Fawcett's Summary Of The Categories In His Modern Systemic Functional Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 232):

We have considered a large number of concepts in this chapter. Of those derived from Halliday's "Categories", only the concept of element of structure is still used in essentially the same sense as in "Categories". However, the concept of place can also be found in "Categories", used in an apparently similar sense. The derived concept of a potential structure was then introduced, it serves to locate the elements in those units where the sequence of elements is fixed. The predominant "Categories" concept of 'unit' has disappeared, in its sense of 'unit on the rank scale' — though the term "unit" continues to be used in the new theory as a short form for class of unit. This concept is central in the new theory, but while 'class (of unit)' was also "fundamental" in "Categories" the concept of 'class of unit' is now based on new criteria in the new theory, and is therefore a different concept.

Finally, this chapter introduces the concept of item. This has no correlate in "Categories", where 'words' and 'morphemes' are treated as if they were like the clause and the groups, and so simply further 'units' on the 'rank scale'. Yet it is words and — where it is necessary to specify them — morphemes that have a phonological or graphological shape, and that therefore mark the point at which syntax ends and segmental phonology or graphology begins.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Reminder: Fawcett's modern Systemic Functional Grammar, his Cardiff Grammar, is a development of Halliday's long-superseded pre-Systemic Scale-&-Category Grammar (1961).

[2] For an examination of Fawcett's concept of 'place', see the previous posts:

• Fawcett's Concept Of Places In A Unit
• The Key Rôle Of 'Place' In Handling 'Raising' Phenomena
• Problems With The Notion Of Places Without Elements

[3] As previously noted, this is a simple logical contradiction, because for there to be a 'class of unit', there must be a unit that is assigned to that class.

[4] For an examination of Fawcett's concept of 'item', see the previous post:

• Fawcett's 'Item'

[5] As previously noted, in SFL Theory, both syntax and morphology ('items') have "phonological and graphological shape" to the extent that lexicogrammar is realised in the expression plane systems of phonology and graphology.

Confusing Lexical And Grammatical Word

Fawcett (2010: 231):

The position is therefore that the traditional 'word class' labels are sometimes used when talking about the sets of items that expound certain elements of structure. However, it is an interesting fact that they simply have no role to play as a category that is required in the generative version of the grammar. In other words, the lowest element of structure in a tree diagram is not filled by a word class label, but is instead directly expounded by an item. For example, we say that the head of a given nominal group is expounded by the item boy, and not that it is filled by a noun and that this noun is then expounded the item boy.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of SFL Theory, this confuses the word as grammatical rank with the word as lexical item. As a grammatical rank, the word is a constituent of a group/phrase and is constituted by morphemes. As a lexical item, a word is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features, just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the phonological features [bilabial, voiced, stop]. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568-9):

The folk notion of the “word” is really a conflation of two different abstractions, one lexical and one grammatical.

(i) Vocabulary (lexis): the word as lexical item, or "lexeme". This is construed as an isolate, a 'thing' that can be counted and sorted in (alphabetical) order. People "look for" words, they "put thoughts into" them, "put them into" or "take them out of another's", and nowadays they keep collections of words on their shelves or in their computers in the form of dictionaries. Specialist knowledge is thought of as a matter of terminology. The taxonomic organisation of vocabulary is less exposed: it is made explicit in Roget's Thesaurus, but is only implicit in a standard dictionary. Lexical taxonomy was the first area of language to be systematically studied by anthropologists, when they began to explore cultural knowledge as it is embodied in folk taxonomies of plants, animals, diseases and the like. 

(ii) Grammar: the word as one of the ranks in the grammatical system. This is, not surprisingly, where Western linguistic theory as we know it today began in classical times, with the study of words varying in form according to their case, number, aspect, person etc.. Word-based systems such as these do provide a way in to studying grammatical semantics: but the meanings they construe are always more complex than the categories that appear as formal variants, and grammarians have had to become aware of covert patterns.

From this perspective, the Cardiff Grammar proposes that a lexical item (boy) realises a group rank function (head of a nominal group) instead of a bundle of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features.

As previously observed, exponency ('expound') was a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale-&-Category Grammar, where, in terms of SFL Theory, it was used for both realisation and instantiation.

The Term 'Noun' In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 229-30):

In the present theory, then, a term such as "noun" or "adjective" is used merely as a useful label for the set of items that expound some element of structure (strictly speaking, the element minus any possible affix), perhaps additionally of a semantically defined set. For example, a noun is an item which expounds the head of a nominal group, but only in those cases when the language's 'cultural classification' of 'things' is used to help specify the referent. The head of a nominal group may also be expounded by the 'pro-form' one or ones, or by a pronoun such as she, or by a 'proper name'.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this confuses the (functional) element with the (formal) item that expounds (realises) it, since an affix is a constituent of a word (item).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the (logical) Head of a nominal group may conflate with a range of experiential functions (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 392-4), and so the class of word that realises the Head depends on the conflation. For example, if Head conflates with Thing, then the typical realisation is a noun; if it conflates with Classifier, then the typical realisation is a noun or adjective; if it conflates with Epithet, then the typical realisation is an adjective; if it conflates with Numerative, then the typical realisation is a numeral; and if it conflates with a Deictic, then the typical realisation is a determiner. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427):

The Absence Of The Unit 'Word' In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 228-9, 229n):

There is one final point to be made about the representation of morphology — at least in English and other languages with little or no inflectional morphology. In English (and probably in all such languages) it is in fact possible to represent all of the structures that occur in such a way that there is no need to introduce the 'word' as a syntactic unit — i.e., as a unit with an internal structure of elements such as 'prefix', 'base' and 'suffix', each of which is in turn expounded by an item. And yet such a grammar is still able to show that, in a 'word-form' such as eating, the items eat and ing are the realisations of different choices in the system network, and that in the word boys the items boy and s are similarly the realisations of different meanings.

How is this achieved? The grammar's rules for generation simply show that each of the lowest elements in the tree diagram (e.g., the head of a nominal group) is expounded by an item (a 'free morpheme'). Then, whenever it is needed, another item (a 'bound morpheme') is simply added to the head as a further exponent of it. In this way we achieve the same effect that we would if we first generated an abstract unit (e.g., the word class 'noun'), and then gave it two elements (which we might call 'base' and 'suffix'), and then expounded each element by the items boy and s. The first approach has the great advantage of avoiding adding a whole new layer of structure to the tree.

To summarise: by allowing an element to be expounded by two items (one as its main exponent and one as an affix), we avoid the need to have an additional layer in the tree diagram, thus considerably simplifying the description. The full analysis of an English sentence using the Cardiff Grammar therefore has one layer of structure less than there would be in an analysis based on "Categories", since the latter's 'rank scale' model predicts that each element of a group is filled by a word and each element of a word by a morpheme. Thus in Berry (1975:85), the example When the bus broke down the boys walked to school is analysed into thirteen elements at the 'rank' of the morpheme.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this views the word 'from below' on the rank scale: in terms of the lower ranked units, morphemes, that constitute it. Taking the SFL perspective, 'from above', the word is a constituent of the group, and realises functions in the structure of a group, as when an adjective serves as the Epithet of a nominal group.

[2] To be clear, here Fawcett is presenting his adaptation of theory to the limitations of computers as if this adaptation were a theory of language, as spoken, signed and written by human beings.

[3] To be clear, the "advantage" of Fawcett's model is that it omits the word as a distinct unit from its model of lexicogrammatical structure.

The Notion Of Clause Elements Realised By Morphemes

Fawcett (2010: 228, 228n):

Halliday originally proposed the concept of the 'rank scale' on the basis, one assumes, of his work on describing Chinese and English. In Section 4 of Appendix C I summarise the paper in which I show why the elements of the 'verbal group' proposed by Halliday for English should instead be treated as direct elements of the clause — and so, therefore, why words should be permitted to expound directly elements of the clause (Fawcett 2000 and forthcoming b). However, the example from Swahili suggests that a functional description of an agglutinating language requires a model in which the elements of clauses are allowed to be expounded by 'units' that are, in terms of the "Categories" concept of the 'rank scale', not two but three steps down the 'scale' — i.e., not by words, as I claim happens in English, but directly by morphemes.²⁶ Thus a general theory of syntax should provide that, when it is used for describing languages such as Japanese, Mohawk and Swahili, certain elements of clauses may be directly expounded by morphemes. See Tatsuki (1998) for a SF analysis of the Japanese clause in these terms.

²⁶ More precisely, the description of English in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) and Fawcett (2000 and forthcoming b) provides for certain clause elements to be expounded either by words (as in be and reach) or by the addition of a suffix (and so a morpheme), as in + ing.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a rank scale is a means of modelling formal constituency in any language; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 9). It subsumes both syntax and morphology and provides a means of modelling formal constituents in terms of the function they serve at a higher rank. For example, an adverbial group (e.g. very tediously), as a constituent of a clause, may serve the function of Manner circumstance at the rank of clause.

[2] This is misleading, because Fawcett does not "show why", he merely makes an invalid argument based on false premisses, as will be demonstrated in the examination of Appendix C.

[3] As previously noted, Fawcett (forthcoming b) is still unpublished 21 years after the the first edition of this book.

[4] As demonstrated in the previous post, Fawcett's Swahili analysis shows that some clause functions in English operate at the rank of word in Swahili, which is why they are realised by units of the rank below word (morpheme). That is, Fawcett falsely assumes that such functions also operate at clause rank in languages other than English. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 9n)

Languages vary, however, with respect to the ‘division of grammatical labour’ among the ranks. In particular, certain languages do relatively more grammatical work at group (and clause) rank, while other languages do relatively more work at word rank. Thus, for example, Japanese, Turkish, and Inuit do relatively more work at word rank, whereas, for example, Thai, Chinese, and Vietnamese do relatively more work at group rank. For instance, verbal affixes operating at word rank in one language may correspond to verbal auxiliaries operating at group rank in another, or even to modal particles operating at clause rank in yet another.

[5] To be clear, this is inconsistent with the general rank scale principles of exhaustiveness and hierarchy in SFL Theory, and complicates the theory without improving its explanatory potential. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 84):

(1) The general principle of exhaustiveness means that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (cf. Halliday, 1961, 1966c). But not everything has a function in every dimension of structure; for example, some parts of the clause (e.g. interpersonal Adjuncts such as perhaps and textual Adjuncts such as however) play no role in the clause as representation.

(2) The general principle of hierarchy means that an element of any given rank is constructed out of elements of the rank next below. This is a feature of the constituent hierarchy made up of units and their classes: clause, verbal group, and so on. But the configurations of structural functions show further ramifications of this general pattern. Thus, in the clause as exchange there is slightly more layering in the structure, while in the clause as message there is rather less.

Misconstruing The Rank Of Function Structures

Fawcett (2010: 227):

I should make it clear that the more complex grammatical morphologies of agglutinating languages — such as Japanese, Mohawk and Swahili — are also explicitly provided for in the theory, as also are inflectional languages. Indeed, in such languages morphemes function as direct elements of the clause. Consider the case of the Swahili expression alimwona. From the viewpoint of English alimwona appears to be a single word (and would probably be classed as a verb). Orthographically, of course, it is indeed a single word. Yet this 'word' expresses a rich series of meanings associated with an 'event', including the Process, the Participants in the Process, and the Time of the event. In a morpheme-by-morpheme translation, its meaning is roughly 'he/she + past + him/her + see', i.e., 'he/she saw him/her'. In other words, it contains elements that correspond roughly to the English clause elements of Subject, Auxiliary, Complement and Main Verb (though it should not be assumed that these would be appropriate names for the elements in Swahili). In a description of Swahili that uses the present theory of syntax, then, morphemes (here a, li, mu and ona) would be treated as expounding directly the elements of the clause.

 

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. To be clear, on this description of Swahili, these functions are operating at the rank of word, which is why they are realised by morphemes, the units of the rank below the rank of word. Fawcett has simply made the false assumption that what are construed as clause rank functions in English are also construed as clause rank functions in Swahili.

The Notion Of Clause Elements Realised By Words

 Fawcett (2010: 227):

Halliday's concept of the 'rank scale' predicts, as we saw first in Chapter 2, that elements of clauses should be filled by groups. In the view of language taken here, however, elements of the clause are frequently expounded directly by items. In Fawcett (2000 and forthcoming b), I set out the many reasons why we should treat certain elements of the clause in English as being expounded directly by items. I suggest, for example, that modal verbs such as may and might directly expound the Operator (which is very broadly equivalent to Halliday's "Finite") and that lexical verbs such as love and walk directly expound the Main Verb. Thus in Don't be caught! all three items expound elements of the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, elements of clause structure are realised by groups (and phrases). That is, a clause element (function) and a group (form) are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett (forthcoming b) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is the element of group structure that is realised by a word. For example, in verbal groups, the Finite element is realised by the finite class of verb, the Auxiliary element is realised by the auxiliary class of verb, and the Event element is realised by the lexical class of verb:

And the verbal group realises the Process element of experiential clause structure, which conflates with the Finite and Predicator ("Operator and Main Verb") elements of interpersonal clause structure:

Fawcett's 'Item'

Fawcett (2010: 226-7):

The third of the three major categories in the present theory of syntax (with 'unit' and 'element') is the item. This term includes both 'word' (in its traditional sense) and 'morpheme'. Strictly speaking, the concept of 'item' lies outside syntax, since items are a different manifestation of meanings at the level of form from syntax. The four manifestations are: (1) items (words or morphemes, their relationship being described below); (2) syntax (i.e., the concepts that define relations between items), and (3) either intonation or punctuation (depending on whether the text is spoken or written). However, we need to bring the concept of 'items' into the picture to complete the account of syntax, because syntax only ends when elements are expounded by items.

In the present theory of syntax, the lowest syntactic category on each branch of the tree in a tree diagram representation of a sentence is an element (e.g., the head of a nominal group). And each such lowest element is expounded by an item — or as we shall see shortly, by items (in the plural).

Notice, then, that an element such as the head of a nominal group is not 'filled' by the unit of the 'word', as it would be in "Categories" and, in principle, in IFG. (In practice, however, elements of groups are almost always shown in IFG as being expounded directly by words, roughly as advocated here — the reason being that the description in IFG does not go below the 'rank' of the 'group' (which of course includes its elements).

Items are quite different from the other categories that we have discussed so far, because they do not have an internal structure that it [sic] relevant to a generative grammar and so have, in spoken language, what Firth calls "phonetic and phonological 'shape' " (1957/68:183). (He also introduces the term "graphic exponents" for what he terms the "companion study" of written language.) It is precisely the fact that they have a phonological or graphological shape that differentiates them from the relatively more abstract categories of syntax that we have been considering in the earlier sections of this chapter.

As we shall now see, languages vary quite considerably in how soon, as one moves down the layers of structure in the representation of a text-sentence, one escapes the abstract categories of syntax and reaches the first category that has the phonological or graphological "shape" of an item.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the one hand, it is true that the concept of 'item' lies outside syntax, since it is concerned with modelling morphology rather than syntax. However, on the other hand, morphology and syntax can be seen as two manifestations of the same phenomenon, as Halliday (2002 [1961]: 51) argues in the source of Fawcett's model, Scale & Category Grammar:

Traditionally these terms have usually referred to “grammar above the word” (syntax) and “grammar below the word” (morphology); but this distinction has no theoretical status. … But it seems worthwhile making use of “syntax” and “morphology” in the theory, to refer to direction on the rank scale. “Syntax” is then the downward relation, “morphology” the upward one; and both go all the way.

[2] To be clear, this incongruously models form at different levels of symbolic abstraction — content ("items and syntax") and expression ("intonation and punctuation") — as being at the same level.

[3] As previously observed, although Fawcett claims that the Cardiff Grammar does not include a rank scale in its architecture, its syntagmatic categories are nevertheless ranked on a scale from highest to lowest.

[4] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, the reason why elements of groups are "almost always" shown as realised by words in IFG is because that is how the theory models the relation. Elements of structure at a higher rank (e.g. group) are realised by units of the rank below (e.g. word). The only exceptions are instances of rank-shift, as when the Qualifier of a nominal group is realised by an embedded clause or prepositional phrase.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, both syntax and morphology ('items') have "phonological and graphological shape" to the extent that lexicogrammar is realised in the expression plane systems of phonology and graphology.

Problems With The Notion Of Places Without Elements

 Fawcett (2010: 225-6):

It is important to emphasise that in such cases the "raised" element does not actually become an element of that higher unit; it simply occupies a place in that unit. As will now be clear, it is the fact that the theory contains the concept of 'place' as well as 'element' and 'class of unit' that makes it possible to handle this otherwise problematical phenomenon in a principled manner. It is not clear from the published works of Halliday, Matthiessen etc. how such problems would be handled in the Sydney Grammar, either descriptively or in a generative version of the grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that the who in who were you seen by? does not serve as structural element of the clause. That is, the claim here is that who does not serve as the Theme, Senser or Complement of this clause, and, consequently, that these elements are absent from this clause. In other words, the incongruous claim here is that the clause who were you seen by? has no Theme, no Senser and no Complement.

[2] As can be seen from the previous post, and from [1] above, the concept of 'place' is unwarranted theoretically, and leads to unintended absurdities such as the clause who were you seen by? having no Theme element.

[3] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 137) are quite explicit on the matter:

In the selection of the WH- element, the category of Complement can extend to include the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase. Here the WH- element is conflated with the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstantial Adjunct in the clause. Since the WH-element is thematic, the minor Complement of the prepositional phrase is given the status of Theme, while the minor Predicator appears within the Rheme, in the position the Adjunct has when it is not thematic …

 See the previous post for exemplifying clause structures.

The Key Rôle Of 'Place' In Handling 'Raising' Phenomena

Fawcett (2010: 224-5):

However, there is one aspect of syntax where the concept of 'place' assumes major theoretical importance. It is when a place in one unit — in practice, always a clause — is occupied by an element from a lower unit. This phenomenon occurs in cases such as Who were you seen by?, Who did you give it to?, Where did you say you put it? and so on.

Consider the first example, the analysis of which is shown in Figure 13. Here, the initial item who fills Place 28 in the clause. This is the place at which 'sought' elements (realised as wh-items) typically occur. However, the element who is not an element of the clause, but of the prepositional group that fills the Complement. In other words, in this example it has been made to occupy a place in the unit above the unit of which it is an element.

… Essentially the same principles apply in the analysis of examples such as Who did you say you saw there? (See Section 11.7 of Chapter 11 for the concept of discontinuity, and see Fawcett (in press) for the analysis of these and other types of discontinuity.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Reminder: Fawcett's claim is that the Cardiff Grammar does not use a rank scale ('lower', 'above'), and does not feature units, though it does feature classes of units.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the first two examples are clauses, whereas the latter two are clause complexes. In the clause examples, the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase is conflated with the thematic WH- element:

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 163-4) explain:

In the selection of the WH- element, the category of Complement can extend to include the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase. Here the WH- element is conflated with the minor Complement of a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstantial Adjunct in the clause. Since the WH-element is thematic, the minor Complement of the prepositional phrase is given the status of Theme, while the minor Predicator appears within the Rheme, in the position the Adjunct has when it is not thematic…

However, this is not the case for the two clause complex examples.  Here the Adjunct and Complement of projected clauses — not the Complement of a prepositional phrase — are each thematised beyond the (now included) projecting clause:

Here the first clause is a thematic agnate of Did you say where you put it? and the second clause is a thematic agnate of Did you say who you saw there?.

But see Matthiessen (1995: 417), who (bizarrely) interprets the thematised element of the projected clause as functioning as an element of the projecting clause.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the who in Who were you seen by? does serve as an element of clause structure:

• textually as Theme,
• interpersonally as Complement/WH-,
• experientially as Senser (along with by).

Importantly, the Range/Complement of a prepositional phrase functions as an indirect participant in the Process of the clause — indirect, because the participation is mediated by the minor Process/Predicator of the prepositional phrase. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 312, 329):

We can make a contrast, then, between direct and indirect participants, using ‘indirect participant’ to refer to the status of a nominal group that is inside a prepositional phrase. We have already seen that the participant roles of (1) Client, Recipient and Receiver and (2) Scope, Behaviour and Verbiage are sometimes expressed ‘indirectly’ in this sense, as in gave money to the cashier, plays beautifully on the piano. … The preposition, it was suggested, acts as a kind of intermediary whereby a nominal element can be introduced as an ‘indirect’ participant in the main process.

[4] Reminder: Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

Confusing Nominal Group Head With Thing

Fawcett (2010: 222n):

²² … Rather similarly, while there is a very strong probability that a nominal group will have a head, some nominal groups do not. … But if we were to decide that we wished to say that two in Give me two was a head, we would need to have a realisation statement of the form: 'If Feature A is selected the realisation is X, but if Feature B is selected the realisation is Y', in order to cover the cases where of them was and was not made overt. The realisation rules for cardinals are already quite complicated (to accommodate cases such as around fifty, five thousand two hundred, over five thousand two hundred etc.), and it is therefore preferable to avoid the unnecessary additional complication of having two (and so every other cardinal) expound two different elements. And the same general principle applies to the very rich, the poor, the old and infirm, etc. …On these grounds (and others) it is greatly preferable to build into the grammar the possibility of having occasional nominal groups that have no head and clauses that have no Main Verb. Allowing for this avoids losing many useful generalisations such as those identified above. Note, however, that this is only possible when the grammar works by locating elements at places, rather than relying on the presence of some "anchor" element in relation to which all other elements are ordered.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, all nominal groups have a logical Head, though not all nominal groups have an experiential Thing; see further below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, two in Give me two is the Head of a nominal group, and the realisation statement is simply conflate Head/Numerative. In SFL Theory, the structures of these nominal groups are analysed as follows:

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the realisation statement for these instances is conflate Head/Epithet. In SFL Theory, the structures of these nominal groups are analysed as follows:

[4] To be clear, Fawcett's Main Verb corresponds to the Predicator in SFL Theory, and SFL Theory accommodates the absence of a Predicator, whether through ellipsis or in some relational clauses. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 476):

With the additive, the Process of a relational dependent clause may be implicit; the marker is the conjunctive preposition with (positive) or without (negative):

||| I told the whole story of the six-minute Louvre at The Kennedy Centre || with President Carter there … |||

||| Without chlorine in the antarctic stratosphere, || there would be no ozone hole. |||

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As demonstrated above, and previously, Fawcett makes this claim on the basis of his misunderstandings of SFL Theory.

Fawcett's 'Crucial Test Case' Against The SFL Method Of Ordering Elements

Fawcett (2010: 221-2):

The crucial test case in English for this approach is the clause. The fact is that there is an enormous variety of sequences in which the elements of the English clause may come — both absolutely and in relation to each other. But the first question is whether there is any element that it always present and always in one position. The only candidate for this 'anchor' role is the Main Verb — but the places at which it occurs do in fact vary. The most frequent reason for this variation is that, when it is expounded by a form of the verb be, it is often conflated with the Operator. Consider the two positions of the Main Verb is in Ivy is here and Is Ivy here? Clearly, the Main Verb in the second example precedes the Subject Ivy . There is in fact no element in the English clause that is (1) always located at the same place and (2) always present. And the situation with respect to the groups in English is similar, e.g., the head of a nominal group and the apex of a quality group are not obligatory, as the relevant sections of Fawcett (in press) show.²²

Blogger Comments;

[1] To be clear, this is true, but irrelevant. The sequencing of elements is specified by realisation statements such as Subject^Finite, conflate Theme/Subject, conflate Subject/Actor etc., and the consequences of such realisation statements.

[2] As previously explained, this is irrelevant, because ordering realisation statements (e.g. Finite^Subject) only apply to features whose realisation statements also specify the insertion of both elements (e.g. +Subject, +Finite), and because they specify the relative ordering of elements, an atypical location of one element does not affect the relative ordering of the elements.

[3] To be clear, according to SFL Theory, the motivation for sequence variation is textual: e.g. to highlight an element as Theme, or background it as Rheme. This can be seen in polar interrogative clauses, where the polarity of the Finite element is thematised, and in the choice of clause voice, operative vs receptive, which selects which participant is thematised. 

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, such instances are not actually conflations of Finite ('Operator') and Predicator ('Main Verb'). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 153):

There are two lexical verbs in English, be and have, where, strictly speaking, the simple past and simple present forms consist of Finite element only, rather than of a fusion of Finite with Predicator. This is shown by the negatives: the negative of is, was is isn’t, wasn’t – not doesn’t be, didn’t be. Similarly with have (in the sense of ‘possess’, not have in the sense of ‘take’): the negative forms are hasn’t, hadn’t…

In Fawcett's examples, the ordering of the elements Subject and Finite is specified by the realisation statement Subject^Finite for the feature 'declarative', and the realisation statement Finite^Subject for the interrogative feature 'yes/no' (Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 162).

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, every nominal group has a Head element. Fawcett's false claim derives from his repeated confusion of (logical) Head with (experiential) Thing. (Fawcett's quality group does not feature in SFL Theory; see previous posts for the misunderstandings on which it is formulated.)

Fawcett's Argument Against The SFL Method Of Ordering Elements

Fawcett (2010: 221):

The problem with the first method is that if, in a given instance, the element that is used as the 'anchor' point for placing another element were to be either missing from the unit or located in an untypical position in it, then the statement for placing any 'dependent' element in the structure would become much longer. This is because it would have to include a set of conditional rules, whose role would be to specify what should be done under various possible scenarios if the 'anchor' element were not to be both (1) present and (2) in its typical place. And these conditional rules would become exponentially more complex as the grammar was extended to handle the great range of possible variations in the sequence of elements in the English clause that occurs in natural language texts — especially in the varying positions of the various types of Adjunct. Indeed, it is only practicable to use this first approach in a highly limited sub-set of cases — i.e., (1) where the grammar is small (e.g., one that has been developed for illustrative purposes such as that in Halliday 1969/81) and (2) where every unit recognised in the grammar has at least one element that is both (a) obligatorily present and (b) always occurs in the same position.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because ordering realisation statements (e.g. Finite^Subject) only apply to features whose realisation statements also specify the insertion of both elements (e.g. +Subject, +Finite).

[2] This is misleading, because ordering realisation statements specify the relative ordering of elements, and an atypical location of one element does not affect the relative ordering of the elements.

[3] To be clear, these claims are irrelevant, since they derive from the misunderstandings identified above ([1] and [2]).