"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.

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.

Applying Fawcett's Realisation Operations

Fawcett (2010: 281-2):

The specification of the realisation operations that follows is essentially the same as that given in Section 9.2.1 of Chapter 9, the difference being that this list additionally identifies the type of relationship that corresponds to the operation. In their typical order of application, the major realisation operations are:

1 Insert a unit (e.g., "ngp") into the structure to 'fill' (or 'function at') an element or Participant Role (e.g., "cv") — so introducing to the structure the relationship of filling. (The topmost clause in a text-sentence fills the 'Sentence'.)

2 Locate an element (e.g., "S") at a given place in a unit — so introducing the relationship of componence.

3 Insert an element or Participant Role to be conflated with an existing element, i.e., to be located immediately after it and to be at the same place (e.g., "S/Ag") — so introducing the relationship of conflation.

4 Expound an element by an item — so introducing the relationship of exponence.

5 Re-set the preferences (i.e., the percentage probabilities on features in certain specified systems), including the preselection of features by the use of 100% and 0% probabilities — these probabilities being reset to their original percentages after the next traversal of the network.

6 Re-enter the system network at a stated feature — so possibly also introducing the recursion of co-ordination, embedding or reiteration.

The result of applying Operation 6 (and so in turn Operation 1) is to introduce to the structure either a single unit or two or more co-ordinated units. In either case the resulting structure may additionally involve the addition of more layers of unit, including the embedding of a unit inside another unit of the same class — depending on what choices have been made in the system network.

Blogger Comments:

These realisation operations can be tested for the clause Blessed are the meek.

1. Insert nominal group into clause structure to fill Subject
2. Locate Subject in final location of clause
3. Insert Affected (Medium) to be conflated with Subject
4. Expound the Head by an item: meek
5. Reset percentage probabilities (not provided by Fawcett)
6. Re-enter system network at stated feature (neither provided by Fawcett).

By this description, the nominal group is already structured before it is inserted into a clause that is already structured and includes a Subject. After one pass through an imaginary system network, all that is generated is the one item meek expounding the Head of a nominal group that fills Subject/Affected. In SFL Theory, in contrast, one pass through the system network of a clause specifies all the elements of a clause, not just one element.

How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection

Fawcett (2010: 271):

The twin concepts of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' play such a large part in IFG (pp. 215-73) that it may be helpful to state how they are handled here.

Firstly, then, Halliday's two types of 'hypotactic projecting' clause ('locution' and 'idea') are handled as embedded clauses that fill a Phenomenon that is conflated with a Complement, thus:

John [S] said/thought [M] he was running away [clause filling C/Ph].

And his equivalent two types of 'paratactic projecting' clause are handled similarly — except that the embedded clause fills a sentence, which functions as an element in a simplified model of a 'move' in discourse (shown as "text"), and this in turn fills the Phenomenon/Complement (see Appendix B), thus:

He [S] said/thought [M] "I'll run away" [clause filling Σ in "text" filling C/Ph]

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, tactic relations obtain between units at all ranks, not just clause rank.

[2] Trivially, locutions and ideas are projected clauses, not projecting clauses; the verbal and mental clauses are the projecting clauses.

[3] Trivially, in SFL Theory, a Phenomenon is not the Range participant of a verbal clause. The Range of a verbal Process is termed Verbiage.

[4] Non-trivially, by treating all projected clauses as embedded, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar provides less explanatory power than SFL Theory, since it fails to distinguish between projections that are actually brought into semiotic existence by the verbal or mental Process of a clause: locution or idea, and those that are not: pre-projected facts serving as Verbiage or Phenomenon.

[5] To be clear, here Fawcett proposes that his clause He said/thought "I'll run away" 

• has the component Complement/Phenomenon,
• which is filled by the unit "text",
• whose components are Opening Quotation mark ^ Sentence ^ Closing Quotation mark, and
• whose Sentence is filled by an embedded clause.

And at this point, the embedded clause itself has not yet been analysed.

Cf SFL Theory:

[6] To be clear, Appendix B (p304) provides only the following assistance on this matter:

Conflation, Filling And Componence In A Modern Systemic Functional Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 253-4):

Up to this point I have been writing as if it was the Subject or the Complement that is filled by a nominal group. But it is, strictly speaking, the Participant Role (PR) that is conflated with the Subject or the Complement that the unit below fills. This is because, in generation, it is typically the PR which predicts what the unit will be, and the likely semantic features of the entity to be generated. (The configuration of PRs in a clause is in turn closely tied to the Process type, which is typically realised in the Main Verb.) However, from the viewpoint of drawing tree diagrams when analysing text-sentences, it makes little difference whether you picture the unit as filling the PR or as filling the element with which it is conflated. …

The introduction of the relationship of 'filling' as a complement to that of 'componence' is probably one of the Cardiff Grammar's main contributions to developing a theory of syntax for a modern systemic functional grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if two elements are conflated, then the lower rank unit realises ("fills") both of them. For example, the nominal group people realises both the Subject and Carrier in the clause people are strange.

[2] To be clear, as previously observed, Fawcett's model of structure does not present a configuration of process and participants — an experiential structure — since there is no process and the participants are only construed as conflated with interpersonal elements.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the Process of experiential clause structure corresponds to the Finite and Predicator of interpersonal structure (as well as one or more Adjuncts, in the case of phrasal verbs). In Fawcett's model (e.g. p305), the Process can correspond to several elements, including the Operator, Negator, Infinitive Element, Auxiliary Verb, Auxiliary Verb Extension, Main Verb, and up to 3 Main Verb Extensions.

[4] This is true.

[5] This may well be true. However, there are several problems here:

• filling and componence both misconstrue function and form as the same level of symbolic abstraction;
• componence misconstrues functions as parts of forms;
• SFL does not model grammar in terms of syntax (Halliday 1985: xiv);
• the Cardiff Grammar is not a modern systemic functional grammar because
• it is not modern, but developed from Halliday's superseded Scale & Category Grammar;
• it is not systemic, because its priority is structure, not system; and
• it is not functional, because its priority is form, not function.

The Centrality Of 'Filling' To Fawcett's Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 252):

However, the concept of 'filling' is not completely absent from the Sydney Grammar. It has been present from the start in the wording by which the relationship of a unit to an element is described, in the use of "operates at" (e.g., Halliday 1961/76:64). An alternative term is "function as". Thus a nominal group would be said to "operate at" (or "function as") the Subject or Complement of a clause. But it is not given a place as a central concept in the theory, as it is here. The term 'filling' seems to be preferable to "operating-at-ness" or "functioning-as-ness".

Its centrality in the theory of syntax is shown by the fact that it functions as the direct complement to 'componence'. In other words, as your eye moves down a full tree diagram representation of a text-sentence (e.g., Figure 25 in Section 12.6 of Chapter 12), you find that the relationships between categories are alternately those of componence and filling, and that these two are repeated until the point at which the analysis moves out of the abstract categories of syntax to the rather more concrete (but still abstract) category of items (via the relationship of exponence, to which we shall come in Section 11.6).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, since Fawcett's notion of filling is not even slightly absent from SFL Theory. As previously explained, it corresponds to the realisation relation between a functional element at a higher rank and a formal unit at the rank below.

[2] To be clear, the term 'operates at' is from Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar, and misrepresents the relation between function and form in SFL Theory because it construes function and form as one level of symbolic abstraction instead of two (Value and Token).

[3] This is not misleading, because it is true. The term 'function as' is consistent with theory because it construes the higher level of symbolic abstraction, element, as Role: guise, which is the circumstantial counterpart of Value; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 326).

[4] To be clear, the centrality of 'filling' in Fawcett's model arises from his focus on form instead of function and his confusion of formal constituency with function-form relations, as previously demonstrated.

[5] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument, and on the other, it is misleading because it is untrue. As previously explained, 'function as' (2 levels of abstraction) is consistent with the architecture of SFL theory, whereas 'filling' (1 level of abstraction) is not.

[6] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's componence, filling and exponence arise from his confusing formal constituency with form-function relations. Componence misconstrues functions (elements) as constituents of forms (units); filling misconstrues functions (elements of clause structure) and forms (units) as the same level of symbolic abstraction; and exponence is the realisation relation between functions (elements of group structure) and forms ("items").

[7] From the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's Figure 25 (p289) analyses a projection nexus (clause complex) as a single clause:

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.

Componence: Functions As Parts Of Forms

Fawcett (2010: 244):

In the next four sections we shall examine the three crucial relationships of componence, filling and exponence into which the 'consists of relationship between units must be broken down — and also the concept that models in the syntax itself the multifunctional nature of language, i.e., conflation.

Componence is the part-whole relationship between a unit and the elements of which it is composed. Thus the componence of the nominal group the man with a stick is dd h q; the componence of the prepositional group with a stick is ρ cv, and that of the nominal group a stick is qd h.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'consists of' relationship between units — in SFL Theory: the rank scale of forms — can not be broken down into componence, filling and exponence, because each of these three is concerned with the form-function relations, not with the constituency of forms (units); see further below.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's notion of componence confuses form (units) with function (element), and posits functions as parts of forms. The reason this is theoretically invalid is because form and function are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett's notions of filling and exponence are both the relation between function (element) and form (unit and item, respectively). That is, both involve the relation of different levels of symbolic abstraction, which in SFL Theory, is the relation of realisation.

The "Principle" Concepts Of A Replacement For 'Rank'

Fawcett (2010: 238-9, 239n):

The principle concepts of the alternative approach

In the approach to 'constituency' proposed here the two key concepts are:

1. that the predictions are made in terms of the relationship of filling that holds between a unit and an element of structure in a higher unit in the tree (rather than being about relations between units), and

2. the use of filling probabilities.⁴ (We shall look at the precise nature of 'filling probabilities' in Section 11.2.2.)

 

⁴ It may be significant that, although the concept of 'filling' was indirectly present in the S&C model (and so is still implicitly there in IFG), it has never been presented as one of the 'basic concepts' of the theory, as it is here (in Section 11.5 of Chapter 11). As we shall see, it is the concept of 'filling' that gives us a principled way to handle co-ordination as a phenomenon that is different from the usual 'componence' relationship of elements in a unit — a difference that all good grammars recognise but for which few have an adequate notation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not an alternative approach to modelling the rank scale — constituency relations between forms (units) — because it is instead concerned with the relation between function (element) and form (unit).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In Scale & Category Grammar, what Fawcett calls 'filling' is termed exponence, which Halliday (2002 [1961]: 41, 55) explicitly identifies as one of the three scales of abstraction in the architecture of the theory. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 57):

The fact that by moving from structure to class, which is (or can be) a move on the exponence scale, one also moves one step down the rank scale, is due to the specific relation between the categories of class and structure…

However, from the perspective of SFL theory, the term 'exponence' covered both realisation and instantiation (the relation of theory to data). So in SFL theory, the relation is explicitly one of realisation, as illustrated by Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 52):

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's componence is 'the part-whole relationship between a unit and the elements of which it is composed' (p244). That is, it confuses form (unit) with function (element). On the other hand, Fawcett's co-ordination is largely* the relation of paratactic expansion between units; *but see further in the upcoming examination of co-ordination.

Fawcett's First Reason For Dispensing Wth The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 237-8, 238n):

Let us begin with the last of the four assumptions listed above. We have already seen in Section 10.2 of Chapter 10 the reasons why, in the new theory, we prefer to determine the class of a unit by its internal structure. This leaves just the concept of the 'rank scale' itself. There are four interrelated reasons for dispensing with this concept.

Firstly, the idea that there is a "consists of' relationship of 'constituency' between the units — which is what the concept of the 'rank scale' states — is not sufficiently precise to be useful. A unit does not in fact function directly as a constituent of another unit; as later sections of this chapter will demonstrate in detail. Instead, the concept of 'constituency' must be broken down into a number of other relationships. In the present theory we shall say that a unit is composed of a number of elements, and that any such element will be either filled by another unit or expounded by an item. (For the concepts of 'componence', 'filling' and 'exponence' see Sections 11.3, 11.5 and 11.6 respectively.) In other words, there is not in fact a 'consists of' relationship between units, but a rather more complex series of relationships.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed in the examination of Section 10.2, classifying units by their internal structure ('from below'), rather than by their function ('from above'), is inconsistent with the notion of a functional grammar.

[2] To be clear, this is irrelevant to the notion of a rank scale, because the rank scale is a model of form, not function.

[3] To be clear, the notion of a unit being composed of elements confuses formal constituency (unit) with function structure (elements). In SFL Theory, a unit (e.g. clause) consists of lower ranked units (e.g. groups) each of which serves a function (e.g. Process) in the structure of the higher ranked unit.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Clearly, units of form do consist of other units of form, as demonstrated by any clause consisting of groups. The "more complex series of relationships" are those between form and function, not between form and form.

Fawcett's Componence, Filling and Exponence

Fawcett (2010: 165):

8.4 The 'relationships' of "Some proposals" 

The first difference is that "Some proposals" recognises many more 'relationships' than the three 'scales' in "Categories". There are ten of them. 

One of its major innovations is to split Halliday's 'scale' of 'exponence' into three: componence, filling and exponence proper. To cite Butler's excellent summary of these concepts:

Componence is the relation between a unit and the elements of structure of which it is composed. For example, a clause may be composed of the elements S, P, C and A. Each of these elements of structure may be (but need not be) filled by groups. In the specification of a syntactic structure, componence and filling alternate until, at the bottom of the structural tree, the smallest elements of structure are not filled by other units. It is at this point that we need the concept of exponence, as used by Fawcett: the lowest elements of structure are expounded by items', which are [...] more or less equivalent to 'words' and 'morphemes' in Halliday's model. (Butler 1985:95) 

These three concepts, which today still form the basis of the Cardiff Grammar's model of syntax, are clearly exemplified in the top half of Figure 10. These concepts are necessary, in one form or another, in any adequate systemic functional model of syntax, and they will be illustrated, discussed and compared with their antecedents in the relevant sections of Chapter 11.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] To be clear, in Halliday's first theory, the term 'exponence' covered what were to become two distinct relations in his second theory: realisation and instantiation. On the one hand, exponence corresponds to the relation between an element of function structure and the class of unit that realises it. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 54, 57):

The exponent of the element S in primary clause structure is the primary class nominal of the unit group. …

The fact that by moving from structure to class, which is (or can be) a move on the exponence scale, one also moves one step down the rank scale, is due to the specific relation between the categories of class and structure, and not to any inherent interdetermination between exponence and rank.

On the other hand, exponence corresponds to the instantiation relation between theory and data. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 57):

Exponence is the scale which relates the categories of the theory, which are categories of the highest degree of abstraction, to the data.

[3] To be clear, 'componence' is the relation of composition, a type of extension. In SFL Theory, composition is modelled as a rank scale of forms, and is distinct from the function structures of the units on the rank scale.

[4] To be clear, one the one hand, Fawcett's 'filling' corresponds to the relation between an element of clause structure and the group that realises it, but treats these two distinct levels of symbolic abstraction, function and form as if both were at the same level. On the other hand, 'filling' suggests an active process, rather than an inert relation, and if this were a model of human language, rather than an algorithm for text generation, the process would be (an aspect of) instantiation.

[5] To be clear, Fawcett's 'exponence' corresponds to the relation between an element of group structure and the word (and morphemes) that realise it. That is, it is a different term for the same relation as 'filling': realisation.

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As can be seen below, while Figure 10 does exemplify Fawcett's notion of componence, a form (clause) composed of functions, it does not exemplify the filling of clause functions by groups or the exponence of groups by words and morphemes. (The 'text' line is the data being analysed, not an analysis of the data at group or word level.)