"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.