An Important Feature Of The Cardiff Grammar Analysis

Fawcett (2010: 148):

It is an important feature of the analysis that there is no expectation that each vertical column should be filled by a label for each strand of meaning. In other words, the analysis does not reflect the view embodied in IFG that a clause consists of a conflation of several different structures. Instead, a clause is regarded as the realisation, in a single, integrated structure, of the various types of meaning that are modelled in the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and so on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, the semantic analysis in Figure 10 confuses structural elements (overt agent, overt affected, information-giver, subject theme, unmarked new) with systemic features (repeated past, social action, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) and thereby assigns features of the clause as a whole to individual elements of structure.

[2] This is misleading, because it is a misrepresentation. As previously demonstrated, in SFL Theory, a clause does not consist of "a conflation of several different structures". Instead, the three metafunctional structures of a clause are integrated in the syntagm of group/phrase rank units that realise them. As previously explained, Fawcett's misunderstandings arise from confusing formal constituents with structural elements, and from viewing structure as a sequence of isolated elements, rather than as the relation between elements.

[3] To be clear, this construes the clause as a syntactic structure that realises semantic systems, rather than as a systemic feature that serves as the entry condition to grammatical systems that (a) realise semantic systems, and (b) are realised in grammatical structures.

[4] To be clear, the features in the analysis (Figure 10) do not reflect those of the systems of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD and THEME — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 355, 162, 106) — and Fawcett provides neither his semantic systems of features nor, consequently, the means of deriving his structure from his systems.

The Second Stage In Text Analysis Using The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147-8):

Then, at a second stage of analysis, the text is described in terms of its key semantic features, i.e., the most significant of the many features that have been chosen in generating it. An example of this type of analysis is shown in the lower half of Figure 10.

 

This displays the key semantic features, arranged in a number of strands of meaning. But note that there is no expectation that all or even most of a 'strand' will be used. Each feature is placed below the element (or elements) of the clause to whose generation it has contributed. There is no space here, of course, to show the system networks from which these features are derived, nor to comment on each feature. Notice, though, that the Subject contributes to two types of meaning: that of 'information giver' and that of 'subject theme'— as well as being conflated with the Agent. I hope that the labels used for the features are sufficiently transparent to give a flavour of this type of multi-strand analysis, and so of its value in analysing texts. 

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the diagram is that it shows how an analyst can first determine the functional syntax of a one-clause text such as this example, and then go on to derive from it, in a relatively direct and natural manner, the semantic analysis, showing these features in terms of the major strands of meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, Figure 10 misrepresents systemic features (paradigmatic axis) as structural elements (syntagmatic axis).

[2] As previously observed, Figure 10 mistakenly assigns features of the clause to individual elements of clause structure.

[3] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. In a book of 360 pages, there is ample space 'to show the system networks from which these features are derived' and to 'comment on each feature'. Moreover, without the networks, the valeur of each feature — its relation to other features — is not even provided, let alone supported by reasoned argument.

[4] Notice, though, that Fawcett does not specify the valeur of either 'information giver' or 'subject theme', and that the "Agent" is actually the Medium through which the Process unfolds.

[5] To be clear, Figure 10 does not show either how an analyst determines "the functional syntax of a one-clause text" or how to derive a semantic analysis from it, it merely presents each as a fait accompli.

[6] Again, this demonstrates that the Cardiff Grammar's theoretical orientation is the opposite of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, since it proceeds from form to meaning, rather than from meaning to form. Halliday (1985, 1994: xiv):

The Structure Of The Clause In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147):

For the reader who is familiar with Halliday's work, it may be helpful to think of the structure of a clause as being represented in the present approach rather as a group is represented in IFG. In other words, the 'metafunctions' "are not represented in the form of separate whole structures, but rather as partial contributions to a single structural line" (Halliday (1994:179). This does not deny the fact that many elements of the clause constitute the simultaneous realisation of several different types of meaning. In Figure 10, for example, the word We simultaneously realises the Subject and the Agent — and, as we shall see in a moment, the Subject itself is the realisation of two meanings.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this flatly contradicts Fawcett's previous insistence (p146) that the metafunctional nature of language should only be represented at the level of meaning:

In the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, where the representation at the level of form is the final, integrated output, it is clear that the level of representation at which the multifunctional nature of language should be displayed is in the representation of the meanings — because at the lower level the various strands of meaning have already been integrated into a single structure.

[2] To be clear, this again confuses constituents of the clause (groups and phrases), which can realise "several different types of meaning", with elements of clause structure, such as Theme or Subject, which cannot. A Theme realises textual meaning only; a Subject realises interpersonal meaning only.

[3] As previously observed, in the clause We would visit Mrs S every Sunday, we serves as the Medium through which the Process unfolds, with Mrs S serving as the Range or domain of the Process. There is no external cause of the Process construed as a participant (Agent). Reminder:

[4] This claim will be examined in situ. (The two meanings said to be realised by 'Subject' are 'subject theme' and 'information giver', the last of which is represented as not coterminous with the other two.)

The First Stage In Text Analysis Using The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 147):

It follows from this that the approach to analysing texts when using the Cardiff Grammar has certain significant differences from that of the current Sydney Grammar. The first stage is to analyse its functional syntax. This is shown in a single but richly labelled functional structure, as in the upper half of Figure 10. Thus the analyst does not go looking for a set of structures that correspond to each strand of meaning, as an IFG-style analysis of a clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the Cardiff Grammar approach to analysing texts gives priority to structure and form, whereas Systemic Functional Grammar gives priority to system and function, where the function of language is to make meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 48-9):

We cannot expect to understand the grammar just by looking at it from its own level; we also look into it ‘from above’ and ‘from below’, taking a trinocular perspective (Halliday, 1978: 130–131; 1996). But since the view from these different angles is often conflicting, the description will inevitably be a form of compromise. All linguistic description involves such compromise; the difference between a systemic description and one in terms of traditional school grammar is that in the school grammars the compromise was random and unprincipled whereas in a systemic grammar it is systematic and theoretically motivated. Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning – it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself.

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features (for an early statement, see Halliday, 1966a). Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation…).

[2] To be clear, the "richly" labelled functional structure in Figure 10 (p148) is a confusion of a class of form (Main verb), experiential functions (Agent, Affected) — misanalysed — and interpersonal functions (Subject, Operator, Complement, Adjunct):

Moreover, in terms of SFL Theory, Fawcett's model misunderstands structure as a sequence of isolates rather than as a relation between elements (e.g. what is the relation between Agent and Operator?). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49, 83-4):

Structure is analysed in functional terms, explaining the part played by each element in the organic configuration of the whole. …

Theme, Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates; each occurs in association with other functions from the same strand of meaning. …

The significance of any functional label lies in its relationship to the other functions with which it is structurally associated. It is the structure as a whole, the total configuration of functions, that construes, or realises, the meaning. The function Actor, for example, is interpretable only in its relation to other functions of the same kind – other representational functions such as Process and Goal. … It is the relation among all these that constitutes the structure. In similar fashion, the Subject enters into configurations with other functional elements as realisation of the clause as exchange; and likewise the Theme, in realising the clause as message.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents the SFL approach to text analysis by shifting its priority from system to structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 54):

When we observe a language, we observe it as text – as a flow of speech or as (typically) discrete pieces of writing. Texts lie at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation, and once we have observed and collected them and made them accessible to study (e.g. by transcribing spoken text), we can proceed by analysing them, noting patterns in these instances. (i) If we have access to an existing account of the system of the language (at the potential pole of the cline of instantiation), then we will analyse texts by relating instantial patterns in the system. In other words, we undertake the analysis of texts by means of the description of the system that lies behind them… , identifying terms in systems and fragments of structures that are instantiated in the text. … (ii) If there is no description to draw on, this means that we will gradually have to develop one based on the analysis of a representative sample of texts (a corpus…).

Fawcett's Third Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146-7):

The third question was "In the representation at the level of form, is the conflation that occurs between the realisations of the various strands of meaning a conflation of whole structures or of individual elements?" Here the answer will be clear from the previous sections, and it is that the conflations occur between specific coterminous elements, as complex nodes in the single integrated syntactic representation.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder of the Cardiff Grammar representation (Figure 10, p148):

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's third "difficult" question for the Cardiff Grammar is merely an invitation for him to describe one aspect of it. It is not a question that seeks a justification of the theorising itself.

[2] To be clear, the rhetorical significance of this question is that Fawcett has previously misrepresented Halliday's model as involving structure conflation, and argued that structure conflation is problematic. Fawcett's model therefore does not suffer from the problems he wrongly attributes to Halliday's model.

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's answer is merely a bare assertion, with no supporting argumentation — either here or in the previous sections. For example, having argued against representing metafunctional meanings at the level of form, he provides no explanation as to why the two conflations in Figure 10 are conflations of interpersonal elements with experiential elements: Subject with Agent, and Complement with Affected (Medium) — leaving aside the fact that, in terms of SFL Theory, Subject actually conflates with Medium, and Complement with Range.

Fawcett's Second Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146-7):

The second question was "In a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning, is it desirable — or indeed necessary — to show explicitly the multifunctional nature of language at both levels?" 

In the framework of the Cardiff Grammar, where the representation at the level of form is the final, integrated output, it is clear that the level of representation at which the multifunctional nature of language should be displayed is in the representation of the meanings — because at the lower level the various strands of meaning have already been integrated into a single structure. 

The effects on the structure of the various stra[n]ds of meaning can be discerned, of course, but it is the division of the selection expression of features chosen in the system networks into their various types of meaning that displays in the most straight-forward manner the multifunctional nature of language. It is therefore the role of the semantic representation to display the contribution of the various types of meaning to the text, and it is the role of syntax to show the integration of these intermittent 'strands of meaning' in a single structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning" is inconsistent with SFL Theory, because in the latter, the levels are the strata of meaning (semantics), wording (lexicogrammar), and sounding (phonology), all of which are levels of function, not form. This is because Systemic Functional Linguistics prioritises the function of language over its form. Linguistic form is modelled as rank scales on the strata of lexicogrammar and phonology. The Cardiff Grammar has neither rank scales nor a level of phonology.

[2] To be clear, this second "difficult" question that Fawcett poses is merely, like the first, one that elicits his own modal assessment ("desirable"/"necessary") of his own model, rather than a question as to the validity or consistency of the model.

[3] To be clear, in "a model with representations at the level of both form and meaning", it would be theoretically (and logically) inconsistent to present any functions whatsoever at the level of form. This is one reason why Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory does not include a level of form. 

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, in Fawcett's model, Figure 4 (p36), selection expressions (paradigmatic axis) are misunderstood as instances, and misaligned with structure (syntagmatic axis):

The consequence of these misunderstandings can be seen in Fawcett's analysis of a clause, Figure 10 (p148), where features of the entire clause are misrepresented as features of single structural elements:

[5] To be clear, this is a statement of Fawcett's model only, since the notion of 'syntax' is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of SFL Theory, as Halliday explained in the first two editions of IFG (1985: xiv; 1994: xiv):

∞

In Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, priority is given to higher levels of abstraction: system over structure, and function over form, in contradistinction to Fawcett's discussion of the Cardiff Grammar, where the focus is continually on lower levels of abstraction: (representations of) structure at the level of form.

Fawcett's First Difficult Question For The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 146):

Let us now ask the same difficult questions in relation to the Cardiff Grammar that we asked about the Sydney Grammar. 

The first was 'Is it desirable — or indeed necessary — to have representations of a text at the levels of both form and meaning?" The answer is clear: In this model of language it is both necessary and desirable, and the model operates with the two representations of texts implied by the model of language summarised in Figure 4 in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 — both in the description of texts and in text generation. Thus, if our goal is the full analysis of a text, it is necessary to provide representations of a text in terms of (1) the features that define its meaning potential and (2) the single functional structure that integrates the various different types of meaning (as in Figure 10).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the "difficult" question Fawcett poses for his own model is merely one that elicits his own modal assessment ("desirable"/"necessary") regarding its usage, rather than a question as to the validity or consistency of the model. Moreover, it is simply a question of whether both levels of his model should be used in text analysis, to which Fawcett's own assessment is a resounding 'yes', though he provides no reasoned argumentation for his answer. The vacuousness of the question and answer can be made more obvious by considering the alternative response: that only one level, either form or meaning, should be deployed in text analysis.

[2] As previously argued here, and in many posts since, the model of language summarised in Figure 4 is invalidated by its internal inconsistencies. Reminder (p36):

[3] The use of thus here gives the false impression that premisses of an argument have been presented, and that a reasoned conclusion follows, whereas in fact, Fawcett's modal assessment has merely been been asserted before and after the thus.

[4] Here again Fawcett confuses meaning potential (language as system) with meaning (the semantic stratum). The meaning (semantics) of a text is instantial, not potential. But more importantly, despite arguing for the importance of the level of meaning for text analysis, Fawcett provides no genuine systems of semantic features in this entire publication. As previously observed, his one system (Appendix Figure 1) is largely grammatical and presents lexical items as more delicate features of the noun categories 'mass' and 'count'. Reminder (p298):

[5] As previously observed, Fawcett's functional structure at his level of form — a contradiction in itself — confuses functional elements (Subject/Agent, Operator, Complement/Affected, Adjunct) with a class of form (Main verb). Moreover, as previously observed, Fawcett's semantics confuses elements of syntagmatic structure (overt agent, overt affected, information giver, subject theme, unmarked New) with paradigmatic features (repeated past, social action, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) and, as a consequence, ascribes the paradigmatic features to elements of clause structure, rather than to the (entire) clause as a unit. Reminder (p148):

Fawcett's 'Alternative Way Of Representing The Multifunctional Nature Of Language'

Fawcett (2010: 145-6):

In Section 7.8 we shall meet an alternative way of representing the multifunctional nature of language in diagram form. It is an exploration of a method suggested by Halliday himself in the passages cited in Section 7.3, and it has the advantage that it suffers from none of the problems that we have encountered in our examination of the type of representations used in IFG — except that there is no published account of it with the breadth of coverage of IFG and Matthiessen (1995) — not as yet, that is.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the "alternative way of representing the multifunctional nature of language in diagram form" is Fawcett's Figure 10 (p148):

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  The cited passages (p118) are:

This book [...] presents the structures which are the 'output' of the networks — which collectively realise the sets of features that can be chosen. (Halliday 1994:xxvii) 

all the structural analyses could be reinterpreted in terms of the features selected. (Halliday 1994:xxvii) 

in systemic theory the system takes priority; the most abstract representation [...] is in paradigmatic terms. [...] Syntagmatic organisation is interpreted as the 'realisation' of paradigmatic features, the 'meaning potential'. (Halliday 1993:4505)

As these quotes demonstrate, Halliday is concerned with identifying system as the most abstract representation, and structure as its lower level realisation. Halliday does not suggest confusing syntagmatic structures of the grammatical stratum with paradigmatic features of the semantic stratum.

[3] This is misleading. On the one hand, as previously demonstrated, the "problems that we have encountered" are problems with Fawcett's understanding of SFL Theory, specifically its model of function structure and formal constituency. On the other hand, there are multiple theoretical inconsistencies with Fawcett's model, such as

• confusing function labels (Subject/Agent, Operator, Complement/Affected, Adjunct) with class labels (Main verb),
• assigning clause features to individual elements of structure rather than to the clause itself, 
• confusing systemic features (repeated past, social action, periodic frequency, positive, unassessed) with structural elements (overt agent, overt affected, information giver, subject theme, unmarked new), and
• misrepresenting information as a clause system.

Moreover, Fawcett does not provide any systems to justify his features, and the analysis itself is inconsistent with SFL Theory. For example,

• the Medium (we) is misconstrued as Agent,
• the Range (Mrs S) is misconstrued as Affected (Medium).

Fawcett's Summary Of Fawcett's Answers to Fawcett's Questions

Fawcett (2010: 145):

Let us now summarise where the Sydney Grammar stands in relation to the searching questions asked in this chapter. 

In answer to Question la, it is clearly desirable to have representations of a text at the levels of both form and meaning. 

In answer to Question lb, it is natural for the semantic representation to show the different 'strands of meaning' (which do not necessarily run all the way through a clause), but the whole purpose of the representation at the level of form is to integrate the various types of meaning into a single structure, so that it is not appropriate to show the various strands of meaning at this level too. (The only reason for doing so would be if we did not have the descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning, which appears to be the case in the framework of current Sydney Grammar publications.) 

The answer to Question 1c is that 'conflation' is an operation that relates two elements (or 'functions') in a clause rather than clause-length representations. The 'multi-strand' representations of the functional structure of clauses in IFG may be a helpful aid to some when thinking about the strands of meaning that are found in a text — if no better means is available — but they play no part in a generative systemic functional grammar. Indeed, it would be helpful if this could be made clear in future writings in the Sydney Grammar framework, e.g., in the next edition of IFG.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, form and meaning are levels in Fawcett's model, not SFL Theory. In the latter, the levels of language are the strata of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology, and grammatical form is theorised as a rank scale.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the structure of each clause involves three lines of meaning, but not all clause constituents, groups and phrases, realise all three types of meaning.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The level of form is a level in Fawcett's model (Figure 4) only, and the integration of various types of meaning into a single structure might be the "whole purpose" of structural representation in Fawcett's model, but that is not the case in SFL Theory. In the latter, the three lines of clause rank structure are integrated in the syntagm of units, groups and phrases, that realise them.

[4] This very misleading indeed, since a "descriptive apparatus at the level of meaning" (semantics) was provided in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), which, though focused on ideational semantics, includes discussions on interpersonal and textual semantics.

[5] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the notion that "clause-length representations" are conflated is a figment of Fawcett's imagination, derived from his misunderstandings of the SFL theorising of formal constituency and functional structure.

[6] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The 'multi-strand' representations in IFG are theoretically-consistent representations of the structures that realise the three metafunctional systems at the rank of clause. This is why they still form the backbone of later editions of IFG (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).

'A Further Problem About Trying To Use IFG For Text Analysis'

Fawcett (2010: 145n):

There is a further problem about trying to use IFG for text analysis. This is that it is not in fact easy to use (even with the addition of an index in the 1994 edition). Analysing language is of course inherently problematical, so it is hard to judge how far the difficulties in using IFG are inherent in the nature of language, and how far they are the result of (1) the theory and description used in IFG and/or (2) how it is presented. Certainly, many students have been helped to understand it better by reading introductory works such as Eggins (1994), Bloor & Bloor (1995) Thompson (1996) and Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (1997).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Fawcett cites his own difficulty in using IFG (Halliday 1994) as a problem with the theory and/or its presentation — though he doesn't identify any of the difficulties he faced.

[2] To be clear, these publications were made possible by their authors being able to use IFG (Halliday 1985, 1994) for text analysis.

The Considerable Gap In The "Sydney Grammar" Framework

Fawcett (2010: 144-5):

The implicit assumption of most writings in the framework of the Sydney Grammar is that an IFG-style analysis of what we might call 'the implied functional structures' is sufficient — and, presumably, that an analysis in terms of the features would add relatively little. Yet this situation is strikingly at odds with Halliday's claim — a claim that expresses the core concept of systemic functional theory — that "the system takes priority". The IFG-style method of analysis is therefore simply the only currently available way to show 'strands of meaning' — though it is one that is now seen to lack a base in the theory.

Thus th[e] position is that there is a considerable gap in the Sydney Grammar framework between, on the one hand, Halliday's theoretical statements about the centrality of system networks in the theory and, on the other, the provision of publications that show the text analyst how to go about the task of describing the meaning potential of texts in terms of their systemic features.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading. On the one hand, the functional structures exemplified in IFG are not "implied"; they are explicitly presented as theory-consistent analyses. On the other hand, there is no implication that structural analyses are "sufficient", not least because what is sufficient depends on the function of the analysis.

[2] To be clear, text analysis in terms of features, rather than structures, is text analysis using the paradigmatic dimension of the theory, rather than the syntagmatic dimension. A paradigmatic analysis provides, for example, the means of making a systematic comparison of texts that instantiate different registers.

[3] This non-sequitur is misleading, because it is untrue. The fact that system is the organising principle of SFL Theory does not logically entail that text analysis should be restricted to the paradigmatic dimension of the theory.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As multiple previous posts have demonstrated, Fawcett's assessment that "IFG-style" structural analyses "lack a base in the theory" derives from his own misunderstandings of conflation, rank-based formal constituency and function structure.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Demonstrations of text analysis in terms of systemic features are provided in Matthiessen (1995), which Fawcett has already acknowledged, and in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004), which he has not.

[6] As previously noted, Fawcett's use of the term 'meaning potential' confuses the semantic stratum (meaning) with language as system (meaning potential). The meaning of texts is instantial, not potential.

On Matthiessen's Paradigmatic And Syntagmatic Analyses Of Text

Fawcett (2010: 144, 144n):

Indeed, there are, so far as I know, still no published analyses of texts whatsoever that are truly systemic, other than the few that use the Cardiff Grammar, such as the example in Figure 10 in Section 7.8. ²²

²² The one exception to this generalisation that I know of in a published work is where Matthiessen shows the features for his examples of the analysis of 'modality' in texts (1995: 507f.). But his analyses of all other types of meaning simply shows structural analyses of the IFG type. However, he has used features for the analysis of text in public lectures, e.g., at the 25th International Systemic Functional Congress. Cardiff 1998. There he showed a simplified version of the relevant system networks, and then placed figures on the features that had been chosen in the text being analysed to indicate the frequency with which they had been chosen. This interesting technique can be used to show how the probabilities have been skewed under the influence of a register variable (or some other variable) in the text. Interestingly, however, an analysis of that type skips over the logically necessary intermediate stage, i.e., the systemic representation of the features chosen in each clause, e.g., as illustrated in Figure 10 of Section 7.8. (Compare the interesting study in Matthiessen 1999, which offers TRANSITIVITY probabilities for English as a whole, based on a study of 2,000 clauses).

Blogger Comments:

[1] See previous post.

[2] To be clear, analysing a text in terms of its systemic features is analysing it in terms of the paradigmatic axis, whereas analysing a text in terms of its structures is analysing it in terms of the syntagmatic axis.

[3] This is misleading, in a trivial way. In order to carry out a statistical analysis of the features selected in clauses of an entire text, it is necessary to identify the selected features in each clause of the text, as Fawcett acknowledges to be demonstrated in Matthiessen (2005: 508-9).

[4] As previously noted, Fawcett's Figure 10

• confuses systemic features (paradigmatic axis) with structural elements (syntagmatic axis) by aligning features with specific elements of structure, and 
• provides no systems for the features he proposes.

Misrepresenting Halliday's Notion Of Giving Priority To System

Fawcett (2010: 144):

In our survey of the Sydney Grammar, we come now to Question 2 (from Section 7.1), i.e., "Does the Sydney Grammar make available theoretically motivated descriptions of English that are at the levels of language that Halliday's theoretical statements suggest to be desirable?" 

Given Halliday's statement that "in systemic theory the system takes priority" (1993:4505), systemic functional linguists should be describing texts in terms of the features that have been chosen in generating them. We are entitled to ask, therefore, "Where are the networks?" and "How can they be used in the analysis of texts?" 

As we have seen, the only publication that provides anything approaching an adequate coverage of the Sydney Grammar's current system networks for English is Matthiessen's Lexicogrammatical Cartography (1995). This major work (with almost 1000 pages) is intended as a "reference source" (Matthiessen (1995:iii). However, it gives the reader no guidelines on how to use the various system networks for analysing texts, and barely any examples of what such analyses might be like. Indeed, there are, so far as I know, still no published analyses of texts whatsoever that are truly systemic, other than the few that use the Cardiff Grammar, such as the example in Figure 10 in Section 7.8.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'levels of language' can refer to strata, or within strata, to rank. Halliday identifies the stratum of lexicogrammar and the rank of clause as the 'central processing units' of language, and it is these two levels that constitute the main focus of the description of English provided by IFG. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 22, 10):

Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created; …

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

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

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the system takes priority in how language is theorised. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features (for an early statement, see Halliday, 1966a). Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness…

It does not logically follow from this approach to theorising language that applications of the theory, such as "describing texts", instances of language, should be restricted to only one dimension of the theory: the paradigmatic axis, (the features selected).

[3] To be clear, the third and fourth editions of IFG, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014), include networks for the clause rank systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY.

[4] To be clear, the third and fourth editions of IFG, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014), include text analyses using the features of the clause rank systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY.

[5] This is very misleading. The Cardiff Grammar is not "truly systemic" since its focus is on structure, not system, as demonstrated by the focus on structure in this publication, and its absence of system networks. As previously noted, Fawcett's Figure 10 misrepresents systemic features as structural elements, and no system is provided for the proposed features.

Fawcett's Summary Of His Argument Against Metafunctional Clause Structures

Fawcett (2010: 143):

In summary, we can say that the main focus of interest among most systemic functional linguists is the description of texts. When one is working on text analysis, what matters most is that one has as one's working tool the most insightful method of analysis that one can find. The approach to representing structure in IFG has one great advantage over others (such as an updated Scale and Category analysis, e.g., as advocated in Morley 2000). This is, of course, that it provides a clear visual image of the multifunctional nature of language — and so a clear mental construct. Moreover, it is currently the only SF framework for describing language that is available in published form (i.e., in IFG and the various derived publications). This fact has led to the widespread acceptance of IFG-style analyses as the only 'correct' SF analyses — and so, coincidentally, to the widespread acceptance of the 'structure conflation' model.

Furthermore, it seems probable that most inquirers into the nature of SFL have ignored works such as Halliday's "Systemic theory" (1993) and Matthiessen & Bateman's Text Generation and Systemic Functional Linguistics. (1991) — and yet it is in such works that we find the statements that define the Sydney version of the theory. On the other hand, even these works fail to bring out the fact (as we have seen it to be) that there is no theoretical-generative SF grammar that is capable of either (1) generating multiple structures of the type illustrated in IFG and (2) integrating them into a single structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, any "correctness" of the model of clause structure in IFG (Halliday 1994) lies in it being consistent with SFL Theory.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents both SFL Theory and the text linguists who apply SFL Theory.  As previously explained, the notion of 'structure conflation' does not feature in SFL Theory, and as such, there is no acceptance of the model whatsoever.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, "the Sydney version of the theory" is Halliday's own version of the theory he himself painstakingly devised, whereas other "versions" are merely alterations to Halliday's theory based on misunderstandings, such as those exposed on this blog. For "statements that define" Halliday's version of his own theory, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) and IFG (Halliday 1985, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen 2004, 2014).

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue on two counts, since metafunctional clause systems do "generate" metafunctional clause structures, and since integrating them into a single structure is not a requirement of the theory. To be clear, clause structures are integrated in the formal syntagm (of group/phrase rank units) that realises them.

Fawcett's Third Reason Why IFG-Style Multiple Structures Have Become So Widely Assumed To Be A Central Part Of The Theory

Fawcett (2010: 143):

The third reason why the representations used in IFG have become so widely accepted as an integral part of the theory is that IFG does not invite its readers to consider the problems of how these very different structures are to be conflated into a single, unified structure. There is no reason, of course, why Halliday should have addressed this question in IFG, since its aim is to provide an insightful model for describing texts, rather than to show how a SF grammar works. But the result is that vital questions about this important aspect of the theory have long remained both unasked and unanswered — and it is upon the validity of the theory that the validity of the description ultimately rests.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it misrepresents SFL Theory. To be clear, the reason why the question of structure conflation has long been unasked and unanswered is that it is neither a feature, nor a requirement, of SFL theory, as many of the previous posts have explained. This issue only arises through Fawcett's own theoretical misunderstandings, principally his confusion of formal constituency (the rank scale) with function structure (at clause rank).

[2] This is true.

Fawcett's Second Reason Why IFG-Style Multiple Structures Have Become So Widely Assumed To Be A Central Part Of The Theory

Fawcett (2010: 142-3):

A second reason for the current status of the IFG style representations is the great disparity between the numbers of publications in each of the two major 'strands' of the theory — these being what I described in Section 5.2 of Chapter 5 as the 'theoretical-generative' and the 'text-descriptive' strands. The fact is that most of those who read Halliday's work read it for its applicability in the description of texts, so that the readership of a theoretical paper such as "Systemic theory" will be a small fraction of the readership of IFG. Indeed, many of Halliday's other publications are also addressed to readers who wish to use his theory for one of various fields of 'applied linguistics' or to inter-disciplinary audiences. Typically the intended reader is someone who wishes to use the theory to describe texts, for any of a wide variety of possible purposes. Indeed, Halliday describes IFG as "a grammar for [...] text analysis" (1994:xv). For such purposes there is an undeniable initial attractiveness about a model in which (1) a text requires analysis at one level rather than two (even if it turns out that there are several structures at the one level) and (2) the 'multifunctionality' of language is 'reified' in those structures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained here, Fawcett's notion of a 'text-descriptive aspect of theory' conflates the focus on instances of language ('text') with the practice of describing particular languages ('descriptive').

[2] To be clear, the paper "Systemic theory" (Halliday 1993) is a five-page entry in a linguistics encyclopædia that succinctly explains the architecture of the theory to anyone unfamiliar with SFL Theory.

[3]  To be clear, Fawcett's argument here is that one reason why the three metafunctional structures of the clause — as exemplified in IFG (Halliday 1994) — are "so widely assumed to be to be a central part of the theory" is that text linguists find them attractive. The first of Fawcett's attractions is the attraction of doing half as much work, while the second is the attraction of theoretical consistency.

On the first point, the number of levels of analysis required depends on the purpose of the analysis, but the rank scale provides the possibility of four levels of analysis within the lexicogrammatical stratum, and the analysis of grammatical metaphor requires identifying the incongruent relations between two strata: lexicogrammar and semantics.

On the second point, to the extent that 'reify' just means 'realise', in this context, the structures do "reify" the 'multifunctionality' of language systems.

Fawcett's First Reason Why IFG-Style Multiple Structures Have Become So Widely Assumed To Be A Central Part Of The Theory

Fawcett (2010: 142):

Given that systemic functional grammars do not generate IFG-style multiple structures, how it is that such structures have become so widely assumed to be a central part of the theory? There are at least the following three reasons. 

The first, of course, is that Halliday himself seems to have assumed the insightfulness of this approach from the earliest days of the metafunctional hypothesis. Notice, however, that historically it emerged as an extension of the 'element conflation' approach, and not as a replacement for it. In Halliday (1969/8 l:138f.) he introduces both the 'element conflation model' and the 'structure conflation model'. Having shown in detail how 'element conflation' works (as described in Section 7.2), Halliday then writes that "the clause has a number of different but simultaneous structures" (as already cited in Section 7.2 above). It seems that in the few lines between these two quotations Halliday has switched from thinking in terms of the rigorous demands of building a generative grammar to the more open-ended task of trying to provide an insightful diagrammatic representation on paper. In other words, the two diagrams of the different structures given on pages 143 and 144 of Halliday (1969/81) give a significantly different picture of conflation from that given in the generative part of the paper. As I have already pointed out, the generative grammar does not generate the elements "Rheme", "Given" and "Residue", so that the two positions are only compatible if we interpret the 'multiple structures' of IFG as visual aids to help us to a better understanding of the view that the various 'strands of meaning' occur simultaneously in the clause, rather than as parts of the generative systemic functional grammar of the first part of the paper.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The "IFG-style multiple structures" of the clause do realise the clause systems that specify them; see the previous posts on "structure conflation" for the misunderstandings that lead Fawcett to believe otherwise. However, while the metafunctions are "a central part of the theory", structure is less so, since Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory gives priority to system over structure.

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. Halliday nowhere introduces a "structure conflation model". As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's mistaken notion of "structure conflation" arises from confusing element conflation with the integration of the three metafunctional structures of the clause in the syntagm of group/phrase units that realise them. Fawcett's model lacks a rank scale, and so lacks the means of integrating the three structural lines.

[3] This is true.

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. Halliday's "diagrammatic representation on paper" is consistent with both element conflation and structural integration through rank scale relations.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. A previous quote from Fawcett (p130) makes clear that this claim rests on Fawcett's false notion of "structure conflation":

On page 143 he emphasises the concept that "the clause has a number of different but simultaneous structures" (while pointing out certain caveats, as indicated in the last subsection). But on the facing page he sets out a table of realisation statements that demonstrates clearly that the model is in fact one that simply conflates 'functions' — and not structures.

[6] This is misleading, because it misrepresents Halliday. "As I have already pointed out", these elements are "generated" as the complementary functions of Theme, New and Mood, respectively.

[7] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, there is only one position on the matter, since what Fawcett regards as a second position is his own misunderstanding of Halliday's model as entailing "structure conflation".

On the other hand, the "multiple structures of IFG" are both "visual aids to help us to a better understanding of the view that the various 'strands of meaning' occur simultaneously in the clause", and "parts of the generative systemic functional grammar of the first part of the paper". Or, more plainly, in SFL Theory, the three lines of clause structure realise the three metafunctional systems of the clause.

Fawcett's Representations Of Clause Features As Structural Elements

Fawcett (2010: 141): 

To describe such representations as "mental constructs" does not imply that they have no role to play in establishing an understanding of the nature of language. Indeed, many scholars would take the view that IFG provides the best available broad-coverage functional description of English that we have today. However, the recognition of their current value does not exclude the possibility that there may be other and better systemic functional represent[at]ions of texts — and specifically ones that focus on the direct use in the representation of a clause of the features that have been selected in the system networks. Section 7.8 will outline one such alternative that is currently being prepared for publication. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, all theories are "mental constructs" and representations of theory, such as representations of the SFL model of clause structure, are representations of "mental constructs".

[2] To be clear, "better systemic functional representations of texts" do not include representations of clause structure, such as Fawcett's Figure 10, that confuse systemic features (paradigmatic axis) with structural elements (syntagmatic axis).

Confusing Systemic Features With Structural Elements

Fawcett (2010: 141):

From the theoretical viewpoint, such constructs [SFL representations of metafunctional clause structures] are a representation of what one stage in the generation of a text-sentence might be like — if it were the case that the grammar worked by first generating several functional structures and then conflating them. 

From the practical viewpoint of the text analyst, they may be a helpful 'reification' of the abstract semantic features that they represent. In other words, we might wish to say that, in this type of representation, the abstract features are made visible as 'objects' on the page, through the device of viewing them as 'elements' of clause-length structures, and by labelling each element of each supposed 'structure'. 

The only problem with representing the structure of language in this manner — i.e., in the IFG manner — is, as we have seen, that no systemic functional grammar actually generates such structures. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL representations of metafunctional clause structures are not "a representation of what one stage in the generation of a text-sentence might be like", and the grammar does not work "by first generating several functional structures and then conflating them."

This is because the metafunctional systems of the clause, in which the realisation statements such as 'conflate' are located, are simultaneous systems, and there is no temporal relation between system and structure, since the relation between them is realisation, which is an intensive identifying relation, not a circumstantial one.

[2] To be clear, representations of structure are representations of how systemic selections are realised structurally. This does not mean that each feature in a network is realised by one element in a structure. The valeur of a feature is its relation to other features in the same paradigmatic system, whereas the valeur of an element is its relation to other elements in the same syntagmatic structure. As previously foreshadowed, Fawcett's model of structure (Figure 10) confuses systemic features with structural elements.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained, the structures represented in "the IFG manner" are realisations of the grammatical systems of SFL. See the previous posts for the misunderstandings on which Fawcett's claim is based.

The Nature And Purpose Of SFL Representations Of Clause Structure

Fawcett (2010: 141):

What status, then, should we give to a representation of the structure of a clause-length text-sentence that shows it as consisting of several lines of structure, as found in IFG and the many derived works? The answer, I suggest, is that it is a mental construct whose purpose is to make it easier for the text analyst to think about the multifunctional nature of language in structural terms.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the epistemological perspective of SFL Theory, not only is linguistic theory a mental construct, but language itself is a mental construct. That is, language, as a phenomenon, is a construal of experience as meaning, and a theory of language, as a metaphenomenon, is a reconstrual of language as meaning, where 'construal' means an intellectual construction.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, the purpose of SFL representations of clause structure as realising three metafunctional lines of meaning is to represent how SFL Theory models clause structure.  As such, the concern is not with "thinking about" the metafunctions in structural terms, but with "thinking about" structure in metafunctional terms.

"The Proliferation Of Multi-Strand Analyses Of Functional Structure"

Fawcett (2010: 140-1):

To summarise so far: we have seen that when Halliday suggests that different patterns of elements in the clause tend to be associated with different strands of meaning, he is simply pointing out a tendency rather than issuing a prescriptive statement. And yet the proliferation of multi-strand analyses of functional structure in IFG and in the many 'spin-off works has established and re-enforced a firm belief in many users of the theory that this is an accurate model of the structure of language. Indeed, many of those who use Halliday's theory would be surprised that there could be any other way of representing the structure of language in a SF framework. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it strategically confuses the notion of metafunctionally organised clause structures (those of theme, mood and transitivity) with the type of structure favoured by each metafunction (culminative, prosodic and segmental).

Importantly, in SFL Theory, 'structure' refers to the relation between elements, and so the valeur of each element is its relation to other elements of the metafunctional structure in which it figures. This is why "different patterns of elements" are necessarily associated with "different strands of meaning".

[2] To be clear, the 'multi-strand analyses of function structure' have proliferated in publications because such analyses accurately demonstrate how clause structure is modelled in SFL Theory.

[3] To be clear, other ways of "representing the structure of language in a SF framework" are only theoretically valid if they are consistent with the architecture of SFL Theory, and those that are consistent are only preferable if they have more explanatory power than the standard  model.

Fawcett's Claim That Halliday's Clause Structures Sacrifice The Purity Of The Theory

Fawcett (2010: 140):

In practical terms, however, the simple fact that Halliday always represents the structure of clauses as a set of parallel structures sends a powerful message to his readers that the structure of language combines several 'strands of meaning'.

It is just possible, of course, that Halliday simply regards the 'multiple structure' model of structure as [a] convenient reification of 'how language really is', and that he considers it worth sacrificing the purity of the theory to provide a strong visual image of the clause as the realisation of the several different 'strands' of meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason why Halliday represents the syntagmatic dimension of clauses as three metafunctional structures is that this is how his theory models clause structure.

[2] On the one hand, there is a sense in which the representation of structure is a reification, since SFL conceives of structure as the relation between elements, but represents it on the page as a thing (box diagram). However, this is not Fawcett's meaning here, since he only understands structure in terms of its representation, a box diagram, a thing, rather than as a relation between elements.

On the other hand, the wording 'how language really is' makes the common epistemological error of assuming that language "really" is something, as if reality were not itself a conscious construal of experience as meaning. Models of reality, including models of language, are models of meanings construed of experience, and are (interpersonally) assessed, for example, according to how reliably, self-consistently and extensively they account for the meanings they model.

[3] The implication here is that Halliday's 'three-strand' model of clause structure contaminates an otherwise pure theory, and that a single-strand model, such as Fawcett's, lacking the contaminant, remains pure.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Structure

Fawcett (2010: 140):

In a table on p. 36 of IFG, for example, one column lists words ('constituency', 'prosodic', etc) that describe the "favoured type of structure" [my emphasis]. And in "Systemic theory" (1993:4506) his wording is that "the different metafunctions [...] tend to be realised by different structural resources" [my emphasis]. In other words, from the theoretical viewpoint it can be said that he is simply pointing out interesting tendencies in the structural patterns in which each type of meaning gets realised. This falls a long way short of saying that each strand of meaning must obligatorily be realised in that type of structure. Indeed, the emphasis in his general descriptions is on the fact that, in his words, "constituent structure is the prototype to which all three [in fact four] metafunctions can be referred" (1994:35), and the box diagram representations that he provides in IFG are, of course, simply one way of representing the 'flat tree' type of constituency. But the fact remains, as I pointed out in the last subsection, that Halliday gives 'function' labels to many of the 'long boxes' in his diagrams that it would be more accurate to leave unlabelled.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because Fawcett misrepresents his source. Halliday (1994: 36) describes the favoured structure type of the experiential metafunction as segmental, not constituency:

That is, constituency is the principle on which segmental structure is based. The distinction is very important from a theoretical point of view, because constituency is modelled in SFL as a rank scale of forms, whereas segmental structure is a configuration of functions.

[2] This is deliberately misleading, because Fawcett omits from the quote the words that contradict his claim: Halliday's glossing of 'constituent structure' as the rank scale. Halliday (1994: 35):

[3] Here Fawcett once again confuses the notion of 'flat tree constituency', the 'minimal bracketing' approach to constituency on which the rank scale is based, with syntagmatic structures at one of those ranks, the clause. See Halliday (1994: 20-8).

[4] This "fact" is misleading, since it is the opposite of true. As previously explained, the functions in question, Rheme, Residue and Given are negatively defined as 'not Theme', 'not Mood' and 'not New', and it makes no difference in accuracy whether these functions are represented as a positive (+ label) or a negative (– label).

Misrepresenting Halliday And Matthiessen As Inconsistent

Fawcett (2010: 139, 139n):

Even though Halliday himself defines 'conflation' as a relationship that operates on individual elements, as we saw in Chapter 5 (Halliday 1993:4505), he also writes regularly about the structure of clauses in a way that appears to give IFG-style representations some status in the theory (e.g., 1993:4506) — so implying that conflation also occurs between structures with many elements. 

Matthiessen similarly defines the term "conflation" as an operation that relates individual "functions" (1995:778), and then goes on to write about "the structural unification of the metafunctional strands — the conflations of the textual, interpersonal and experiential clause functions" (Matthiessen 1995:613-17). 

Are Halliday and Matthiessen being inconsistent in such passages? Or is it possible that they do not in fact take the absolute position on this issue that one might assume? ²¹

²¹ In the above quotation from Matthiessen, it would just be possible to interpret the plural form "conflations" as being intended to suggest that the 'unification' of the various metafunctional strands in fact comes about — to the extent that it does — through many individual 'conflations'. But I do not think that this was in fact his intended meaning. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these claims are true. Halliday and Matthiessen do write of conflation as a realisation statement that operates on individual elements, and Halliday does give IFG-style representations some status in the theory, not least because they represent analyses based on the theory.

[2] This non-sequitur is misleading, because it is untrue. Giving IFG-style representations "some status in the theory" does not imply that structures are conflated.

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett confuses two distinct aspects of SFL Theory in the Matthiessen quote. On the one hand, 'the structural unification of the metafunctional strands' refers to the integration of the three metafunctional clause structures in the syntagm of group/phrase rank units that realise them. On the other hand, 'the conflations of the textual, interpersonal and experiential clause functions' refers to any conflations of elements across these structures, as in cases where Theme, Subject and Actor are conflated.

[4] To be clear, Halliday and Matthiessen are not being inconsistent in such passages — merely misunderstood (as explained above).

On The Representation Of Structure In SFL

Fawcett (2010: 138-9):

Conflation is, by all current SF definitions, an operation that applies only to individual, coterminous elements. If this is so — and the theoretical writings of both the chief architect of SFL and the major implementers of both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammars leave no room for doubt that it is — we are left with the following question: "What is the role of the representations of functional structure in IFG?"

To ask this is to question one of the basic assumptions about the representation of language that Halliday has been making since the late sixties. Yet it is not, I shall argue, one of those assumptions that is fundamental to the theory, because the concept that such representations are designed to display (i.e., the multifunctional nature of language) can be displayed equally well — and in fact more appropriately — in a representation of the level of meaning (as we shall see in Section 7.8). It is the multifunctional nature of language — and not its representation in a particular manner — that is to be placed among the fundamental concepts of SFL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is true. In SFL Theory, the realisation rule 'conflate' only operates on elements of structure that are realised by the same unit of form at the rank below, as when the elements of different metafunctional clause structures, such as Theme, Subject and Actor, are realised by the same nominal group.

[2] To be clear, the realisation rule 'conflate' has no bearing on the rôle of structural representations. That is, the question is a non-sequitur.

[3] To be clear, the role of the representations of functional structure in IFG is to represent theoretical construals of language.

[4] To be clear, this confuses representing language with theorising language. A representation of language is less abstract than language, since a representation is a token of a value, whereas a theory of language is more abstract than language, since theorising assigns theoretical values to language tokens.

[5] This is seriously misleading. To represent metafunctional clause structures at the level of semantics (Fawcett's 'meaning') instead of lexicogrammar (Fawcett's 'form') is to represent not only a different theorisation of language, but one which is inconsistent with SFL Theory.

[6] As we shall see in the examination of Section 7.8, Fawcett's "more appropriate" representation of clause structure confuses function (e.g. 'Subject') with form (e.g. 'Main verb'), at the level of syntax (form), and confuses syntagmatic structural elements (e.g. 'theme') with paradigmatic features (e.g. 'positive') at the level of semantics (meaning), as demonstrated his Figure 10 (p148):