Why Nothing Is Gained By Modelling Dependency Relations In Syntactic Representations

 Fawcett (2010: 249):

The question is therefore: "What is gained by modelling these dependency relations in the syntactic representation too?" The answer is that nothing is gained. In a SF grammar it is simply not the task of a syntactic structure to show that the presence of one element 'depends' on the presence of another. To attempt to do so leads one to ask inappropriate questions, since this is not where dependency is located. The type of 'dependency' that is important in syntax is the relationship of componence, i.e., that between the elements and the unit of which they are the elements. Without this theoretical concept no SF grammar would be complete — and nor could it be implemented in a computer.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. What is gained is the structural realisation of the systemic options in the system of taxis (interdependency).

[2] To be clear, any 'SF Grammar' that does not show the structural realisations of interdependency relations is deficient on the syntagmatic axis, and so compromises its explanatory potential.

[3] To be clear, on the one hand, as previously demonstrated, "inappropriate questions" only arise from theoretical misunderstandings. On the other hand, in SFL Theory, interdependency relations are accounted for both systemically and structurally, since structure realises systemic choices.

[4] This is misleading, because componence is not a type of dependency. Moreover, as previously observed, Fawcett's 'componence' confuses formal constituency with function-form relations.

[5] This is misleading, to the extent that it implies that, unlike Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, SFL Theory does not already include function-form relations in its architecture.