Problems With Fawcett's Realisation Component

Fawcett (2010: 299):

This selection expression of features becomes the input to the realisation component. This is the bottom left box in Figure 4 (in Chapter 3), and it contains two main types of statement: (1) realisation rules, as given in Figure 2, and (2) potential structures, which simply show the sequence in which those elements that are fixed in sequence must appear (such as those in the nominal group).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Reminder:

[2] To be clear, in this model, a selection expression is an instance of a system network, and this instance at the level of meaning is in a realisation relation with potential at the level of form (the realisation component).

[3] To be clear, in this model, syntagmatic structures are instances of realisation rules. On the principle of instantiation, an instance of a potential realisation rule is an actual realisation rule.

"The Way To Use A System Network"

Fawcett (2010: 298-9):

The system network corresponds to the top left box in Figure 4 (in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3). The way to use a system network is to 'traverse' it, starting with the leftmost feature. Whenever an 'and' bracket is encountered, all the systems to its right must be entered, so that the pathway through the network typically becomes a set of branching pathways.

When you have completed a traversal of the network, you will have collected a selection expression of semantic features such as:

[thing, count, plural, student, nearness to performer, un-near].

Notice that features are typically written in square brackets, to show their status as features. This output from the network corresponds to the top right box in Figure 4 (in Chapter 3) — i.e., it is an instance of this little lexicogrammar's meaning potential.

Blogger Comments:

 [1] Reminder:

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the creation of text does not involve the traversal of a network. A system network sets out how features are related to each other, and does so in terms of logico-semantic relations:

• enhancement: condition (entry condition) 
• extension: alteration (disjunction)
• extension: addition (conjunction)
• elaboration (delicacy).

It is only the focus of attention of a viewer of the network that makes such a traversal.

[3] To be clear, a selection expression constitutes a bundle of features, either as potential or instance. For example, the phonological selection expression [voiced, bilabial, stop] specifies (is realised by) the phoneme /b/, whether as potential, or as instance in text.

The Only System Network In This Entire Publication

Fawcett (2010: 298):

The key concept of a systemic functional grammar is a system — this term being used here in a technical sense where it means a 'choice between two or more semantic features'. The heart of the grammar is therefore the system network of semantic features. Consider the little example shown in Figure 1.

… It is the system network of semantic features that models the meaning potential of a language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, systems construe the network of choices at all strata, not just semantics. For example, SPEECH FUNCTION is a semantic system, MOOD is a lexicogrammatical system, and TONE is a phonological system.

[2] To be clear, the most obvious problems with this semantic network are

• the distinction between 'mass' and 'count' and 'singular' and 'plural' nouns is grammatical, not semantic;
• it presents words as systemic features, and as subtypes of mass and count.

Object, Thing And Nominal Group

Fawcett (2010: 297):

As we have seen in the main text, a thing is a semantic unit that is typically expresses an object in the belief system and that is realised at the level of form by a nominal group. While the source grammar for "things" has over 150 systems that are realised grammatically (and many thousands more that are realised lexically), the present grammar has just four systems that are realised in grammar and two that are realised in lexis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, semantically, it is 'participant' that is realised in lexicogrammar as a nominal group (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 177), and 'thing' is a type of participant (op. cit.: 182):

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, there is no 'belief system' above the system of semantics, and 'object' is a type of 'simple thing' and distinguished as either material or semiotic; Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 190):

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, grammar and lexis are united as lexicogrammar, and lexical items are the synthetic realisations of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features, just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the phonological features [voiced, bilabial, stop].

Fawcett's Final Three Promises

Fawcett (2010: 294):

In due course I intend to publish, with colleagues, at least three further books. One will give a full account of the generative version of the Cardiff Grammar, as implemented (in Prolog) in the computer. The other, to be jointly written with Huang Guowen, will provide an in-depth treatment of the generation of one of the more challenging constructions in English. It is the one exemplified in It is this book that gives you the best picture of how we see the various components of language generation working together in the production of a text-sentence, and it describes every component that is required, from the belief system, through the discourse planner to the sentence planner that incorporates the lexicogrammar. In due course I also hope to write an introductory book about the Cardiff Grammar with Gordon Tucker, drawing especially on Tucker (1998) and the two handbooks. Our hope is that this set of books will provide both a full guide to analysing texts in functional terms at the levels of both form and meaning, and a theoretical-generative account of a modern systemic functional model of language.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, 21 years after the first edition of this book, these promised works are still unpublished.

This completes the examination of the body of Fawcett's work. The posts that follow examine the three Appendices.

Fawcett's Functional Semantics Handbook

Fawcett (2010: 294):

This 'syntax handbook' will be complemented in due course by a 'semantics handbook', i.e., my Functional Semantics Handbook: Analysing English at the level of meaning. (Fawcett forthcoming a). This 'semantics handbook' will build on the syntactic analyses provided in the 'syntax handbook', to provide an equivalent framework for the analysis of texts in terms of eight 'strands of meaning'. In the past, users of systemic functional grammars have often found it hard to locate and interpret system networks, so it may be useful to add that those in the Functional Semantic Handbook are designed to be easy to consult and to inte[r]pret — both as an introduction to the systemic-semantic level of language (here English), and for use when analysing a text in systemic-semantic terms. This approach to text analysis solves the difficulty of how to show the multifunctional nature of language in a representation of a text without using the theoretically problematical 'multiple structures' used in IFG.

We have seen an example of an analysis that draws on the two handbooks in Figure 10 in Chapter 7. In such a representation, the multifunctional nature of language is shown in terms of the features that have been chosen at the level of meaning (rather than as 'multiple structures' that lie somewhere between meaning and form, as in IFG). The major feature of the Functional Semantics Handbook will be a full set of system networks that define the meaning potential of English, presented in such a way that they can be used for text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this promised work is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated over and over, it is not the 'multiple structures' that are problematic, but Fawcett's understanding of them.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated over and over, Fawcett's representation (Figure 10) confuses paradigmatic features with syntagmatic elements, and provides no metafunctional structures for a theory claimed to be functional.

[4] This is misleading. To be clear, the 'multiple structures' are functions of clause constituents interpreted in terms of the meanings they realise.

Fawcett's Functional Syntax Handbook

Fawcett (2010: 293-4):

As we end the present book, I should remind you that Appendix A describes a very small generative grammar that illustrates the 'two-level' model whose essential structure is common to both theories. Appendix B gives you a much fuller — though still incomplete — picture of the central units of English syntax, their internal structures, and the probabilities for each of filling various elements of a higher unit in the tree. In their different ways, the two appendices give a foretaste of two of the further books that are expected to appear soon.

Appendix B is taken from my Functional Syntax Handbook: Analysing English at the level of form. (Fawcett, in press), and it can be regarded as a summary of some of the central parts of that work. However, before you try to use it for the analysis of texts, it would be better to have available the clarifications and explanations given in the full work. This consists of a full description of English syntax in terms of the theory presented here. It is both (1) a 'fast track' course book and (2) a reference work that can be consulted by those analysing the structure of text-sentences in functional terms at all levels, including the level of postgraduate research. It provides a very full coverage of English, including several aspects of syntax that are not covered in other frameworks (some of which are introduced here in Chapter 10).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] See the examinations of Appendix A and Appendix B to follow.

[2] To be clear, these promised works are still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

"A Theory Of The Type Described Here"

Fawcett (2010: 293):

All in all, we can say that a theory of the type described here — together with the theory of system networks and their realisation as illustrated in Appendix A and in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) — provides a principled analysis of English syntax that is at every point explicitly functional. It therefore continues the line of development that extends from "Categories" through "Language as choice in social contexts" and, in some measure "Systemic theory". And since the theory of system networks and of the realisation component are clearly quite close in the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars — at least, so long as Halliday continues to regard the networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc. as modelling the 'meaning potential' — it is in the theory of syntax that one of the major differences between the two is to be found.

The other great difference, of course, is the answer to the question "What further components does each model have above the system networks for TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc? But that must await another book!

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. Moreover, there is much evidence that this is not the case, as demonstrated by Fawcett's focus on syntax and form, and his rejection of the three function structures of the clause as proposed in SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, "the theory of system networks and their realisation as illustrated in Appendix A" will be examined in future posts. But as a foretaste, the only system network that Fawcett provides in this entire publication (p298) construes every noun in English not only as a feature in the network , but also as a feature of either 'mass' or 'count':

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The Cardiff Grammar diverges from this line of development at its very beginning, Scale & Category Grammar (1961). By 1977 (Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts), Halliday had already devised the SFL model of stratification that Fawcett does not use, and the metafunctional clause structures that Fawcett rejects.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as the system network above, and the previous examinations of Fawcett's realisation operations demonstrate.

[5] This is misleading, because, although it is true that these systems model 'meaning potential' in Halliday's understanding of the term, language as system, they have never modelled it in Fawcett's misunderstanding of the term, as the semantic stratum.

[6] This is not misleading, because it is not untrue.

[7] To be clear, the "component" that SFL Theory "has above" the system of MOOD is the system of SPEECH FUNCTION; e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

By the same token, the "component" that SFL Theory "has above" the system of TRANSITIVITY is the model of the figure; e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 53):

For the the "component" that SFL Theory "has above" the system of THEME, see the discussion of the text base in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 398-413).

[8] To be clear, this book is still awaited, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.

"What Is Certain"

Fawcett (2010: 292-3):

What is certain is that, if the framework for grammar set out in "Categories" had not existed, there would not have been a 'base framework' from which to explore the alternative approaches to the problems of modelling language that have been developed in the years since then within the framework of SFL. And if these explorations had not occurred, the theory of syntax presented here would not have evolved as it has. From this viewpoint, the impressive thing about "Categories" is that it provided a framework of concepts, each of which could be adapted, tested and either adapted further or discarded as a significant part of the developing theory.

The changes in the theoretical apparatus for expressing the categories and relationships of functional syntax that are described in this book reflect, I believe, our growing understanding of what a systemic functional model of language should be like. But these categories no longer constitute the full theoretical apparatus of the grammar, as they did in 1961. They are just the theoretical apparatus that is required at the level of form. But they are the type of theory that is required for a syntax that realises the meaning potential of a language, i.e., the meanings of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is not misleading, because it is true. If Halliday had not devised his original theory, Scale & Category Grammar, 60 years ago in 1961, Fawcett would have had no template on which to build a theory he could call his own.

[2] To be clear, what Fawcett views as impressive is the fact that he was able to use Halliday's original theory to create his own.

[3] To be clear, as the evidence on the blog demonstrates, this belief is not justified. For example, 

• the architecture of the Cardiff Grammar is internally inconsistent, as well as inconsistent with SFL Theory; 
• the approach that Fawcett takes, the view 'from below' is not only inconsistent with SFL Theory, but inconsistent with a functional approach to theorising; and, 
• as Halliday (1985) explained, the 'syntax' approach to grammar is inconsistent with the approach taken in SFL Theory. 

Moreover, the Cardiff Grammar is based on Halliday's superseded Scale & Category Grammar, not Systemic Functional Grammar, and Fawcett has spent his entire book continually misrepresenting SFL Theory in ways that suit his own purposes.

[4] To be clear, here Fawcett repeats his misunderstanding of 'meaning potential' as the stratum of meaning. In SFL Theory, 'meaning potential' refers to language as system, as opposed to language as instance. The stratum of meaning, on the other hand, refers to the semantics that is realised in lexicogrammar. Moreover, in SFL Theory, the lexicogrammatical systems that realise the semantics are not just those of the clause — TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME — but those of all ranks.

Misrepresenting Halliday On 'Element Of Structure'

Fawcett (2010: 292):

However one concept, that of element of structure, has survived virtually unchanged from its initial appearance, in 1956, in Halliday's "Grammatical Categories in Modern Chinese" (1956/76). It has survived via its slight demotion in "Categories" — and its apparently even greater demotion in "Systemic theory" — to be used in essentially the same sense in IFG as it originally had, and to become one of the two principle categories in the present theory. Perhaps this is not surprising, since it is the 'element' that most clearly corresponds to the concept of 'function' in syntax — so much so that it is often used instead of it.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. For example, in the first paper (Halliday 2002 [1961]: 46ff), a structure is said to be made up of elements, and in the second, (Halliday 1995: 272-3), where the emphasis is on system, rather than structure, it is an element that is acted upon in all but one of the realisation statements.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, an element is an element of function structure, and it is the relation between elements that constitutes the structure. Each element of clause structure is the function being served by a clause constituent, group or phrase, in that clause. The function of grammatical forms, such as groups or phrases, is to realise meaning.

Fawcett's "New And More Comprehensive Theory"

Fawcett (2010: 292):

Was the theory described in "Categories", which had such an effect on so many linguists in the subsequent years, completely misguided? Of course not. The impressive thing about it is that it has proved sufficiently bendable (and mendable) for a new and more comprehensive theory to emerge from it. It is perhaps surprising that any of its concepts should have survived, given the fundamental nature of the change brought about by the elevation of the system networks to a higher level. Just as in language tout se tient (Meillet 1937), so it is also true that, in the models that we build to represent language, the function of every part depends upon the function of every other part. So it would be natural to expect that this major change would result in changes throughout the rest of the grammar. And this has happened — more clearly, however, in the present theory of syntax than in the Sydney Grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), was partially misguided, though Fawcett has been able to "mend" it.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that the impressive thing about Halliday's superseded theory is that he has been able to change it.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that his theory is more comprehensive than Halliday's superseded theory. This is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

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

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The template for Fawcett's theory, Scale & Category Grammar, did not feature any system networks. Because they did not exist, they could not be elevated to a higher level.

[6] Strictly speaking, un système oú tout se tient.

[7] On the one hand, this is misleading, because it gives the false impression that the architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) is internally consistent. On the other hand, the comparison made with SFL Theory ("the Sydney Grammar") is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

The Development Of Fawcett's Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 291-2):

In terms of the development of the present theory of syntax, it was the elevation of the system networks to model meaning that led to the reassessment of the role in the new framework of the existing syntactic categories. But it was the work in describing very large quantities of text that led to the establishment of the new meaning for class of unit, and so the recognition of the central place in the theory of the concept of filling (together with the other changes introduced in Fawcett 1974-6/81). And it took the challenge of the computer implementation of the lexicogrammar to show that the concept of a 'rank scale of units' had no role to play in the generative grammar — and so also no role in the use of the theory for describing languages or analysing texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. To be clear, in SFL Theory, the systems of the clause are located on the lexicogrammatical stratum. It is only in the Cardiff Grammar that they are located at its level of meaning, though none of these systems have been produced in this volume.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The approach of classifying units in terms of structure ('from below') rather in terms of the functions they realise ('from above') is a theoretical decision taken before analysing data, not after it, since the data itself does not determine the theoretical orientation. Moreover, Fawcett's approach is inconsistent with a theoretical approach that prioritises function over form.

[3] Again, this is misleading, because it is not true. On the one hand, the theoretical decision to use ranked constituent analysis (a rank scale) or immediate constituent analysis precedes the analysis of data. On the other hand, Fawcett does use a rank scale of sentence-clause-group and cluster-item, despite his claims to the contrary. Moreover, Fawcett has demonstrated many times over that he does not understand the notion of a rank scale as a model of formal constituency.

Fawcett's "Richly Deserved" Tribute To His Use Of Halliday's Original Theory

Fawcett (2010: 291):

Before we conclude, I would like to pay tribute to the role of Halliday's "Categories' in the development of the modern "theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics" that has been presented here. This tribute is richly deserved in spite of the fact that, as we have seen, only one of the seven original concepts of "Categories" has anything like its original meaning in the new theory of syntax. Indeed, even though Halliday still holds to his original 'rank scale' concept in IFG, in practice the concepts of 'rank' and 'unit' place [sic] little part in the description of English offered there.

However, such changes are surely no more than one should expect — given the influences on the theory in the intervening period. The first of these was directly theoretical, i.e., the revolutionary set of changes to the theory summarised in Chapter 4, of which the most fundamental was the elevation of the concept of 'system' to the semantics. The second was the widespread application of the theory to descriptions of a variety of languages, and then in turn the application of these descriptions to the task of describing large quantities of text (especially, however, texts in English) — all of which had the potential to stimulate modifications to the theory. And the third major influence on the theory was the demanding requirements of the large scale computer implementations of SFL, which have led to further advances.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fawcett is paying "richly deserved" tribute to his own use of Halliday's first theory, Scale & Category Grammar (its role in his developing his own theory of syntax).

[2] To be clear, if Fawcett has redefined 6 of the 7 original concepts of Halliday (1961), his theory cannot be consistent with the original theory that he used as his template.

[3] On the one hand, this is misleading because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, the rank scale identifies the formal constituents that are interpreted in terms of function, and each unit on the rank scale is the entry point to the systems that specify the function structures of that unit.

On the other hand, this is disingenuous, because if Fawcett honestly believed that the rank scale played little part in IFG (SFL Theory), he would not have spent so much time in the body of this work, and in its Appendices, arguing against the validity of the rank scale.

[4] To be clear, this is only true of Fawcett's model, and Fawcett provides no such systems in this entire publication. In Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, system is the fundamental theoretical formalism, and not only are all strata are modelled as system networks, but system is the model of the potential of which texts are instances.

[5] To be clear, the biographical recount, that these applications of "the" theory led to modifications and further advances, is a bare assertion, that can only be taken on trust.

The Value Of A Theory

Fawcett (2010: 290-1):

In the last analysis, it is the value of a theory in making principled descriptions of languages and texts that provides one of the two most telling types of evidence for or against it — together with the test of a principled, large-scale computer implementation. But it is not enough to provide a theory of syntax; one must also provide a complementary theory and description of the meanings of many types that the syntax expresses (together with the items and the intonation or punctuation). This is a topic to which we shall return in the final section of this chapter.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, computer implementation does not test the value of a theory, because this requires the adaptation of the theory to the limitations of computers. However, computers can be used to test the explicitness and self-consistency of theories, for example.

[2] To be clear, this is precisely what Fawcett has not provided in this publication. That is, Fawcett has not provided his systems of meaning, intonation or punctuation (an aspect of graphology).

Misrepresenting IFG On Nominal Groups Embedded In Nominal Groups

Fawcett (2010: 289, 290):

The second part of Figure 25 that I shall comment on is the quality group very experienced. Here one group, a quality group, functions to fill an element of another group, a nominal group. Texts in English are in fact full of nominal groups that have within them other groups — and not just as qualifiers, which is all that IFG states is permitted. See Tucker (1998) for the fullest treatment in any theory of language of adjectives and the structures into which they enter. He demonstrates conclusively the value of the approach taken here to this major and hitherto understudied area of syntax — an area for which he has now provided the definitive description in SFL terms.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, Fawcett's quality group is an Epithet, which from a logical perspective, involves submodification:

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, less importantly, rankshifted nominal groups serving as Qualifier are relatively rare; it is rankshifted prepositional phrases and clauses that most frequently serve as Qualifier. On the other hand, more importantly, IFG (Halliday 1994: 195, 196) provides the following examples of rankshifted nominal groups serving as elements other than Qualifier:

[3] To be clear, no matter how valuable the work of Tucker, it cannot represent "the definitive description in SFL terms", because it is framed within the approach of the Cardiff Grammar, which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with SFL Theory.

Fawcett's Argument For Treating Hypotactic Projections As Embedded

Fawcett (2010: 289, 290):

Firstly, this sentence contains just one case of embedding, in the strict sense of the term. This is the embedded clause that they'd lost all the money, which functions as the Phenomenon of the Process of 'guessing'. This is conflated with the Complement, so filling an element of the higher clause. In IFG the clause that they'd lost all the money would be described as serving the general logical function of 'modifying' the supposed 'head' clause of That very experienced reporter had guessed. Thus this second string of words would be said to be 'dependent' on the former without being embedded in it — even though the clause That very experienced reporter had guessed is clearly incomplete when it stands, alone i.e., without the Phenomenon that it "expects". It is not clear how Halliday would answer the criticism that the clause which this string of words initiates is incomplete, and that it can only be completed by modelling the dependent clause as a part of the overall clause of That very experienced reporter had guessed that they'd lost all the money.

In the Cardiff Grammar's view of the TRANSITIVITY of the main clause, the Process of the main clause is 'guessing' and the Phenomenon (which is conflated with the Complement) is that they'd lost all the money. Notice that the Phenomenon could also be the nature of the problem. In a functional grammar the way in which the Phenomenon happens to be filled on a given occasion should surely not lead to a different analysis of the structure of the clause, since the Process is, in both cases, 'guessing'.) For the full descriptive framework and a fuller explanation of why this approach to such examples has been adopted, see Fawcett (1997) on 'complementation' and Fawcett (in press).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is the analysis using Cardiff Grammar only.

[2] This is potentially misleading. In SFL Theory, the clause that they'd lost all the money serves as a reported projection, hypotactically related to the projecting clause That very experienced reporter had guessed. Whether it is a locution or an idea depends on whether the verbal group had guessed serves as a verbal or mental Process.

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

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The clause That very experienced reporter had guessed is not incomplete, as demonstrated by the fact that it is a complete response to the question Who had guessed?

[5] See [4].

[6] This is not misleading, because it is true — provided that the verbal group had guessed serves as a mental, not verbal, Process. In a verbal clause, the Range participant is Verbiage, not Phenomenon.

[7] To be clear, this is an instance of the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii), since Fawcett assumes the point he is trying to prove: that the second clause serves as Phenomenon in a clause, rather than as a reported projection in a clause complex.

[8] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.

Evading An Explanation Of An Analysis

Fawcett (2010: 289-90):

As an illustration of the way in which the different layers of a tree structure are related to each other in the framework of the present theory, consider Figure 25. …

 

This is not the place for a full explanation as to why the analysis in Figure 25 is as it is. (For this level of detail, see Fawcett in press.) But it may be helpful, in the task of understanding precisely how the present theory differs from the Sydney Grammar, if I comment on a couple of points.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the contrary, this is precisely the place for a full explanation as to why the analysis in Figure 25 is as it is because this publication is an exposition of the theory that underlies it.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished 21 years after the first edition of this publication, and so also is the detailed argument in support of the analysis.

"A Second Problem Of The Representations In IFG"

Fawcett (2010: 289, 289n):

In the rest of this section we shall see how the present theory addresses a second problem of the representations in IFG. This is the problem that the 'box diagram' way of representing structure does not lend itself to showing, in the same diagram, the internal structure of a text-sentence. Indeed, it is one of the more surprising facts about IFG that it never provides us with a diagram that relates one layer of structure to another (e.g., a clause to a nominal group).⁵

⁵ This leads to a lack of clarity on a number of central issues, those that relate to the supposed 'verbal group' being discussed in Fawcett (2000 )and (forthcoming b).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because this is neither a problem, nor surprising, to anyone who understands SFL Theory, where formal constituency is modelled as a rank scale, with each unit on the rank scale as the entry condition to metafunctional systems that specify the metafunctional structures of that unit. This provides the means of representing the structures of all ranks in one diagram, if there ever were an explanatory advantage in doing so.

[2] To be clear, as the reasoned critiques on this blog have demonstrated, the lack of clarity, throughout this publication, has been in Fawcett's understanding of SFL Theory. On the other hand, the explanatory triumph of the verbal group, with regards to English, lies in the way it models tense as a recursive system that is realised by its logical structure, though of course the system of the verbal group makes other important distinctions as well. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 410):

"The Importance Of Clear And Usable Representations"

Fawcett (2010: 288-9):

A theory of syntax has a responsibility to provide a notation for representing the structure of text-sentences. Throughout this book I have emphasised that we need two representations of each text-sentence, one at the level of form — where the main problem is that of how to represent a functional syntax — and one at the level of meaning — where I have shown that the question of how to display meaning can be resolved by bringing in the concept that lies at the core of the theory, i.e., the features from the system networks themselves.

In Figure 10 in Chapter 7 I showed an example of an analysis in these terms. The purpose at that point was to show that there is an alternative way to represent, in an easily interpretable form, the concept that a clause realises in one structure several different types of meaning — with some elements realising two or three such types of meaning. It was important, at that point in the argument, to demonstrate that there is an alternative way of representing this important aspect of language, because I had just shown that representations of the type used in IFG have no status in the theory. Clearly, if it is possible, it is preferable to use representations that are fully consistent with the theory, and the purpose of Figure 10 is to demonstrate that it is.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett's method of representation, as exemplified in Figure 10, is not consistent with SFL Theory.

For example, Fawcett's representation of semantics confuses elements of syntagmatic structure (agent, subject theme) with features of paradigmatic systems (positive, unassessed) and presents the paradigmatic features as if they were syntagmatic elements. And, of course, Fawcett does not provide the system networks from which these semantic features are derived.

Moreover, Fawcett's representation of syntax confuses formal units (Main Verb) with functional elements (Subject, Complement, Adjunct), and requires that the meanings of all metafunctions in the semantics are realised by elements of structure, in the syntax, that are essentially interpersonal.

[2] This is misleading, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett has shown no such thing. See

• Fawcett's Claim That All Of The Representations Throughout IFG Have No Status In The Theory
• Fawcett's Claim That The Metafunction Structures In IFG Have No Status In The Theory

To be clear, the theoretical status of box diagrams in SFL Theory is that they represent the metafunctional (clause) structures that are specified by metafunctional system networks on the lexicogrammatical stratum.

Misrepresenting Both The Cardiff Grammar And SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 287):

Finally, we should return to the IFG framework in order to note that it requires, as well as 'multiple structures' such as those found in IFG, a way of modelling the integration of these different structures in a final, integrated structure, i.e., one in which the five or more structures of an IFG-style representation must be integrated. It currently lacks this, so that it requires a theory of syntax such as that outlined here to model this integrated structure.

Thus, even though the two theories of syntax share a common origin in "Categories", they are now very different. The two theories are equally 'systemic' and 'functional', in that they both operate within the generalised model of level of language that was presented in Chapter 3 and summarised in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of that chapter. However, as we saw in Section 7.4 of Chapter 7, the Sydney Grammar appears to need an additional component in order to integrate its multiple structures.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue. To be clear, in SFL Theory, the clause has only three lines of structure — textual, interpersonal and experiential — and these are integrated in the syntagm of groups ± phrases that realise them. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 74, 212):

The clause, as we said, is the mainspring of grammatical energy; it is the unit where meanings of different kinds, experiential, interpersonal and textual, are integrated into a single syntagm.

[2] To be clear, here Fawcett finally reveals his motive for continually misrepresenting SFL Theory on the integration of structure: his desire for his model of structure to fill the integrating rôle. However, even ignoring the fact that this rôle, unknown to Fawcett, is already filled, it can be readily seen that Fawcett's proposal would result in theoretical inconsistencies. For example, consider Fawcett's example (p289):

That very experienced reporter had guessed that they had lost all of the money

and how Fawcett's theory of syntax would integrate 'the multiple structures found in IFG':

[3] This is misleading, because SFL is a theory of grammar, not a theory of syntax. SFL Theory models syntax and morphology as a rank scale, a notion that Fawcett rejects, but unwittingly uses.

[4] On the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, it is misleading, because it is demonstrably untrue. Fawcett's theory is not "equally systemic" since, as Fawcett explicitly admits (p280), the concept of system 'has no rôle in the present model of syntax'. By the same token, Fawcett's theory is not "equally functional" since the perspective taken on the grammar is not 'from above', in terms of function, but 'from below', in terms of structure, as demonstrated, for example, by Fawcett's means of classifying groups.

[5] This is very misleading indeed, because it is a deliberate gross misrepresentation. SFL Theory does not "operate within the generalised model of level of language…summarised in Figure 4". Ignoring the demonstrated fact that Fawcett's theoretical architecture in internally inconsistent, the falseness of the claim can be demonstrated by comparing the models. Fawcett (p36):

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 26, 31):

"The Theory Proposed Here Is Rather Different"

Fawcett (2010: 286-7):

The theory proposed here is rather different. The key categories are class of unit, element of structure and item. But a 'class of unit' is defined by its internal structure, the major classes (of English) being the clause and the nominal, prepositional, quality and quantity groups.  

Moving down the layers of a tree diagram representation of a text-sentence, we find that 'unit' and 'element' occur alternately (these being related to each other by the similarly alternate relationships of componence and filling), until the lowest element in the tree is reached and the relationship of exponence relates that element to an item.  

There is no place in the formal representations for the concept of 'word class' (although terms such as "noun" and "adjective' are used as convenient short forms for referring to classes of item that are ultimately defined by the part of the system network from which they are generated). 

To this core framework must be added the general concept of probability. More specifically, the theory provides that the likelihood that a given unit will fill a given element should be expressed in probabilistic terms (as well as absolute terms where it has a zero probability). The claim is that probabilistic statements about the potential of each class of unit to fill an element are more accurately predictive than the 'rank scale' predictions — and so more useful when the theory is being employed for the analysis of text-sentences (whether by a human or by a computer).

Blogger Comments:

The regular reader would long ago have noticed the extent to which Fawcett just keeps on repeating the same claims over and over and over. This is a deployment of the logical fallacy known as the argument from repetition, also known as argumentum ad nauseam.

[1] As previously explained, this is taking the (formal) view 'from below', and is contrary to the (functional) view 'from above' that is taken in SFL Theory.

[2] As previously explained, a clause is a unit, not a class of unit. A class of this unit is the traditional notion of an adverbial clause.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's tree diagram combines his (vigorously denied) rank scale of sentence–clause–group & cluster–item with his proposed relations between these formal units and elements of function structure. 

The notion of componence misconstrues a formal unit as composed of functional elements; in SFL Theory, a formal unit is composed of lower ranked formal units, each of which realises an element of function structure in the higher ranked unit. 

The notion of filling corresponds, in SFL theory, to the relation between elements of clause structure and the syntagm of groups ± phrases that realise them, and the notion of exponence corresponds to the relation between elements of group and cluster structure and the words ("items") that realise them. 

And, as previously explained, Fawcett's notion of item confuses the grammatical and lexical notions of word, and misconstrues the meronymic relation between words and morphemes as co-hyponymy (words and morphemes as subtypes of item).

[4] To be clear, Fawcett does not supply any system networks that demonstrate how classes of item are generated.

[5] To be clear, this is still a bare assertion, still unsupported by evidence. Moreover, what Fawcett refers to as "rank scale predictions" is merely the rank scale itself: the modelling of formal constituency as clauses consisting of groups ± phrases, consisting of words, consisting of morphemes.

The Dimensions Of SFL Theory

 Fawcett (2010: 285-6):

The concepts underlying IFG are therefore the 'rank scale' of 'units', 'class of unit' defined in terms of the 'rank scale', 'paratactic' or 'hypotactic' relations between units on the 'rank scale', and 'element of structure' — together with 'multiple structures' and the absolute minimum of 'rankshift'. According to the 'rank scale' prediction, clauses should consist of groups, groups of words, and words of morphemes — all in the same 'ranked' relationship to each other.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the architecture of SFL Theory, as conceived by Halliday, exposes Fawcett's very narrow conception of it. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20):

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 32):

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 21):

[2] To be clear, the obvious exception here is the case of rankshift, where a higher ranked unit, such as clause, functions at a lower rank, such as group.

Fawcett's Understanding Of "The Concepts Underlying IFG"

Fawcett (2010: 285-6):

The core of the IFG framework still appears to be the concept of units on the 'rank scale' — even though it is mentioned only occasionally in IFG and not at all in "Systemic theory". Moreover, the concept of class (which is always 'class of unit') is tied into the 'rank scale' too, in that it is defined in terms of its patterns of operation in the unit next above on the 'rank scale'. The concept of element of structure continues to serve a vital role in the theory, though it receives little overt recognition. The concept of delicacy seems to hover between being a theoretical category and a descriptive convenience. (Systemically the more important concept is dependence, and structurally, as I suggested in Section 10.3.4 of Chapter 10, showing structures with varying degrees of delicacy adds unnecessary complexity to the representation of texts.) And exponence in "Categories" was a concept waiting to be redefined as realisation, and then needing to be split up into specific realisation operations. The original concept of 'exponence' has no role in the theory of syntax that underlies IFG, though 'realisation' is used as the general term for the interstratal relationship. To these concepts from "Categories" Halliday has added three further ones: 'multiple structures' in the clause, and 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue. On the one hand, the rank scale provides the organisation of Halliday (1994), and the entry conditions to grammatical systems. On the other hand, the rank scale is, of course, mentioned in "Systemic Theory". Halliday (1995 [1993]: 273):

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, units (e.g. groups) are classified (e.g. nominal) according to the elements of structure of the higher rank that they prototypically realise (e.g. participant).

[3] This is misleading, though comically so, because all editions of IFG pay far more attention to elements of structure — at clause rank: participants, processes and circumstances — than they do to the systems that specify them.

[4] This is misleading, also comically so, because delicacy is the ordering principle of the system network (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 20), which is the fundamental formalism of Systemic Functional Theory.

[5] This is misleading, because taxis (interdependency) is not more important than delicacy, if only because taxis is confined to the logical metafunction, whereas delicacy is a dimension of every system of all metafunctions.

[6] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue, no matter how many times Fawcett repeats it (the logical fallacy known as the argument from repetition). On the one hand, the organising principle of such structures is composition (extension), not delicacy (elaboration). On the other hand, the bare assertion that they add unnecessary complexity to the description is invalidated by the additional explanatory potential that they provide.

[7] This is misleading. On the one hand, the term 'exponence' (Halliday 1961) was not redefined as realisation. Instead, SFL Theory distinguishes two different types of relation that were conflated in Firth's use of the term: realisation and instantiation. On the other hand, the concept of realisation is not "split up into specific realisation operations". That is, realisation operations are not subtypes of the concept of realisation, but statements that identify circumstances in which the relation obtains. 

[8] This is misleading. On the one hand, the two relations inherent in the original concept of 'exponence', realisation and instantiation, both play very important rôles in SFL Theory. On the other hand, realisation is not merely the relation between strata. Realisation obtains wherever there is a relation of symbolic abstraction, as, for example, between:

• function and form,
• system and structure,
• selection expression and lexical item.

And importantly, SFL Theory reduces syntax (and morphology) to a rank scale of formal units, which is not what Fawcett means by "the theory of syntax that underlies IFG".

[9] This is seriously misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory as simply the addition of metafunction structures and taxis to Scale & Category Grammar; see the following post for evidence that invalidates the claim.

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On The Location Of Grammatical Systems

Fawcett (2010: 285):

Clearly, Halliday sees the concepts of "Categories" as also being the concepts that underlie IFG — but with certain additions such as the concepts of 'multiple structures' and the two relationships between units of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'. Let us now compare the two frameworks — i.e., the one that is derived from "Categories" and exemplified most fully in IFG (which we shall call "the IFG framework") and the one proposed here.

First, in both theories the original "Categories" concept of 'system' has been removed from the theory of syntax, as a result of its elevation to the role of modelling meaning potential. However, even though both theories are derived from the remaining concepts of "Categories", the conceptual core of each is quite different.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if Halliday saw Systemic Functional Grammar as basically Scale & Category Grammar "with certain additions", he would not have been motivated to come up with a new name for his new theory.

[2] This is misleading on two fronts. Less importantly, Systemic Functional Grammar is not a theory of syntax, as Halliday (1985: xiv) makes clear. More importantly, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett misunderstands 'meaning potential' to mean semantics, he is here making the knowingly false claim that the grammatical systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY have been elevated to the stratum of semantics in SFL Theory. Semantics is where Fawcett desperately wishes to locate them, but not where Halliday actually locates them.

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

Summary Of What The Cardiff Grammar Abandons, Re-Defines And Introduces

Fawcett (2010: 285):

In summary, we can say that in the theory proposed here the concept of the 'rank scale' has been abandoned, together with its associated predictions about 'rank shift, and so also has 'delicacy' (in the sense of 'primary' and 'secondary' structure in syntax (as opposed to 'delicacy' in the system networks). "Exponence" has been re-defined in a way that enables it to be used in what is broadly its original Firthian sense, and the important new structural concepts of 'componence', 'filling' and 'exponence' have been introduced.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Despite his bare assertions to the contrary, it has been demonstrated that Fawcett's model ranks formal units on a scale from sentence to clause to group and cluster to item.

[2] This is misleading, because Fawcett does in fact use a rank scale, his cases of embedding do indeed constitute instances of rankshift, despite his bare assertions to the contrary.

[3] This is misleading, because the notion of delicacy of structure was a feature of Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961), but does not feature in SFL Theory.

[4] This is misleading, because the Firthian sense of 'exponence', which Halliday (1961) deploys, included both the notions of realisation and instantiation, whereas Fawcett uses it solely in the sense of realisation.

[5] Again, for the theoretical problems with these key relationships, see the relevant posts:

• here for componence
• here for filling, and
• here for exponence.

Seriously Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Structural Discontinuity

Fawcett (2010: 284-5):

However, the present theory introduces several concepts that are not found explicitly in any of "Categories", "Systemic theory" or IFG. These include the central roles given to the three key relationships of 'componence', 'filling' and 'exponence'; the recognition that classes of unit are determined by their internal structure; the fact that many units fill many elements of many other units (so that 'embedding' is seen as a valuable resource for constructing meanings). 

In addition the theory incorporates a number of well-recognised concepts that are not mentioned in those works, such as 'discontinuity' in units. The familiar concept of 'co-ordination' occurs in both theories, but in IFG it is included in 'parataxis' (which is contrasted systemically with "hypotaxis").

Blogger Comments:

[1] For the theoretical problems with these key relationships, see the relevant posts:

• here for componence
• here for filling, and
• here for exponence.

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, this "recognition" is inconsistent with SFL Theory, though consistent with Formal theories, since it takes the view 'from below' (structural realisation) instead of the view 'from above' (the functions being realised).

[3] This is misleading, because it presents what is recognised by both theories as something that is solely recognised by Fawcett's model. The difference between the theories lies in the units recognised, and what constitutes genuine embedding.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The extent to which it is untrue can be demonstrated by the following figures from Halliday (1994) which illustrate cases of discontinuity in the structure of units.

p81:

p86:

p97:

p98:

p113:

p118:

p140:

p208:

p209:

p268:

p286:

p288:

p290:

p350:

p367:

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the traditional notion of 'co-ordination' corresponds to paratactic extension, whereas in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, the term 'co-ordination' is applied to what in SFL Theory is:

• paratactic elaboration
• hypotactic elaboration
• paratactic extension
• paratactic enhancement.

See the earlier post Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis.