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.