Fawcett's Problems With Halliday's IFG Chapter On Constituency

Fawcett (2010: 96):

Chapter 1 is entitled "Constituency". It is here, one might think, that we should find a set of statements about the type of theory of syntax that will be used in the descriptive chapters of the book. But what we are given instead is a highly generalised introduction to the concept of 'constituency', this being illustrated from the English and Chinese writing systems and from English intonation. Halliday then uses these to illustrate the concept of a 'rank scale of units'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Systemic Functional Grammar is not a theory of syntax; it is Fawcett's model that is a theory of syntax.  In the introduction, Halliday (1994: xiv) explains:

[2] Here Fawcett complains that Halliday's chapter entitled 'constituency' is concerned with constituency rather than a theory of syntax.  At the end of the chapter, where Halliday (1994: 12-6) explains the significance of constituency, he explains why he chose to begin his account with the notion of constituency, and in doing so, discusses such theoretical concepts as:

• mode of expression (p12)
• realisation (p15)
• strata (p15)
• the stratal distinction between lexicogrammar and semantics (p15)
• the theoretical priority given to paradigmatic systems over syntagmatic structures (p15)
• the notion that functional configurations are assigned to structural units (p16).

[3] To be clear, the reason why a rank scale of units is discussed in a chapter entitled 'constituency' is that the rank scale is the means of modelling constituency in Systemic Functional Grammar.