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.

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Structure And Conflation

  Fawcett (2010: 279):

At this point we might remind ourselves that, in the new framework that is proposed here, the multifunctional nature of language is displayed in the analysis of a text at the level of meaning — so avoiding the problems that arise from the challenge of (1) generating and (2) integrating five or more different structures (as described in Chapter 7). This is achieved by arranging the features that have been chosen in generating it in separate lines, as in Figure 10 in Chapter 7. And we should also remind ourselves that the the application of the realisation operations attached to the semantic features generates a single, integrated output structure, so making it both undesirable and unnecessary to generate 'intermediate' structures such as those found in IFG.

The conclusion, therefore, is that single, coterminous elements are the only categories that can be conflated with each other — and this brings out yet more strongly the centrality in the theory of the concept of 'element of structure'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, 'in the new framework that is proposed here', the systemic meanings of all metafunctions are incongruously realised structurally by elements of the interpersonal metafunction: Subject, Complement, Adjunct, Finite ("Operator") and Predicator ("Main Verb"), though, as Figure 10 shows, the experiential elements of Agent and Medium ("Affected") are incongruously presented as both syntactic elements and semantic features.

[2] This is misleading. On the one hand, as previously demonstrated, these problems are imaginary, since they arise from Fawcett's misunderstandings of SFL Theory. On the other hand, because Fawcett has exported most of what is lexicogrammar in SFL Theory to semantic systems, and not provided those semantic systems (or realisation rules), he has hidden any the potential problems that arise in such a model.

[3] To be clear, as acknowledged by Fawcett, and illustrated in Figure 10, the Cardiff Grammar incongruously presents paradigmatic features as syntagmatic elements of structure. This is inconsistent in terms of axis. Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 10, the Cardiff Grammar incongruously conflates categories of different levels of symbolic abstraction: Subject (syntax) with Agent (semantics), and Complement (syntax) with Affected (semantics). This is inconsistent in terms of stratification.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett does not provide these realisation operations. On the other hand, in Fawcett's model (Figure 4), realisation operations are located at the level of form, not meaning (semantics).

[5] This is misleading, because the metafunctional structures in IFG are not intermediate structures, but construals of the different metafunctional meanings realised in the clause. Fawcett's misrepresentation in this regard arises from his inability to understand that these structures are integrated in a syntagm of clause constituents, as previously explained.

[6] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that this is not the case in SFL Theory. Fawcett has falsely claimed that SFL conflates structures rather than elements. Moreover, Fawcett's model incongruously conflates his semantic features (Agent, Affected) with his syntactic elements (Subject, Complement).

[7] To be clear, this is a non-sequitur, because the conflation of elements says nothing at all about the centrality of the notion of 'element of structure' in a theory, since conflation can be posited in any theory that features the notion of 'element of structure' — whether as central or peripheral in the theory.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Conflation

 Fawcett (2010: 278-9):

Moreover, in his writings from the late 1960s onwards the emphasis is always placed on the concept that an element of a clause such as 'Subject' is not a single element but a conflation of three "functions" — and so the expression in structure of the concept that language simultaneously realises several different types of meaning.

However, as we saw in Chapter 7, Halliday immediately extended the concept of the conflation of single coterminous elements to the much more ambitious concept that a whole unit such as the clause can be represented as a series of simultaneous but different structures. This implied in turn that the various structures, each roughly the length of a clause and each with 'elements' that were not coterminous with the elements in the other structures of the same clause, were to be unified, by the application of a final 'structure conflation' rule of an unspecified type, into a single, integrated structure. But the concept that five or more different clause-length structures can be 'integrated' is, as we have seen, theoretically untenable (except in the trivial sense that involves dismembering the structures into their 'lowest common denominators').

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Firstly, 'Subject' is not an element of a clause, but of the interpersonal structure of a clause. Secondly, 'Subject' is a single element of the interpersonal structure of a clause. Thirdly, 'Subject' is not a conflation of three functions; 'Subject' is one of the three functions that are conflated (e.g. Subject/Theme/Behaver).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. 'Subject' is the realisation of just one type of meaning, interpersonal, not several types of meaning.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The SFL notion that clause structures vary by metafunction is not an extension of the concept of conflation, if only because conflation requires the prior distinction of metafunctional structures whose elements can be conflated. Importantly, unknown to Fawcett, in SFL Theory, structures can not be conflated, because a structure is the relation between elements. See the posts examining Chapter 7 here.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The SFL model, which Fawcett demonstrably does not understand, does not imply a structure conflation rule, if only because structures are not conflated in SFL Theory.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Revealingly, here Fawcett switches terminology from 'conflation' to 'integration', which suggests he is, in fact, aware of the SFL principle that he is choosing not to mention. In SFL Theory, the three metafunctional structures of the clause are integrated in the syntagm of its constituents (groups ± phrases). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 74):

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.

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, there are three clause structures: textual, interpersonal and experiential. Fawcett's miscalculation arises from misconstruing information structure as clause structure, and from counting the textual and interpersonal structures twice, as previously explained.

Fawcett's 2 Reasons Why Adding The Cardiff Grammar Syntactic Representation To SFL Clause Structures Cannot Reconcile The Two Theories

Fawcett (2010: 273-4):

However, we also saw in Chapter 7 that we cannot reconcile the two versions of the theory by simply adding the syntactic representation of the Cardiff Grammar to the 'multiple structures' of the Sydney Grammar, as a way to integrate them in a single structure. 

The first reason is that in the Cardiff Grammar it is simply not necessary to have any such 'intermediate' instantial representation between (1) the selection expression of features that are the output from the system networks and (2) the single, integrated structure that must be the final structural representation of any text-sentence (e.g., as shown in the upper half of Figure 10 in Chapter 7) — a fact that is demonstrated by the successful operation of the computer version of the Cardiff Grammar. 

The second reason why we cannot simply add the Cardiff representation of syntax to an IFG-style 'multiple structure' representation is that there are major (and probably insuperable) theoretical problems for the generative version of a model of language that is intended first to generate a set of five or more different structures for a clause and then, by the application of some type of 'structure conflation' rule that no SF theorist has yet attempted to formalise, to integrate them all into a single structure. 

It seems from the experience of those who have tried (in the Penman Project as reported in Matthiessen & Bateman 1991, and in the early stages of the COMMUNAL Project as described in Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993) that it is just not possible to incorporate 'multiple structures' in a generative SF grammar. The clear conclusion is that such grammars should be based on the concept of 'element conflation' rather than 'structure conflation'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] For the detailed arguments that demonstrate that Fawcett's claims in his Chapter 7 are based on multidimensional misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see the 103 posts here.

[2] To be clear, the unquestioned assumption here is that it would be theoretically advantageous to reconcile the Cardiff Grammar and SFL Theory. As this blog has demonstrated, over and over and over, unknown to Fawcett, the Cardiff Grammar is inconsistent — in terms of both theoretical assumptions and architecture — with both SFL Theory and itself.

[3] To be clear, as demonstrated in the examination of Chapter 7, there is no theoretical requirement that the three metafunctional structures of the clause be integrated into any single structure, let alone that of the Cardiff Grammar, which is itself a confused hybrid of form (Main Verb) interpersonal function (Subject, Complement, Adjunct).

[4] To be clear, Fawcett's first reason for why the Cardiff Grammar syntactic model cannot be added to the SFL model of clause structure is that the architecture of Cardiff Grammar does not require the SFL model of clause structure. This is analogous to arguing that the model of alchemy cannot be added to the model of chemistry because the model of alchemy does not require the model of chemistry.

[5] To be clear, Fawcett's second reason for why the Cardiff Grammar syntactic model cannot be added to the SFL model of clause structure is that the SFL model of clause structure has major theoretical problems. However, as demonstrated in the examination of Chapter 7, this problem arises from Fawcett's misunderstanding of SFL Theory, especially his false claims that (i) the metafunctional clause structures are not syntagmatically integrated, and that (ii) the metafunctional clause structures need to be integrated in a single structure. As previously explained, the metafunctional clause structures are integrated in a syntagm of clause constituents.

[6] To be clear, the reason why 'no SF theorist' has attempted to formalise a structure conflation rule is that structure conflation is not a feature of SFL Theory. Here, also, Fawcett misleads by shifting terminology from structure 'integration' to structure 'conflation' to set up his final misleading point in this extract; see [8] below.

[7] To be clear, on the one hand, as previously demonstrated, this misrepresents Matthiessen & Bateman (1991), and on the other hand, any adaptations of theory to the limitations of computers is not an argument about the validity of the theory itself, since the theory describes what humans can do, not what machines can do.

[8] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a non sequitur, because Fawcett has not presented an argument weighing up the relative theoretical values of structure vs element conflation. On the other hand, it is misleading, because it falsely attributes structure conflation to SFL Theory, and falsely claims that element conflation is not a feature of SFL Theory.

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 Absence Of Textual Structure In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 250):

One difference between the Cardiff and the Sydney Grammars is that the former does not mark the 'Theme' function of a Subject explicitly in the structure, while the Sydney Grammar does. It is in fact redundant to show this, in that the Subject's status is as a type of Theme is directly inferable from the fact that it is the Subject — i.e., the grammar specifies that any PR that is conflated with the Subject is thereby automatically also a "Subject Theme'. The fact that it must be a PR excludes "empty Subjects" (as in the underlined parts of 

It was Ivy that did it, 

It's likely that she did and 

There's a fly in my soup), 

which are not 'Themes'. (See Fawcett in press for such 'enhanced theme' constructions.)

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a serious (and widespread) misunderstanding of Theme in SFL Theory. Importantly, Theme is defined textually, not interpersonally (Subject) or experientially (Participant Role). Theme and Subject are independent choices, and Fawcett's model fails to account for all the instances where Theme is not conflated with Subject — e.g. Theme/Adjunct, Theme/Complement, Theme/Predicator — and fails to account for both textual and interpersonal Themes.

Moreover, the absence of a Rheme element in Fawcett's model means that it does not provide a textual structure of the clause, since a structure is the relationship between elements.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, because Theme is defined textually, the underlined parts of these three instances are indeed examples of Theme (and only in the final instance does the Theme not conflate with a participant).

See, for example, Halliday (1994: 60, 98).

[3] As previously noted, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this work.

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.