Fawcett's Functional Syntax Handbook

Fawcett (2010: 293-4):

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

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

 

Blogger Comments:

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

[2] To be clear, these promised works are still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

"A Theory Of The Type Described Here"

Fawcett (2010: 293):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development Of Fawcett's Theory Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 291-2):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

"The Importance Of Clear And Usable Representations"

Fawcett (2010: 288-9):

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

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

 

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fawcett's Understanding Of "The Concepts Underlying IFG"

Fawcett (2010: 285-6):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On The Location Of Grammatical Systems

Fawcett (2010: 285):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

Fawcett (2010: 285):

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

 

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresenting SFL As A Constraint-Oriented Theory

Fawcett (2010: 282-3):

But how well does the 'rank scale' way of generalising about relationships between units reflect the patterns of syntax found in English texts? 

The theory presented here is based on the well-tested assumption that we can make more useful generalisations in terms of the concept of class of unit (in its present sense) and element of structure, together with the concept that the relationship between a unit and the element that it fills is probabilistic rather than absolute. 

Thus the present theory of syntax makes much weaker claims as to what is and is not permitted than the IFG version of the theory does. 

Indeed, it is designed to enable the overall description of a language to celebrate the flexibility and richness of structure in language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this has the relation backwards. The syntagmatic patterns that are found in English texts depend on the model of formal composition that is used: ranked constituency (SFL Theory) or immediate constituency (Formal syntax).

[2] This is misleading. What is assumed is Fawcett's model, and the claim that it enables "more useful generalisations about patterns of syntax found in English texts" is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence — as, indeed, is the claim that the assumption is "well-tested".

[3] The word thus here is misleading, because it falsely construes a logical relation between the previous claim and the non-sequitur that follows. The overall rhetorical effect is to misrepresent two bare assertions as a reasoned argument.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a bare assertion, however trivial, unsupported by argument. On the other hand, it misrepresents SFL Theory as modelling language in terms of constraints ("permitted") — as in a Formal grammar — instead of in terms of choice.

[5] This is misleading, because, having just misrepresented SFL Theory as a theory of constraints, Fawcett falsely claims that his theory, unlike SFL Theory, is able to "celebrate the richness of structure in language". If Fawcett's theory were a systemic-functional theory, it would be more concerned with the flexibility and richness in the choice of meaning in language.

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.

The Concept Of 'Unit' Has No Rôle In Systemic Functional Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 280):

The first "fundamental category" in "Categories" was that of a 'unit', but this concept, as will by now be abundantly clear, has no role to play in the theory of syntax proposed here, because it is inherently bound up with the concept of 'rank'. The word "unit" is used here, however, as a short form for the concept of 'class of unit'. Surprisingly, the concepts of 'unit' and its partner 'rank' occur only rarely in the recent writings of Halliday and Matthiessen. Yet it is clear that this pair of concepts still provides the general framework for the description of English set out in IFG — just as they underpinned the theory of syntax presented in "Categories".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is nonsensical, because the concept 'class of unit' includes the concept 'unit', just as the concept 'breed of dog' includes the concept 'dog'. Moreover, Fawcett's fear of acknowledging the concept is entirely unnecessary, because 'unit' is only "bound up with" the concept of 'constituency', which can be modelled in ways other than rank (e.g immediate constituent analysis).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. SFL Theory models grammatical form as a rank scale of units and assigns functions (e.g. Token) to the constituents (e.g. nominal group) of each unit (e.g. clause). However, grammatical form is backgrounded in SFL Theory, because, as a functional grammar, rather than a formal grammar, it gives priority to function over form.

The Concept Of 'System' Has No Rôle In Systemic Functional Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 279-80, 280n):

The fourth "fundamental category" in "Categories" was, of course, the concept of system. It was Halliday's re-interpretation of this term in 1966 as 'choice between meanings' that made it the fundamental concept of a new model of language, and so of a new theory of 'meaning' (as we saw in Chapters 3 and 4). It therefore has no role in the present model of syntax.²

² It would be possible to envisage a model with a set of system networks that represented choices at the level of 'pure' form such that these were 'predetermined' by choices made at a higher level of 'semantics'. Hudson's work (e.g., Hudson 1971) is presented as a systemic model of syntax of just this type (with no ambition to model choices between meanings), but this is not the direction in which Halliday has led Systemic Functional Linguistics. I would claim that the fact that the Cardiff Grammar can indeed operate with system networks that are explicitly intended to model choices in meaning and that can be directly realised in syntax at the level of form vindicates Halliday's original hunch in the 1960s that the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME etc. should be regarded as modelling choices between meanings.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the concept of system has no rôle in Fawcett's Theory of Systemic Functional Syntax.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett has provided no evidence of this "fact". He has provided no system networks of meaning, and no realisation rules that specify how choices in systems are realised as his structures. Because his structures are not those of SFL Theory, he cannot claim that they realise the SFL systems of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME.

[3] To be clear, even if this "fact" were demonstrated, it would not vindicate something that is not true (see [4] below). More importantly, such a "fact" would not distinguish a model in which the system-structure relation is modelled axially — paradigm to syntagm — as in SFL Theory, from a model in which it is modelled stratally — meaning to form —  as in the Cardiff Grammar, because, in both models the relation between system and structure is the same: realisation (symbolic abstraction). 

However, this is undermined by the fact that the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) misunderstands the axial distinction between paradigm and syntagm as the distinction between potential and instance, as previously explained.

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday's "original hunch" on the theoretical location of these systems. From the first formulation of these systems, they have been located on the stratum of lexicogrammar. However, because SFL Theory models lexicogrammar in terms of the meanings they realise, these systems are interpretations of lexicogrammatical form (the rank scale of constituents) as meaning. As Halliday (1985: xix, xx) explains:

Misrepresenting Halliday On Recognising Elements Of Structure

 Fawcett (2010: 278):

A modern theory of SF syntax is — or should be — an explicitly functional theory of language, so that the criteria for recognising an element of structure are — or should be — functional and semantic rather than formal and positional. 

Thus the elements of a unit are those that are required to realise the meanings that have been selected in the system networks for realisation in this unit — ultimately, of course, as items (see below).

Halliday has surprisingly little to say in "Categories" (or indeed in any later writings) about the criteria for recognising elements of structure (especially the elements of groups).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, given that this is Fawcett's belief, it is surprising that he has, nowhere in this publication, provided "functional and semantic" criteria for recognising his elements of structure, and has, instead, foregrounded form (classes of unit) and position (place).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, functional elements of grammatical structure (syntagmatic axis) are specified by realisation rules (such as 'insert Subject') in the grammatical system networks (paradigmatic axis) that the grammatical structures realise. In the absence of grammatical metaphor, grammar (wording) and semantics (meaning) are in agreement (congruent).

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014) devote three chapters to providing criteria for recognising elements of clause structure, one chapter for each metafunction, and one chapter to providing criteria for recognising elements of group and phrase structure. For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 240, 249) provide the recognition criteria for Scope and Senser as follows:

…the Scope of a ‘material’ clause is not in any way affected by the performance of the process. Rather it either (i) construes the domain over which the process takes place … or (ii) construes the process itself, either in general or specific terms…

In a clause of ‘mental’ process, there is always one participant who is human; this is the Senser: the one that ‘senses’ – feels, thinks, wants or perceives… . More accurately, we should say human-like; the significant feature of the Senser is that of being ‘endowed with consciousness’. Expressed in grammatical terms, the participant that is engaged in the mental process is one that is referred to pronominally as he or she, not as it.

It is the fact that, in a functional theory, such criteria are 'from above' — rather than 'from below' — that may explain why Fawcett is unable to recognise them as criteria.

"What Theoretical Concepts Are Required For The Description Of Syntax In A Modern Systemic Functional Grammar?"

Fawcett (2010: 274):

Let us now look again at the two questions with which we began this book. The first was:

What theoretical concepts are required for the description of syntax in a modern, large-scale systemic functional grammar?"

The short answer is that the concepts we need are specified in Chapters 10 and 11, and summarised in the last sections of those chapters. However, in the next three sections of this chapter I shall provide an integrated summary of the proposed new theory of syntax, and at the same time a comparison between it and the various other frameworks for syntax in SFL that I described in Part 1. The subsidiary question with which we began was:

How far are the founding concepts introduced by Halliday in "Categories" still valid in a modern, large-scale systemic functional grammar?

I shall return to this in Section 12.7 of this chapter.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously noted, on the one hand, SFL Theory is not a description of syntax, for reasons given in Halliday (1985: xiv):

On the other hand, the linguistic phenomena that formal theories model as syntax and morphology are modelled as a rank scale in SFL Theory. This is why Fawcett devotes so much space in his book to misleading the reader by misrepresenting the rank scale, and calling it an "embarrassment" (pp 256, 310) to SFL Theory.

[2] To be clear, here again Fawcett modestly claims that the theoretical concepts that are needed in a modern systemic functional grammar are those that he has devised, despite the fact that

• his model is not modern, since it is based on Scale-&-Category Grammar (Halliday 1961), not Systemic Functional Grammar;
• his model prioritises structure over system; and
• his model prioritises the perspective of form (syntax) over the perspective of function.

Moreover, as this blog demonstrates over and over and over, Fawcett's Cardiff is internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with both the founding assumptions and the architecture of SFL Theory.

[3] To be clear, the term 'large-scale' is redundant here. SFL Theory models language as a whole, varying according to contexts of use.

[4] To be clear, Halliday (1995 [1993]: 272, 273) usefully outlines some what is — and not — common to Scale-&-Category Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar: 

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.

Why The Cardiff Grammar Is Not A Modern Systemic Functional Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 273):

Chapters 9, 10 and 11 have described and discussed the concepts that are required in a modern SF grammar — together with a number of other concepts that have been proposed at various points in the development of SFL and that play no part in the new theory of syntax (such as the 'rank' and 'hypotaxis').

I suggest, therefore, that the concepts that are required in a modern systemic functional grammar are essentially the same as those found in the Cardiff Grammar (or some closely similar set). Moreover, as we saw in Chapter 7, the Sydney Grammar requires, to complete it, the concept of a single structure — i.e., a structure that is able to integrate the 'multiple structure' representations in IFG and the many derived works in a single structure. Thus any full account of a theory of SF syntax must recognise some such set of concepts associated with a single structure as those of the theory presented here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, only 3 of the preceding 11 chapters actually present Fawcett's model. The first 8 chapters — as well as parts of the following 4 — are concerned with misrepresenting SFL Theory in ways that suit Fawcett's argument, as demonstrated throughout this blog.

[2] As previously demonstrated, despite his claims to the contrary, Fawcett does operate with a de facto rank scale of forms — text, clause, group/cluster, item — even if this is masked by the inconsistencies in the model. Moreover, because Fawcett regularly confuses form and function, he has also presented functions in terms of rank.

While it is true that, in the Cardiff Grammar, Fawcett has replaced hypotaxis with embedding (for extension, enhancement, projection) and co-ordination (for elaboration), he neglects to mention that parataxis also plays no rôle in his model, replacing it with embedding (for projection) and co-ordination (for expansion).

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett modestly suggests that his model, the Cardiff Grammar, is what is required for a modern systemic functional grammar. However, as this blog has demonstrated, there are many reasons for rejecting this suggestion. For example,

• the theoretical architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) is internally inconsistent; 
• the Cardiff Grammar is not "modern", since it is a development of Halliday's first theory, Scale-&-Category Grammar (1961), not his final theory Systemic Functional Grammar; 
• the Cardiff Grammar is theorised 'from below' (structure and form) rather than 'from above' (system and function), making it inconsistent with SFL Theory; 
• the Cardiff Grammar is a theory of syntax, whereas SFL Theory is not;
• not one of Fawcett's critiques of SFL Theory withstands close scrutiny, since all are based on (motivated) misunderstandings of the theory. 

Most importantly, it should be kept in mind that Scale-&-Category Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar are both Halliday's intellectual creations, whereas the Cardiff Grammar is merely Fawcett's reworking of a Halliday creation. Fawcett's terminology of 'Sydney Grammar' and 'Cardiff Grammar' misleads by giving Fawcett's derived model the same intellectual standing as Halliday's original model.

[4] As we saw in the examination of Chapter 7, this is misleading because it is untrue. In SFL theory, the three metafunctional structures of the clause are integrated into a single syntagm of group/phrase rank units that realise them. 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.

Confusing Word Complexing With Group Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 264):

Occasionally we need to allow for embedding in co-ordinated structures, as in examples such as ten boys and girls (where ten quantifies both the boys and the girls). The linker and is attached to girls (for the reasons given above) and the two nominal groups of (1) boys and (2) and girls jointly fill the head of a higher nominal group whose quantifying determiner is ten.

One notable characteristic of co-ordination is that the semantic and syntactic similarities between two units often result in a partial syntactic parallelism — and that this in turn often leads to ellipsis. Thus, in The thieves have stolen our TV and drunk all my whisky, the two elements of they (and not, it should be noted, the thieves) and have have been ellipted from the second clause. Ellipsis in co-ordinated clauses can become quite complex, as in Ivy is going out with Paul and not Fred. Here, to provide an adequate analysis, we need to reconstruct the ellipted elements, as follows: Ivy is going out with Paul and (she is) not (going out with) Fred. It is often the presence of the Negator not or an Adjunct that alerts the analyst to the presence of an ellipted clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, in this instance, boys and girls is a ranking — not embedded — extending paratactic word complex realising the Thing/Head of a nominal group.

[2] To be clear, since this is clause rank ellipsis, it is an element of clause structure, the Mood element comprising Subject and Finite, that has been ellipsed in this instance:

On the basis of the first clause, the ellipsed Subject is the thieves, not they. Since the speaker did not select this personal reference item as the Subject of the first clause, it cannot be understood as the Subject of the second clause, without presuming a reference that was not actually made.

[3] The ellipsed Subject here is Ivy, not she; see [2] above.

[4] To be clear, a more reliable diagnostic of clause rank ellipsis is the absence of one or more Mood or Residue elements from clause structure.

A Complete Representation Of A Text-Sentence At The Level Of Form

Fawcett (2010: 259-61):

Let us now take the example analysed in Figure 18, and add to it the one relationship of exponence that would be generated on the first traversal of the system network, i.e., the exponent of the Main Verb. This is the representation shown in Figure 21.

Let us now imagine that the system network has been re-entered three times more, to generate the three nominal groups shown in Figure 21, i.e. Ike, his shirt and the co-ordinated nominal group and his jeans. In Figure 22 I have also added the symbol for 'filling' to show the relationship between the clause and the topmost element in the structure, i.e., 'sentence' (Σ), and also the clause element Ender. … The result of these additions to Figure 21 is a complete representation of a text-sentence at the level of form.

Figure 22 can be taken as a summary of the four 'core' relationships in syntax, i.e., the relationships between syntactic categories that are the direct result of the application of realisation operations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this system network can only be imagined, since it is not provided anywhere in this publication.

[2] For contrast, compare an analysis of this clause using SFL Theory:

with the Goal/Complement realised by an extending paratactic nominal group complex:

[3] To be clear, the precise realisation operations are not provided by Fawcett, and so must be taken on trust.

Not Recognising The 'Word' As A Syntactic Unit In English

Fawcett (2010: 255, 255-6n):

h < mountain, h <+ s

In traditional grammar, the existing element mountain in such an example would be described as the 'base' and the element as a "suffix". Here, however, we shall not use these terms. The reason is that there is no need (in English but not necessarily in other languages) to recognise the 'word' as a syntactic unit — though this was done in Scale and Category Grammar and in early Systemic Functional Grammar (e.g., as described in Berry 1975:85). …

¹⁵ There is only place that I can think of where a systemic functional linguist actually shows what the implications of placing the categories of 'word' and 'morpheme' on the 'rank scale' are for the representation of text-sentences. This is in Berry (1975:9), a work that provides a very useful 'fleshing out' of the concepts in Halliday's "Categories". Morphology is simply ignored in most other introductions to SFL. Indeed, this lack of discussion can be taken as indirect evidence for the rather different view of the 'word' and the 'morpheme' taken here — at least with respect to English. See the discussion in Section 10.5.2 of Chapter 10 of the problems for the 'rank scale' concept of languages such as Japanese, Mohawk and Swahili.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. Like Scale & Category Grammar, (current) SFL Theory models syntax and morphology as a rank scale that includes the word and morpheme as units.

[2] To be clear, placing the word and morpheme on the rank scale means that groups consist of words and words consist of morphemes. In SFL Theory, this has no implication for the representation of text sentences, mainly because 'text sentence' is not a rank in SFL Theory, and if it was, its structure would be represented at that rank, and not at the rank of word or morpheme.

[3] This is not misleading, because it is true. One reason for this is that the priority of SFL Theory is function, not form (and system, not structure). Another reason is the priority given to the clause in a functional theory that interprets grammar in terms of meaning. 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.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, this is a non-sequitur, because a lack of discussion does not logically entail a different point of view. On the other hand, it is true that Fawcett takes a very different view to the word and morpheme in English.

[5] See the examination of that discussion here, where Fawcett makes the false assumption that the same systems operate at the same rank across different languages.

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.

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.