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':

Fawcett's Third Major Type Of Evidence For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 335):

The third major type of evidence is the fact that virtually every element of the supposed 'verbal group' needs to be generated in close conjunction with an established element of the clause — very much as the Operator needs to be generated as an element of the same unit as the Subject, as the co-realisation of meanings of MOOD. This was, of course, Halliday's reason for promoting the Finite (or Operator) in the first place. A well-constructed systemic functional grammar should provide for the interdependencies between, let us say, the 'tense' of the Operator or Main Verb and a Time Position Adjunct, preferably by (1) generating them on the same traversal of the system network and (2) realising them in the same unit. There are seven other similar types of inter-dependency between elements of the supposed 'verbal group' and well-established elements of the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this third type of evidence is just a restatement of Fawcett's first type (p335):

The first reason is that, if the Finite is to be promoted to function as an element of the clause, the other 'major' elements of the 'verbal group' must be promoted too.

[2] This is not misleading, because it is essentially true, except of course that, in SFL Theory, the Finite is not "promoted", but is a functional element of the structure of both the clause and the verbal group.

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett is describing his own model (Operator, Main Verb, Time Position Adjunct), not SFL Theory. In SFL Theory, the system of TENSE is realised by the logical structure of the verbal group, not by an 'Operator' or 'Main Verb'. 

[4] To be clear, one insight of SFL Theory is that enhancement categories like 'time' can be realised in multiple grammatical domains, not just in the same rank unit. 

On the other hand, for the validity of Fawcett's claim that one traversal through one of his networks generates a whole unit, see the previous application of his realisation operations  here.

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

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [6]

 Fawcett (2010: 328-9):

If we put this evidence together with that of my alternative analyses of the examples of Halliday's ten major categories for 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' relations between clauses (as set out in Section 11.9 of Chapter 11), we have two separate pieces of evidence that the grammar should not in fact foreground the contrast between 'parataxis' vs. 'hypotaxis' as a system that is to be entered simultaneously with one for 'expansion' vs. 'projection', etc. 

The alternative is that each type of 'co-ordination' and each type of 'dependence' should be modelled in terms of the systemic choices that are available to it, so avoiding the ever present temptation to the grammarian, i.e., that of modifying the description to conform to the theory.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, neither of these constitute evidence about the system of TAXIS (parataxis vs hypotaxis). The argument Fawcett has just made relies on misrepresenting expressions of systemic features as systemic features (see the preceding five posts), and his alternative analyses in Section 11.9 are merely presented rather than supported by argument; see:

• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion
• Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

[2] To be clear, this is precisely how the two types of interdependency — parataxis ("co-ordination") and hypotaxis ("dependence") — are modelled in SFL Theory, in conjunction with the systems of LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE and RECURSION. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

[3] To be clear, it is not the description that is at risk of being modified so as to conform to theory, but the data that is described in terms of a theory. More importantly, Fawcett's insinuation here is that Halliday has succumbed to the temptation of intellectual dishonesty.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [5]

 Fawcett (2010: 327, 328):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

Thus the lexicogrammatical evidence begins to mount up that, on the one hand, (1a, i) belongs systemically with (1a, ii-iii), and that, on the other, it belongs with (1b, i). 

Moreover, these two pairs of systemic relationships can both be handled in a natural way in the lexicogrammar. (We know this because we have implemented this approach in the generative grammar in COMMUNAL.) 

On the other hand, the lexicogrammatical evidence is that a different range of choices is available for modelling co-ordination between clauses ('parataxis') from the range for modelling 'dependent' relations (whether these are viewed as 'hypotaxis' or embedding). 

The case for foregrounding the parallels between 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' in the system networks therefore looks rather less convincing than it may have at the start of this study of the data.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett has provided no evidence that (1a,i) "belongs systemically with" (1a,ii-iii), and on the other hand, this is not in dispute, since these are agnates differing only in the relative time construed by the dependent clause (earlier vs later vs same).

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett has provided no evidence that (1a,i) "belongs systemically with" (1b,i), and on the other hand, it is true that, in SFL Theory, it does — though not in the way that Fawcett means. In (1a, i) 'earlier' time is realised through the ideational clause rank system of CLAUSE COMPLEXING, whereas in (1b, i), 'earlier' time is realised through the related ideational clause rank system of CIRCUMSTANTIATION.

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

[4] We know this because we understand how "these two pairs of systemic relationships" are modelled by SFL Theory.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the "range of systemic choices" for temporal enhancement is the same for parataxis and hypotaxis. The difference lies only in how agnate choices are realised.

[6] This is misleading, because it is not true, as demonstrated by this and four preceding posts.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [3]

   Fawcett (2010: 327-8):

(3b, i-n) He left the room, but earlier (on) / first/ before that / before his departure / etc. they (had) voted. 

(3c, i-n) He left the room and in that period / during that time / during his absence / etc. they voted. 

(3a, v-n) He left the room, and later (on) / afterwards / after that / after his departure / etc. they voted.

It is always possible, of course, to express a roughly equivalent meaning by a combination of the Linker and and an Adjunct such as afterwards or during that time, etc., these Adjuncts being shown by underlining in (3b,i-n) and (3c, i-n). 

But this is a very different matter, in terms of the systemic choices that are available, as these examples show — because the introduction of the Adjunct opens up a very much larger range of possibilities than is available within the Linker. (Indeed, the use of "n" in the numbering of the examples symbolises the open-endedness of the available options.) 

Moreover, a similar range of options to those shown in (3b, i-n) and (3c, i-n) is also available to express the concept of 'subsequent time', as (3a, i-n) demonstrates. Thus the system of choices within 'paratactic' relations is significantly different from that when the relationship is one of 'dependence' (whether this is interpreted as 'hypotaxis' or as embedding). 

The lists of examples given in each of Tables (7(6) and 7(7) on pages 216 and 217 of IFG in fact illustrate precisely this difference. (These tables cover not just temporal relations but the full range of types of embedded clause that express a Circumstance, and in so doing they provide further evidence for the position taken here.) Halliday must therefore be aware that the parallels are limited.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, it is only the conjunctive Adjuncts in Fawcett's data that mark temporal relations between the clauses in these paratactic complexes. These are:

• earlier (on)
• first
• before that
• later (on)
• afterwards
• after that

The circumstantial Adjuncts in Fawcett's data, on the other hand, do not mark temporal relations between the clauses in these paratactic complexes. Instead, they realise time as a circumstance of the Process of the clause in which they figure. These are:

• before his departure
• in that period
• during that time
• during his absence
• after his departure

[2] This is misleading because, in the case of conjunctive Adjuncts, this is not a "very different matter in terms of the systemic choices that are available", because, in terms of relating two clauses in a paratactic complex, the "introduction of the [conjunctive] Adjunct" does not "open up a very much larger range of possibilities than is available within the Linker [structure marker]". In such cases, the systemic choices are restricted to 'parataxis' and 'expansion: enhancing: temporal', varying for 'same' or 'different: earlier' or 'different: later'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

Here Fawcett has simply confused expressions of systemic choices ("the lists of examples") with the systemic choices that they express.

"The Network"

Fawcett (2010: 302):

The brief summary given here shows only what happens for one unit. If the output is to be a sentence with more than one layer of structure — as is typically the case — then the network will first be entered to generate a clause and its elements, and then re-entered to generate any 'lower' unit that is required. This may be a nominal group, as here, or one of the other various types of group. The important point is that each such re-entry to the network adds a new unit to the structure, each with its own internal structure. And, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions in the main part of the book, language has an amazing ability to generate units within units — clauses within clauses, groups within groups, clauses within groups, and so on. Yet the simple principles for generating structure that have been illustrated here are sufficient (with a small number of extensions) to cover all of these cases.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Fawcett does not supply this network. Given that the same network is said to specify the structures of both clauses and groups, it cannot be any network already devised by Halliday or Matthiessen.

"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.

"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.

The Only System Network In This Entire Publication

Fawcett (2010: 298):

The key concept of a systemic functional grammar is a system — this term being used here in a technical sense where it means a 'choice between two or more semantic features'. The heart of the grammar is therefore the system network of semantic features. Consider the little example shown in Figure 1.

… It is the system network of semantic features that models the meaning potential of a language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, systems construe the network of choices at all strata, not just semantics. For example, SPEECH FUNCTION is a semantic system, MOOD is a lexicogrammatical system, and TONE is a phonological system.

[2] To be clear, the most obvious problems with this semantic network are

• the distinction between 'mass' and 'count' and 'singular' and 'plural' nouns is grammatical, not semantic;
• it presents words as systemic features, and as subtypes of mass and count.

Fawcett's Functional Semantics Handbook

Fawcett (2010: 294):

This 'syntax handbook' will be complemented in due course by a 'semantics handbook', i.e., my Functional Semantics Handbook: Analysing English at the level of meaning. (Fawcett forthcoming a). This 'semantics handbook' will build on the syntactic analyses provided in the 'syntax handbook', to provide an equivalent framework for the analysis of texts in terms of eight 'strands of meaning'. In the past, users of systemic functional grammars have often found it hard to locate and interpret system networks, so it may be useful to add that those in the Functional Semantic Handbook are designed to be easy to consult and to inte[r]pret — both as an introduction to the systemic-semantic level of language (here English), and for use when analysing a text in systemic-semantic terms. This approach to text analysis solves the difficulty of how to show the multifunctional nature of language in a representation of a text without using the theoretically problematical 'multiple structures' used in IFG.

We have seen an example of an analysis that draws on the two handbooks in Figure 10 in Chapter 7. In such a representation, the multifunctional nature of language is shown in terms of the features that have been chosen at the level of meaning (rather than as 'multiple structures' that lie somewhere between meaning and form, as in IFG). The major feature of the Functional Semantics Handbook will be a full set of system networks that define the meaning potential of English, presented in such a way that they can be used for text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this promised work is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated over and over, it is not the 'multiple structures' that are problematic, but Fawcett's understanding of them.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated over and over, Fawcett's representation (Figure 10) confuses paradigmatic features with syntagmatic elements, and provides no metafunctional structures for a theory claimed to be functional.

[4] This is misleading. To be clear, the 'multiple structures' are functions of clause constituents interpreted in terms of the meanings they realise.

"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.

Fawcett's "New And More Comprehensive Theory"

Fawcett (2010: 292):

Was the theory described in "Categories", which had such an effect on so many linguists in the subsequent years, completely misguided? Of course not. The impressive thing about it is that it has proved sufficiently bendable (and mendable) for a new and more comprehensive theory to emerge from it. It is perhaps surprising that any of its concepts should have survived, given the fundamental nature of the change brought about by the elevation of the system networks to a higher level. Just as in language tout se tient (Meillet 1937), so it is also true that, in the models that we build to represent language, the function of every part depends upon the function of every other part. So it would be natural to expect that this major change would result in changes throughout the rest of the grammar. And this has happened — more clearly, however, in the present theory of syntax than in the Sydney Grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), was partially misguided, though Fawcett has been able to "mend" it.

[2] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that the impressive thing about Halliday's superseded theory is that he has been able to change it.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's claim here is that his theory is more comprehensive than Halliday's superseded theory. This is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

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

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The template for Fawcett's theory, Scale & Category Grammar, did not feature any system networks. Because they did not exist, they could not be elevated to a higher level.

[6] Strictly speaking, un système oú tout se tient.

[7] On the one hand, this is misleading, because it gives the false impression that the architecture of the Cardiff Grammar (Figure 4) is internally consistent. On the other hand, the comparison made with SFL Theory ("the Sydney Grammar") is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

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.

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.

"A Second Problem Of The Representations In IFG"

Fawcett (2010: 289, 289n):

In the rest of this section we shall see how the present theory addresses a second problem of the representations in IFG. This is the problem that the 'box diagram' way of representing structure does not lend itself to showing, in the same diagram, the internal structure of a text-sentence. Indeed, it is one of the more surprising facts about IFG that it never provides us with a diagram that relates one layer of structure to another (e.g., a clause to a nominal group).⁵

⁵ This leads to a lack of clarity on a number of central issues, those that relate to the supposed 'verbal group' being discussed in Fawcett (2000 )and (forthcoming b).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because this is neither a problem, nor surprising, to anyone who understands SFL Theory, where formal constituency is modelled as a rank scale, with each unit on the rank scale as the entry condition to metafunctional systems that specify the metafunctional structures of that unit. This provides the means of representing the structures of all ranks in one diagram, if there ever were an explanatory advantage in doing so.

[2] To be clear, as the reasoned critiques on this blog have demonstrated, the lack of clarity, throughout this publication, has been in Fawcett's understanding of SFL Theory. On the other hand, the explanatory triumph of the verbal group, with regards to English, lies in the way it models tense as a recursive system that is realised by its logical structure, though of course the system of the verbal group makes other important distinctions as well. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 410):

"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.

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):

"The Theory Proposed Here Is Rather Different"

Fawcett (2010: 286-7):

The theory proposed here is rather different. The key categories are class of unit, element of structure and item. But a 'class of unit' is defined by its internal structure, the major classes (of English) being the clause and the nominal, prepositional, quality and quantity groups.  

Moving down the layers of a tree diagram representation of a text-sentence, we find that 'unit' and 'element' occur alternately (these being related to each other by the similarly alternate relationships of componence and filling), until the lowest element in the tree is reached and the relationship of exponence relates that element to an item.  

There is no place in the formal representations for the concept of 'word class' (although terms such as "noun" and "adjective' are used as convenient short forms for referring to classes of item that are ultimately defined by the part of the system network from which they are generated). 

To this core framework must be added the general concept of probability. More specifically, the theory provides that the likelihood that a given unit will fill a given element should be expressed in probabilistic terms (as well as absolute terms where it has a zero probability). The claim is that probabilistic statements about the potential of each class of unit to fill an element are more accurately predictive than the 'rank scale' predictions — and so more useful when the theory is being employed for the analysis of text-sentences (whether by a human or by a computer).

Blogger Comments:

The regular reader would long ago have noticed the extent to which Fawcett just keeps on repeating the same claims over and over and over. This is a deployment of the logical fallacy known as the argument from repetition, also known as argumentum ad nauseam.

[1] As previously explained, this is taking the (formal) view 'from below', and is contrary to the (functional) view 'from above' that is taken in SFL Theory.

[2] As previously explained, a clause is a unit, not a class of unit. A class of this unit is the traditional notion of an adverbial clause.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's tree diagram combines his (vigorously denied) rank scale of sentence–clause–group & cluster–item with his proposed relations between these formal units and elements of function structure. 

The notion of componence misconstrues a formal unit as composed of functional elements; in SFL Theory, a formal unit is composed of lower ranked formal units, each of which realises an element of function structure in the higher ranked unit. 

The notion of filling corresponds, in SFL theory, to the relation between elements of clause structure and the syntagm of groups ± phrases that realise them, and the notion of exponence corresponds to the relation between elements of group and cluster structure and the words ("items") that realise them. 

And, as previously explained, Fawcett's notion of item confuses the grammatical and lexical notions of word, and misconstrues the meronymic relation between words and morphemes as co-hyponymy (words and morphemes as subtypes of item).

[4] To be clear, Fawcett does not supply any system networks that demonstrate how classes of item are generated.

[5] To be clear, this is still a bare assertion, still unsupported by evidence. Moreover, what Fawcett refers to as "rank scale predictions" is merely the rank scale itself: the modelling of formal constituency as clauses consisting of groups ± phrases, consisting of words, consisting of morphemes.

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.