The Purpose Of Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 161-2):

The purpose of "Some proposals" was to present the set of revisions to the concepts of "Categories" that I considered at the time (1974) to be required, in order to constitute a 'systemic syntax' that would complement Halliday's revolutionary proposal that the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME should be regarded as choices between meanings (as described in Section 4.3 of Chapter 4). As Butler wrote in 1985:

Halliday's most recent proposals [...] make it clear that the functional component networks are to be regarded as semantic, but we are given very little idea of what the lexicogrammar [i.e., the level of form] might now consist of [my emphasis] (Butler 1985:94).

"Some proposals" was a first attempt to fill this gap, and it probably reached its widest readership through Butler's generally approving summaries of its contents — first in Butler (1979), and then in Butler (1985:94-102). He makes the key point when he states, "[Fawcett's] approach to the recognition of syntactic categories is dictated by his commitment to the centrality of semantics" (Butler 1985:94). In this approach, then, a large part of the description of a text should be in terms of the semantic features that have been chosen in generating it (e.g., in the way described in Section 7.8 of Chapter 7).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the stated purpose of Fawcett's "Some proposals" was to present a set of revisions to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, despite the fact that it had been replaced by a new theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] As Halliday (1985: xiv) explained, the notion of syntax is inconsistent with the assumptions and mode of inquiry of SFL Theory, for reasons previously cited on this blog.

[3] To be clear, this refers to Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar, not his first, Scale and Category Grammar. In the earliest form of Systemic Functional Grammar, the metafunctional systems of the clause were mapped onto the grammatical rank scale of form (see [4] below). This was soon replaced by the relocation of these systems to the stratum of lexicogrammar, largely to provide a systematic account of mismatches between meaning and wording (grammatical metaphor). Because SFG is a functional grammar, the grammar is modelled in terms of its functions, and the function of the grammar is to realise meaning. 

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Even in the earliest version of SFG, where the metafunctional systems were located on the stratum of semantics, Halliday was explicit about what constituted the lexicogrammar. For example, Halliday (1978: 128-9):

Fourth, we shall assume that each component of the semantic system specifies its own structures, as the ‘output, of the options in the network (so each act of choice contributes to the formation of the structure). It is the function of the lexicogrammatical stratum to map the structures one onto another so as to form a single integrated structure that represents all components simultaneously. With negligible exceptions, every operational instance of a lexicogrammatical construct in the adult language — anything that realises text — is structured as the expression of all four components. In other words, any instance of language in use ‘means, in these various ways, and shows that it does so in its grammar.

Fifth, we shall assume that the lexicogrammatical system is organised by rank (as opposed to by immediate constituent structure); each rank is the locus of structural configurations, the place where structures from the different components are mapped on to each other. The ‘rank scale' for the lexicogrammar of English is:

 [5] This misleading, because in all of Halliday's theorising, lexicogrammar is the level of wording, not form; form is a level in Fawcett's model only. For example, in the earliest model of SFG, Halliday (1978: 128) writes:

We shall start with the assumption that the semantic system is one of three strata, chat constitute the linguistic system:

Semantic (the meaning)
Lexicogrammatical (the wording, i.e. syntax, morphology and lexis)
Phonological (the sound)

[6] As demonstrated above, there was no gap to fill. In both of Halliday's theories, grammatical form is modelled as a rank scale. The reason why Fawcett argues against a rank scale, is that it is the most obvious aspect of Halliday's theory that makes his own model redundant.

[7] To be clear, as the critical examinations on this blog demonstrate, contrary to the priorities of Systemic Functional Theory, Fawcett's "commitment to the centrality of semantics" involves prioritising form over function and structure over system.

[8] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, in Systemic Functional Grammar, the metafunctional systems of the clause are located on the lexicogrammatical stratum (rather than semantics), whereas in the Cardiff Grammar they are located at the level of meaning (rather than form). That is, what the Cardiff Grammar describes in terms of semantic features, Systemic Functional Grammar describes in terms of lexicogrammatical features.

Misrepresenting Critical Reactions To Fawcett (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 161):

It is ironic, therefore, that I should have been admonished in the mid-1970s by two senior systemic linguists at the time (though not by Halliday himself) for the changes that I suggested in "Some proposals" . The irony lies in the fact that my proposals were for a syntax whose representations were far more like those of the Scale and Category model than the proposals for representing structure that Halliday himself developed during the very late 1960s and the early 1970s. As we saw in Chapter 7, it was during this period that he shifted his representations of structure away from the model presented in "Categories" (in which the major clause elements were 'Subject', 'Predicator', 'Complement' and 'Adjunct') to the multiple structures used in IFG and widely elsewhere, in which an analysis in terms of such elements plays little or no role. The changes made by Halliday were far greater than the changes that I was suggesting in "Some proposals", and yet the position of my critics at the time seemed to be that I should not be suggesting any changes to "Categories" at all! The fact is that, even though Halliday's changes were already well under way by the mid-1970s, the key role of "Categories" as the founding document of the new theory seems to have placed it beyond criticism for many. On the whole, then, I think that my critics' response shows that the admittedly provocative use of the term "iconoclastic" in the subtitle of "Some proposals" was justified. 

However,"Some proposals" was really not as revolutionary as its critics felt it to be. With the benefit of a further twenty-five years of hindsight, I see now that, far from being too critical of "Categories", "Some proposals" did not go as far as it should in proposing changes, as we shall see in due course.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. By the mid-1970s, Halliday had replaced his Scale and Category Grammar with a new theory: Systemic Functional Grammar. In proposing a syntax at that time, Fawcett was inconsistent with both theories. In proposing changes to the first theory, Fawcett was ignoring the fact that that theory had been superseded.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. In the new theory, Systemic Functional Grammar, the elements Subject, Predicator, Complement and Adjunct (± Finite) constitute the interpersonal structure of the clause.

[3] To be clear, the changes made by Halliday were so great that they resulted in a new theory. Fawcett's suggestions for changes to "Categories" were suggestions for changes to the superseded theory.

[4] This is misleading. Scale and Category Grammar was the earlier theory from which Halliday developed his new theory. An old theory (e.g. Newton's Universal Gravitation) is not the founding document of the theory that replaces it (e.g. Einstein's General Relativity).

[5] To be clear, Fawcett's use of 'iconoclastic' couches support for a theory in terms of belief, rather than, say, in terms of explanatory potential, self-consistency, reasoned argumentation and evidence.

[6] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. Here Fawcett misrepresents his critics as deeming his proposals as revolutionary, despite the fact that, in advocating the old theory, his proposals were reactionary.

Misrepresenting Scale-&-Category Grammar And Systemic Functional Grammar As The Same Theory

Fawcett (2010: 161):

As will by now be clear, my view at the time was that the elevation of the concept of 'system' to the semantics was so revolutionary a change that it should be expected to affect every part of the theory. In a sense, the strongest possible support for this position came when Halliday introduced an entirely new way of representing the structure of clauses. You can see this difference very clearly if you compare Figure 1 in Chapter 2 and Figure 7 in Chapter 7.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. To be clear, the changes introduced by Halliday should not "be expected to affect every part of the theory" — Scale and Category Grammar — because these changes were part of Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar, which replaced his first theory. This is a motivated misrepresentation, because Fawcett's model has more in common with Halliday's superseded theory than Systemic Functional Grammar, as will become evident when Fawcett eventually begins outlining his own model.

Misrepresenting Scale and Category Grammar As A Model Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 160):

At the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s there was a spate of text books that functioned as introductions to Scale and Category syntax — rather as there was to be a second spate of introductory grammars in the theory in the 1990s, this time based on Halliday's IFG. Each of those early textbooks had its st[r]ong points, but two stood out because of their clear vision of a model of language in which one component was systemic and presented the system networks that constituted the 'meaning potential' of the language, and another component which provided for the structures — using the familiar Scale and Category concepts (minus 'system'). The first was Muir's two-part text book, with one part on structures and one on systems, and the other was the two-volume work that became the standard introduction to the theory (Berry 1975 and 1977). Berry (1977) is particularly noteworthy for providing, in a book that was essentially designed to enable its readers to analyse texts, a sketch of how a generative version of the model would operate.³ But the key point here is that in both Muir's and Berry's books the picture of syntax that was presented was that of "Categories".

³ This set of books also included Strang (1962/69), Leech (1966), Scott, Bowley et al 1968 (where Bowley was the principal contributor), Turner & Mohan (1970) and Sinclair (1972). One reason why Berry (1975 and 1977) quickly became established as the standard introduction to the theory was that she introduces more of the theory that underpins the description than Muir (1972), including an early picture of how 'realisation' works.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. To be clear, here Fawcett again strategically misrepresents Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, as a model of syntax, despite the fact that Halliday explicitly regarded 'syntax' as merely one component of grammar, which he modelled as a rank scale. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 51):

The distinction does, however, need a name, and this seems the best use for the terms “syntax” and “morphology”. Traditionally these terms have usually referred to “grammar above the word” (syntax) and “grammar below the word” (morphology); but this distinction has no theoretical status. It has a place in the description of certain languages, “inflexional” languages which tend to display one kind of grammatical relation above the word (“free” items predominating) and another below the word (“bound” items predominating). But it seems worthwhile making use of “syntax” and “morphology” in the theory, to refer to direction on the rank scale. “Syntax” is then the downward relation, “morphology” the upward one; and both go all the way.

Fawcett's "Iconoclastic Approach To Scale and Category Grammar"

Fawcett (2010: 159-60):

I gave "Some proposals" the subtitle of "an iconoclastic approach to Scale and Category Grammar" — a subtitle that was, I have to admit, a little provocative. But I did so for what I thought at the time (and still think) to be a good reason — namely, that too many of those who were working in SFL seemed to look upon "Categories" as a set of concepts whose authority fell not far short of the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses. And yet there were serious questions, I felt, that needed to be asked.

If, for example, the meaning of the term "system" had changed by becoming a choice between meanings rather than forms, where did that leave the concept of "class"? After all, 'class' was a term which had been interpreted in "Categories", like 'system', as a paradigmatic relationship, such that one might set up 'systems' of 'classes'. So what did it mean, in a model in which the system networks were semantic, to say that a nominal group was a 'class of group'? Since the concept of a 'nominal group' was used to refer to a syntactic unit, it belonged, surely, at the level of form rather than meaning — so at what level of language did the concept of 'class' now belong? Indeed, did any of the original four categories remain as concepts that could be used for the task of modelling what we might term 'pure form'?

In other words, it seemed to me that the elevation of the concept of 'system' to the level of meaning meant that the whole framework for describing language needed to be re-examined. Moreover, if we did retain concepts such as 'class of unit' at the level of form, we needed new terms for the equivalent concept at the level of meaning.² (See Figure 12 in Section 10.2.10 of Chapter 10 for the equivalent terms that I use.)

² The entry conditions for Halliday's system networks for 'meaning potential' have always had labels such as "clause", "nominal group", etc. It is odd to find these terms being used at the level of meaning, because they are the names of syntactic units at the level of form — the outputs from the grammar. This is why, in the Cardiff Grammar, the equivalent features have explicitly semantic labels, such as "situation" and "thing".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in this discussion, Fawcett is not concerned with the current model of Systemic Functional Grammar, but with two different superseded theories — Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, and the earliest version of Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar. Fawcett's assumption throughout is that the second superseded theory must be consistent with the first.

[2] To be clear, in both of the superseded theories, the concept of (grammatical) class is located in the rank scale of the lexicogrammatical stratum. For the first theory, Halliday (2002 [1961]: 49) writes:

The structure is set up to account for likeness between events of the same rank, and it does so by referring them to the rank next below. To one place in structure corresponds one occurrence of the unit next below, and at each element operates one grouping of members of the unit next below. This means that there will be certain groupings of members of each unit identified by restriction on their operation in structure. The fact that it is not true that anything can go anywhere in the structure of the unit above itself is another aspect of linguistic patterning, and the category set up to account for it is the class. The class is that grouping of members of a given unit which is defined by operation in the structure of the unit next above.

For the early version of the second theory, Halliday (1978: 129) writes:

[3] To be clear, the original four categories from Halliday's first theory are unit, structure, class and system (Halliday 2002 [1961]: 41), all of which also figure in the current theory. Of these, unit and class are concerned with form, which SFL Theory, then and now, models as a rank scale.

[4] This non-sequitur (see above) is misleading, because it is untrue. In the superseded version of Halliday's second theory, each formal unit is a structural composite deriving from the (metafunctional) components of the semantics. Halliday (1978: 129)

It follows from the above that each type of unit — clause，verbal group, nominal group etc. - is in itself a structural composite, a combination of structures each of which derives from one or other component of the semantics.

[5] To be clear, because semantics is not a level of form, there is no 'equivalent concept' of class of form at the level of meaning. However, for ideational semantics, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) propose sequence, figure and element as the semantic counterparts of clause complex, clause and group/phrase, and distinguish sub-types for each of these three 'order of phenomena'.

[6] To be clear, the reason why, in the current theory, units of the grammatical rank scale — clause, group etc. — serve as the entry conditions to "Halliday's system networks" is that such networks are grammatical systems. Here again Fawcett confuses 'meaning potential' (language as system) with 'meaning' as stratum (semantics).

[7] To be clear, Fawcett's Figure 12 (p210) is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with SFL Theory:

It is internally inconsistent because it presents relations between levels — expression, realisation — as levels. It is inconsistent with SFL Theory, because the inclusion of a 'belief system' component takes a transcendent, rather than immanent, perspective on meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 415-6):

We can identify two main traditions in Western thinking about meaning (see Halliday, 1977):

(i) one oriented towards logic and philosophy, with language seen as a system of rules; 

(ii) one oriented towards rhetoric and ethnography, with language seen as resource. …

The two orientations towards meaning thus differ externally in what disciplines they recognise as models. These external differences are associated with internal differences as well.

(i) First, the orientations differ with respect to where they locate meaning in relation to the stratal interpretation of language:

(a) intra-stratal: meaning is seen as immanent — something that is constructed in, and so is part of, language itself. The immanent interpretation of meaning is characteristic of the rhetorical-ethnographic orientation, including our own approach. 

(b) extra-stratal: meaning is seen as transcendent — something that lies outside the limits of language. The transcendent interpretation of meaning is characteristic of the logico-philosophical orientation.

Many traditional notions of meaning are of the second kind — meaning as reference, meaning as idea or concept, meaning as image. These notions have in common that they are 'external' conceptions of meaning; instead of accounting for meaning in terms of a stratum within language, they interpret it in terms of some system outside of language, either the 'real world' or another semiotic system such as that of imagery.

Fawcett's 'external' conception of meaning, 'belief system', together with his stratification of language into meaning and form, place his work — unknown to Fawcett himself — in a different intellectual tradition from that of SFL Theory.

Misrepresenting Halliday On 'Syntax'

Fawcett (2010: 159):

As its dates of its first publication indicate, the three-part paper by myself that is to be reviewed here first appeared about fifteen years after "Categories", and it was later republished informally in a lightly revised edition in 1981. By the mid-1970s the new set of concepts associated with Systemic Functional Grammar (described in Chapter 4) were beginning to make themselves felt, but the original concepts presented in "Categories" were still widely accepted among systemic functional linguists (as we were beginning to call ourselves) as fully relevant to the description of the level of syntax or "grammar", as Halliday terms it. I would claim that "Some proposals" reflects the position of syntax in the model much as Halliday presents it in Halliday (1970/76) and (1977/78). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "Categories" (Halliday 1961) outlines Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, which differs from Systemic Functional Grammar in significant ways, including the absence of metafunctions, and a different model of stratification, as previously explained.

[2] To be clear, the model of Systemic Functional Grammar in Halliday (1970/76, 1977/78) is an earlier superseded model, as previously explained.

[3] This very misleading, because, even in his first theory, Halliday is explicit that syntax is not the same as grammar, and that it can seen as the complement of morphology, and modelled as a rank scale. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 51):

The distinction does, however, need a name, and this seems the best use for the terms “syntax” and “morphology”. Traditionally these terms have usually referred to “grammar above the word” (syntax) and “grammar below the word” (morphology); but this distinction has no theoretical status. It has a place in the description of certain languages, “inflexional” languages which tend to display one kind of grammatical relation above the word (“free” items predominating) and another below the word (“bound” items predominating). But it seems worthwhile making use of “syntax” and “morphology” in the theory, to refer to direction on the rank scale. “Syntax” is then the downward relation, “morphology” the upward one; and both go all the way.

"The Focus In The Present Book"

Fawcett (2010: 158):

However, the focus in the present book is not on text analysis, but on establishing the concepts that are required in a theory of syntax for SFL. We shall therefore not discuss such representations further, except in so far as they affect the theory of syntax that is required in a modern SFL. Clearly, the focus from now on must be on the nature of such a theory — and this is, of course, the topic of Part 2. 

Up to this point, Part 1 has been principally concerned with establishing the antecedents to a modern theory of SF syntax in terms of the Sydney Grammar, principally through the writings of Halliday himself. However, there is a third set of post-"Categories" concepts that has had some influence on a number of current descriptions of systemic syntax, and it is this body of work that is the direct antecedent of the framework of concepts to be set out in Part 2. It is to this work that we turn in Chapter 8.

Its genesis is significantly different from that of either "Systemic theory" or IFG, in that it was formulated as a theory of syntax in the 1970s as an explicit response to Halliday's still recent proposal that the system networks should regarded as modelling the meaning potential of a language. It is not impossible that Halliday might have produced a theory of syntax that would have been something like the one to be considered in the next chapter, if in the 1970s he had chosen to develop SFL in the way indicated in Sections 4.3 and 4.9 of Chapter 4, i.e., with the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on treated as explicitly modelling semantics.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as Halliday (1985 & 1994: xiv) pointed out, a model in which syntax is opposed to semantics, like Fawcett's, is inconsistent with the theoretical assumptions and method of inquiry of SFL Theory:

[2] As previously pointed out, Halliday's 'meaning potential' refers to language as system, as opposed to instance (text). Fawcett repeatedly misunderstands the term as referring just to the semantic stratum.

The Implications Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [2]

Fawcett (2010: 157-8):

However, since the current situation is that there is not yet a published work in any version of SFL that demonstrates how to use the features in system networks for the systemic analysis of texts, IFG-style analyses may still have a role to play for a while. The system networks for the Sydney Grammar have of course now been published (in Matthiessen 1995), but these networks are not in fact designed for use in text analysis, and they are often hard for the reader to interpret. Moreover there are no published guidelines as to how to use system networks for the task of making analyses of real-life texts, and no published examples of such analyses, other than those in Fawcett (1999) and in Figure 10 of Section 7.9. The publication of Fawcett (in press) and Fawcett (forthcoming a), as described at the end of Section 7.8, make available the Cardiff Grammar versions of (a) the functional structure of text-sentences and (b) system networks that are equivalent in their coverage (but more explicitly semantic) to the Sydney Grammar networks found in Matthiessen (1995). Moreover Fawcett (forthcoming a) contains guidelines that show the analyst how to go about making such analyses, and it contains many such examples.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue. As previously noted, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004) provides, for each metafunction, clause analyses which display the features selected.

[2] To be clear, the structures exemplified in IFG represent an integral dimension of SFL Theory.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, system networks are the formal means by which language is modelled, and which specify the structures that Fawcett equates with text analysis.

[4] To be clear, here Fawcett presents his own difficulty in interpreting system networks as a problem with the networks themselves.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously noted, Figure 10 does not include the networks from which its features are derived, and misrepresents paradigmatic features of the entire clause as individual elements of syntagmatic structures ("strands of meaning").

[6] As previously noted, these promised works — Fawcett (in press) and Fawcett (forthcoming a) — remain unpublished, 20 years after the first edition of this publication.

The Implications Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [1]

Fawcett (2010: 157):

The main purpose of this chapter has been to clarify the status of the representations of clauses given in IFG and the derived works. We have also seen, in Section 7.9, that there is an alternative and more truly systemic means of representing the multifunctional nature of language, i.e., a representa[t]ion of the systemic features. In systemic functional grammar such a representation is inherently more revealing than any structural representation. As Halliday himself says, "the system takes priority; the most abstract representation [...] is in paradigmatic terms. Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features" (Halliday 1993:4505).

The consequence of having both a representation at the level of meaning and a representation of the single integrated structure — something that is required, as we have seen, in the Sydney model as well as the Cardiff model — is that the many lines of structure in an IFG analysis are, from both the theoretical-generative and the text-descriptive viewpoints, redundant. They are redundant because the analysis in terms of the features chosen in the system networks already displays clearly the different strands of meaning, as in the example of such an analysis in Figure 10.

Blogger Comments:

[1] We have also seen, in the examination of Section 7.9, that Fawcett's "alternative and more truly systemic means of representing the multifunctional nature of language" — Figure 10 — confuses systemic features with structural elements, thereby attributing features of the whole clause to elements of clause structure. These theoretical inconsistencies, alone, invalidate Fawcett's model.

[2] This is true, and Fawcett has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand what Halliday means by it. Despite the system taking priority in SFL Theory, Fawcett has focused instead on structure, not just in this chapter, not just in this entire book, but in his reworking of Halliday's theory — even to the extent of misrepresenting systemic features as structural elements (Figure 10).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as has been demonstrated previously, over and over. In the "Sydney model" (Halliday's version of his own theory), there is no need for an "integrated structure", since it is the realisation of the metafunctional clause structures in a syntagm of clause constituents, groups and phrases, that provides the skeleton onto which the functions are mapped. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstanding arises from his confusing formal constituency (the rank scale) with function structure. As will be seen, Fawcett argues against the theoretical value of a rank scale.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Fawcett's alternative analysis (Figure 10) does not make metafunctional clause structures redundant, because his semantic analysis, which displays paradigmatic features, does not present an analysis of syntagmatic structure:

An Addendum To The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL

Fawcett (2010: 156-7):

As an addendum to the line of argument set out here, we should note that there are important theoretical differences between the Cardiff Grammar and the Sydney Grammar (within the general framework summarised in Figure 6 in Section 4.9 of Chapter 4). The most important difference is in way in which the various 'strands of meaning' are represented. While the Cardiff Grammar represents the meanings systemically — i.e., in terms of the features that have been chosen in the system networks that constitute the 'meaning potential' of the language — Halliday represents the meaning by 'functions'. His use of this concept for representing meanings can be traced back to the stage in the development of the theory in which it was believed that the realisation of the features in the system networks necessarily took place in two stages: in the first the grammar would use the 'selection expression' of features that were chosen on a traversal of the system network to create an unordered string of 'functions' (and of conflated functions), and in the second these 'functions' would be ordered in sequence.²⁶

²⁶ See Berry (1977:29-31) for an introductory account of this version of the model. The fullest implementation by far of the concept of realisation in two stages is that described in Hudson (1971), which had 76 such 'functions' (these being explicitly at the level of form, however). In a later work Hudson reduced them to just three (Hudson 1976), and this constitutes a little subsidiary evidence for the position taken here, i.e., that it is unnecessary for a systemic grammar first to generate 'functions' and then to order them.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is true, as the careful examination on this blog demonstrates. For example, the "Sydney Grammar" is the theory that Halliday painstakingly created, whereas the "Cardiff Grammar" is merely Fawcett's alteration of the theory that Halliday painstakingly created. More importantly, as demonstrated over and over again, Fawcett repeatedly misrepresents Halliday's model, while his own model, Figure 4, is invalidated by its own internal inconsistencies.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. The discussion in Section 4.9 is not concerned with Halliday's "Sydney Grammar", but with an earlier development (c1970) that was soon superseded, as previously explained. Figure 6, in which Fawcett has added the label 'COMBINED' to Halliday's diagram, otherwise displays the earlier model:

[3] To be clear, as this blog demonstrates, this is not the most important difference between the Cardiff Grammar and Halliday's version of his own theory, but it nicely illustrates the type of misunderstandings that invalidate Fawcett's version of Halliday's theory. As previously explained, Fawcett represents 'strands of meaning' — that is, structures — as systemic features.  As well as confusing the syntagmatic with the paradigmatic axis, this results in features of the clause being  represented as features of clause constituents.

Halliday's 'functions', on the other hand, are elements of function structure, with each structure of the clause being the relation between elements.

[4] To be clear, this "concept for representing meanings" is the syntagmatic dimension of the theory. As previously explained, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) misrepresents the relation between system and structure as a (stratified) relation between potential and instance:

[5] To be clear, other people's interpretations of earlier versions of Halliday's theory do not represent the "Sydney Grammar". That is, the inclusion of this in Fawcett's argument constitutes the logical fallacy known as a red herring.

[6] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday's theory. To be clear, the grammar does not first generate "functions" — i.e. elements of function structure — and then order them. In SFL Theory, the grammar is modelled as a system of choices, with different choices specifying the different structures that realise them.

The Logical Conclusion Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [3]

Fawcett (2010: 156):

16. As a final point, we might note that the Cardiff Grammar has a simpler architecture than the Sydney Grammar with respect to the relationship between the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc. and their realisations in form. The former is summarised in Figure 4 of Chapter 3 and the latter in Figure 8 of Section 7.4 3. The Cardiff model is also simpler in that its system networks have been semanticised to the point where there is no need to have a higher layer of networks, as there seems to be in the model described in Halliday (1994) and Matthiessen (1995).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the simpler architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) is riddled with internal inconsistencies that invalidate it as a model. These include positing realisation rules involving semantic features at the level of form, such that realisation rules realise system networks, and positing structure as an instance of realisation rules:

[2] To be clear, the figure in Section 7.4.3, Figure 9*, says nothing about "the relationship between the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc. and their realisations in form" in the "Sydney Grammar" since it is merely a metafunctional analysis of clause structure, without reference to the systems that specify each structure:

* Figure 8 presents a modification of Figure 4 to accommodate Fawcett's mistaken notion of structure conflation.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's "semanticisation" of Halliday's grammatical grammatical systems is merely his relocation of them from Halliday's stratum of lexicogrammar to his level of meaning. Fawcett does not present any of his "semanticised" versions of these networks in the entire publication.

More importantly, as previously noted, the distinction between semantic networks (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999) and lexicogrammatical networks (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014) is warranted by the explanatory power it provides in modelling grammatical metaphor.

The Logical Conclusion Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [2]

Fawcett (2010: 155-6):

13. The 'multiple structures' showing strings of 'functions' for each strand of meaning are therefore redundant.

14. However, while they are not necessary, there might still be some reason why they are desirable. The reason that seems most likely to be justifiable is that they may help the student of language to picture some central aspect of language, such as the fact that clauses — or, more accurately, several elements of structure in a typical clause — express several different meanings at the same time. 

15. However, the concept of 'strands of meaning' in a clause can be modelled in an equally insightful (and more accurate) way as part of the representation of the semantics of the clause (as exemplified in Figure 10 of Section 7.8). When guidelines for analysing clauses in these terms (and also in setting out such representations) are available, there will be no logical reason to continue using 'multiple structures' for this task — especially if it is agreed, as proposed here, that the concept that a clause consists of a set of several different 'functional structures' should no longer be a part of the theory.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the theoretical value of metafunctional structures of the clause lies in their explanatory power: modelling the functional relations between the elements of structure according to metafunction.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, Fawcett's model is neither "equally insightful" nor "more accurate". As Figure 10 (p148) demonstrates, Fawcett' syntax mixes experiential elements (Agent, Affected) with interpersonal elements (Subject, Operator, Complement, Adjunct) with formal constituents (Main verb). This theoretical inconsistency has the further defect of being inconsistent with the SFL notion of structure as the relation between elements.

Moreover, Fawcett's semantic structure mixes syntagmatic elements (e.g. agent, affected, subject, theme) with paradigmatic features (e.g. positive, unassessed). This theoretical inconsistency has the further defect of misattributing features of the entire clause to individual elements of the clause.


[3] As previously observed, these guidelines (Fawcett in press and Fawcett forthcoming) are still unavailable, 20 years after the first edition of the work under discussion.

The Logical Conclusion Of The Argument For A Theory Of Syntax For SFL [1]

Fawcett (2010: 155):

This is the point that the argument has reached so far. Let us now follow it through to its logical conclusion: 

10. Since it is agreed that, within Halliday's approach, the multiple structures must be integrated into a single structure as the final stage in generation, the next logical step is to ask whether it is in fact possible to first generate the type of multiple structure representation found in IFG as an intermediate stage between the systemic features and the single representation, and then to generate from the multiple structures the single integrating structure (which would require the architecture illustrated in Figure 8 in Section 7.4.1). If the answer were to be that it is possible (which I doubt), we would then need to ask whether this way of generating the final integrated structure is either necessary or desirable. The alternative that should be considered is to generate it directly by realisation rules that take as their input the semantic features chosen in the system network. 

11. This is precisely what is done in the very large computer-implemented Cardiff Grammar (as we saw in Section 7.8). The fact that it is possible to generate text-sentences directly from systemic features demonstrates that there is no need first to generate multiple structures of the type illustrated in IFG and then to integrate them into a single structure. 

12. We therefore know that it is not necessary to generate multiple structures of functions as an intermediate stage. This fact is particularly welcome, given that it is not possible to build a component that will convert seven or more different non-coterminous structures into a single structure (for the reasons given in Section 7.4.1).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained, in Halliday's approach, there is no requirement that the metafunctional clause structures be "integrated into a single structure as the final stage in generation". Fawcett's claim arises from his misunderstandings of formal constituency and functional structure, and is motivated by the fact that his own model has a "single structure as the final stage in generation". That is, his own model is posited as solving a non-existent problem he wrongly attributes to Halliday's model.

[2] This is misleading, because the architecture of Figure 8 is a reworking of Fawcett's model (Figure 4), not Halliday's, and is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL Theory. See, for example, Fawcett Adjusting His Model To Accomodate His Misunderstanding Of Halliday.

[3] This is misleading. The metafunctional clause structures in IFG are "directly generated by" (realise) systemic features — those of clause rank, on the stratum of lexicogrammar. The theoretical motivation for distinguishing grammatical systems from semantic systems is the explanatory power that the distinction provides for understanding grammatical metaphor.

As previously explained, Fawcett's model, Figure 10, misrepresents systemic features as structural elements, thereby misattributing features of the whole clause to individual elements of clause structure.