Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Function-Form Relations

Fawcett (2010: 251):

Filling is the relationship between an element and the unit that 'operates at' it — this being the unit below it in a tree diagram representation. It can be argued that it is the fact that the Cardiff Grammar gives this concept a central position in the theory of syntax that enables it to solve a range of problems for which more complex solutions are proposed by Halliday. Thus it is filling that makes possible both co-ordination and embedding, and it is the extensive use of these that enables us to do without the somewhat problematical concepts of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relation between an element (e.g. Senser) and the unit that "operates at" it (e.g. nominal group) is the realisation relation between function and form. A clause rank function structure, such as Senser ^ Process ^ Phenomenon, is realised by a group rank syntagm, such as nominal group ^ verbal group ^ nominal group.

[2] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that this relation between function and form is not part of the architecture of SFL Theory.

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. The realisation relation between function and form, in SFL Theory, is simpler, not more complex, than Fawcett's relation, filling, not least because that the latter is unnecessarily complicated by confusing formal constituency with function-form relations.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett (p272) relates his co-ordination and embedding to SFL tactic relations as follows:

To summarise: we treat four of Halliday's five types of 'hypotaxis' and two of his five types of 'parataxis' as embedding, and one type of 'hypotaxis' and his three 'expansion' types of 'parataxis' as co-ordination.

This "less problematical" approached will be carefully examined in the relevant future post.