Misrepresenting SFL Theory On The Rank Scale And Function-Form Relations

Fawcett (2010: 239):

In this theory, then, there is no expectation that an element of a clause will necessarily be filled by a group. (For 'filling' as a theoretical concept, see Section 11.5.) Some clause elements are frequently filled by groups, a few are sometimes filled by groups, and some never are. And the same is true of groups. The frequencies vary greatly, so that in the question of what element a unit may fill is often better stated as a probability rather than as an absolute rule.

A further feature of the new theory is that, with respect to the groups, what matters most is not the fact that the unit is a group (as it is in the 'rank scale' model), but what class of group it is. Indeed, in the present framework the differences between the different classes of group (nominal, prepositional, quality and quantity) are just as important as the differences between them all, considered together as groups, and the clause. Indeed, each of the clause and the four classes of group recognised here for English may fill any one of various elements of structure in various classes of unit. Some of the constraints on what may fill what can be expressed by absolute rules, of course, but many others are better expressed as probabilities. In this version of SFL, then, the fact that a variety of different classes of unit may fill many of the elements of many on the units of a language such as English is not regarded as a problem (as it is in a 'rank-based' grammar) but as one of the great riches of human language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, throughout this extract, Fawcett confuses the relation between function (element of structure) and form (unit) with constituency relations between forms (the rank scale).

[2] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett uses 'filling' for the relation between elements of clause structure (functions) and the groups (forms) that realise them. From the perspective of Fawcett's source, Halliday's Scale & Category Grammar (1961), this realisation relation was termed 'exponence'. Fawcett also uses 'exponence', but only for the relation between elements of group structure and the items (words/morphemes) that realise them. That is, Fawcett inelegantly uses two distinct terms, filling and exponence, for the same relation between function and form.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory. On the one hand, the rank scale and the class of group are distinct issues. For example, it is possible to model formal constituency as a rank scale and classify groups either 'from above' (as in SFL Theory) or 'from below' (as in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar). On the other hand, classes of group are no less important theoretically merely because they are not predetermined by the use of a rank scale. However, what is even more important, in a functional grammar, is the function served by such formal units.

[4] This unsupported bare assertion is misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory. The fact that an element may be realised by different classes of unit is not a problem for a 'rank-based' grammar, as demonstrated by circumstantial Adjuncts that may be realised by either adverbial groups or prepositional phrases, or by Agents that may be realised either by nominal groups or prepositional phrases, or by topical Themes that may be realised by nominal groups, verbal groups, adverbial groups or prepositional phrases.