Why 'Syntagmatic Probabilities' Are No Replacement For The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 338):

These systemic probabilities and the model's ability to vary them play a major role in the computer generation of text in the Cardiff Grammar. But from the viewpoint of the text analyst — whether a human or a computer — what is needed is the 'realisation' of these systemic probabilities as structural probabilities. In other words, probabilities that are ultimately semantic and paradigmatic have to be expressed in terms of probabilities that are formal and syntagmatic. And, within the wide range of syntagmatic probabilities at the level of form, is the particular set which states the relative likelihood that a given unit will fill a given element of another unit (or an element of the same class of unit higher in the structure). It is this aspect of the syntagmatic probabilities that replaces the concept of the 'rank scale'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of systemic probabilities realised as 'structural/syntagmatic probabilities' is inconsistent with Fawcett's model (Figure 4, p36), because probability is the quantification of potential, whereas Fawcett (incongruously) models syntagmatic structure as instance.

[2] To be clear, syntagmatic probabilities can not replace the concept of 'the rank scale' because the rank scale is a model formal constituency, whereas syntagmatic probabilities, as form-function relations, are not.

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Probabilities

Fawcett (2010: 337-8):

Unlike the predictions made from the 'rank scale' framework, the probabilities that the new model suggests can be changed. Such changed [sic] may be triggered by the context of co-text (which includes the specific point in the structure), or by some aspect of the context of situation.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on two counts. On the one hand, the rank scale does no make "predictions"; it is merely a way of modelling formal constituency such that higher rank units consist of lower rank units. On the other hand, in SFL Theory, despite deploying a rank scale, all features in all systems have deemed to have probability values, and it is variation in such probabilities that distinguishes registers. Moreover, these probabilities are continually altered by the process of instantiation: the selection of features in logogenesis, the unfolding of text.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett has not located 'context of situation' in his model. Figure 12 (p210) identifies 'situation' at the level of 'meaning', not 'context', and where SFL Theory locates 'context', Fawcett has 'belief system':

"This Little Grammar"

Fawcett (2010: 302):

Clearly, this little grammar leaves out a rather large proportion of the many complex meanings that can be expressed through the nominal group in English. Equally clearly, it ignores various problems, such as the plurals of words like box and the irregular plurals of men and women, etc. All of these matters are covered in the full lexicogrammar from which this simplified one has been taken. The fact that this little lexicogrammar is very limited in its coverage of English nominal groups is unimportant, because our purpose here is simply to illustrate the basic principles of how a grammar that is founded on the concept of 'choice between meanings' actually works. The key concept, then, is that the system network of a language (or any other sign system) defines the meaning potential of that language, and the realisation component defines the form potential. But when such a lexicogrammar is set to work it also specifies the instances that are possible at the levels of both meaning (in the selection expression of semantic features) and form (in the structured strings of word forms that are the output).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this little grammar leaves out almost all of the grammar of English.

[2] To be clear, this has to be taken entirely on trust, because Fawcett has not produced any evidence of "the full lexicogrammar" in a book that is purported to set out his theory.

[3] To be clear, the fact that this little lexicogrammar is very limited is important, because the absence of a full description casts serious doubt on Fawcett's claim that his theory is a viable alternative to SFL Theory.

[4]  To be clear, this is merely a pretext for not supplying a full description, because explaining the formalism does not preclude the possibility of supplying the systems that model the content of this book.

[5] To be clear, here Fawcett once again confuses 'meaning' as a level of symbolic abstraction (vs form) with language as 'meaning potential' (vs instance): the system pole of the cline of instantiation.

[6] As previously explained, selection expressions — like [voiced, bilabial. stop] — constitute potential as well as instance.

[7] As previously explained, Fawcett's model misconstrues syntactic structures as instances of realisation rules.

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.

"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.

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.

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):

Misrepresenting Halliday (1961) On Exponence

Fawcett (2010: 282):

Thus, the highly general concept of 'exponence' from "Categories" was first re-interpreted by Halliday as the second highly general concept of interstratal 'realisation'. Then the researchers at London who were developing generative SF grammars specified the particular types of operation required in realisation. These have been refined over the years, and those set out above can be seen to specify, in their turn, the relationships between categories that are found in the syntax. It is somewhat ironic that the term "exponence" is reintroduced here with roughly the sense that it was originally given by Firth (1957/68:183), before Halliday borrowed it and stretched — indeed overstretched — its meaning in "Categories".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, in Halliday (1961), 'exponence' covered what Halliday later recognised as two distinct theoretical dimensions: realisation (an identifying relation between levels of symbolic abstraction) and instantiation (an ascriptive relation between potential and instance).

[2] To be clear, 'ironic' means happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this. Fawcett's claim, then, is that it is counter-expectant and wryly amusing that he uses the term 'exponence' in a way that he deems consistent with Firth's usage.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Firstly, Halliday (1961) uses 'exponence' in the same sense as Firth, with no "stretching", and thus no "overstretching". Secondly, Halliday's later replacement of the term 'exponence' with the terms 'realisation' and  'instantiation' is not a stretching of the original term, but the more delicate distinction of two theoretical concepts conflated in the term 'exponence'.

[4] To be clear, here Fawcett trivially implies unethical behaviour on the part of Halliday by construing him as having borrowed something of Firth's and stretched it.

Realisation Operations

Fawcett (2010: 281):

The general concept of 'realisation' is made specific through five major types of realisation operation. As we saw in Section 9.2 of Chapter 9, it is they, together with the potential structures, that specify the 'form potential' of a language.

Notice, however, that when they are applied (i.e., to a selection expression of features generated on a traversal of a system network, as described in Appendix A), they generate syntactic structures. The first four operations directly generate four of the relationships in syntax to be described below. And the last two provide the framework for generating structures with the recursion of co-ordination, embedding or re-iteration. Thus the realisation operations in the grammar are directly related to the relationships in the syntax of an output from the grammar — while not, as I emphasised in Chapter 9, being the same as them. In other words, we need both a theory of 'syntax potential' and a theory of syntactic instances'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is the operations that are specific, not realisation. Realisation is the same in each case: the relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction.

[2] To be clear, potential structures do not feature in the representation of Fawcett's model (Figure 4):

[3] To be clear, in Fawcett's text-generation algorithm, realisation operations are misconstrued as:

(i) the form that realises the meanings of system networks and

(ii) the potential that is instantiated as syntactic structure.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett's argument for the distinction between 'syntax potential' and 'syntactic instances' is simply that the two are related, but not the same. That is, he does not provide any argument as to why, or how, syntactic structures can be understood as instances of realisation operations.

A Common Framework For Comparing SFL Theory And The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 274-5):

The starting point for the summaries that follow must be the framework for a modern SF grammar that we established in Chapter 3. As Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of that chapter showed, its two principle characteristics are (1) that it consists essentially of the two levels of meaning and form, and (2) that there is at each level (a) a component that specified the potential, and (b) an Output' from the grammar, i.e., the instance at that level.

As we have seen, an additional advantage of this formulation of the model is that it is at a sufficiently high level of generalisation to provide a common framework in which we may compare the Sydney the Cardiff Grammars. Moreover, its ability to provide this common framework is not affected by Halliday and Matthiessen's increasing commitment, culminating in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), to the idea of having a 'two-level' model of 'semantics' (as we saw in Section 4.6 of Chapter 4). In that model, you will recall, there is both the level of 'meaning potential' that Halliday recognised in the early 1970s as the semantics (e.g., Halliday 1971/73a:41-2), and a level of 'semantics' that is higher than this, roughly equivalent to Martin's (1992) 'discourse semantics'. The proposal that this common ground exists follows directly from statements of Halliday's from the late sixties to the present, such as:

In a functional grammar, [...] a language is interpreted as a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through which the meanings can be expressed" (Halliday 1994:xix).

Indeed, it can be argued that all of the concepts that are required in a modern SF grammar follow from accepting the need to recognise the appropriate 'division of labour' between the two levels of semantics and form in such a model.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, it is the theoretical architecture of the Cardiff Grammar, as represented in Figure 4, that both invalidates the theory and illustrates the extent to which Fawcett does not understand the dimensions of SFL Theory. For example, Figure 4

• misrepresents the axial relation of realisation (paradigmatic system-syntagmatic structure) as the instantiation relation between potential and instance;
• misrepresents a selection expression as an instance of a system network; an instance of a potential system network is an actual system network; a selection expression can be both potential and instance, as demonstrated by the selection expression for the phoneme /b/: [voiced, bilabial, stop] which characterises both the phoneme as potential and the phoneme in a text;
• misrepresents structure as an instance of realisation rules, despite the structure being specified as the realisation of the realisation rules;
• misrepresents a system network and realisation rules as different levels of symbolic abstraction (meaning and form), despite the fact that both the network and the realisation rules include the features of the same level of abstraction (meaning); and
• conflates content (syntax) and expression (phonology/graphology) as the same level of symbolic abstraction (form).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Even ignoring all the theoretical inconsistencies embodied in Figure 4, it cannot provide a common framework for comparing SFL Theory with the Cardiff Grammar, if only because the two models assume different principles of stratification: meaning/wording/sounding (SFL Theory) vs meaning/form (Cardiff Grammar).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As pointed out in the examination of Section 4.6, SFL Theory has a 'one-level' model of semantics (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999) and a 'one-level' model of lexicogrammar (Halliday 1985, 1994, Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014). The motivation for this misrepresentation is Fawcett's desire for his model to replace the SFL model of grammatical structure.

[4] To be clear, while it is true that Martin presents his discourse semantics as a stratum above lexicogrammar, the truth, nevertheless, lies elsewhere. As demonstrated here, Martin's (1992) discourse semantics is largely Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical cohesion, misunderstood and rebranded as his own invention.

[5] This is misleading because it is untrue. The Halliday quote — which does not appear on the cited page — does not suggest that Fawcett's Figure 4 offers a common ground for comparing his model with SFL Theory. It merely acknowledges that in SFL Theory, lexicogrammatical forms are interpreted in terms of the meanings they realise. Cf Halliday (1994: xvii):

[6] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the 'division of labour' is not between meaning and form, but between meaning, wording and sounding, with wording being the interpretation of lexicogrammatical form (e.g. nominal group) in terms of its function in realising meaning (e.g. Senser).

Fawcett's Use Of 'Exponence'

Fawcett (2010: 254):

The relationship between categories of exponence has a different theoretical status from any other, because it takes us out of the abstract categories of syntax and into the more concrete (but still abstract) phonological or graphological "shape" of items. Thus we may say that the head of a nominal group is expounded by the item mountain. As I pointed out earlier, the present use of the term is essentially a return to the sense in which it was used by Firth (1957/68), from whom Halliday borrowed it before greatly extending its meaning in "Categories". (Later, as we have seen, he re-named it 'realisation').

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's 'item' confuses:

• grammatical word (consisting of morphemes) that realises an element of group structure,
• lexical item that synthetically realises the most delicate lexicogrammatical features, and
• the graphological/phonological configuration that realises a word.

[2] To be clear, the following characterisation by Firth's student, Palmer (1995: 271), would suggest that Firth used 'exponence' for the relation between a level of abstraction within theory and data, which is not the sense used by Fawcett:

Grammatical categories are abstracted from the linguistic material, but 'renewal of connection' via their 'exponents' is essential, though these exponents may be discontinuous or cumulative.

In terms of SFL Theory, this usage combines realisation (level of abstraction within theory) with instantiation (the relation of theory to data). Fawcett's use of 'exponence' is closer to the non-Firthian usage: the relation between a morphosyntactic category and its phonological expression — which is but one example of 'realisation' in SFL Theory.

[3] As previously explained, the meaning of exponence in the superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (Halliday 1961), covered both of what became realisation and instantiation in SFL Theory.

Misrepresenting "The Main Use Of" The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 242):

In practical terms, then, the main use of the 'rank scale' concept has been as a model that makes predictions that guide the text analyst as to how the units of a text-sentence relate to each other — though these have sometimes caused problems for the analyst. However, statements of 'filling probabilities', as in Appendix B, meet the same need in a more effective manner.

All of the probabilities discussed so far are instantial probabilities, i.e., probabilities that certain patterns will occur in instances, i.e. in text-sentences. They are moreover probabilities at the level of form. In contrast with these are the probabilities on features in system networks, which we might refer to as potential probabilities, these being at the level of meaning. See Section 2 of Appendix C for a discussion of the relationship between the two.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, the rank scale is the means by which formal constituency is modelled. Most importantly, in a systemic functional grammar, each rank is the entry condition for the systems that specify function structures at that rank.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, all the "problems" raised by Fawcett derive from his confusing the rank scale of forms with function-form relations.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's 'filling probabilities' are concerned with the relation between function and form, not with formal constituency. As such, they do not "meet the same need in a more effective manner".

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's 'filling probabilities' are concerned with the relation between function (element) and form (unit) — not with form alone.

[5] To be clear, as Section 2 of Appendix C (p315) explains, in Fawcett's model, potential probabilities are paradigmatic probabilities, whereas instantial probabilities are syntagmatic probabilities. That is, this reflects Fawcett's confusion of axis (paradigmatic/syntagmatic) with instantiation (potential/instance), as previously demonstrated in the examination of Figure 4 (p36):

Fawcett's Claim That The Cardiff Grammar Provides A Much Fuller Account Of Group Functional Structures

 Fawcett (2010: 202):

It is interesting that, despite the fact that the two grammars are based on the same systemic functional principles, they take such a different approach to the grammar of groups. As I have said, the Cardiff Grammar's approach is as it [is] because of our commitment to relating the elements of the syntactic units to their meaning potential in the system networks — and so to the 'conceptual units' of logical form in the belief system. But it also provides a much fuller account of their functional structures, and this may be because the Cardiff Grammar focusses on the analysis of groups as well as clauses — whereas in IFG and the many derived works the emphasis is overwhelmingly on the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously noted, for example,

• the Cardiff Grammar is a development of Halliday's pre-Systemic theory, Scale & Category Grammar, as Fawcett himself admits;
• the Cardiff Grammar is a theory of syntax, whereas SFL Theory is not;
• the Cardiff Grammar gives priority to lower orders of abstraction, structure and form, whereas SFL Theory gives priority to higher orders of abstraction, system and function;
• the Cardiff Grammar architecture (Figure 4) is not only inconsistent with the architecture of SFL Theory, it is inconsistent in its own terms;
• the Cardiff Grammar posits a 'belief system' that is realised in language, whereas SFL Theory does not — Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 3) going so far as to describe such a view as 'illusory'.

[2] As previously explained, the Cardiff Grammar views groups 'from below', classifying them according to how they are realised structurally, whereas SFL Theory views groups 'from above', classifying them according to the function they serve at clause rank. Only the latter approach is consistent with the principles of a systemic functional theory of language.

[3] To be clear, if this were true, the Cardiff Grammar would classify groups according to the meanings they realise, instead of according to how they are structured syntagmatically.

[4] As previously noted, Fawcett's use of the term 'meaning potential' confuses the semantic stratum (meaning) with the system pole of the cline of instantiation (language as meaning potential).

[5] Cf Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 2-3):

In modelling the meaning base [semantics] we are building it 'upwards' from the grammar, instead of working 'downwards' from some interpretation of experience couched in conceptual terms, and seen as independent of language. We contend that the conception of 'knowledge' as something that exists independently of language, and may then be coded or made manifest in language, is illusory. All knowledge is constituted in semiotic systems, with language as the most central; and all such representations of knowledge are constructed from language in the first place.

[6] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

[7] This is very misleading indeed, because, despite Fawcett's implication, SFL Theory gives "a full account" of group structures as well as clause structures. The reasons for the centrality of the clause in SFL Theory are provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 10):

The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. For this reason the first half of this book is organised around the principal systems of the clause: theme, mood and transitivity. In Part II we move outward from the clause, to take account of what happens above and below it – systems of the clause complex, of groups and phrases, and of group and phrase complexes; and also beyond the clause, along other dimensions so to speak.

The perspective moves away from structure to consideration of grammar as system, enabling us to show the grammar as a meaning-making resource and to describe grammatical categories by reference to what they mean. This perspective is essential if the analysis of grammar is to be an insightful mode of entry to the study of discourse.

"Using The Cardiff Grammar As The Baseline For Constructing A Modern Theory Of SF Syntax"

Fawcett (2010: 185-6, 186n):

In Chapters 10 and 11 we turn to the concepts that are required for the specification of 'instances of syntax'. As we have seen, these concepts are drawn on in a computer model of parsing such as that described in Weerasinghe & Fawcett (1993), Weerasinghe (1994) and Souter (1996). However, these concepts are also referred to in the realisation rules, and are in that sense presupposed by them.

As will by now clear, we shall be using the Cardiff Grammar rather than the Sydney Grammar as the baseline for constructing a modern theory of SF syntax.⁵ 

⁵ Apart from the reasons that follow from our findings in Chapter 7, there are two more reasons for this. Firstly, the Cardiff Grammar has taken the revolutionary proposals for changes to the theory made by Halliday in the 1960s (as summarised in Chapter 4) significantly further than the Sydney Grammar has. It has full implementations of (1) explicitly semantic system networks, (2) the concept of lexis as "most delicate grammar", (3) the integration into the system networks of the meanings realised in intonation and (4) the integration of meanings realised in punctuation. Secondly, the Cardiff Grammar provides a much fuller specification than the Sydney Grammar does of the syntactic concepts that are required, both for language in general and for the description of English in particular — especially in its recognition of classes of group and cluster that are not provided for in the Sydney Grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, Fawcett's 'instances of syntax' are actually structures, not instances. Fawcett's model (Figure 4) confuses the realisation relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes with the instantiation relation between potential and instance.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar is his model of syntax. Halliday's "Sydney Grammar" — SFL Theory — models syntax (and morphology) as a rank scale, but Halliday (1985: xiv) explains why the term 'syntax' is inappropriate for a functional grammar:

[3] To be clear, Halliday's work in the 1960s was concerned with Scale and Category Grammar, not with Systemic Functional Grammar. That is, Fawcett's claim is actually that his Cardiff Grammar takes the proposals of Halliday's superseded theory further than Halliday's current theory does.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett does not present any of his 'explicitly system semantic networks' in this entire publication. In SFL terms, such networks are actually the grammatical networks, and can be found in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014). For genuinely semantic networks, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

[5] To be clear, Fawcett has nowhere demonstrated, in this publication, how he models 'lexis as most delicate grammar', and it does not figure in his theoretical architecture (Figure 4). Moreover, since Fawcett locates grammatical systems at his level of meaning, his model is committed to lexis as most delicate semantics, not grammar.

[6] To be clear, Fawcett does not present any of the system networks of the meanings realised in intonation in this entire publication. For an SFL approach to intonation, see Halliday & Greaves (2008).

[7] To be clear, Fawcett does not present any of the 'integration of meanings' realised in punctuation in this entire publication.

[8] This misleading. The 'Sydney Grammar' (SFL Theory) does not provide any specifications 'of the syntactic concepts that are required, both for language in general and for the description of English in particular', largely because SFL Theory is not a theory of syntax; see [2] above.

Fawcett's Summary Of His Comparison Of His Operations With SFL's Realisation Statements

Fawcett (2010: 185):

Let me summarise. Leaving aside the "Split" and "Expand" operations of the Sydney Grammar, which are either unworkable or unnecessary, the Sydney Grammar has an equivalent for every realisation operation in the Cardiff Grammar except the first (though these are not always in a one-to-one relationship, as we have seen). These realisation operations are important concepts in the theory, as their treatment in both Halliday (1993) and Fawcett, Tucker & Lin (1993) clearly demonstrates. 

However, these 'operation' concepts are a part of the grammar itself, so that they are relevant only indirectly to the outputs from the grammar — i.e., to a description of the structure of the text-sentences that are the instances of the potential specified in the grammar. Essentially, their function is to generate the relationships between the categories that we shall establish in Chapter 10. It is in Chapter 11 that we shall meet the relationships again. And it is perhaps significant that the first concept to be discussed there — that of 'rank' — has no equivalent among the realisation operations and will be rejected, while all of those to be considered in Sections 11.2 to 11.8 do have such a relationship.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously demonstrated.

[2] This is misleading, because it falsely presents Halliday's original model ("the Sydney Grammar") as if it were the derivative model (Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar).

[3] To be clear, this is both a non-sequitur and untrue. It is a non-sequitur because their being part of the grammar does not logically entail that realisation 'operations' are only indirectly relevant to the structures they specify; for example, the PROCESS TYPE system is also part of the grammar, and yet it is "directly relevant" to the experiential structure of the clause. And it is untrue because 'operations' (realisation statements) "directly" specify how system selections (paradigmatic axis) are realised structurally (syntagmatic axis).

[4] To be clear, here again Fawcett misunderstands the realisation relation between system and structure as the instantiation relation between system and instance — and he does so despite the fact that his term 'realisation operations' explicitly identifies the relation as realisation, not instantiation.

[5] To be clear, the claim that Fawcett's realisation operations (listed below) generate relationships between categories will be tested in the examination of Chapters 10 and 11.

1. Insert a unit (to fill an element). 

2. Locate an element at a place in a unit.

3. Conflate an element or Participant Role with an existing element. 

4. Expound an element by an item.

4a. Fetch a name to expound an element. 

5. Prefer certain features on re-entry to the system network , including preselection. 

6. For an element, re-enter the system network.

[6] To be clear, in SFL Theory, rank is not an "equivalent" of realisation statements. The rank scale provides the entry conditions to the systems of each rank, and realisation statements accompany features in those networks. Moreover, the rank scale is the means by which SFL Theory models form — i.e. syntax and morphology — and so is the theoretical dimension that makes Fawcett's model of syntax redundant. So it is hardly surprising that Fawcett rejects the 'concept' of rank. 

Fawcett's Difficulty In Understanding The Absence Of 'Insert Unit' In Halliday's Theory

 Fawcett (2010: 183):

It is hard to understand why the Sydney Grammar lists of realisation operations should not give Operation 1 at least the status of being a separate operation from 'preselection'. For a start, this operation will only generate units for the lower layers of a structure, so their realisation operations appear not to have any means of generating the initial unit of the clause. Moreover, even when we limit ourselves to lower units in the structure (such as how a nominal group comes to fill an element such as Subject, we should note that it is perfectly possible for the grammar to need to select a given feature on the next pass through the network without thereby also inserting a new unit, so that preselection must in any case be treated as a separate operation from the insertion of a new unit. 

It is therefore hard to understand why Halliday, Matthiessen and Bateman have no equivalent of Operation 1. The reason may possibly be connected with the fact that the emphasis in the Sydney Grammar is strongly on the generation of clauses. Perhaps this leads those working in that framework to take it for granted that all the choices being made in the system network are for the clause unless the rules state otherwise, so that the insertion of the initial clause does not get stated explicitly. Indeed, one surprising fact about the literature of the Sydney Grammar is that it contains no examples of generations of texts that involve a further layer of structure beyond that of a single clause — even in the fairly full description of the Penman Project given in Matthiessen & Bateman (1991). So there is no account of how the process of re-entry operates in the Sydney Grammar, whether for a clause or even for a simple nominal group. In practice, however, the computer implementation of the Penman model must have some equivalent operation to our Operation 1, or it would be unable to generate structures with more than a single layer (as it does when used in computer implementations). Indeed, the existing realisation operations refer to the generation of lower units (e.g., "Preselect nominal group" in Halliday (1993:4505) — though there are no worked examples.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously noted, Fawcett's Operation 1 is 'Insert unit (to fill an element)'. The reason why SFL Theory has no equivalent is simply because a unit is selected from the rank scale within the system.

Each of these units serves as the entry condition to the systems of that unit. It is the rank scale that anchors the systems of the clause — theme, mood and transitivity — on the stratum of lexicogrammar, rather than semantics. Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar locates these grammatical systems at the level of semantics, and does not include a rank scale.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a nominal group realises the element Subject.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, a unit such as a clause or group is instantiated in a single 'pass' through the simultaneous systems of that unit, so there is no need for re-entry in the instantiation of a single unit. In cases where units form complexes, the network is re-entered through a system of RECURSION, as illustrated for the highest unit, clause, by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

Misunderstanding Axial Realisation As Instantiation

Fawcett (2010: 174):

Thus most of this chapter will be wholly oriented to the theoretical-generative strand of work in SFL. It might at first appear that Chapters 10 and 11 are oriented to the text-descriptive strand. However, they are only 'text-descriptive' in the sense that the emphasis is on the text-sentences that are the output from the operation of the grammar, and it is these that constitute the texts that are analysed in 'text-descriptive' work. These two chapters are also in fact primarily theoretical, in that the concepts covered there are the theoretical concepts that are required in the description of the structure of English that is needed by a computer for parsing a text — and, indeed, by a human text analyst. The concepts that characterise instances are therefore as much a part of the overall theory as the concepts required in the grammar itself to generate those outputs.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's theory of language is actually concerned with what computers and linguists require for parsing a text.

[2] As previously explained, Fawcett equates 'instance' with 'output', and consequently misunderstands structures (syntagmatic axis) as instances of realisation rules (paradigmatic axis).

Fawcett's Theories Of Syntax Potential & Instances Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 174):

In the rest of the present chapter I shall specify the theory of syntax potential that is required in a modern, large-scale systemic functional grammar — i.e., the concepts that are required in the grammar itself. Then Chapters 10 and 11 will provide an account of the theory of instances of syntax — i.e., the part of the theory that underlies the description of text-sentences. Finally, Chapter 12 will summarise the current theory in relation to its antecedents, including "Categories", offering an evaluation of its importance today.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, for Halliday (1985 & 1994: xiv), the term 'syntax' suggests an approach to theorising that is inconsistent with the approach to SFL Theory, 'such that a language is interpreted as a system of forms, to which meanings are then attached'. In SFL Theory, 'syntax' is modelled as a rank scale. Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar does not include a rank scale.

[2] As previously explained, Fawcett's 'instances of syntax' are not instances of potential, but syntagmatic structures that realise realisation rules. That is, Fawcett's model (Figure 4) confuses the realisation relation between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes with the instantiation relation between potential and instance.

[3] To be clear, the term 'text sentences', like the architecture of Fawcett's model (Figure 4), confuses instance (text) with structure (sentence). In SFL Theory, 'sentence' is theorised as a rank unit of graphology.

[4] Fawcett's evaluation of the importance of his own model will be evaluated in the examination of his final chapter.

Syntax Potential

Fawcett (2010: 172):

The main topic of this chapter will be the theory of syntax potential that is required in a modern SF grammar. I first used this term in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 and it is modelled, as will be clear, on Halliday's characterisation of the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and the rest as meaning potential. In Figure 4 we contrasted the 'meaning potential' of the grammar with its 'form potential', and 'syntax potential' is simply one part of the form potential.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading on several counts. Firstly, it is inconsistent with Halliday's notion of meaning potential, since Halliday models meaning potential as system, whereas Fawcett models syntax potential as realisation rules. Secondly, Halliday's notion of meaning potential refers to language as system, not just to the stratum of semantics (Fawcett's level of meaning). Thirdly, because Fawcett misunderstands 'meaning potential' to mean semantic systems, he gives here the false impression that Halliday characterises his own grammatical systems as semantic.

[2] Reminder:

To be clear, as previously explained, Fawcett's Figure 4 presents 

• form potential as realisation rules that involve meaning features,
• realisation rules (form) as the realisation of a system network (meaning), and
• structure as an instance of realisation rules.