On Halliday's And Fawcett's Versions Of Halliday's Theory Sharing The Same General Framework

Fawcett (2010: 91):

There would be widespread agreement among systemic functional linguists — and especially among those who are interested in the theoretical-generative strand of work in SFL — that "Systemic theory" provides an excellent (though necessarily highly compressed) summary of the essential concepts of Halliday's SF grammar. Indeed, the model described in Chapter 3 and summarised in Figure 4 (in Section 3.2 of that chapter) can be seen as an alternative statement of broadly the same set of concepts — subject to the qualifications expressed above and in Section 4.7 of Chapter 4. 

From the viewpoint of the topic of this book, this difference is not crucial, since we are focussing here on the theory of syntax, i.e., the theory of both the potential and the instances at the level of form. In Section 4.6 of Chapter 4 we established that the difference between the levels of the system networks in the Sydney and the Cardiff versions of SFL, while significant in some cases, did not invalidate the view that the two share the same general framework, and this view is supported by the broad similarity between the 'realisation operations' in the two frameworks that we have noted. This means that we are indeed in a position to make a direct comparison between the theories of syntax presented in each of the two theories. 

However, from this last perspective "Systemic theory" has one great weakness. This is that it does not provide a specification of the "basic concepts" of the part of the theory whose task it is to account for the status of the instances at the level of form. It is these concepts with which IFG is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) is not only inconsistent with Halliday's theory, it is invalidated by its own internal inconsistencies, including the confusion of axial realisation with instantiation.

[2] To be clear, a systemic-functional theory, by definition, gives priority to system and function over syntagm and form.  In Halliday's theory, grammatical form is modelled as the rank scale, with each rank as the entry condition for grammatical functions.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's potential at the level of form includes functions in realisation rules, and his instances at the level of form are the realisation of these functions in structures.

[4] This misleading.  The view that Fawcett's theorising is of the same general framework, SFL, is not at issue.  What is at issue is if Fawcett's version of Halliday's theory is itself valid, both in terms of SFL theory and in terms of internal consistency.

[5] To be clear, in Halliday's version of his own theory, realisation statements are located in system networks at the levels (strata) of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology.  In Fawcett's version of Halliday's theory, realisation operations are located only at one of two levels, the level of form, which is, incongruously, a lower level of abstraction than the systemic features to which they apply.  Moreover, Fawcett's realisation operations are incongruously held to specify instances, rather than realisations.

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  Halliday's theory is not a theory of syntax.  Halliday (1985/1994: xiv):

[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  To be clear, 'instances at the level of form' do not feature in Halliday's theory, and so their theoretical status in Halliday's model does not need to be accounted for. However, since Fawcett's 'instances of form' translates to 'structures' in Halliday's theory, Halliday (1993) identifies syntagmatic structure as the realisation of paradigmatic system, with the basic concept of realisation statements in systems specifying structural realisations.  Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272):

The system has one further component, namely the 'realisation statement' that accompanies each option. This specifies the contribution made by that option to the structural configuration; it may be read as a proposition about the structural constraints associated with the option in question.