The SFL Method Of Sequencing Elements In A Unit

Fawcett (2010: 221):

Systemic functional linguists have explored two ways of locating elements in an appropriate sequential relationship to each other in a unit. The first — which may at first sight appear to be the simplest — is to locate each element in its 'place' by relating it to some previously located element. This approach depends crucially on the existence of what we might term an 'anchor' element in each unit, i.e., the existence of a 'pivotal' element that is always present. It was this method that Halliday used in his seminal first description of a generative SF grammar (Halliday 1969/81). Surprisingly, references to this as a method of sequencing elements in a SF grammar are still found in current descriptions by Halliday (1993: 5405) and Matthiessen (1995: 23-4).

I say "surprisingly" because, when Mann and Matthiessen were working on the large-scale computer implementation of Halliday's SF grammar in the Penman Project in the late 1970s, this approach caused problems. When faced with the additional complexities of building an [sic] large, generative grammar, they found that in practice they had to turn to the second method — to which we shall come in a moment (Matthiessen, personal communication).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the first method of sequencing elements is Halliday's theoretical approach, whereas the second is Fawcett's method for adapting SFL Theory to the limitations of computers for the purpose of text generation.

[2] This is potentially misleading. In terms of the realisation statements that specify the sequencing of elements, what is required is the insertion of the elements that are to be sequenced. The notions of 'pivotal' and 'anchor' are irrelevant, as demonstrated by realisation rules like Finite^Subject, where neither element is 'pivotal' or an 'anchor', even in Fawcett's terms, since the 'anchor' or 'pivotal' element of the clause in the Cardiff Grammar is the 'Main Verb' (p201).)

[3] To be clear, the cited instances are as follows. Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272):

(c) 'Order' an element with respect to another, or to some defined location (e.g., order finite auxiliary before subject);

Matthiessen (1995: 23-4):

Structuring statements determine the organisation within one layer of a function structure:

(1) the presence of a grammatical function (insertion; e.g., "insert Subject," symbolised +Subject), 

(2) the relative sequence of two grammatical functions (ordering; e.g., "order Subject Finite," symbolised Subject^Finite), and  

(3) the constituency relationship between two functions (expansion; e.g., "expand Mood Subject", symbolised Mood(Subject)).

[4] The word "surprisingly" here is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. The need to adapt a theory of human language to the limitations of computers for text generation would not be surprising to anyone engaged in such a project, unless they were unable to distinguish between theory and its context-specific application.

Fawcett's Concept Of Places In A Unit

Fawcett (2010: 220):

Elements, as we have seen, are the 'components' of units. However, there is another category that intervenes between a unit and its elements. This is the concept of the places in a unit. In other words, elements occur at places in units.

In the analysis of texts the places are usually omitted (as in Figure 10 in Chapter 7). However, in the full, generative version of the grammar they play an essential role, as in Figure 13 in Section 10.4.4 below, and as illustrated in the generation of a text-sentence in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993).

Like a number of other concepts that are central in a modern SF grammar (such as the concept of 'system' itself and 'lexis as most delicate grammar') the concept of 'place' can be found in "Categories" (as I pointed out in Section 2.3 of Chapter 2). The word is used rather than defined as a central concept, but its use there seems to be consistent with the sense in which it is used here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL Theory, in which the constituents ('components') of a unit are units of the rank below. Elements, on the other hand, are the functions that those lower rank units serve in the structure of the higher rank, as exemplified by a nominal group serving as the Phenomenon of a mental clause.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory there are no pre-existing places in structures at which elements appear. Instead, the sequencing of elements in a structure is specified by realisation rules in system networks. For example, in the type of example that Fawcett comes to discuss (p224-5), the different ordering of elements according to MOOD selection:

• the feature 'indicative' activates 'realised by insert Mood, expand: insert Finite, insert Subject',
• the more delicate feature 'declarative' activates 'realised by the order Subject ^ Finite, whereas
• the interrogative feature 'yes/no' activates 'realised by the order Finite ^ Subject', and
• the disjunct interrogative feature 'WH' activates 'realised by insert Wh, the order Wh ^ Finite'.

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 162).

[3] Figure 13 (p225):

[4] This is misleading, because 'Categories' (Halliday 1961) set out the architecture of a long superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar, not a "modern" Systemic Functional Grammar.

Misrepresenting The SFL Model Of Structure

 Fawcett (2010: 220):

Moreover, the representation of any layers of structure other than the one that reflects directly the choices in the system networks is redundant. (It is not even useful for pedagogical purposes, since it is misleading to suggest that a string of elements of structure that function as the realisations of a set of individually chosen meanings are in some sense "a single element".)

An[d] elements of structure should be defined in terms of the function it serves, i.e., by the aspect of the meaning of the unit that it expresses, rather than by its position in the unit. Since each element in each unit realises a different type of meaning, it should have a different label. The position of an element in its unit is a matter that is handled separately, through the concept of 'place' — the concept that is to be discussed in the next section.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, the Mood element, for example, is specified by the realisation statement 'insert Mood' which is activated by the selection of the feature 'indicative'; see the Mood system in the previous post.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, Mood and Theme are both single elements, each of which can consist of constituent elements.

[3] On the one hand, this confuses formal constituents with functional elements. In SFL Theory, it is formal constituents (e.g. nominal and verbal groups of the clause) that are interpreted in terms of the function they serve (e.g. Senser and Process elements of clause structure). 

On the other hand, it is misleading because it falsely claims that, in SFL Theory, elements are defined in terms of position instead of function; see the previous posts on Fawcett's misunderstandings of nominal group structure.

[4] To be clear, as previously noted, Fawcett's principle is violated by Fawcett's own model, where there are multiple elements with the same label, such as the Modifier element of the nominal group (p306):

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the position of an element in a structure is specified systemically.

Fawcett's Argument For 'Secondary Structure'

Fawcett (2010: 219-20):

In developing a SF grammar, both for very large computer implementations and for text analysis, priority must be given to the "most delicate" possible of structural descriptions, because a full account of the meaning potential of a unit (such as a clause) requires statements about each element in its own right. It is the individual elements of a unit that carry the different meanings that are the focus of interest for a functional grammarian. 

For example, the fact that the main mood meanings of a clause are realised by the configuration of the Subject and Operator is best shown by stating the semantic feature that generates this configuration in an analysis of the meaning potential of the clause, as in Figure 10 in Chapter 7 (rather than introducing an additional layer of structure as part of its syntax, as in the case of "Mood + Residue" in IFG).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Systemic Functional Theory is a model of language as a phenomenon. Text analysis is an application of the theory, and computer implementations require the modification of the theory to accommodate the limitations of computers.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, this priority flatly contradicts Fawcett's previous argument against what he regards as the "most delicate" structures; see the previous post. On the other hand, this priority is inconsistent with SFL Theory, because it argues for the view 'from below' (structure and form) rather than the view 'from above' (system and function).

[3] To be clear, the focus of interest for a Systemic Functional grammarian is the system that specifies structural realisations.

[4] To be clear, as previously noted, in Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, structural realisations are specified systemically as realisation statements. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 162):

[5] To be clear, as previously noted, Fawcett's Figure 10 confuses systemic features of the clause with elements of structure:

Moreover, the only semantic feature that corresponds to the configuration of Subject and Operator is the unexplained 'information giver'. Significantly, Fawcett does not provide the semantic networks from which these features are derived.

Fawcett's Argument Against 'Secondary Structure'

Fawcett (2010: 219):

A more general reason why we should expect the use of the concept of 'secondary structure' to wither away in modern SF grammars is that we now have much fuller functional descriptions of languages than those that were available when Halliday was writing "Categories". The result is that it no longer feels adequate simply to label all the elements that precede the head in a nominal group as a single 'modifier', or to label all the thematised elements in a case of multiple Theme as a single Theme. In IFG, for example, we would not find a nominal group such as that lovely porcelain vase from China that you broke last week me [sic] being analysed as if it had just three elements of structure at the 'primary' degree of delicacy (i.e., Modifier, Head and Qualifier, as these terms are used in "Categories"). Instead it would be analysed immediately into its supposedly 'secondary' structure, i.e., as having (in IFG terms) a Deictic, an Epithet, a Classifier, a Head and two Qualifiers.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, the concept of a more delicate 'secondary structure' was a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), and does not feature in SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, having "much fuller functional descriptions of languages" is irrelevant to the theoretical principle of delicacy of structure in Halliday (1961). Halliday originally proposed the notion of delicacy of structure (elaboration) to distinguish it from the compositional rank scale (extension). However, with the development of SFL Theory, it became clear that the organising principle was not delicacy (elaboration), but composition (extension), though applied to functional elements, not formal constituents (the rank scale).

[3] To be clear, on the one hand, here Fawcett has become confused, switching his argument against 'secondary structure' to an argument against 'primary structure' ("a single Modifier", "a single Theme"). On the other hand, the "argument" — "it no longer feels adequate" — is merely a personal attitudinal evaluation, not an instance of reasoning on the basis of evidence; see [4] and [5].

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, the reason why a 'Categories' analysis would not appear in IFG is because IFG is an exposition of the current theory: Systemic Functional Grammar (1994), whereas Categories is an exposition of the superseded theory: Scale & Category Grammar (1961). On the other hand, Fawcett is again arguing against what he believes is a primary structure, while purporting to be arguing against what he takes to be secondary structure.

[5] This is misleading, because it misapplies SFL Theory as expounded in IFG. On the one hand, Fawcett misrepresents an experiential structure as a secondary structure of logical structure — while placing a logical element (Head) in an experiential structure. On the other hand, Fawcett neglects to mention how the logical structure is expanded, or how the two Qualifiers differ in terms of the constituency of the nominal group:

Fawcett's Argument Against 'Primary' And 'Secondary' Structures

Fawcett (2010: 218-9):

In my view, then, it is unhelpful to have 'primary' and 'secondary' structures in the representation of a clause. Firstly, it implies that elements form a 'multiple element', when the evidence from the syntactic distribution of the elements themselves shows that they do not. Secondly, they risk introducing misunderstandings about the number of 'strands of meaning' in a clause.

However, while the concept of 'more delicate structure' has no place in a modern theory of SF syntax, I have to admit that the Cardiff Grammar's description of English still contains a few historical remnants of the concept. One is found in the convention that the term "modifier" is used as the second part of the names of many different elements in the nominal group, e.g., the "affective modifier", the "epithet modifier", and so on. And the same goes for Adjuncts and, to a lesser extent, determiners in the nominal group and Auxiliaries in the clause. (See Appendix B for examples.) Moreover, at the introductory level of text description we simply use "m" for all the different types of 'modifier', "X" for the different types of 'Auxiliary Verb', and so on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the architecture of SFL Theory does not include the notion of primary and secondary structures distinguished on the basis of delicacy. This was a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961) — the theory on which Fawcett's "modern theory of SF Theory" is based.

[2] This is misleading and confused. It is not that elements "form a multiple element", but that one element such as Theme, Mood or Residue can itself be composed of elements.

[3] This is misleading. On the one hand, Fawcett does not produce the evidence that he claims exists, while on the other hand, in a functional grammar, the criterion for structural elements is their function (the view 'from above'), not their syntactic distribution (the view 'from below').

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The number of strands of meaning in the clause is unambiguously three, because they are metafunctionally defined. The average academic can distinguish between the theoretical principle and the number of rows in a representation of structure.

[5] This is misleading. To be clear, presenting a single line of structural analysis with multiple elements with the same label, as illustrated in Appendix B (pp305-6), does not exemplify Halliday's (1961) double-layered structures of primary and secondary delicacy:

Misrepresenting Halliday On Structural Layers In SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 218):

Thus Halliday continues to use the "Categories" concept of having a 'primary', 'secondary' and if necessary a 'tertiary' structure within each strand of text analysis. However, it is not clear how far this concept still has its former central role in Halliday's current theory. While it is not mentioned in the summary of "Systemic theory" given in Halliday (1993), it is there by implication in his realisation operation "Split" (for a discussion of which see Section 9.2.3 of Chapter 9). And the concept that there is a 'primary' and a 'secondary' structure plays a fairly prominent role in the examples of clause analysis in IFG, often appearing twice in the analysis of a single clause (once for MOOD and once for THEME, whenever there is a case of 'multiple Theme'). Its main justification seems to be that it is thought to add insight to the description. (The theory does not require it, as I have shown in Section 9.2.3 of Chapter 9).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is not true. The notion of primary and secondary structures, conceived of in terms of delicacy (elaboration) of structure, was a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961) only. In SFL Theory, there are no primary and secondary structures, and the principle behind the layered structures of Mood and Theme is composition (extension), not delicacy (elaboration).

[2] To be clear, adding insight to a description is a positive quality of a theory. See previous posts on Mood and Theme for the theoretical motivations for layered structuring that are unknown to Fawcett.

[3] This is misleading, because it is not true. See, for example, two of the previous clarifying critiques of Section 9.2.3, 'A comparison of the realisation operations in the two frameworks':

• Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) On The Realisation Statement 'Expand'
• Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Maximally Extended Theme

Fawcett's Argument Against Layered Representations Of Theme

 Fawcett (2010: 218, 218n):

A similar argument applies to the IFG analysis of Theme, as in Halliday (1994:55). Here the analyses frequently show three layers of structure within one strand of meaning for the 'theme' meanings in a clause.²¹ So, while Halliday may claim that the concept of "secondary structure" does not add another layer of structure, in constituency terms, it does add one or more additional lines of analysis to virtually every representation of a clause.

²¹ The IFG example is Well but then Ann surely wouldn't the best idea be to join the group? It is hard to see why any analysis other than the third and most delicate is required in such cases of multiple Theme. It is unhelpful to imply that all of the thematised elements constitute "the theme" in any semantically unified sense. Similarly, there is little point in giving a line of analysis to showing where two or more happen to share a metafunction. The fact is that several different elements of the clause all happen to have been "thematised" at the same time, each for its own reason. (However, I should add that I do not consider all of the 'early' elements in the above example to be thematised, in that the items well, but, then and wouldn't are not early in the clause because of a systemic choice. But since there are also several genuinely 'thematised' elements, my point remains relevant to that example.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's "argument" was that the inclusion of Mood and Residue in structural analyses makes them harder for him to read; see previous post.

[2] This is not misleading, because it is true — apart, perhaps, from the inclusion of the word 'frequently'. Halliday (1994: 55-6) provides five examples of multiple Themes.

[3] This is misleading, because 'secondary structure' is a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), not Systemic Functional Grammar (e.g. Halliday 1994). In Scale & Category Grammar, secondary structures were modelled in terms of delicacy, not constituency (rank). Halliday (2002 [1961]: 48):

Subsequent more delicate differentiations are then stated as secondary structures. These are still structures of the same unit, not of the unit next below; they take account of finer distinctions recognisable at the same rank. Rank and delicacy are different scales of abstraction: primary group structures differ in rank from primary clause structures, but are at the same degree of delicacy; while primary and secondary clause structures differ in delicacy but not in rank.

[4] This is true, but it is unproblematic from a theoretical standpoint. Fawcett's "argument" is merely that it makes the analysis harder for him to read.

[5] Halliday (1994: 55):

[6] Fawcett's wording here, 'It's hard to see why', is an example of the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity. To be clear, the reason why the "most delicate" analysis — the first, not third — is insufficient is precisely because it would fail to represent the fact — not implication — that 'all the thematised elements constitute the Theme in a semantically unified sense'.

[7] To be clear, the point was more pedagogical than theoretical. In subsequent editions, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 79-80; 2014: 107), the metafunctional classifications of the multiple Themes are provided separately from the clause analysis:

[8] To be clear, this is an example of a logical non-sequitur, since it is entirely irrelevant to the claim made in the preceding sentence; see [7].

[9] To be clear, in English, being put first is what realises Theme selection. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 387):

The textual meaning of the clause is expressed by what is put first (the Theme); … and by conjunctions and relatives which if present must occur in initial position.

Continuatives and conjunctions are inherently thematic because their textual functions are specific sub-types of the function of Theme. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 109):

Why do these items favour thematic position in the clause – or, to put the question more meaningfully, why are they associated with thematic function, either characteristically or, in some cases, inherently? In the most general sense, they are all natural Themes: if the speaker, or writer, is making explicit the way the clause relates to the surrounding discourse (textual), … it is natural to set up such expressions as the point of departure. The message begins with ‘let me tell you how this fits in’ … 

Those that are inherently thematic are the (textual) continuatives and conjunctions. As the language evolved, they have, as it were, migrated to the front of the clause and stayed there. Essentially they constitute a setting for the clause (continuative), or else they locate it in a specific logical-semantic relationship to another clause in the neighbourhood (conjunction). In either case, their thematic status comes as part of a package, along with their particular discursive force.

It might be added that, in Fawcett's model, as shown in Figure 10, Subject is always conflated with Theme, meaning that its thematisation is not a matter of systemic choice.

 

Fawcett's Argument Against Mood And Residue

Fawcett (2010: 217-8):

Let us now address the question of how far we need, in a modern SF grammar, the "more delicate differentiations" in "structure" that Halliday introduces in "Categories" (1961/76:63). There the 'primary' structure of the nominal group was said to be "M H Q", i.e., "modifier + head + qualifier", and the distinctions within the "modifier' between "deictic", "numerative" and "epithet", etc., were said to be a matter of 'secondary' structure.

The first point to make is that these "secondary structures" do not — in principle at least — constitute another layer of structure in the representation. Halliday emphasises that they are "still structures of the same unit, not of the unit next below" — the key point being that "they take account of finer distinctions recognisable at the same rank" (by which he means "in the same unit"). However, the fact is that when he introduces such "secondary structures" to the representation of a text-sentence alongside the "primary structures", he adds another line to the analysis — as the presence of two lines of analysis for MOOD in Figure 7 in Chapter 7 clearly illustrates. Indeed, every finite clause in IFG is analysed terms of (1) its "Mood" and "Residue", and then within the "Mood" (2) its "Subject" and "Finite".

If the line showing the "Mood" and "Residue" is removed from such diagrams, the display of the analysis becomes simpler to read, while still preserving the essential insight that it is the relationship of the Subject and the Finite that is the primary expression of the meaning of MOOD. In other words, I am suggesting here that the additional layer of analysis into "Mood" and "Residue" detracts from the insightfulness of the diagram rather than adding to it. Figure 10 illustrates the way in which the semantic information can be extracted directly from the relationship of the Subject and Operator (or Finite). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fawcett has stopped outlining his own model, and has returned to one of his previous critiques of Halliday's model. However, despite claiming to be concerned with "a modern SF grammar", he focusses here on Halliday's superseded theory, Scale and Category Grammar (1961), which featured neither metafunctions nor system networks.

In SFL Theory, 'delicacy' does not apply to structure, there are no secondary structures, and the structures of the nominal group are differentiated in terms of metafunction: logical (Modifier ^ Head) vs experiential (Deictic ^ Numerative ^ Epithet etc.).

[2] This is misleading. Without acknowledging the fact, here Fawcett switches attention from Scale and Category Grammar to SFL Theory. In Scale & Category Grammar, the elements of clause structure are simply Subject, Predicator, Complement, Adjunct (Halliday 2002 [1961]: 47). The Mood and Residue blocks were not theorised in Scale & Category Grammar. 

[3] This is not misleading, because it is true for indicative clauses.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett's argument against the theoretical categories of Mood and Residue is that their representation in structural analyses makes them harder for him to read.

[5] To be clear, the structural element Mood is functionally motivated. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 142, 143):

The Mood is the element that realises the selection of mood in the clause; and it is also the domain of agreement between Subject and Finite. …

(1) The presence of the Mood element, consisting of Subject plus Finite, realises the feature ‘indicative’. 

(2) Within the indicative, what is significant is the order of Subject and Finite:

(a) The order Subject before Finite realises ‘declarative’;

(b) The order Finite before Subject realises ‘yes-no interrogative’;

(c) In a ‘WH- interrogative’ the order is: 

(i) Subject before Finite if the WH-element is the Subject;

(ii) Finite before Subject otherwise.

[6] This misleading, because Figure 10 (below) does not show how "the semantic information can be extracted directly from the relationship of the Subject and Operator (or Finite)". It merely juxtaposes Fawcett's semantic and syntactic categories for one instance. Moreover, the semantic networks from which these features are derived are not provided anywhere in this publication.

Note also that Fawcett incongruously relabels Halliday's Mood element we would as 'information-giver'.

Confusing Structure With (Transcendent) Ideational Denotation

Fawcett (2010: 216-7):

What is the relationship between one element and its 'sister' elements in a unit? This has been a major focus of interest for some grammarians, leading to arguments about whether such relationships are those of 'daughter dependency' or 'sister dependency' (e.g., Hudson 1976). (For a brief comparison of the two, see Section 11.2 of Chapter 11.) Here I offer a new answer to the question asked above. It is one that follows directly from the adoption of the framework outlined in Chapter 2 and exemplified in Appendix A.

Let us take as an example the relationship between a modifier and the head in the English nominal group. In the framework of a systemic functional grammar the relationship is not, I suggest, the direct one that form-centred grammarians consider it to be. In formal and traditional grammars, it is simply assumed that what the modifier modifies is the head. Here, however, the general function of the modifiers in a nominal group is regarded as being to describe the referent. (See Fawcett (in press) for the sub-types of 'description' that the various sub-types of modifier express, e.g., 'colour modifiers', 'affective modifiers', 'general epithet modifiers' etc.) Similarly, the function of the head of the nominal group is (assuming that it is a noun) to state the 'cultural classification' of the referent. The referent is thus the object to which the nominal group refers, and it is the function of the noun at the head of the nominal group to express what Lyons (1977:206-7) terms the "denotation" (of some class of 'thing'). In other words, the head realises one type of meaning that relates to the referent, while the modifier realises another. So both the modifier and the head relate, via the meanings they express, to the referent — but they are related only indirectly to each other. Thus a modifier does not in fact 'modify' (or 'describe') the head; it modifies (or describes) the referent which the head denotes.

This general principle applies to all 'sister' relationships between elements, and it applies to all units. From this viewpoint, the question of whether an element is dependent on a 'sister' element such as the 'head' or on a 'mother' unit is beside the point; the 'dependency' is not in fact 'syntactic' at all, and what we observe in syntax is the realisation of dependence in the system networks.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this confuses relations between formal units with relations between functional elements.

[2] To be clear, this confuses structure with ideational denotation ("describing a referent").  In SFL Theory, a structure is the relation between the elements of a unit. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

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

In SFL Theory, which takes an 'immanent' view of meaning, the ideational denotation of a wording (lexicogrammar) is its ideational meaning (semantics). However, in other theories, which take a 'transcendent' view of meaning, the ideational denotation is to a domain outside language.

[3] To be clear, as Fawcett explicitly makes clear by the wording "meaning that relates to the referent", his model takes a 'transcendent' view of meaning, a view that is seriously inconsistent with the epistemological assumptions from which SFL Theory is constructed.

[4] To be clear, this is inconsistent with SFL Theory, in which Modifier–Head is a univariate structural relation. 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 ... .

[5] To be clear, if 'dependency' is a syntagmatic relation between formal units, then it is 'syntactic'.

[6] To be clear, this is inadvertently consistent with the architecture of SFL Theory — or, at least with the general principle that syntagmatic structures realise paradigmatic selections.

Fawcett's Linkers, Deictics & Quantifiers

Fawcett (2010: 216, 216n):

There is a good reason why, in all of these cases, the same element is permitted in more than one unit. It is that the same meaning is carried in relation to the entity being expressed, e.g., 'co-ordination' of one of several types in the case of the Linker. So, with the exception of these well-motivated cases, the principle that a unit and its elements of structure are mutually defining holds good.²⁰

²⁰ To complete the picture, it should be said that there are two elements that occur in a quality group when it is being used to express a 'superlative' or 'ordinative' meaning, which have considerable similarities to the deictic determiner and the quantifying modifier in the nominal group, e.g., as in the use of the and two in the underlined portion of the most interesting two of Shakespeare's plays. See Appendix B for the names of the elements.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the paratactic structural relation ('co-ordination') marked by a Linker is to other units, not to other elements within the same unit. In SFL Theory, a structure is the relation between the elements of a unit. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

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

[2] To be clear, the coyly withheld names of the elements that resemble the deictic determiner and quantifying modifier of Fawcett's nominal group appear to be the quality group deictic and the quality group quantifier (p304). In SFL Theory, the quality group is a portion of the nominal group, as demonstrated in previous posts.

Fawcett's 'Starter' And 'Ender' Elements

 Fawcett (2010: 215-6, 216n):

… the present model also includes punctuation (and intonation, which we shall not discuss further here). Two elements that are expounded by punctuation marks in written text are the starter and the ender. These can occur in any unit. The starter only occurs in an embedded unit, and it is expounded by a comma, a dash or a bracket, while the ender occurs with both embedded and unembedded units, and it is expounded by a wide range of punctuation marks — but most frequently by a full stop at the end of a clause (as shown in Appendix B). And there are equivalent exponents of the starter and ender in spoken text.¹⁹

¹⁹ The meanings of intonation are realised, like the meanings of punctuation, in items (in a broad sense of the term) including those that expound the starter and the ender. For a general account of the model of intonation in the Cardiff Grammar, see Tench (1996), and for a description of the first stage of its implementation in COMMUNAL, see Fawcett (1970).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, punctuation marks are a component of graphology, the systems of the expression plane for written mode. In Fawcett's model, punctuation is incongruously located at the level of syntax, which is a model of the content plane of language.

[2] To be clear, here Fawcett introduces two elements named for their structural position, starter and ender, despite having previously (pp213-4n) criticised the labels 'pre-deictic', and 'pre-numerative' as "purely positional labels". Moreover, neither of these functional syntactic elements is realised by syntactic forms.

[3] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence or argument. Moreover, if tone groups were structured with demarcative elements, such elements would only consistently demarcate boundaries of the information unit, a unit which does not feature in Fawcett's model of syntax. 

Further, the distribution of tone groups (realising information units), the system of TONALITY, is only one of three systems of intonation, the others being TONICITY (tonic placement, realising the focus of New information), and TONE (pitch movement realising interpersonal distinctions).

Fawcett's 'Linker' And 'Inferer' Elements

Fawcett (2010: 215):

However, there are a few exceptions to the basic principle, i.e., cases where an element occurs in several different classes of unit. But in all such cases this is because a higher principle is at work, as we shall see. The exception that is met most frequently is the element Linker (&) — or linker (with a lower case "l") in groups and clusters. This is expounded by and, or, etc, and such items occur at (or near) the start of any unit. (However, some of the items that expound them, such as but and so, only occur with some units.)

The second item of this type is the inferer element. This may occur in any class of group, and is expounded by even, only and just. (When these items occur in a clause with a similar meaning they expound the Inferential Adjunct.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, Fawcett's 'Linker' and 'linker' serve the same function, differing only in rank. 'Linker' marks paratactic relations between clauses in clause complexes, while 'linker' marks paratactic relations between groups and phrases in group and phrase complexes. Fawcett does not acknowledge a rank scale in his model.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, in this function, the adverbs even, only and just serve as the Head elements of adverbial groups which serve as modal Adjuncts of intensity: counter-expectancy in the interpersonal structure of the clause; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189). Fawcett's 'Inferential Adjunct' is not discussed elsewhere in this publication.