Misunderstanding Realisation And Instantiation

Fawcett (2010: 74):

The new general concept that was needed to provide for these 'interstratal' relationships was realisation… . A second new basic concept was instantiation — and it is the fact that we find both a 'potential' and an 'instance' at each of the two levels within the lexicogrammar that demonstrates the presence, within the grammar, of the two levels of 'meaning' and 'form'. 

Blogger Comments:

There are several misunderstandings here.

1. In terms of theoretical architecture, the relation between potential and instance, instantiation, does not "demonstrate the presence of" meaning and form, since the relation between the levels of meaning and form is realisation (symbolic abstraction).
2. In terms of epistemology, it is not the "presence" of meaning and form that can be demonstrated, but the explanatory power of proposing such a distinction in the model.
3. In terms of theoretical consistency, by construing realisation rules as potential, and structure as instance, Fawcett's level of form confuses instantiation with the realisation relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes.