Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) On System

Fawcett (2010: 82):

Let us begin by looking for the four concepts from "Categories" of 'unit','class', 'structure' and 'system'. We shall find, as we would expect in a theory that has been re-named "systemic (functional) theory", that system is strongly fore-grounded, so let us begin with this concept. In Halliday's words (1993:4505): "the system takes priority," and he defines a system as a set of "options in meaning potential [my emphasis]". He then goes on to show how, because an option in one system can serve as an entry condition to another, large numbers of such systems combine to form a system network. … Thus the first two "basic concepts" of "Systemic Theory' are 'system' and 'system network', where they model the "meaning potential" of a language.

One might be tempted to say that the concept of 'system' has been expanded from what it was in "Categories" rather than changed — if it were not for the vital fact that the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on now model choices between meanings, as Halliday's use of the term "meaning potential" indicates.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading in a way that serves Fawcett's argument.  Systemic Theory is not a renaming of another theory.  It is a different theory.

[2] Here Fawcett continues his confusion of language as meaning potential with meaning as the semantic stratum of language.  To be clear, systems on the stratum of phonology represent the meaning potential of language, but they do not represent "choices between meanings" (semantics).  That is, Fawcett confuses instantiation (potential–instance) with the stratification of content (meaning–wording).

[3] This is very misleading. By 1993, the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, and THEME modelled choices between wordings (lexicogrammar); see [2].