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.