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.)