Giving Priority To Form Over Function

 Fawcett (2010: 215):

The principle that each element in a unit realises a different type of meaning brings with it the great advantage that it makes text analysis easier. This is because, once you have worked out what element an item expounds, you typically also know automatically what class of unit the element belongs to. This advantage applies both to human text analysts (perhaps consulting a summary of the syntax of English such as Appendix B) and to a computer parser of text-sentences, e.g., as built for the COMMUNAL Project (Weerasinghe & Fawcett 1993 and Weerasinghe 1994).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that this principle holds for Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, but not for SFL Theory. To be clear, in SFL Theory, each of the clause elements Senser, Process and Phenomenon, for example, realises a different type of meaning.

[2] This nicely demonstrates, once again, that the Cardiff Grammar gives priority to form over function. In this case, the functional element is merely the means of ascertaining the class of formal unit.

Confusing Stratal Relations With Structural Relations

 Fawcett (2010: 214-5):

The second important consequence is that, since every syntactic unit realises a different class of semantic entity, we should expect that, in principle, every element in every class of unit will be different from every element in every other class of unit. Thus we shall not use the terms "modifier" and "head" for more than one class of unit, as some form-centred grammars do (sometimes supplemented by other general, quasi-functional terms such as "complement", "adjunct" and "specifier").  

Here the terms "head" and "modifier" are used only for nominal groups. So elements in the structure of other groups that may at first appear to be partially equivalent to the "modifier' and "head" of a nominal group are given different names, e.g., "temperer" and "apex" in the quality group. The reason is simple: they express different meanings. 

Thus the head of a nominal group such as large houses tells us the 'cultural classification' of the object in terms of the culture associated with the language, and the modifier large tells us 'what sort' of thing it is (here, specifically 'what size' it is). But the apex in a quality group such as very stupid tells us that the 'quality' is 'stupid' and the temperer very tells us the 'quantity' of that 'quality'. 

The important generalisation is that each element of structure appears — in principle — in one (and only one) class of unit, and this holds good both within each unit and across the different classes of unit.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this confuses a stratal relation (between syntactic unit and semantic entity) with the structural relations between elements in a unit. Elements of a unit function relative to other elements in the same structure, and such structures may be multivariate or univariate. As previously explained, in a univariate structure the relation between elements is iteratively one of modification, and this is why, in SFL Theory, it is applied across different classes of unit, such as nominal, verbal, adverbial, conjunction and preposition groups.

[2] This is misleading, because the implication here is that SFL Theory is a form-centred theory and the Cardiff Grammar is not. As this blog has demonstrated over and over, unlike SFL Theory, Fawcett's systemic-functional syntax gives priority to form over function (and structure over system).

[3] This is misleading, because the "quasi-functional" terms Complement and Adjunct name elements in both Fawcett's functional syntax and SFL Theory.

[4] To be clear, this creates a theoretical inconsistency since it posits different terms for the same structural relation, as a result of confusing stratal relations with structural relations; see [1].

[5] To be clear, this confuses the logical (univariate) structure of nominal groups, Modifier ^ Head, with the experiential (multivariate) structure, Epithet ^ Thing, and mistakes the meanings (semantics) they realise for culture (context).

[6] To be clear, this simply confuses degree (very) with quantity.

[7] To be clear, this clause is tautological, since it merely repeats the meaning of the previous clause, but as if it were new information.

Confusing Formal Unit With Functional Element

Fawcett (2010: 214, 214n):

The basic principle is, as stated above, that an element is defined in terms of its function in expressing meaning. This has two important consequences for describing languages.

The first is the principle that every element in a given class of unit serves a different function in that unit. Sometimes, as in the case of the different types of modifier in an English nominal group, the differences between the functions of elements appear to be very slight — but they are always there.¹⁸ Sometimes, when an element serves one of several functions (three at least in the case of the head of a nominal group), a more general — but still functional — label such as "head" must be used.  

¹⁸ If there is no differences at all between the function served by two units, as with scrumptious and delicious in (That was) a superbly scrumptious, dead delicious sweet, they should be treated as two co-ordinated units that fill the same element.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, from the perspective of SFL Theory, this confuses unit with element. An element doesn't serve different functions, because an element is the function served by a unit.

On the other hand, from the perspective of SFL Theory, this principle fails to deal with units such as the following clause, in which the element 'Location' features three times, and the element 'Adjunct' appears four times:

[2]  To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's "different types of modifier" confuses two distinct types of structural relations: univariate with multivariate. A univariate structure is the iteration of the same functional relationship, modification, whereas it is a multivariate structure where each element has a distinct function within the whole. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390):

We refer to this kind of structure as a univariate structure, one which is generated as an iteration of the same functional relationship (cf. Halliday, 1965, 1979): α is modified by β, which is modified by γ, which is ... . By contrast, the type of structure exemplified by Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing we call a multivariate structure: a configuration of elements each having a distinct function with respect to the whole.

[3] Again, from the perspective of SFL Theory, this confuses unit with element. An element doesn't serve different functions, because an element is the function served by a unit.

[4] Trivially, unlike the Cardiff Grammar, SFL Theory does distinguish between the two wordings

• a superbly scrumptious, dead delicious sweet, and
• a superbly scrumptious and dead delicious sweet (co-ordination):

Misrepresenting Halliday On Nominal Group Structure In A Footnote

 Fawcett (2010: 213-4, 213n-4n):

The main characteristic of an element is that it is defined functionally, rather than positionally. This should surely be a founding principle of a functional approach to syntax — and yet the tradition of using positional labels still lingers on in many functional grammars.¹⁷

¹⁷ For example, terms such as 'pre-deictic' and 'pre-numerative' (as found in Halliday 1994:195-6) are simply positional labels. Rather similarly, the terms 'premodifier' and 'postmodifier' (Halliday 1994:194-5), signal a positional meaning more strongly than they signal a functional meaning. This is because, at Halliday's primary level of delicacy in the analysis of a nominal group, the term 'modifier' means little more than 'anything other than the head'. So these terms give virtually no information about the element's function. 

However, I must admit to retaining one traditional 'positional' label in the Cardiff Grammar, i.e., 'preposition'. As said in Section 10.2.6, I would have preferred an explicitly functional label, but terms such as 'relator' are not specific enough, and we retain the traditional term "preposition" both because there is a lack of a clear alternative and because it is so strongly established. We define it as functioning to express a 'minor relationship with a thing'. Note that in the description of English one item that actually occurs 'postpositionally' is included as a 'preposition' — i.e ago, as in five years ago.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading (and hypocritical) because, contrary to the implication, Fawcett's own approach to functional syntax includes elements that are defined positionally. As can be seen from the previous post, Appendix B (p304), lists:

• 'Starter' and 'Ender' as elements of the clause,
• 'finisher' as an element of the quality group,
• 'quantity finisher' as an element of the quantity group,
• 'starter' and 'ender' as elements found in all groups, and
• 'Opening Quotation mark' and 'Closing Quotation mark' as elements of a text.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The terms 'pre-Deictic' and 'pre-Numerative' are not "simply positional labels", since they identify the functions 'Deictic' and 'Numerative' respectively. However, the function 'pre-Deictic' — unlike 'post-Deictic' — is not an element in Halliday's model, and the 'pre-Numerative' was later termed 'extended Numerative' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 333).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The term 'pre-Modifier' and 'post-Modifier' do not signal positional meaning more strongly than functional meaning, since they identify the function 'Modifier' and, through prefixes, additionally provide the location of the modification relative to the Head.

[4] This misrepresents Halliday. To be clear, in SFL Theory, delicacy is a dimension of paradigmatic system, not syntagmatic structure.

[5] To be clear, here Fawcett misleads through his ignorance of the notion of univariate structure: 'an iteration of the same functional relationship' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 390, 451).

[6] As can be seen from the four preceding points, this is the direct opposite of what is actually true.

[7] To be clear, 'preposition', as a class of word, is a unit of form, so renaming it with a function label would be theoretically inconsistent. In SFL Theory, a preposition functions as a minor Process/Predicator of a prepositional phrase.

[8] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the experiential function of a preposition, minor Process, relates to the function of a nominal group, Range, in a prepositional phrase, whereas Thing is an experiential function of a word in a nominal group.

[9] To be clear, the word ago is an adverb, not a preposition, and five years ago is a nominal group, not a prepositional phrase:

Element Of Structure: Cardiff Grammar Vs SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 213-4):

The concept of element of structure (or element for short) is the second of the three fundamental categories in syntax in the present framework (the others being class of unit and item). The term "element (of structure)" and the term "structure" are used here in broadly the same sense as in "Categories" — but with two important provisos that I shall mention below.

Elements of structure are the immediate components of classes of units. …

Appendix B summarises the main elements that occur in each of the five major units of English (and also in the genitive cluster — a class of 'cluster' that may itself contain a nominal group).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is significantly different from SFL Theory, where elements of structure are not the immediate components of classes of units. In SFL Theory, the immediate components (constituents) of a unit are units of the rank below. For example, the immediate constituents of a clause are groups/phrases.

Elements, on the other hand, are the functions served by units in the structure of a unit of the rank above. For example, the element 'Senser' is a function served by a nominal group in the structure of a clause.

[2] Appendix B provides the following elements of units. It can be seen that Fawcett models quotation marks (graphology) — i.e. written mode only — as elements of text structure (semantics). 

Fawcett's Claim That Clusters Do Not Function Directly As Clause Elements

Fawcett (2010: 213):

The human proper name cluster (hpnclr) always and only fills the head of a nominal group. Three of its most frequent elements are title (t), one or more forenames (fl, f2, etc), and the family name (fn). Other classes of cluster also name objects, e.g., the address, date, and clock time clusters. See Fawcett (in press) for more details of these.

Occasionally, when a cluster fills the head of a nominal group and there is no other element in it, the cluster may at first appear to function as a direct element of the clause. Examples of the two classes of cluster described here can be seen in the underlined portions of This is my father's or She admired Sir Terence Conran. But this is not evidence that they are functioning directly as elements of the clause, any more than is the occurrence of the items his in This is his and him in She admired him. These are all simply cases of what is termed "singularly branching". Compare examples such as He's not the Terence Conran who I knew twenty years ago.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

[2] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. Whether these wordings are termed nominal groups (SFL Theory) or clusters within nominal groups (Cardiff Grammar), they serve functions at clause rank. In SFL Theory, their experiential and interpersonal functions can be identified as follows:

The absurdity of Fawcett's claim can be demonstrated by removing the cluster (nominal group) serving as the final participant from each of these clauses.

[3] This is misleading, because the term 'singularly branching' — merely the notion of a unit (nominal group) composed of a single element (head) — says nothing about whether or not these units function "directly" as clause elements. Fawcett (pp245-6):

Componence is normally represented diagrammatically by lines going down the page, either vertically or diagonally. The lines start from the unit and branch out downwards to the elements below. Sometimes only one element of a unit is used, and in such cases of what is sometimes termed singulary branching there is simply a vertical line from the unit down to the element.

Problems With Fawcett's Argument For The Genitive Cluster

 Fawcett (2010: 212):

It is the fact that 

(1) nominal groups such as the dog undeniably occur within the unit of that we are here calling the "genitive cluster" and 

(2) the genitive element 's functions as a 'relator' to the whole nominal group (and not just dog) 

that has led to the introduction to the grammar of the present unit.

See Appendix B and, for a slightly fuller picture of this unit, Fawcett (in press).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, neither of these justifications for the genitive cluster withstand close scrutiny.

On the first point, the fact that nominal groups "undeniably occur" within the genitive cluster is no justification for the genitive cluster because nominal groups "undeniably occur" in a range of units, including the clause, prepositional phrase and the nominal group.

On the second point, the fact that the genitive element 's functions as a 'relator' to the whole nominal group is evidence that it functions in the nominal group rather than the cluster. (For it to function in the cluster, it must relate just to the dog).

[2] To be clear, Appendix B (pp304, 307) provides the following:

Note that the structure of the genitive cluster includes both a conjunction and an "ender" (e), as well as an element ('own') named for the word that realises it.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this work.

Mistaking A Structure Marker For A Functional Element

  Fawcett (2010: 212):

Note however that, despite the small size of the item expounding the genitive element, it serves a function that is equivalent to a preposition, through its expression of the relationship of 'generalised possession' (i.e., 'part-whole' relationships, etc, as well as 'ownership'). Compare the dog's back legs and the back legs of the dog.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the preposition of in the nominal group the back legs of the dog is not a functional element but a structure marker. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 341, 425):

Note that the structure the cooking of the rice, where the Medium follows of, is not an exception; of is functioning here, as it typically does, not as preposition but as structure marker – cf. genitive ‘s in the rice’s cooking. …

The exception is prepositional phrases with of, which normally occur only as Postmodifier; the reason is that they are not typical prepositional phrases, because in most of its contexts of use of is functioning not as minor Process/Predicator but rather as a structure marker in the nominal group (cf. to as a structure marker in the verbal group).

[2] To be clear, the part-whole relation obtains within the nominal group, not within the cluster, thereby invalidating the notion of the cluster as the unit that construes (generalised) possession.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these are both nominal groups, one with a nominal group — the dog's — embedded as Deictic, and the other with a prepositional phrase — of the dog — embedded as Qualifier:

Problems With The Structural Elements Of A Genitive Cluster

 Fawcett (2010: 212):

The two most frequent elements of a genitive cluster are the possessor (po) and the genitive element (g). The possessor is typically filled by a nominal group (and occasionally by two or more co-ordinated nominal groups), and the possessor [genitive element] is always and only filled by the morpheme 's (or, after certain word endings, just an apostrophe, as in the Jones' dog).

Thus this cluster has the unusual characteristic that one of its two main elements is typically filled by a group and the other is always expounded by a morpheme.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this instance of Fawcett's genitive cluster is structured as follows:

One problem here is that an apostrophe is graphological form, not grammatical form, and does not apply to language in spoken mode. A second problem is that 'genitive' is not a function. A third problem is that the possessor is not related to a 'possessed' within this structure, but to an element (Head/Thing) of another structure (nominal group). This is a problem because, in SFL Theory, a structure is the relation between elements. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

In contrast, in SFL Theory, unknown to Fawcett, this genitive cluster is a rank-shifted nominal group serving as the Deictic of another nominal group:

It is clear that one reason why Fawcett proposed the notion of a genitive cluster is because he could not fathom how to analyse such forms using SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, this "unusual characteristic" might be more accurately described as a theoretical inconsistency.

The Genitive Cluster

Fawcett (2010: 212, 212n):

The first of the two classes of cluster in English is the genitive cluster (genclr). This always fills either (1) the deictic determiner (dd) of a nominal group, (2) the head (h) or, less frequently, (3) a modifier (m), as in the underlined portion of a girl's bike, where the meaning is 'a bike that is suitable for a girl'), or (infrequently) (4) the type of deictic that occurs in a quality group (qld), as in my sister's most precious doll.¹⁶

¹⁶ It is not the case, of course, that all deictic determiners and heads are filled by genitive clusters; there are choices in the system network that lead to either the direct exponence of an element by an item (e.g., the) or to re-entry to the network, in order to generate a cluster (e.g., this university's). See Section 11.6.2 of Chapter 6 for 'variation in depth of exponence'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this genitive cluster is simply a word (girl's) serving as the Classifier of a nominal group:

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this genitive cluster is an embedded nominal group (my sister's) serving as the Deictic of another nominal group:

Clearly, from the perspective of a functional grammar, the genitive cluster is a redundant class of form that only arises from Fawcett giving priority to form over function.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett does not provide the system network.

Fawcett's Reason Why Clusters Occur Within The Nominal Group

Fawcett (2010: 211-2):

Clusters are a special set of units whose function is to carry complex meanings associated with two elements of the nominal group in particular: the deictic determiner and the head. It seems that the semantics of referring to things is so complex that we regularly need to introduce units within the nominal group, and embedded groups of all classes therefore occur quite frequently within the nominal group. … But certain classes of unit that occur within the nominal group can only occur within this unit (with one rare exception). We term these units clusters.

The reason why clusters occur within the nominal group is that the types of meaning that they express are inherently 'enrichments' of certain types of meaning that are inherently associated with things. Thus they do not realise meanings that can also be elements of situations, as groups do, so that they can never function as direct elements of the clause. They are therefore effectively sub-units of the nominal group. In this way, then, they are quite different from the four classes of group, all of which can fill various elements in various units.

As a consequence of the fact that they function within the nominal group, clusters can never function as referring expressions, as clauses and groups can. In other words, they can never be the answer to a question such as Who's this?, Where do you live? etc.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the nominal group is the grammatical resource for constructing taxonomies of things. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 265, 518):

Participants are realised by nominal groups, which allow more or less indefinite expansion (through the univariate structure of modification). This expansion is the grammar’s way of constructing taxonomies of things: grouping them into classes, assigning properties to them, quantifying them and then uniquely identifying any individual thing, or any number, set or class of things in relation to the “here–&–now” of the speech event. The expansion involves open sets of things and qualities, realised by lexical items; but it can also capture a circumstance, realised by a prepositional phrase, or an entire figure, realised by a clause, and put it to use as a quality in describing or identifying such a thing or set of things, e.g. this unique 20-piece handpainted china dinner service with optional accessories never before offered for sale at such a bargain price. …

The other resource for constructing taxonomies of things is the expansion of the nominal group, and here the picture is very different from that with verbs. Nouns are expanded lexically as well as grammatically, so that, while entities (like processes) are located deictically relative to the ‘here–&–now’, they are also (unlike processes) extensively classified and described. … Thus the grammar has the potential for construing a complex arrangement of classes and subclasses for any entity which participates in a process; … common nouns are almost indefinitely expandable, and it is this resource which organises our universe into it elaborate taxonomies of things.

[2] This claim is falsified by Fawcett's own examples, such as This is my father's* and She admired Sir Terence Conran where the genitive cluster my father's and the proper name cluster Sir Terence Conran each function as a "direct element" (Complement participant) in the clause:

[3] To be clear, this is true. Fawcett's clusters are constituents ("sub-units") of nominal groups, which makes them quite different from groups.

[4] This claim is falsified by Fawcett's own example, She admired Sir Terence Conran where the proper name cluster Sir Terence Conran does function as what Fawcett terms a 'referring expression', since it "refers" to a specific person.

To be clear, by 'referring expression', Fawcett means ideational denotation, not reference in the SFL sense of textual cohesion.  From the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's denotation relation here obtains between language and perceptual categorisations of experience, whereas in SFL Theory, the denotation is the realisation relation between semantics and lexicogrammar.

∞

* Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):

If the relationship is construed as the Attribute, then it takes the form of a possessive nominal group, e.g. Peter’s; the thing possessed is the Carrier and the possessor is the Attribute. These are not, in fact, syntagmatically distinct from ‘identifying’ clauses; the clause the piano is Peter’s could be either ‘attributive’. ‘the piano is a member of the class of Peter’s possessions’ or ‘identifying’, ‘the piano is identified as belonging to Peter’. (Note that the reversed form Peter’s is the piano can only be ‘identifying’.)

Fawcett's Concept Of 'Cluster'

Fawcett (2010: 211, 211n):

This unit of syntax is not found in any other grammatical framework. Yet the fact is that there are frequently occurring units in English syntax that have the characteristics of the classes of unit to be described below. Perhaps I may add, in support of the proposals put forward here, that most other grammarians simply do not say how they would handle, in a systematic manner, the syntax of the types of phenomena for which the various classes of cluster are used.¹⁵

¹⁵ In my experience, the need to recognise these units only becomes imperative (1) when one is working with a functional theory of syntax in which the criteria for recognising a unit in are made fully explicit (as they are here) and (2) when there is a serious commitment to the full analysis of large quantities of naturally occurring text. The need to attend to individual orthographic words is also increased when one tries to build a computer model that parses a text consisting of a string of words into its functional syntax.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory as not providing the means of analysing the wordings that Fawcett models as clusters. This claim is invalidated by providing the relevant analyses. For example, the genitive cluster girl's in the nominal group a girl's bike ('a bike that is suitable for a girl') is a word serving as Classifier, whereas the genitive cluster my sister's in the nominal group my sister's most precious doll is an embedded nominal group serving as Deictic.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents personal anecdote as argument in support of a theoretical proposal, and implies that only Fawcett's approach is "fully explicit" and has a "serious commitment".

See also Why Fawcett's Unit 'Cluster' Is Unnecessary

Misunderstanding Interpersonal Metaphor As The Experientialisation Of Non-Experiential Meaning

 Fawcett (2010: 210-1):

While the nominalisation of events is both the most frequent type of incongruence and the type with the most subtle variations, there are many others, such as the expression of a quality as a thing, e.g., his great happiness.

Halliday discusses such phenomena under the general heading of "grammatical metaphor" (e.g., Halliday 1994:340f.). However, the scope of the term has become very broad, and I find it more helpful to think in terms of specific types of phenomena. Thus, nominalisation occurs within experiential meaning, so that it is a different matter from the experientialisation of non-experiential meaning — e.g., saying It's possible that he'll be there rather than He may be there. See Fawcett (in press) for a rather fuller picture of these relationships.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands nominalisation. To be clear, in SFL Theory, nominalisation is the reconstrual of processes and qualities as things (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 314). That is, Fawcett's "other" type of incongruence is actually just another example of nominalisation.

[2] This is misleading. Halliday's grammatical metaphor is an incongruent relation between semantics and grammar, not between an extra-linguistic belief system and linguistic meaning (semantics).

[3] To be clear, the theoretical notion of grammatical metaphor is clearly defined and systematically described. For ideational metaphor, see Chapter 6 in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 227-296).

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this is an instance of an interpersonal metaphor of modality, not "the experientialisation of non-experiential meaning". The non-metaphorical use of may is an instance of implicit subjective modality, whereas the metaphorical use of it's possible that is an instance of explicit objective modality. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 186):

[5] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.