On The Surprising Disquieting Difference Between IFG And Systemic Theory

Fawcett (2010: 95):

In this chapter, like the last, the task is to summarise the "basic concepts" presented in a major recent work by Halliday. This time the work is IFG (using the 1994 edition). Surprisingly, perhaps, we shall find it quite difficult to establish the theoretical concepts that underlie the description of English structure given in IFG. And then, when we have identified them, we shall find a disquieting difference between these "basic concepts" and those that we found in "Systemic theory". This in turn raises questions about the relationships between IFG and "Systemic theory" and between IFG and "Categories", and so about how far the Sydney Grammar can be said to have a theory of syntax. 

We saw in the last chapter that "Systemic theory" does not include in its list of "basic concepts" three of the four most central concepts from "Categories", i.e., 'unit', 'class (of unit)' and 'element (of structure)'. Moreover, it either omits or re-works each of the three 'scales'. Do the concepts of "Categories" fare any better in IFG ?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, given the preceding, it is not at all surprising that Fawcett also finds this task difficult.

[2] This is misleading. As will be seen in the course of this chapter review, the "disquieting differences" that Fawcett finds arise only from his own misunderstandings of Halliday's theory.

[3] To be clear, as Fawcett has previously acknowledged, Systemic Functional Grammar (IFG) and Scale and Category Grammar ("Categories") are different theories.  There is no reason why a newer theory (e.g. Quantum Mechanics) should be consistent with the theory it replaced (e.g. Newtonian Mechanics).  The differences in the newer theory are motivated by deficiencies in the superseded theory.  In terms of logical fallacies, the reference to the superseded theory constitutes the fallacy of reference known as a red herring.

[4] To be clear, SFL Theory ("the Sydney Grammar") does not "have" a theory of syntax.  It is Fawcett who has a theory of syntax.  A theory of syntax prioritises structure and form, whereas SFL theory prioritises system and function.  SFL theory models grammatical form as a rank scale, with each rank as an entry condition for a system of functions.