The Place Of Systemic Features In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 148, 149):

This view of the nature of language is no less 'systemic' and no less 'functional' than that expressed in Halliday's "Systemic theory" and in IFG, because the sentence is still derived from system networks of choices between meanings, and the representation still shows the contribution to the integrated structure of the various strands of meaning for which the system networks provide. There is some conflation of individual elements (as opposed to structures), as Figure 10 shows, but the emphasis is now squarely on the representation of 'meaning' through the use of the features from the networks that model the 'meaning potential' of the language. And this is surely as it should be in a systemic functional representation, if Halliday is right that, in this theory, "the system takes priority" (Halliday 1993:4505). Moreover, the Cardiff representation adds an important element that is missing from the IFG representation, namely the representation of the integrated structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in this entire publication, Fawcett does not provide either (a) the system networks from which his semantic features are drawn, or (b) the realisation statements that specify how his structural elements at the level of form are derived from systemic choices at the level of meaning.

[2] As previously observed, Fawcett's semantic analysis (Figure 10) ignores the axial distinction of paradigm versus syntagm by representing paradigmatic features as syntagmatic ('strands of meaning'), which also has the further theoretically inconsistent consequence of assigning features of the entire clause to individual elements of clause structure.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the notion that the three metafunctional structures of the clause can be integrated as a single function structure is nonsensical. This is because, as previously explained, a structure is defined as the relations between elements, and the relations between elements of a clause differ according to metafunction. In SFL Theory, the three metafunctional clause structures are integrated as the formal syntagm of group/phrase units that realise them.

An Important Feature Of The Cardiff Grammar Analysis

Fawcett (2010: 148):

It is an important feature of the analysis that there is no expectation that each vertical column should be filled by a label for each strand of meaning. In other words, the analysis does not reflect the view embodied in IFG that a clause consists of a conflation of several different structures. Instead, a clause is regarded as the realisation, in a single, integrated structure, of the various types of meaning that are modelled in the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, the semantic analysis in Figure 10 confuses structural elements (overt agent, overt affected, information-giver, subject theme, unmarked new) with systemic features (repeated past, social action, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) and thereby assigns features of the clause as a whole to individual elements of structure.

[2] This is misleading, because it is a misrepresentation. As previously demonstrated, in SFL Theory, a clause does not consist of "a conflation of several different structures". Instead, the three metafunctional structures of a clause are integrated in the syntagm of group/phrase rank units that realise them. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstandings arise from confusing formal constituents with structural elements, and from viewing structure as a sequence of isolated elements, rather than as the relation between elements.

[3] To be clear, this construes the clause as a syntactic structure that realises semantic systems, rather than as a systemic feature that serves as the entry condition to grammatical systems that (a) realise semantic systems, and (b) are realised in grammatical structures.

[4] To be clear, the features in the analysis (Figure 10) do not reflect those of the systems of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 355, 162, 106) — and Fawcett provides neither his semantic systems of features nor, consequently, the means of deriving his structure from his systems.

The Second Stage In Text Analysis Using The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147-8):

Then, at a second stage of analysis, the text is described in terms of its key semantic features, i.e., the most significant of the many features that have been chosen in generating it. An example of this type of analysis is shown in the lower half of Figure 10.

 

This displays the key semantic features, arranged in a number of strands of meaning. But note that there is no expectation that all or even most of a 'strand' will be used. Each feature is placed below the element (or elements) of the clause to whose generation it has contributed. There is no space here, of course, to show the system networks from which these features are derived, nor to comment on each feature. Notice, though, that the Subject contributes to two types of meaning: that of 'information giver' and that of 'subject theme'— as well as being conflated with the Agent. I hope that the labels used for the features are sufficiently transparent to give a flavour of this type of multi-strand analysis, and so of its value in analysing texts. 

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the diagram is that it shows how an analyst can first determine the functional syntax of a one-clause text such as this example, and then go on to derive from it, in a relatively direct and natural manner, the semantic analysis, showing these features in terms of the major strands of meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, Figure 10 misrepresents systemic features (paradigmatic axis) as structural elements (syntagmatic axis).

[2] As previously observed, Figure 10 mistakenly assigns features of the clause to individual elements of clause structure.

[3] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. In a book of 360 pages, there is ample space 'to show the system networks from which these features are derived' and to 'comment on each feature'. Moreover, without the networks, the valeur of each feature — its relation to other features — is not even provided, let alone supported by reasoned argument.

[4] Notice, though, that Fawcett does not specify the valeur of either 'information giver' or 'subject theme', and that the "Agent" is actually the Medium through which the Process unfolds.

[5] To be clear, Figure 10 does not show either how an analyst determines "the functional syntax of a one-clause text" or how to derive a semantic analysis from it, it merely presents each as a fait accompli.

[6] Again, this demonstrates that the Cardiff Grammar's theoretical orientation is the opposite of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, since it proceeds from form to meaning, rather than from meaning to form. Halliday (1985, 1994: xiv):

The Structure Of The Clause In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147):

For the reader who is familiar with Halliday's work, it may be helpful to think of the structure of a clause as being represented in the present approach rather as a group is represented in IFG. In other words, the 'metafunctions' "are not represented in the form of separate whole structures, but rather as partial contributions to a single structural line" (Halliday (1994:179). This does not deny the fact that many elements of the clause constitute the simultaneous realisation of several different types of meaning. In Figure 10, for example, the word We simultaneously realises the Subject and the Agent — and, as we shall see in a moment, the Subject itself is the realisation of two meanings.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this flatly contradicts Fawcett's previous insistence (p146) that the metafunctional nature of language should only be represented at the level of meaning:

In the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, where the representation at the level of form is the final, integrated output, it is clear that the level of representation at which the multifunctional nature of language should be displayed is in the representation of the meanings — because at the lower level the various strands of meaning have already been integrated into a single structure.

[2] To be clear, this again confuses constituents of the clause (groups and phrases), which can realise "several different types of meaning", with elements of clause structure, such as Theme or Subject, which cannot. A Theme realises textual meaning only; a Subject realises interpersonal meaning only.

[3] As previously observed, in the clause We would visit Mrs S every Sunday, we serves as the Medium through which the Process unfolds, with Mrs S serving as the Range or domain of the Process. There is no external cause of the Process construed as a participant (Agent). Reminder:

[4] This claim will be examined in situ. (The two meanings said to be realised by 'Subject' are 'subject theme' and 'information giver', the last of which is represented as not coterminous with the other two.)

The First Stage In Text Analysis Using The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147):

It follows from this that the approach to analysing texts when using the Cardiff Grammar has certain significant differences from that of the current Sydney Grammar. The first stage is to analyse its functional syntax. This is shown in a single but richly labelled functional structure, as in the upper half of Figure 10. Thus the analyst does not go looking for a set of structures that correspond to each strand of meaning, as an IFG-style analysis of a clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the Cardiff Grammar approach to analysing texts gives priority to structure and form, whereas Systemic Functional Grammar gives priority to system and function, where the function of language is to make meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 48-9):

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective (Halliday, 1978: 130–131; 1996). But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise. All linguistic description involves such compromise; the difference between a systemic description and one in terms of traditional school grammar is that in the school grammars the compromise was random and unprincipled whereas in a systemic grammar it is systematic and theoretically motivated. Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning – it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features (for an early statement, see Halliday, 1966a). Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation…).

[2] To be clear, the "richly" labelled functional structure in Figure 10 (p148) is a confusion of a class of form (Main verb), experiential functions (Agent, Affected) — misanalysed — and interpersonal functions (Subject, Operator, Complement, Adjunct):

Moreover, in terms of SFL Theory, Fawcett's model misunderstands structure as a sequence of isolates rather than as a relation between elements (e.g. what is the relation between Agent and Operator?). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49, 83-4):

Structure is analysed in functional terms, explaining the part played by each element in the organic configuration of the whole. …

Theme, Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates; each occurs in association with other functions from the same strand of meaning. …

The significance of any functional label lies in its relationship to the other functions with which it is structurally associated. It is the structure as a whole, the total configuration of functions, that construes, or realises, the meaning. The function Actor, for example, is interpretable only in its relation to other functions of the same kind – other representational functions such as Process and Goal. … It is the relation among all these that constitutes the structure. In similar fashion, the Subject enters into configurations with other functional elements as realisation of the clause as exchange; and likewise the Theme, in realising the clause as message.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents the SFL approach to text analysis by shifting its priority from system to structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 54):

When we observe a language, we observe it as text – as a flow of speech or as (typically) discrete pieces of writing. Texts lie at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, and once we have observed and collected them and made them accessible to study (e.g. by transcribing spoken text), we can proceed by analysing them, noting patterns in these instances. (i) If we have access to an existing account of the system of the language (at the potential pole of the cline of instantiation), then we will analyse texts by relating instantial patterns in the system. In other words, we undertake the analysis of texts by means of the description of the system that lies behind them… , identifying terms in systems and fragments of structures that are instantiated in the text. … (ii) If there is no description to draw on, this means that we will gradually have to develop one based on the analysis of a representative sample of texts (a corpus…).

Fawcett's Third Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146-7):

The third question was "In the representation at the level of form, is the conflation that occurs between the realisations of the various strands of meaning a conflation of whole structures or of individual elements?" Here the answer will be clear from the previous sections, and it is that the conflations occur between specific coterminous elements, as complex nodes in the single integrated syntactic representation.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder of the Cardiff Grammar representation (Figure 10, p148):

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's third "difficult" question for the Cardiff Grammar is merely an invitation for him to describe one aspect of it. It is not a question that seeks a justification of the theorising itself.

[2] To be clear, the rhetorical significance of this question is that Fawcett has previously misrepresented Halliday's model as involving structure conflation, and argued that structure conflation is problematic. Fawcett's model therefore does not suffer from the problems he wrongly attributes to Halliday's model.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's answer is merely a bare assertion, with no supporting argumentation — either here or in the previous sections. For example, having argued against representing metafunctional meanings at the level of form, he provides no explanation as to why the two conflations in Figure 10 are conflations of interpersonal elements with experiential elements: Subject with Agent, and Complement with Affected (Medium) — leaving aside the fact that, in terms of SFL Theory, Subject actually conflates with Medium, and Complement with Range.

Fawcett's Second Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146-7):

The second question was "In a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning, is it desirable — or indeed necessary — to show explicitly the multifunctional nature of language at both levels?" 

In the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, where the representation at the level of form is the final, integrated output, it is clear that the level of representation at which the multifunctional nature of language should be displayed is in the representation of the meanings — because at the lower level the various strands of meaning have already been integrated into a single structure. 

The effects on the structure of the various stra[n]ds of meaning can be discerned, of course, but it is the division of the selection expression of features chosen in the system networks into their various types of meaning that displays in the most straight-forward manner the multifunctional nature of language. It is therefore the role of the semantic representation to display the contribution of the various types of meaning to the text, and it is the role of syntax to show the integration of these intermittent 'strands of meaning' in a single structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning" is inconsistent with SFL Theory, because in the latter, the levels are the strata of meaning (semantics), wording (lexicogrammar), and sounding (phonology), all of which are levels of function, not form. This is because Systemic Functional Linguistics prioritises the function of language over its form. Linguistic form is modelled as rank scales on the strata of lexicogrammar and phonology. The Cardiff Grammar has neither rank scales nor a level of phonology.

[2] To be clear, this second "difficult" question that Fawcett poses is merely, like the first, one that elicits his own modal assessment ("desirable"/"necessary") of his own model, rather than a question as to the validity or consistency of the model.

[3] To be clear, in "a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning", it would be theoretically (and logically) inconsistent to present any functions whatsoever at the level of form. This is one reason why Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory does not include a level of form. 

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, in Fawcett's model, Figure 4 (p36), selection expressions (paradigmatic axis) are misunderstood as instances, and misaligned with structure (syntagmatic axis):

The consequence of these misunderstandings can be seen in Fawcett's analysis of a clause, Figure 10 (p148), where features of the entire clause are misrepresented as features of single structural elements:

[5] To be clear, this is a statement of Fawcett's model only, since the notion of 'syntax' is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of SFL Theory, as Halliday explained in the first two editions of IFG (1985: xiv; 1994: xiv):

∞

In Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, priority is given to higher levels of abstraction: system over structure, and function over form, in contradistinction to Fawcett's discussion of the Cardiff Grammar, where the focus is continually on lower levels of abstraction: (representations of) structure at the level of form.

Fawcett's First Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146):

Let us now ask the same difficult questions in relation to the Cardiff Grammar that we asked about the Sydney Grammar. 

The first was 'Is it desirable — or indeed necessary — to have representations of a text at the levels of both form and meaning?" The answer is clear: In this model of language it is both necessary and desirable, and the model operates with the two representations of texts implied by the model of language summarised in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 — both in the description of texts and in text generation. Thus, if our goal is the full analysis of a text, it is necessary to provide representations of a text in terms of (1) the features that define its meaning potential and (2) the single functional structure that integrates the various different types of meaning (as in Figure 10).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the "difficult" question Fawcett poses for his own model is merely one that elicits his own modal assessment ("desirable"/"necessary") regarding its usage, rather than a question as to the validity or consistency of the model. Moreover, it is simply a question of whether both levels of his model should be used in text analysis, to which Fawcett's own assessment is a resounding 'yes', though he provides no reasoned argumentation for his answer. The vacuousness of the question and answer can be made more obvious by considering the alternative response: that only one level, either form or meaning, should be deployed in text analysis.

[2] As previously argued here, and in many posts since, the model of language summarised in Figure 4 is invalidated by its internal inconsistencies. Reminder (p36):

[3] The use of thus here gives the false impression that premisses of an argument have been presented, and that a reasoned conclusion follows, whereas in fact, Fawcett's modal assessment has merely been been asserted before and after the thus.

[4] Here again Fawcett confuses meaning potential (language as system) with meaning (the semantic stratum). The meaning (semantics) of a text is instantial, not potential. But more importantly, despite arguing for the importance of the level of meaning for text analysis, Fawcett provides no genuine systems of semantic features in this entire publication. As previously observed, his one system (Appendix Figure 1) is largely grammatical and presents lexical items as more delicate features of the noun categories 'mass' and 'count'. Reminder (p298):

[5] As previously observed, Fawcett's functional structure at his level of form — a contradiction in itself — confuses functional elements (Subject/Agent, Operator, Complement/Affected, Adjunct) with a class of form (Main verb). Moreover, as previously observed, Fawcett's semantics confuses elements of syntagmatic structure (overt agent, overt affected, information giver, subject theme, unmarked New) with paradigmatic features (repeated past, social action, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) and, as a consequence, ascribes the paradigmatic features to elements of clause structure, rather than to the (entire) clause as a unit. Reminder (p148):

Fawcett's 'Alternative Way Of Representing The Multifunctional Nature Of Language'

Fawcett (2010: 145-6):

In Section 7.8 we shall meet an alternative way of representing the multifunctional nature of language in diagram form. It is an exploration of a method suggested by Halliday himself in the passages cited in Section 7.3, and it has the advantage that it suffers from none of the problems that we have encountered in our examination of the type of representations used in IFG — except that there is no published account of it with the breadth of coverage of IFG and Matthiessen (1995) — not as yet, that is.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the "alternative way of representing the multifunctional nature of language in diagram form" is Fawcett's Figure 10 (p148):

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  The cited passages (p118) are:

This book [...] presents the structures which are the 'output' of the networks — which collectively realise the sets of features that can be chosen. (Halliday 1994:xxvii) 

all the structural analyses could be reinterpreted in terms of the features selected. (Halliday 1994:xxvii) 

in systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation [...] is in paradigmatic terms. [...] Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features, the 'meaning potential'. (Halliday 1993:4505)

As these quotes demonstrate, Halliday is concerned with identifying system as the most abstract representation, and structure as its lower level realisation. Halliday does not suggest confusing syntagmatic structures of the grammatical stratum with paradigmatic features of the semantic stratum.

[3] This is misleading. On the one hand, as previously demonstrated, the "problems that we have encountered" are problems with Fawcett's understanding of SFL Theory, specifically its model of function structure and formal constituency. On the other hand, there are multiple theoretical inconsistencies with Fawcett's model, such as

• confusing function labels (Subject/Agent, Operator, Complement/Affected, Adjunct) with class labels (Main verb),
• assigning clause features to individual elements of structure rather than to the clause itself, 
• confusing systemic features (repeated past, social action, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) with structural elements (overt agent, overt affected, information giver, subject theme, unmarked new), and
• misrepresenting information as a clause system.

Moreover, Fawcett does not provide any systems to justify his features, and the analysis itself is inconsistent with SFL Theory. For example,

• the Medium (we) is misconstrued as Agent,
• the Range (Mrs S) is misconstrued as Affected (Medium).

Fawcett's Summary Of Fawcett's Answers to Fawcett's Questions

Fawcett (2010: 145):

Let us now summarise where the Sydney Grammar stands in relation to the searching questions asked in this chapter. 

In answer to Question la, it is clearly desirable to have representations of a text at the levels of both form and meaning. 

In answer to Question lb, it is natural for the semantic representation to show the different 'strands of meaning' (which do not necessarily run all the way through a clause), but the whole purpose of the representation at the level of form is to integrate the various types of meaning into a single structure, so that it is not appropriate to show the various strands of meaning at this level too. (The only reason for doing so would be if we did not have the descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning, which appears to be the case in the framework of current Sydney Grammar publications.) 

The answer to Question 1c is that 'conflation' is an operation that relates two elements (or 'functions') in a clause rather than clause-length representations. The 'multi-strand' representations of the functional structure of clauses in IFG may be a helpful aid to some when thinking about the strands of meaning that are found in a text — if no better means is available — but they play no part in a generative systemic functional grammar. Indeed, it would be helpful if this could be made clear in future writings in the Sydney Grammar framework, e.g., in the next edition of IFG.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, form and meaning are levels in Fawcett's model, not SFL Theory. In the latter, the levels of language are the strata of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, and grammatical form is theorised as a rank scale.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the structure of each clause involves three lines of meaning, but not all clause constituents, groups and phrases, realise all three types of meaning.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The level of form is a level in Fawcett's model (Figure 4) only, and the integration of various types of meaning into a single structure might be the "whole purpose" of structural representation in Fawcett's model, but that is not the case in SFL Theory. In the latter, the three lines of clause rank structure are integrated in the syntagm of units, groups and phrases, that realise them.

[4] This very misleading indeed, since a "descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning" (semantics) was provided in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), which, though focused on ideational semantics, includes discussions on interpersonal and textual semantics.

[5] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the notion that "clause-length representations" are conflated is a figment of Fawcett's imagination, derived from his misunderstandings of the SFL theorising of formal constituency and functional structure.

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'multi-strand' representations in IFG are theoretically-consistent representations of the structures that realise the three metafunctional systems at the rank of clause. This is why they still form the backbone of later editions of IFG (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).

'A Further Problem About Trying To Use IFG For Text Analysis'

Fawcett (2010: 145n):

There is a further problem about trying to use IFG for text analysis. This is that it is not in fact easy to use (even with the addition of an index in the 1994 edition). Analysing language is of course inherently problematical, so it is hard to judge how far the difficulties in using IFG are inherent in the nature of language, and how far they are the result of (1) the theory and description used in IFG and/or (2) how it is presented. Certainly, many students have been helped to understand it better by reading introductory works such as Eggins (1994), Bloor & Bloor (1995) Thompson (1996) and Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (1997).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fawcett cites his own difficulty in using IFG (Halliday 1994) as a problem with the theory and/or its presentation — though he doesn't identify any of the difficulties he faced.

[2] To be clear, these publications were made possible by their authors being able to use IFG (Halliday 1985, 1994) for text analysis.

The Considerable Gap In The "Sydney Grammar" Framework

Fawcett (2010: 144-5):

The implicit assumption of most writings in the framework of the Sydney Grammar is that an IFG-style analysis of what we might call 'the implied functional structures' is sufficient — and, presumably, that an analysis in terms of the features would add relatively little. Yet this situation is strikingly at odds with Halliday's claim — a claim that expresses the core concept of systemic functional theory — that "the system takes priority". The IFG-style method of analysis is therefore simply the only currently available way to show 'strands of meaning' — though it is one that is now seen to lack a base in the theory.

Thus th[e] position is that there is a considerable gap in the Sydney Grammar framework between, on the one hand, Halliday's theoretical statements about the centrality of system networks in the theory and, on the other, the provision of publications that show the text analyst how to go about the task of describing the meaning potential of texts in terms of their systemic features.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading. On the one hand, the functional structures exemplified in IFG are not "implied"; they are explicitly presented as theory-consistent analyses. On the other hand, there is no implication that structural analyses are "sufficient", not least because what is sufficient depends on the function of the analysis.

[2] To be clear, text analysis in terms of features, rather than structures, is text analysis using the paradigmatic dimension of the theory, rather than the syntagmatic dimension. A paradigmatic analysis provides, for example, the means of making a systematic comparison of texts that instantiate different registers.

[3] This non-sequitur is misleading, because it is untrue. The fact that system is the organising principle of SFL Theory does not logically entail that text analysis should be restricted to the paradigmatic dimension of the theory.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As multiple previous posts have demonstrated, Fawcett's assessment that "IFG-style" structural analyses "lack a base in the theory" derives from his own misunderstandings of conflation, rank-based formal constituency and function structure.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Demonstrations of text analysis in terms of systemic features are provided in Matthiessen (1995), which Fawcett has already acknowledged, and in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004), which he has not.

[6] As previously noted, Fawcett's use of the term 'meaning potential' confuses the semantic stratum (meaning) with language as system (meaning potential). The meaning of texts is instantial, not potential.

On Matthiessen's Paradigmatic And Syntagmatic Analyses Of Text

Fawcett (2010: 144, 144n):

Indeed, there are, so far as I know, still no published analyses of texts whatsoever that are truly systemic, other than the few that use the Cardiff Grammar, such as the example in Figure 10 in Section 7.8. ²²

²² The one exception to this generalisation that I know of in a published work is where Matthiessen shows the features for his examples of the analysis of 'modality' in texts (1995: 507f.). But his analyses of all other types of meaning simply shows structural analyses of the IFG type. However, he has used features for the analysis of text in public lectures, e.g., at the 25th International Systemic Functional Congress. Cardiff 1998. There he showed a simplified version of the relevant system networks, and then placed figures on the features that had been chosen in the text being analysed to indicate the frequency with which they had been chosen. This interesting technique can be used to show how the probabilities have been skewed under the influence of a register variable (or some other variable) in the text. Interestingly, however, an analysis of that type skips over the logically necessary intermediate stage, i.e., the systemic representation of the features chosen in each clause, e.g., as illustrated in Figure 10 of Section 7.8. (Compare the interesting study in Matthiessen 1999, which offers TRANSITIVITY probabilities for English as a whole, based on a study of 2,000 clauses).

Blogger Comments:

[1] See previous post.

[2] To be clear, analysing a text in terms of its systemic features is analysing it in terms of the paradigmatic axis, whereas analysing a text in terms of its structures is analysing it in terms of the syntagmatic axis.

[3] This is misleading, in a trivial way. In order to carry out a statistical analysis of the features selected in clauses of an entire text, it is necessary to identify the selected features in each clause of the text, as Fawcett acknowledges to be demonstrated in Matthiessen (2005: 508-9).

[4] As previously noted, Fawcett's Figure 10

• confuses systemic features (paradigmatic axis) with structural elements (syntagmatic axis) by aligning features with specific elements of structure, and 
• provides no systems for the features he proposes.

Misrepresenting Halliday's Notion Of Giving Priority To System

Fawcett (2010: 144):

In our survey of the Sydney Grammar, we come now to Question 2 (from Section 7.1), i.e., "Does the Sydney Grammar make available theoretically motivated descriptions of English that are at the levels of language that Halliday's theoretical statements suggest to be desirable?" 

Given Halliday's statement that "in systemic theory the system takes priority" (1993:4505), systemic functional linguists should be describing texts in terms of the features that have been chosen in generating them. We are entitled to ask, therefore, "Where are the networks?" and "How can they be used in the analysis of texts?" 

As we have seen, the only publication that provides anything approaching an adequate coverage of the Sydney Grammar's current system networks for English is Matthiessen's Lexicogrammatical Cartography (1995). This major work (with almost 1000 pages) is intended as a "reference source" (Matthiessen (1995:iii). However, it gives the reader no guidelines on how to use the various system networks for analysing texts, and barely any examples of what such analyses might be like. Indeed, there are, so far as I know, still no published analyses of texts whatsoever that are truly systemic, other than the few that use the Cardiff Grammar, such as the example in Figure 10 in Section 7.8.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'levels of language' can refer to strata, or within strata, to rank. Halliday identifies the stratum of lexicogrammar and the rank of clause as the 'central processing units' of language, and it is these two levels that constitute the main focus of the description of English provided by IFG. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 22, 10):

Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created; …

The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. For this reason the first half of this book is organised around the principal systems of the clause: theme, mood and transitivity. In Part II we move outward from the clause, to take account of what happens above and below it – systems of the clause complex, of groups and phrases, and of group and phrase complexes; and also beyond the clause, along other dimensions so to speak.

The perspective moves away from structure to consideration of grammar as system, enabling us to show the grammar as a meaning-making resource and to describe grammatical categories by reference to what they mean. This perspective is essential if the analysis of grammar is to be an insightful mode of entry to the study of discourse.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the system takes priority in how language is theorised. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features (for an early statement, see Halliday, 1966a). Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness…

It does not logically follow from this approach to theorising language that applications of the theory, such as "describing texts", instances of language, should be restricted to only one dimension of the theory: the paradigmatic axis, (the features selected).

[3] To be clear, the third and fourth editions of IFG, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014), include networks for the clause rank systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY.

[4] To be clear, the third and fourth editions of IFG, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014), include text analyses using the features of the clause rank systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY.

[5] This is very misleading. The Cardiff Grammar is not "truly systemic" since its focus is on structure, not system, as demonstrated by the focus on structure in this publication, and its absence of system networks. As previously noted, Fawcett's Figure 10 misrepresents systemic features as structural elements, and no system is provided for the proposed features.