Fawcett (2010: 77-8):

We can take the view of language presented in "Systemic theory" as broadly representative of three closely related bodies of work: (1) the work in the mid-1960s by Halliday, Henrici, Huddleston and Hudson that was to develop into the set of concepts presented in "Systemic Theory"; (2) the formalisation and computer implementation of these concepts by Mann, Matthiessen and others, as first described informally in Mann & Matthiessen (1983/85) and later more fully in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and (less formally) in Matthiessen (1995); and (3) — with some differences — the set of concepts used in the Cardiff Grammar, as first described in Fawcett (1973/81 and 1980) and defined most clearly in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993). It is the first two bodies of work that "Systemic theory" reflects most closely. 

Blogger Comments:

Here Fawcett confuses theory ('the view of language') with work carried out in the developmental history of the theory.  Halliday (1993) sets out the theory itself in Sections 2-4, and lists works involved in the development of Systemic theory in Section 5.

More importantly, Fawcett misrepresents the relation between Systemic theory and such work, in as much as his identification construes the theory as decoded by reference to these works, including his own. This can be demonstrated by the following agnate clauses:

systemic theory	broadly	represents	three closely related bodies of work
Identified Token	Manner: degree	Process: relational	Identifier Value

systemic theory	most closely	reflects	the first two bodies of work
Identified Token	Manner: degree	Process: relational	Identifier Value

On the one hand, this is invalid, since it construes the theory as less abstract than the work that expresses it; and on the other hand, it is misleading, because it identifies the theory in terms of work, like Fawcett's, which may or may not be consistent with the theory.

In terms of the theoretical architecture of SFL linguistics, theory (context) is realised by the language that expresses it, with each instance of such language (individual text) realising an instance of theory.

systemic theory	is realised	by language
instances of systemic theory	are realised	by instances of language
Identified Value	Process: relational	Identifier Token

(That is, Systemic theory is encoded by reference to the language that expresses it.)

Moreover, it can be seen that, if different texts realise different instances of theory, the question arises as to whether such instances of theory are valid or not.  And that is the question that this blog asks with regard to the instance of Systemic theory realised in Fawcett (2000, 2010).

∞

It will be seen, in later posts, that this misrepresentation is a strategic necessity for Fawcett's argument in this chapter.