Fawcett's Claim That All Of The Representations Throughout IFG Have No Status In The Theory

Fawcett (2010: 138):

Can it really be the case, you may be asking, that all of the representations throughout IFG and all the representations in all of the derived works have no status in the theory? Perhaps, you might think, the cumulative effect of the conflation of several individual elements would be to provide a conflation of structures? The answer is that while this is theoretically possible, in practice it does not do so. This is because the supposed 'functions' of 'Rheme', 'Given', 'Residue' and others do not correspond to single 'functions' and they do not play any role in generative systemic functional grammar, for the reasons given in recent sections of this chapter. And nor, as I have suggested above, has anyone yet made any viable proposal as to how such a model could be made to work. Conflation is, by all current SF definitions, an operation that applies only to individual, coterminous elements.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the notion of 'structure conflation' does not figure in SFL Theory. It arises only as Fawcett's misunderstanding of SFL Theory, particularly his confusion of formal constituency (the rank scale that his model omits) — with function structure (clause rank).

[2] This is misleading, since each of these is a functional element:

• Rheme is the clause element that realises textual meaning that is not Theme;
• Given is the information unit element that realises textual meaning that is not New; and
• Residue is the clause element that realises interpersonal meaning that is not Mood.

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett means that these elements are not coterminous with elements of other metafunctional structures. As previously explained, there is no theoretical requirement that they should be coterminous, since this assumption only arises from Fawcett's notion and interpretation of 'structure conflation'.

[4] This is true.

Misrepresenting Clause Structure

Fawcett (2010: 138):

We can now see that, in terms of the metaphor of a text as a 'rope' of interwoven strands, the 'rope' often consists of just one strand — though it also often has two or three very short multiple 'strands of meaning' which extend over one or two elements. Matthiessen and Bateman's diagram in Figure 9 exemplifies this point in terms of the Sydney Grammar, and Figure 10 of Section 7.8 does so in terms of a Cardiff Grammar representation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, the rope metaphor refers to the structure of the clause, not the text.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a major clause always has three strands of metafunctional meaning. However, just in terms of Fawcett's own argument, if a clause often has more than one strand of meaning, then the model has to accommodate the fact.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Matthiessen and Bateman's diagram (Figure 9) represents a clause as three strands of meaning, those of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY:

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The Cardiff Grammar analysis (Figure 10) represents a clause as six strands of meaning (semantics) — in addition to that assigned to syntax.

Fawcett's Understanding Of Given And New Information

Fawcett (2010: 138n):

20. As stated e[a]rlier, "Given" is essentially 'that which is not marked as New' — but only so long as it precedes the element marked as "New". It is in fact only possible for the text analyst to make a guess at which portion of the text is 'Given' and which is 'New' by drawing on other evidence than intonation, such as the meaning of pronouns, so that we cannot automatically treat every element that is not marked as "New" as "Given". However, what comes after the New in the same information unit is indeed always 'Given'. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Given and New are elements (of information group structure). Elements that are "marked as" Given or New are elements of other structures, such as those of the metafunctional structures of the clause, such as Theme, comment Adjunct or Token. However, given that Fawcett has been shown to confuse functional element (e.g. Token) with formal constituent (e.g. nominal group), this can also be read as the constituent that is marked as New.

[2] To be clear, Given is the element that is not New, regardless of whether it precedes or follows the New.

[3] To be clear, the "meaning of pronouns" provides no criteria for distinguishing Given and New. An information unit is realised by a tone group whose tonic prominence identifies the grammatical element that is the focus of New information, and whose tonic foot marks where the New element ends (so that what follows within the unit is Given). What is true is that the beginning of the New element in an information unit is rarely made explicit phonologically — e.g. by rhythm — and consequently other factors, such as preceding co-text and the inherent 'givenness' of some items, are used to distinguish preceding Given from following New. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 116). 

[4] To be clear, this is both true and proof that Fawcett is well aware that New and Given are elements of the information unit, rather than the clause, despite presenting them as elements of the clause in his arguments.

Fawcett's Claim That 'The Representations In IFG Do Not Have A Solid Basis In The Theory'

Fawcett (2010: 137-8, 138n):

Where, then, does this leave the representations in IFG? 

The clear implication of these facts is that the representations in IFG do not have the solid basis in the theory that they surely should, if they are to be used as the standard method of describing texts in systemic functional terms. In other words, if generative systemic functional grammars do not build structures like this, IFG-style representations give a misleading picture of the systemic functional view of the structure of language.

As a specific example, we may say that it is positively misleading to label the portion of the clause that is not a Theme as the "Rheme", because the label "Rheme" simply means 'that which is not Theme' — or, more fully, 'the elements corresponding to this block are not one of the Themes'. Similarly, "Residue" simply means 'those elements that are not the Subject or the Finite' (or any other marker of interpersonal meaning). And essentially the same position holds for "Given".

To place the names of such supposed 'functions' in the long boxes in diagrams such as Figure 7 that would otherwise be empty is to sustain — on what we now see to be theoretically inadequate grounds — the initially attractive metaphor that each clause has several different structures, and so several different strands of meaning that run (virtually) all the way through (virtually) all of them.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's argument is that the lack of 'structure conflation' in SFL Theory undermines the theoretical validity of there being three lines of structure in the clause. As explained in previous posts, 'structure conflation' is neither a feature of the theory, nor a requirement of it, since all three clause structures are integrated in their realisation as a syntagm of units at group/phrase rank. This theoretical option is not available in Fawcett's model, however, since he also argues against the theoretical value of a rank scale.

[2] The term 'misleading' is significant here. Fawcett has twice previously primed the reader to expect impropriety by referring to a diagram of Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) as 'remarkably honest' (p131), and congratulating those authors 'for resisting the temptation to make their computer output more like the IFG representations than they really are' (p137).

[3] Here Fawcett correctly defines Rheme, Residue and Given as negatives, but simultaneously claims that it is misleading use them in this way.

[4] Here Fawcett misrepresents the elements of the Residue as not being markers of interpersonal meaning. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 143n) make clear, both the Mood and Residue elements realise the interpersonal meaning of the clause as proposition or proposal:

The combination of Mood plus Residue embody the proposition or proposal of the clause (with the Mood element as the key to the distinction between the two); but, as we shall see below, there are certain interpersonal elements of the clause that do not belong to either the Mood element or the Residue: the Vocative, and comment and conjunctive Adjuncts. These relate to, but are not part of the proposition/ proposal enacted by the clause.

[5] Here again Fawcett confuses a structural element with the method of labelling it. The function 'not Theme', for example, is an element of clause structure whether it is identified by the label 'Rheme' or by the absence of a label.

The Lack Of Discussion On The 'Structure Conflation' Model

Fawcett (2010: 137):

In other words, the fact is that the work of all of those who have worked on building generative versions of SFL — including Halliday himself — has been done in the 'element conflation' model rather than in the 'structure conflation' model. Indeed, there is no discussion in the 'theoretical-generative' strand of work in SFL as to how the 'structure conflation' model of language might work, and nor is there any discussion (other than that in Section 7.4.1 of this chapter) of what might be involved if it was to be attempted. 

Where, then, does this leave the representations in IFG?

Blogger Comments:

[1] This true. There is no discussion of the 'structure conflation' model in SFL publications (other than Fawcett's) because 'structure conflation' does not figure in SFL Theory. As the numerous preceding posts have demonstrated, the notion only arises through Fawcett's own misunderstandings of SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's argument against the 'structure conflation' model is an argument against his own misunderstanding of SFL Theory. This makes it a logically fallacious Straw Man argument. Consequently, any problems with the representations of clause structure in IFG remain unidentified by Fawcett.

The Problem Of Conflating Non-Coterminous Elements

Fawcett (2010: 136-7, 137n):

Consider again the nature of the representations in Figure 7, which is a typical IFG-style analysis. The main problem with it is that so few 'functions' in one strand are coterminous with 'functions' in another strand. What, precisely, would the rule be like that 'conflated' all four of the Finite, the Predicator, the Process and the Goal with the Rheme? How would it be formulated in such a way that it could be generalised across many cases? The answer is that we do not know — and I for one do not think that it would be worth spending a lot of time in exploring this route, since we know that there is already in existence a simpler and more insightful alternative.¹⁹

19 It would be quite a simple matter, of course, to add to a computer implementation such as Matthiessen and Bateman's a small program that inserted the label "Rheme" in any box in the line of thematic meaning that was not already labelled, and to do the same for "Given" and "Residue". But this would be simply a cosmetic adjustment to make the output appear even more like that in a typical IFG representation, rather than the positive conflation of elements, such as happens in the 'element conflation' model. Matthiessen and Bateman are to be congratulated for resisting the temptation to make their computer output more like the IFG representations than they really are (e.g., as illustrated in Figure 9).

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

[1] Fawcett's assumption here, that each element of each function structure must be conflated with an element of every other function structure, derives from his mistaken notion of 'structure conflation'; see previous posts.

[2] To be clear, the model that Fawcett appraises as 'a simpler and more insightful alternative' is his own.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, the structural representations in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and in Halliday (1994) are functionally equivalent. In the former, 'not Theme' (etc.) is represented iconically by the absence of a label, whereas in the latter, 'not Theme' (etc.) is represented by a label: 'Rheme' (etc.). Moreover, the presence or absence of a label is irrelevant to the conflation of elements, since it is the elements that are conflated, not their labels.

[4] Here Fawcett again raises the issue of intellectual integrity. By positively judging Matthiessen & Bateman in this instance, he implicitly raises doubt on the issue with respect to other instances, thereby reinforcing his previous negative judgement (p135):

it seems clear that that Matthiessen and Bateman's only purpose in generating the Mood elements is to generate a second line of interpersonal structure, and so to make available a visual representation that looks a little more like an IFG analysis. In other words, the generation of the 'Mood' element is simply a cosmetic exercise.

Fawcett's Argument Against The 'Structure Conflation' Model

Fawcett (2010: 136):

Note that the structure that is generated in Matthiessen and Batemen's [sic] generator is indeed a single integrated structure. Indeed, none of the grammars referred to in this section generate first a set of different structures (as is implied by representations such as those in Figure 7 of Section 7.2) and then conflate them. As the decriptions [sic] in all of the publications from Halliday (1969/91) to Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) and Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) show, it is a single structure that the grammar builds — and not a multiple one. 

If this is so — and there can be no doubt that it is — any grammarian who wishes to claim that the 'structure conflation' model has a theoretical status (rather than some other value) has a number of problems to solve.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. As Fawcett's Figure 9 demonstrates, Matthiessen & Bateman, like Halliday, provide three distinct clause structures, each differentiated from the others by metafunction: theme, mood and transitivity.

As previously explained, the three different function structures of the clause are integrated in the group rank syntagm that realises all three of them. (Fawcett will later argue against the theoretical value of a rank scale.)

[2] To be clear, 'structure conflation' is not a feature of SFL Theory. The notion is Fawcett's only, and arises from his misunderstandings of SFL Theory, as previously explained. That is, Fawcett is merely arguing against his own theoretical misunderstanding (a logically fallacious Straw Man).

[3] As previously noted, Figure 7 is Fawcett's misrepresentation of an SFL analysis in which he misconstrues information as a system of the clause, and the Scope (Mrs Skinner) of the Process as its Goal:

Misrepresenting The Structural Representation Of Matthiessen & Bateman

Fawcett (2010: 136, 136n):

Thus, while the representation of the structure of a clause in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991:109) may look roughly like the representations of clauses in IFG in terms of the number of boxes and in its use of some of the same labels as in an IFG representation, the structures that it generates are in reality more like the representations in the Cardiff Grammar (e.g., the example that we shall meet in Figure 10 in Section 7.8). In other words, the two have in common that (1) the only type of conflation that they have is 'element conflation', and (2) they both leave empty the quite sizeable boxes where an IFG analysis would write in labels such as "Rheme" and "Residue".¹⁸ 

18. The same principle would apply to "Given", if Matthiessen and Bateman's generator generated intonation too (as the Cardiff generator does). This is because, like "Rheme" and "Residue", "Given" is essentially 'that which is not New'. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the Matthiessen & Bateman representation (Figure 9) with the Cardiff Grammar representation (Figure 10).

As can be seen, the two figures represent very different analyses. For example, as well as the different function labels, Figure 10 divides grammatical functions into semantics and syntax, and mistakes information for a system of the clause.

[2] To be clear, what the two representations have in common is a principle of SFL Theory (element conflation) and the non-labelling of negatively-defined elements, namely: 'not Theme' (Rheme) and 'not Mood' (Residue). 

Fawcett's Argument That Rheme, Residue And Given "Do Not Contribute In Any Way To The Functional Structure Of The Clause"

Fawcett (2010: 135-6):

Let me summarise the stages of the argument that I have presented up to this point. We have established that the theoretical-generative model of a systemic functional grammar is always one of 'element conflation' and never one of 'structure conflation'. In other words, the 'mapping' between lines of analysis is performed on individual pairs and trios of 'functions' or 'elements', which from then on function as a single element of the clause. I would therefore say that those systemic functional grammars which suggest that the representation of a clause should include 'functions' such as 'Residue', 'Rheme' and 'Given' are in fact introducing what we might term 'pseudo-elements', i.e., chunks of text that do not contribute in any way to the functional structure of the clause. Their chief effect is to give the misleading impression that there is a 'structure' of roughly the length of a clause that corresponds to each of the strands of meaning. In other words, the only type of conflation that occurs in such a grammar — as it generates its single, 'flat-tree' structures — is the conflation of single, coterminous elements.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. The fact that conflation involves only elements, and not structures, is not established by Fawcett's argument, because it is a principle of SFL Theory. The notion of 'structure conflation' is merely Fawcett's misunderstanding of SFL Theory, as demonstrated in previous posts.

[2] This is a serious misunderstanding of the conflation of functions. The conflation of functions, such as Theme, Subject and Actor does not entail that all three "function as a single element of the clause". The conflation of functions just means that all three are realised by the same nominal group, as happens in the case of such selections as [unmarked THEME, operative VOICE, declarative MOOD, material PROCESS TYPE]. Each of the three elements is a distinct function, each defined by its relations to other elements in its particular structure.

[3] To be clear, this is an invalid conclusion argued from a false premiss. The false premiss is that conflated elements "function as a single element of the clause"; see [2]. The argument is invalid, because, regardless of the truth of the premisses, the conclusion is not logically entailed by them. That is, the fact that one element is not conflated with another does not mean that such elements serve no function in their structural configuration. Function of an element in one metafunctional structure is not dependent on its being conflated with another element in a different metafunctional structure. As previously noted, a structure is the relation between elements, such as:

• the relation between Theme and Rheme in clause structure;
• the relation between Mood and Residue in clause structure;
• the relation between New and Given in information unit structure.

[4] This continues Fawcett's confusion between function structures and formal constituency. The 'flatness' here refers to formal constituency as modelled by the rank scale: ranked constituents (minimal bracketing), rather than immediate constituents (maximal bracketing). As Halliday (1995 [1993]: 273) makes clear:

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

It will be seen later that, while Fawcett argues for what he calls a 'flat tree structure', he simultaneously argues against the inclusion of a rank scale in SFL Theory.

The "Cosmetic Exercise" Of Matthiessen and Bateman

Fawcett (2010: 135):

To summarise: it seems clear that that Matthiessen and Bateman's only purpose in generating the Mood elements is to generate a second line of interpersonal structure, and so to make available a visual representation that looks a little more like an IFG analysis. In other words, the generation of the 'Mood' element is simply a cosmetic exercise. Essentially, then, the Nigel generator that Matthiessen and Bateman describe here is one that generates single structures, just as Halliday's earlier models do (e.g., Halliday (1969/81). In other words, their generator conflates 'functions to generate multiple elements, as shown above, but it does not generate multiple structures. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The reason why Matthiessen and Bateman generated Mood elements is because the Mood element is a structural function of the clause, according to the theory they used.

[2] This is misleading, because, in Fawcett's own terms, it is untrue. The text generator of Matthiessen and Bateman produces Subject and Finite as components of the Mood element, which for Fawcett, constitutes "two lines of structure".

[3] To be clear, the conflation of functions does not generate "multiple elements". For example, the conflation of Theme, Subject and Actor does not generate a "multiple element". Each of these is an element of a different structure, a different configuration of relations, and so the notion of a "multiple element" of structure is nonsensical. What is true, in terms of SFL Theory, is that conflated elements are realised by the same unit at the rank below, such as a nominal group, as previously explained.

[4] This is misleading, because it it is untrue. The text generator of Matthiessen and Bateman produces each of the metafunctional structures of the clause: namely, those of theme, mood and transitivity.

Fawcett's Claim That The Finite (Clause) Should Be Conflated With The Event (Verbal Group)

Fawcett (2010: 134-5, 135n):

The reason why it is important to generate the Subject and Finite as direct elements of the clause (rather than the 'Mood' clement') is that it is the Subject and the Finite on which further work must be done. This further work will  generate (1) the nominal group the new system to fill the Theme/Subject/Actor and (2) the item is to expound the Finite/Process.¹⁶ Interestingly, however, Matthiessen and Bateman do not explain why — or even how — these are generated as "subcomponents' of 'Mood'. (However it is done, the same principle presumably applies to the division of the "Moodtag" into its two elements.) 

16. Strictly speaking, in the Sydney Grammar it is the element 'Event' within the 'verbal group' (the unit that fills the clause element 'Predicator') with which the 'Finite' should be conflated, and not the 'Process', as an example with auxiliary verbs such as the new system may be going to be more reliable than the old one demonstrates. See Fawcett (2000 and forthcoming b) for a full critique of Halliday's approach to the 'verbal group' and Appendix C for a summary. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the one hand, the term 'direct' is a red herring here, since there is no distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect' elements of clause structure in SFL theory. The elements Subject and Finite are no less 'direct' for being components of the Mood element.

On the other hand, Fawcett's use of computerised text generation to argue about theoretical issues is also a red herring, since adjustments of the theory in response to the limitations of computers are irrelevant to the theory as a model of human language.

[2] To be clear, the reason why Matthiessen and Bateman generate Subject and Finite as components of the Mood element is because they are applying SFL theory to computerised text generation, and according to the theory, this is a structural realisation of the systemic feature 'indicative'.

[3] To be clear, the Predicator is realised by all elements of the verbal group except the Finite. In Fawcett's example, the Predicator is realised by the elements Auxiliary₁ ^ Auxiliary₂ ^ Event, as shown below.

the new system	may	be	going to	be	more reliable than the old one
Carrier	Process: attributive				Attribute
Subject	Finite	Predicator			Complement
	verbal group
	Finite	Auxiliary₁	Auxiliary₂	Event

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday's theory.  Fawcett's claim is that, on the SFL model, the Finite (clause rank) should be conflated with the Event (group rank), and that his example demonstrates the fact.  That is, Fawcett's claim is that two syntagmatically separated elements, at different ranks, should be conflated. This demonstrates a serious failure to understand the notion of conflation.

As the analysis above makes clear, in Fawcett's example, the Process (transitivity) conflates with Finite ^ Predicator (mood), both of which are integrated in their realisation as a verbal group.

On There Being "No Conflation Of Non-Coterminous Elements"

Fawcett (2010: 134):

Thus, after the conflation rules have been applied, the structure of the clause the new system is more reliable than the old one (omitting the 'Moodtag isn't it), as generated by Matthiessen and Bateman, can be represented very simply as follows: 

Theme/Subject/Carrier + Finite/Process + Attribute. 

Thus two of the three elements are formed from conflated 'functions' and the third consists of a single 'function'. If you compare this economical representation with the corresponding part of the representation in Figure 9 above, you will see that, from the generative viewpoint, it contains all the necessary information. The key point is that Matthiiessen [sic] and Bateman's generator operates in essentially the same way as the one described in Halliday (1969/81) — and that there is no conflation of non-coterminous elements. 

Indeed, Matthiessen and Bateman do not make clear precisely what role the IFG-like diagram given in Figure 9 plays in the process of generation. It may well be that their main reason for generating it was to provide a satisfactory visual representation of the structure for those who are expecting something that resembles an IFG-style analysis, rather than because it is necessary for the process of generation. 

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

[1] This is true. In SFL Theory, elements of clause structure can only be conflated if they are integrated by being realised as the same group rank unit, as in the realisation of Theme, Subject and Carrier as the same nominal group. However, Fawcett misleadingly presents this as if it were a problem for the theory, rather than a principle of it.

[2] To be clear, the rôle of such diagrams is to represent a computer-generated clause structure in terms of the model used: SFL Theory.

The Undesirability Of Finite and Subject As Subcomponents Of Mood

Fawcett (2010: 134, 134n):

Unfortunately, Matthiessen and Bateman give no explanation as to why they find it desirable to generate the Finite and the Subject as "subcomponents" of the 'Mood', even though the same effect could have been obtained by simply inserting the Finite and the Subject as direct 'functions' of the clause. The only 'advantage' (if it is one) is that the final structure that is generated resembles slightly more closely the representations shown in IFG than it would otherwise. But there seems to be little point in going to all of this extra work when the 'sister' element to the 'Mood' (i.e., the 'Residue') does not get generated — and when, even if it did, it would serve no useful purpose.ⁱ⁵ 

15. Incidentally, this criticism of the introduction of two layers of structure to model 'interactional' meaning is as valid for text-descriptive work as for theoretical-generative work. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason why Matthiessen and Bateman "generate the Finite and the Subject as "subcomponents" of the Mood' is that these are components of the model, SFL Theory, that they are applying to text generation.

[2] To be clear, the 'advantage' of identifying the Mood element of a clause is provided by its explanatory power. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 150) identify both the semantic function of the Mood element:

Hence the Mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event. So it remains constant, as the nub of the proposition, unless some positive step is taken to change it…

and (op. cit.: 170) its rôle in realising systemic distinctions:

In the grammar of MOOD in English, the general principle is that less delicate distinctions in mood are realised through the Mood element – its presence and the nature and relative sequence of its element, Subject and Finite, plus the presence of the WH- element…

[3] To be clear, the underlying assumption here is that expediency in the generation of texts by computer is the criterion of theoretical validity for a model of human language.

[4] This is misleading. As Figure 9 demonstrates, the Residue is generated, but since it is simply the negative of Mood, for expediency it isn't labelled.



[5] This is true.

Misrepresenting The Theoretical Status Of The Finite Element

Fawcett (2010: 133-4, 133n):

The procedure described in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991) is first to generate the 'function' of 'Mood' in the 'primary' structure of the interpersonal line of structure, and then, apparently straight away (judging by the 'blackboard' representation in their Figure 7.15 on page 108), they insert the 'function' of 'Finite' by the use of what they term the "Expand" operator. The effect of this is to build the Finite into the secondary structure as what they term a "subconstituent" of the higher 'function' of 'Mood'.¹⁴ A later realisation statement then adds the 'Subject' as a second 'subconstituent' of the 'Mood' 'function' in the same way, and then another finally orders them with respect to each other.

14. The Finite is therefore in effect a 'function', while not being, oddly, a direct 'function' in a 'unit', in the usual manner. However, it seems that in some unspecified way it must still count as a direct 'function' of the clause, because it later gets conflated with the direct clause 'function' of Process. (This is necessary because the word is in the text is both the Finite and the Process, as Figure 9 shows.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, this describes an application of SFL Theory to the generation of texts by computer. It is not a description of the theory as a  model of human language.

[2] This is misleading. The word 'direct' is a red herring here. The Finite is an element of the interpersonal function structure of the unit 'clause', and in this instance, is realised by a verbal group. The fact that the Finite is a component of the element 'Mood', does not make any less direct an element of clause structure, and Fawcett offers no argument in support of his bare assertion.