Componence vs Dependency

Fawcett (2010: 248):

Throughout this book I have assumed, as most linguists do, that the dominant relationship in modelling relationships in syntax is 'constituency'. And in spelling out the concepts that make up 'constituency' I have assumed that it is the concept of 'componence' that expresses the 'part-whole' relationship. However, there is an alternative concept that has at times attracted the support of a number of fine linguists. It is often called 'dependency grammar' — but, strictly speaking, it should instead be called "sister dependency grammar". … The question is: "Is it either necessary or desirable to show 'sister dependency' relations in the syntactic representation of a text-sentence?" If it is either necessary or desirable, this would have a profound effect on the proposals set out here, and in particular on the place of 'componence' in the theory.¹¹

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL Theory distinguishes four types of structure, only one of which is based on constituency. Halliday (1994: 36):

[2] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's notion of componence confuses formal constituency with the relation between function (element) and form (unit).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, interdependency is used to relate units in complexes at all ranks.

[4] To be clear, whether or not interdependency is "necessary of desirable", componence has no place in SFL Theory because it is invalidated through its confusion of function with form.