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 However, despite claiming to be concerned with "a modern SF grammar", he focusses here on Halliday's superseded theory, Scale and Category Grammar (1961), which featured neither metafunctions nor system networks.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'.