Fawcett Adjusting His Model To Accomodate His Misunderstanding Of Halliday

 Fawcett (2010: 125):

However, the fact is that there is no description in the literature of the Sydney Grammar of the way in which the conflation of the various structures would actually be achieved. Let us therefore now try to fill this gap. 

Clearly, the first requirement is that the architecture of the model described in Figure 4 of Chapter 3 should be considerably extended. It would need to generate a new type of output that integrated the various structures, and for this it would require a new component that would transform the second 'multiple structure' output into the third 'integrated' one. Thus the relatively simple model in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 would have to be modified in the way shown in Figure 8, i.e., to give it two 'levels' within 'form'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue. To be clear, this has been described, it is merely the case that Fawcett does not understand that the three metafunctional clause structures are integrated by the syntagm of group/phrase units that realises them.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Fawcett's model as the architecture of SFL theory. Here Fawcett is simply modifying his own model (Figure 4) to accommodate his own misunderstanding of SFL Theory, as a way of arguing against Halliday's model.