The Absence Of Experiential Structure In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 249-50):

… every Participant Role (PR) is introduced to the structure by being conflated with an element such as Subject. A PR is simply a particular type of element that is generated from the experiential component of the system network, and it is not a different order of phenomenon from an 'element'. A PR may appear to be more 'semantic' than an element such as Subject, but it is not. The presence of each in the structure directly expresses a meaning, and the only difference is that the meaning expressed by a PR (such as Agent) is overtly referred to in the name of the features in the system network, e.g., as [overt agent] and [covert agent], as in Figure 10 in Chapter 7. … It is the concept of 'conflation' that expresses the multifunctional nature of language, and the same concept and notation are used in all versions of SFL.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

[1] To be clear, this is a serious shortcoming of Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, since it is inconsistent with the notion of structure in SFL Theory. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 60):

The significance of any functional label lies in its relationship to the other functions with which it is structurally associated. It is the structure as a whole, the total configuration of functions, that construes, or realises, the meaning. The function Actor, for example, is interpretable only in its relation to other functions of the same kind — other representational functions such as Process and Goal. So if we interpret the nominal group I as Actor in I caught the first ball, this is meaningful only because at the same time we interpret the verbal group caught as Process and the nominal group the first ball as Goal. It is the relation among all these that constitutes the structure. In similar fashion, the Subject enters into configurations with other functional elements as realisation of the clause as exchange; and similarly the Theme, in realising the clause as message.

That is, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar provides no experiential structure of the clause, since it does not provide a total configuration of functions in which Agent, Process and Medium, for example, are structurally related. By the same token, Cardiff Grammar provides no textual structure of the clause, since it does not provide a total configuration of functions in which Theme and Rheme are structurally related.

[2] This is not misleading, because it is true.

[3] This is true, but potentially misleading. In SFL Theory, both Subject and Agent (PR) are both semantic and lexicogrammatical. This is because lexicogrammatical forms, such as nominal groups, are analysed in terms of their functions in realising meanings, such as Subject and Agent. In the absence of grammatical metaphor, semantics and lexicogrammar are in agreement (congruent).

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The crucial difference between Subject and a participant role is metafunctional: Subject is an interpersonal function, whereas a participant role is an experiential function.

[5] To be clear, this is seriously inconsistent with SFL Theory, in which all elements of syntagmatic structure — including both Subject and participant roles — are specified in paradigmatic systems.

[6] To be clear, Fawcett does not supply the system network from which Figure 10 is derived.

[7] This is misleading, because Fawcett's use of the concept of conflation is significantly different from its use in SFL Theory. In SFL Theory, conflation correlates elements of different metafunctional structures, whereas in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, conflation fuses different metafunctional elements into a single structure, thereby creating metafunctional inconsistency in that structure.