Summary Of The Differences Between "Categories" And IFG2 [2]

Fawcett (2010: 101-2):

We have seen that the influence of "Categories" on IFG does not at first appear to be very strong, in terms of the overt use of its concepts. But we have also seen that, if we read the descriptive chapters of IFG with "Categories" in mind, we find that the two concepts of 'element of structure' and 'class of unit' are present throughout the book (even though the latter is hardly ever referred to overtly). And the concept of 'units on a rank scale' (around which the "Categories" framework is structured) is also present, though it seems to be kept in the background except when it is brought in for the two purposes of (1) explaining the limitations on 'rank shift', and (2) providing the criterion by which the classes of group recognised in IFG are set up. Interestingly, however, Halliday injects a note of caution about the concept of the 'rank scale' (IFG p. 12), and we shall examine his words at this point more closely in the context of other such indications in the full discussions of 'rank' in Section 11.1 of Chapter 11 and of 'embedding' in Sections 11.8.3 to 11.8.5.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "Categories" (Halliday 1961) and IFG (Halliday 1994) present two different theories:  the superseded Scale & Category Grammar and the current Systemic Functional Grammar, respectively.

[2] To be clear, as previously pointed out, the IFG chapters on groups and phrases and group and phrase complexes are both organised on the basis of 'class of unit'.

[3] To be clear, the rank scale of units forms the basis of the book's organisation, and in terms of theory, each rank unit on the scale provides the entry condition to system networks of functions.

[4] As previously demonstrated, this is misleading because it is the opposite of what is true. See Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On The Concept Of Rank Scale.

[5] It will be seen in the examination of Chapter 11 that Fawcett confuses embedding with nesting (internal bracketing).

Summary Of The Differences Between "Categories" And IFG2 [1]

Fawcett (2010: 101):

From the viewpoint of comparing the theoretical framework that underlies IFG with that of other works in SFL, IFG is disappointing. Despite the twenty-two pages of its "Introduction" and another thirty-three pages of two further introductory chapters that are largely about 'constituency', IFG does not provide even a brief summary of the theoretical framework that underlies the description of English given in the book.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Fawcett concludes that IFG (Halliday 1994) is disappointing on two grounds:

1. his comparison of the number of index entries in IFG for terms in a different theory: Category & Scale Grammar (Halliday 1961); and
2. the absence of a theoretical summary in the work which explicitly states in its introduction (1994: xxvii):

This is not an account of systemic theory. 

Confusing Formal Constituent With Functional Element In Misrepresenting Halliday (1994)

Fawcett (2010: 101):

To summarise; while the evidence of the index is that only one of the "Categories" concepts, i.e., 'element', is referred to throughout the description of English in IFG, the fact is that, if we supplement these references by all of the many other times when terms such as "constituent" and "function" are used to express essentially the same concept, we find that the concept of 'element of structure' occurs frequently throughout the book. And we saw in Section 6.2.1 that 'class of unit' is presupposed throughout the book, even though it is barely mentioned. We can therefore at least say that the two concepts that will be foregrounded in Part 2 as the central categories of syntax also play a central role in IFG. The only caveat — and it is an important one — is that we shall use different criteria for identifying the class of a unit from Halliday's — so that the concept itself is significantly different. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett has used a word count, based on the index of Halliday (1994), to determine the salience of theoretical concepts in Halliday's superseded 1961 theory ("Categories") in Halliday's theory that replaced it, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] This is misleading. In SFL theory, constituency is modelled as a rank scale of form, whereas 'element' refers to a function in a structure.  For example, a nominal group is a constituent of a clause, whereas a Sayer is an element of the function structure of a verbal clause.

[3] As previously demonstrated, this is misleading, because it is not true. For example, the notion of 'class of unit' provides the underlying organisation of chapters on both groups and phrases and group and phrase complexes. Moreover it is misleading in another way, since Halliday (1994: 12) explicitly states, with regard to the notion of grammatical form in general:

One of the aims of this initial chapter has been to introduce the notion of constituency, so that it becomes familiar as a general principle of organisation in language and can be taken for granted throughout the subsequent discussion.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On The Notion Of Delicacy

Fawcett (2010: 100):

As for the concept of 'delicacy', it is not mentioned at all in IFG. However, it is illustrated at various points in the book in one of its two main "Categories" senses, i.e., in terms of the 'primary', 'secondary' and even 'tertiary' structures that are shown for the 'thematic' and 'interpersonal' structures that Halliday recognises in the clause. (For a discussion of the relevance of 'delicacy' to a modern theory of SF syntax, see Section 10.3.4 of Chapter 10.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, delicacy is the scale from the most general features in a system network to the most specific features. That is, delicacy is a dimension of paradigmatic systems, not a dimension of syntagmatic structure.

[2] To be clear, "Categories" (Halliday 1961) presents Halliday's early (superseded) theory, known as Scale & Category Grammar. This is a distinct theory from Halliday's later (current) theory known as Systemic Functional Grammar.

[3] To be clear, here — and in Section 10.3.4 — Fawcett mistakes delicacy, which, in SFL theory, is an elaborating relation in paradigmatic systems, with composition, which is an extending relation in syntagmatic structures. The structures that Fawcett discusses are Finite and Subject as components of the Mood element of structure, and textual, interpersonal and topical Themes as components of the Theme element of structure.

As can be seen from the systems of Theme and Mood (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 106, 162), below, these "secondary" structural elements do not feature as more delicate systemic choices:

Misrepresenting The Theoretical Importance Of Realisation In Halliday (1994)

Fawcett (2010: 100):

The term "realisation" (formerly "exponence") is not prominent in IFG either (with half a dozen index entries), but this is not surprising in a book about the outputs from the grammar — i.e., the instances at the level of form — rather than about how they are to be generated from the system networks. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, realisation is the fundamental relation of semiotic systems, namely: the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction, such as between

• signifié and signifiant,
• content and expression,
• function and form,
• meaning and wording,
• paradigmatic system and syntagmatic structure.

[2] To be clear, the discussions of realisation in IFG are significant.  For example, Halliday (1994: 15) identifies realisation as the relation between strata:

The grammar, in this broader sense of lexicogrammar, is the level of 'wording' in a language.  The wording is expressed, or REALISED, in the form of sound or writing; hence the two levels of phonology and graphology serve as alternative modes of expression. We usually the metaphor of vertical space and say that phonology and graphology are the strata 'below' the grammar.  At the same time, the wording REALISES pattern of another level 'higher than' itself — but still within the system of language: the stratum of SEMANTICS.

Halliday (1994: 38) identifies realisation as the relation between function and form:

First position in the clause is not what defines the Theme; it is the means whereby the function of Theme is realised in the grammar of English.

In outlining the model of grammatical metaphor, Halliday (1994: 342) identifies realisation as the relation between semantics and lexicogrammar:

In other words, for any given semantic configuration, there will be some realisation in the lexicogrammar — some wording — that can be considered CONGRUENT; there may be also various others that are in some respect 'transferred', or METAPHORICAL.

And Halliday (1994: 343) identifies realisation as the relation between paradigmatic system and syntagmatic structure:

(i) selection of process type: material, mental, relational, with their various intermediate and secondary types; realised as

(ii) configuration of transitivity functions: Actor, Goal, Senser, Manner, etc. representing the process, its participants, and any circumstantial elements.

[3] As previously explained, in Fawcett's model, 'instance at the level of form' corresponds to grammatical structure.  That is, Fawcett's model confuses the relation between system and instance (instantiation) with the relation between paradigmatic system and syntagmatic structure (realisation).

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On The Concept Of Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 100):

Interestingly, Halliday seems to be sounding a note of caution about the concept of the 'rank scale' when he writes that, while "the guiding principle [when one is describing a text] is that of exhaustiveness at each rank, [...] 

it is an integral feature of this same guiding principle that there is indeterminacy in its application. [...] The issue is whether, in a comprehensive interpretation of the system, it is worth maintaining the global generalisation, because of its explanatory power, even though it imposes local complications at certain places in the description [my emphasis]" (Halliday 1994:12). 

Blogger Comments:

Here Fawcett misleads through strategic omission. This can be demonstrated by restoring the text — in green below — that Fawcett chooses to omit. Halliday (1994: 12):

There is a clearly defined hierarchy in writing, with just a few ranks, or layers of structure, in it: sentence, some sort of sub-sentence, word and letter. The guiding principle is that of exhaustiveness at each rank: a word consists of a whole number of letters, a sub-sentence of a whole number of words, a sentence of a whole number of sub-sentences. At the same time, there is room for manœuvre: in other words, it is an integral feature of this same guiding principle that there is indeterminacy in its application; and we have met this already — for example, is there one layer of sub-sentences or are there two? Such issues will be resolved empirically; but not by single instances of jousting between examples and counter-examples. The issue is whether, in a comprehensive interpretation of the system, it is worth maintaining the global generalisation, because of its explanatory power, even though it imposes local complications at certain places in the description.

[1] As can be seen above, Halliday is not "sounding a note of caution about the concept of a rank scale".  The point he makes is that, even under the constraints imposed by the principle of exhaustiveness at each rank, there is still a degree of indeterminacy (for which, see [3] below).

[2] As can be seen above, Halliday is not concerned with describing a text, but with elaborating on his theoretical approach.

[3] As can be seen above, the complication Halliday refers to is exemplified by the indeterminacy in the number of ranks between word and sub-sentence (clause).  This is the complication of treating phrase and group as the same rank — despite the fact that a phrase includes a group — because both realise functions at clause rank.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Rank And Rank Shift

Fawcett (2010: 100):

Interestingly, the concepts of 'rank' and 'rank shift' (alias 'embedding') have only a relatively small role to play in IFG. This is in large measure because the book focusses so strongly on the clause that groups and their internal structures are not fully explored — and the fact is that all classes of group frequently contain other groups and clauses within them, as Part 2 and the outline description of English in Appendix B both clearly illustrate. However, in IFG the theory itself is also responsible for the reduced role of 'rank shift', because it treats many relationships between units that would in other approaches be analysed as cases of embedding as 'hypotaxis', i.e., as 'dependency without embedding'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, IFG (Halliday 1994) devotes four chapters (196 pages) to the rank of clause and two chapters (52 pages) to the rank of group.  Rank shift is discussed with respect to 

• the Qualifier of nominal groups (pp187-8), 
• the Numerative of nominal groups (pp195-6),
• the Postmodifier of adverbial groups (pp210-1),
• embedded expansions (pp242-50),
• embedded locutions and ideas (pp263-4), and
• facts (pp265-9).

[2] This is misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true.  The two chapters (52 pages) devoted to groups (and phrases) outline

• the experiential and logical structure of nominal groups (pp180-91 and pp191-6),
• the experiential and logical structure of verbal groups (pp196-8 and pp198-207),
• the logical structure of adverbial groups (pp210-1),
• the logical structure of conjunction groups (p211),
• the logical structure of preposition groups (p212),
• the experiential and interpersonal structure of prepositional phrases (pp212-3),
• the logical structure of nominal group complexes (pp275-6),
• the logical structure of adverbial group / prepositional phrase complexes (pp277-8),
• the logical structure of verbal group complexes (pp278-91).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  Only nominal and adverbial groups include embedded elements (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 329, 424, 492); see also [4].

[4] It will be seen in later discussions that Fawcett mistakes nesting for embedding.

[5] This is true, and, moreover, as will be seen, it arises from grammatical reasoning, and results in increased explanatory power of the model.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On 'Classes Of Group'

Fawcett (2010: 99):

So far we have looked for the "basic concepts" in the opening chapters of IFG — and without much success. … However, there are two alternative approaches to locating the "basic concepts' of a book which turn out to yield more interesting results. These are to count the entries for each major concept in the book's index, and to read the text with a constant eye to the concepts that underlie it. 

Let us take as out starting point the index entries for the four 'categories'. The concept of 'unit' has just six entries, all being in the first twenty-five pages of this 434-page book. As for the concept of 'class', the word-form "class" also occurs frequently in the early pages (pp. 25-30). However, it is usually being used in the context of the highly generalised discussion of the differences between 'class-oriented' and 'function-oriented' grammars that we noted above. The word "class" in fact only occurs once with the technical meaning of 'class of unit' (on p. 214), and even then the reference is to 'word classes', rather than to the more controversial issue of 'classes of group'. Indeed, the concept of 'class of group' does not appear explicitly at all. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To remind the reader, Fawcett is here looking for the basic concepts of Halliday's previous theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), in a book (IFG ) that exemplifies the deployment of Halliday's later theory, Systemic Functional Grammar (1994), and that explicitly states (1994: xxvii) it is not an account of the theory.

[2] This is misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true.  For example, Halliday (1994: 180; 274):

In this chapter we shall examine the structure of the three main classes of group: nominal group, verbal group and adverbial group; along with a brief reference to preposition and conjunction groups. …

Groups and phrases form complexes the same way that clauses do, by parataxis or hypotaxis. Only elements having the same function can be linked in this way. Typically this will mean members of the same class: verbal group with verbal group, nominal group with nominal group and so on.

To be clear, as Halliday (1994: 27-8; 24) explains in Chapter 2:

With minimal bracketing (ranked constituent analysis) … the notion of constituency is being made to carry less of the burden of interpretation. …

… if we are using minimal bracketing some other concept is being brought in in order to explain the grammatical structure. This is where the concept of FUNCTION is introduced.

Accordingly, in SFL theory, formal constituency is modelled as a rank scale, and each unit — clause, group/phrase etc. — serves as the entry condition to a system of functions.  This is why Halliday (1994) takes the units of clause and group/phrase as the point of entry in his demonstration of grammatical functions.

On The Absence Of A Summary Statement Of Theoretical Concepts In IFG

Fawcett (2010: 98-9):

Thus, the twenty-two-page "Introduction" and the further two introductory chapters of IFG introduce many important and interesting ideas. And yet, even though much of the discussion is about 'constituency', there is no summary statement of the concepts that are required for the description of English in IFG that is in any way comparable to the earlier statement in "Categories".

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, as Halliday (1994: xxvii, xxvi) explicitly states in the Introduction:

This is not an account of systemic theory… No attempt is made to 'teach' the categories.

On the other hand, "Categories" (Halliday 1961) is an outline of a theory, though a different one: Scale & Category Grammar.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Formal Constituency And Function Structures

Fawcett (2010: 98):

But what happens in practice, as we read on through IFG? Do "other, more abstract types of relationship" take over from 'constituency'? The fact is that they do not. The different structures that Halliday proposes for each strand of meaning are all represented in the same way, i.e., by the use of 'box diagrams'. It is true that in some cases the significant elements (such as Theme' and 'New') tend to be found at the beginning and end of their structures, but there are too many exceptions to the generalisations that he proposes for it to be worth setting up different types of structure for different types of meaning. Halliday's solution to the problem of finding an adequate notation is to use box diagrams for representing all of the various types of structure that he claims to find in the clause. But box diagrams, as Halliday himself makes clear (IFG p. 36), are just one of several ways of representing the concept of 'constituency'. (For a critical examination of the role of the concept of 'constituency' in a theory of syntax, see Section 11.1 of Chapter 11.) The picture twith which these chapters of IFG leave the reader with is one of a reluctant recognition that, after all, the 'flat tree' type of constituency provides the best way of representing structure. And, as we shall see in Chapter 7, there is a compelling reason for Halliday to represent each of the different lines of structure in the same way.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is the exact opposite of what is true.  The metafunctional structures that Halliday proposes are more abstract than formal constituency because function is more abstract than form — form (Token) realises function (Value).

[2] To be clear, here Fawcett confuses the notion of structure (Value) with the diagrammatic representation of structure (Token), and presents the confusion as evidence that metafunctional structures are not more abstract than formal constituency.  See [1] above.

[3] Here Fawcett (bizarrely!) presents the sequencing of functions in structures as Halliday's theoretical motivation for proposing different types of metafunctional structure, rather than the nature of metafunctions themselves.  This is another instance of the red herring fallacy, a fallacy of relevance.

[4] This is misleading.  What Halliday (1994: 36) actually writes is:

[5] To be clear, Systemic Functional Grammar is not a theory of syntax. It is Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar that is a theory of syntax.

[6] To be clear, the wording 'reluctant recognition' is deeply misleading here, because it falsely implies that Halliday does not deploy a 'flat' model of constituency. As Halliday (1995 [1993]: 273) makes clear:

'Rank' is constituency based on function, and hence 'flat,' with minimal layering;

On the other hand, Fawcett here again confuses formal constituency with functional structure, and further confounds this by confusing such theoretical dimensions with their diagrammatic representation.

[7] To be clear, the review of Chapter 7 will identify the knot of confusions on which Fawcett's claim is based.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Constituency, Metafunction And Structure

Fawcett (2010: 98):

From the viewpoint of our purposes in this book, it is a matter of regret that Halliday did not use a greater proportion of the "Introduction" and the two introductory chapters to provide a guide to the theoretical framework that underlies the description of English in the rest of the book. Indeed, a number of readers of the book — and indeed reviewers of the book — have expressed the view that the general discussions of 'constituency' are not what the reader needs at that stage of the book (if at all).

Surprisingly, Halliday himself drastically downgrades the importance of 'constituency' at the end of Chapter 1 when he suggests that, "as one explores language more deeply, constituency gradually slips into the background, and explanations come more and more to involve other, more abstract kinds of relationship" (IFG p. 16). (Readers will only understand what Halliday is hinting at here if they are familiar with his idea that the meanings of the different metafunctions' are realised in different types of structure — a view that we shall explore in Section 7.1.1 of the next chapter.) 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As Halliday (1994: xxvii, xxvi) explicitly states in the Introduction:

This is not an account of systemic theory… No attempt is made to 'teach' the categories.

[2] To be clear, mere opinion — even if sourced — is not reasoned argument based on evidence.  More importantly, the reason Halliday begins with the notion of constituency is in order to to guide the reader gently from the more familiar and less abstract to the less familiar and more abstract.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, this is not at all surprising to any reader who understands what Halliday has written in the chapter (which is Chapter 2, not Chapter 1).  As Halliday (1994: 27-8) explains:

With minimal bracketing (ranked constituency analysis), only those items are identified that have some recognisable function in the structure of the larger unit. This means that the notion of constituency is being made to carry less of the burden of interpretation. The concept of constituent structure is much weaker in a functional grammar than a formal one.

[4] The wordings 'only understand' and 'hinting at' here are very misleading indeed, and pettily so. To be clear, Halliday introduces the notion of metafunction and the different types of structure immediately after the discussion of grammatical constituency — in the very same chapter.

On There Typically Being Several More Than Three Strands Of Meaning In The Clause

Fawcett (2010: 97-8):

We shall now return to our search for a summary of the underlying concepts of IFG. The last two sections of IFG's Chapter 2 are directly useful to the reader, as they introduce the second major concept — after the concept of 'class of unit' — that underlies the structure of the book: the 'multiple structure' that Halliday's model claims that each clause has. Here he introduces the concept that there are three structures that show "three strands of meaning" in the clause (IFG p. 34) — though in fact there are typically several more than three, as we shall see in Section 7.2 of the next chapter.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents IFG. Halliday (1994: xxvii, xxvi) explicitly states in the Introduction:

This is not an account of systemic theory… No attempt is made to 'teach' the categories.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents a major concept Fawcett's model, 'class of unit', as a major concept of Halliday's model.  To be clear, Systemic Functional Grammar prioritises function over form.

[3] To be clear, the three functional configurations of the clause are metafunctional: textual, interpersonal and experiential.  It will be seen in the review of Chapter 7 that Fawcett (p114):

• misrepresents INFORMATION as a system of the clause,
• misrepresents logico-semantic relations as a system of the clause, and
• misrepresents the interpersonal structure of the clause as two distinct structures, with the difference between them misunderstood as a difference in delicacy.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On 'Class Of Unit'

Fawcett (2010: 96-7):

However, Halliday makes a claim in this section that runs counter to the view of syntax to be taken here, and we shall address it at this point. The claim is that grammars which use "maximal bracketing" (e.g., most grammars in the tradition that uses 're-write rules' such as "S -> NP VP") tend also to use 'class' labels (such as "noun phrase") in their tree diagrams, while grammars that use 'minimal bracketing' (i.e., most grammars in the functional tradition) tend to use 'functional' labels (such as "Subject"). At first this may seem to be a neat matching of two pairs of concepts, but in fact it does not correspond to the way in which descriptions of structure are made in a modern SF grammar — even in Halliday's own version. The reason is that in all SF grammars — including IFG — the concept of 'class of unit' is as central as the concept of 'element of structure'.

Indeed, the way in which the book itself is structured demonstrates this point — even though the concept of 'class of unit' is hardly mentioned outside the discussion in Chapter 2. Thus all of Part I of IFG is about the clause (a 'class of unit'), and each of the various chapters of Part II is defined in relation to the clause ("above", "below", "beside", "around" and even "beyond" the clause). And the sections of Chapter 6, which is about groups and phrases, are all identified in terms of the 'class of unit' that is being described. Thus, even though the concept of 'class of unit' is itself barely mentioned, the whole book is, in a sense, structured around it. As we shall see in Part 2, 'class of unit' is one of the two core categories, with 'element of structure', that are required in a modern theory of SF syntax.

Thus, while Halliday is right in pointing out that the formal, 're-write rule' tradition in linguistics typically ignores the concept of 'element' in favour of 'class', he goes too far in suggesting that 'functional grammars' necessarily foreground 'element' (or "function" in the sense of 'functional element') over 'class of unit'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, what Halliday (1994: 27) actually writes is:

Maximal bracketing is associated with class labelling
Minimal bracketing is associated with functional labelling

[2] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true.  Halliday's version of Halliday's theory uses functional labelling (e.g Actor, Process, Goal) for the structures at each rank (e.g clause).

[3] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true.  Because Systemic Functional Grammar is a functional theory, elements of function structure are more "central" to the theory than classes of form.

[4] To be clear, IFG is organised in terms of the rank scale because each rank provides the entry condition to the paradigmatic system of functions that are realised syntagmatically as function structures.

[5] To be clear, 'clause' is a unit, as distinct from a class of unit, such as 'adverbial clause'.

[6] As we shall see in the examination of Part 2, Fawcett confuses constituency (e.g nominal group) with element of function structure (e.g. Subject).

[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Chapter 2 of IFG (Halliday 1994: 17-36) says nothing whatsoever about the "formal 're-write rule' tradition in linguistics".

[8] This is misleading.  What Halliday (1994: 27-8) actually writes is:

In using maximal bracketing (immediate constituency analysis), the grammarian is trying to explain as much as possible by reference to the notion of constituency; this means putting a bracket where each successive construction can be shown to occur, whether or not that item is functional in the context of the larger structure. With minimal bracketing (ranked constituency analysis), only those items are identified that have some recognisable function in the structure of the larger unit. This means that the notion of constituency is being made to carry less of the burden of interpretation. The concept of constituent structure is much weaker in a functional grammar than a formal one.