Systemic Syntax Without Systems

Fawcett (2010: 165):

The last of the three theoretical categories recognised in "Some proposals" (along with 'unit' and 'class of unit') was element of structure. Like 'unit', this term was used in essentially the same sense as in "Categories". However, the concept plays a far stronger part in the theory as a whole than it does in "Categories" because of the mutual dependency, in the present framework, of the definitions of a class of unit and its elements of structure. In "Categories", in contrast, a class of unit is defined by its potential for "operation in the structure of the unit next above" (1961/76:64).

In two of its 'categories', then, "Some proposals" is similar to Halliday (1961/76). While the concept of 'class of unit' is broadly similar, the criteria for recognising the 'class' of a 'unit' are very different, and the concept of 'system' does not appear at this level of description at all. However, there are even greater differences between the 'scales' of "Categories" and the 'relationships' of "Some proposals", as the next section shows.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] As previously explained, this downplaying of difference is misleading, because the difference between Fawcett's notion of 'class of unit' and Halliday's notion is indeed significant. Halliday (1961) takes the view 'from above', distinguishing classes of unit according to the functions they realise, whereas Fawcett takes the view 'from below', distinguishing classes of unit according to the structures that realise them. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 50):

What is theoretically determined is the relation between structure and class on the one hand and unit on the other. Class, like structure, is linked to unit: a class is always a class of (members of) a given unit: and the class–structure relation is constant – a class is always defined with reference to the structure of the unit next above, and structure with reference to classes of the unit next below. A class is not a grouping of members of a given unit which are alike in their own structure. In other words, by reference to the rank scale, classes are derived “from above” (or “downwards”) and not “from below” (or “upwards”).

Moreover, as the units 'quantity group', 'quality group' and 'tempering cluster' demonstrate, Fawcett confuses classes of units with their functions.

[3] To be clear, if the concept of system does not "appear" at the level of syntax, then Fawcett's claim that his model is a systemic model of syntax is invalid.