[1] The Scientific Status Of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory

Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory is the brainchild of M.A.K. Halliday. Most importantly, it is a scientific theory, in as much as the architecture it proposes for language is entirely systematic, with all relations within that architecture precisely defined.

For example, the relation of realisation is precisely defined as an intensive (elaborating) identifying relation between a higher level Value and a lower level Token. It obtains:

• stratally, from context to semantics to lexicogrammar to phonology, and
• axially, between paradigmatic system and syntagmatic structure.

More generally, the relation of realisation obtains between content and expression, between meaning and form, and between signified and signifier.

Similarly, the relation of instantiation is precisely defined as an intensive (elaborating) attributive relation between a type (Attribute) and a token (Carrier) of the type. It obtains between potential and instance:

• contextually, between culture and situation, and
• linguistically, between language as system and language as text.

Relations obtaining throughout the architecture are precisely defined in terms of the logical semantic relations of expansion: elaboration, extension and enhancement. For example, in addition to realisation and instantiation being defined in terms of elaboration, the rank scale is defined in terms of extension: composition, and system networks are organised on the basis of all three types:

• delicacy is defined in terms of elaboration,
• disjunction is defined in terms of extension: alternation,
• conjunction is defined in terms of extension: addition,
• entry condition is defined in terms of enhancement: condition.

Because the model is precisely defined in this way, misunderstandings of the model can also be precisely defined.

[2] The Promotion Of Anti-Intellectualism In The SFL Community

One consequence of not realising that Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory is a scientific theory is the belief that work in the theory does not have to be consistent with the theory. The extreme version of this is the belief that all theoretical opinions are valid, and this view is sometimes defended as open-minded fairness.

However, just as work in other scientific theories — such as Quantum Theory or the General Theory of Relativity — has to be consistent with a valid theory to be valid, so too does work in SFL Theory.

Isaac Asimov has explained this form of anti-intellectualism as a misapplication of the notion of 'democracy':

This view is most commonly expressed by supporters of Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, since Fawcett presents his model of syntax as a viable alternative to Halliday's original theory, which he reduces to the 'Sydney Grammar'. For detailed evidence that Fawcett's model is neither consistent with SFL Theory, nor consistent in itself, see the reasoned arguments at The Cardiff Grammar.

Some explicit expressions of this form of anti-intellectualism:

Fontaine (on the NASFLA website):

Given we are all invested in the theory, I think it is useful for us to discuss ideas and positions but people do really have to find their own way and decide what works for them.

McDonald on Fawcett's "register" of SFL (on the sys-func email discussion list):

Let us have more comparison, let us compare different descriptions, but at the same time let us acknowledge diversity of both aims and means and not seek to identify some false gold standard for theoretical worth. Vive la différence!

O'Donnell (on the sys-func email discussion list):

Your language implies that you believe that there is one architecture of SFL. I have always enjoyed the plural nature of SFL, with multiple alternative architectures to choose from. …

Pluralism is good. Even if it involves different choices in fundamental architecture. Choice is good. What is not good is continual sniping at those who choose to differ from Halliday in details (but not in fundamentals).

[3] The Practice Of Public Bluffing In The SFL Community

Another consequence of not realising that Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory is a scientific theory is the prevalence of confident bluffing in the SFL community, most visibly in email list discussions. See, for example, the evidence at Thoughts That Cross My Mind.

The question of who is most likely to engage in public bluffing can be explained by their location on the Dunning-Kruger spectrum.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realise it.

The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than in actuality; by contrast, the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people.

It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.

Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.

 

Viewed in this way, the most likely members of the community to engage in public bluffing are those who are actually less competent cognitively, but nevertheless suffer from illusory superiority, precisely due to that incompetence.

[4] The Culture Of Strong Social Cohesion In The SFL Community

The origin of strong social bonds within the SFL community can be traced back to the early general exclusion of SFL Theory from linguistic departments and linguistic publications, due to the once overwhelming popularity of Chomskyan Formal Linguistics.

This helped to induce a general 'siege mentality' in the early SFL community: a collective state of mind in which a group of people believe themselves constantly attacked, oppressed, or isolated in the face of the negative intentions of the rest of the world, among the consequences of which are social conformity, and a strong sense of social cohesion.

This strong sense of social cohesion has remained ever since, despite SFL Theory becoming less excluded from linguistic departments and linguistic publications.

One intellectually debilitating consequence of a culture of strong social cohesion is the increased likelihood of 'groupthink'. Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when the desire for group consensus overrides people's common sense desire to present alternatives, critique a position, or express an unpopular opinion. Here, the desire for group cohesion effectively drives out good decision-making and problem solving.

[5] The Culture Of 'Social Activism' In The SFL Community

One concomitant of the early exclusion of SFL Theory from linguistic departments was its early adoption by education departments. 

Importantly, teaching is not just a job, but a calling. It potentially attracts people who want to make a difference in the world through their activity, within the classroom (e.g. assisting disadvantaged students) and beyond (e.g. pursuing social justice issues).

On the one hand, SFL Theory is functional for teachers because it provides the means of both assisting disadvantaged students and pursuing social justice issues, not least because it is informed by the ethical stance embodied in the Marxist communism to which Halliday was ideologically committed.

On the other hand, because the focus of teachers, like applied linguists in general, tends not to be on theorising, a significant proportion of the SFL community is not personally concerned with determining theoretical validity, but instead puts their faith in others to provide them with valid theorising. This is a contributing factor to the culture of faith in the SFL community.

[6] The Culture Of 'Faith' In The SFL Community

SFL Theory is both intellectually challenging and unfamiliar in its methodology. For example, it requires linguists to be able to operate at multiple levels of different types of abstraction, and to be always aware of the level at which they are operating. This is most problematic in the case of distinguishing meaning (semantics) from wording (lexicogrammar), since wording is lexicogrammatical form (clause, group & phrase, etc.) categorised according to  the meaning it realises.

In terms of unfamiliar methodology, where other linguistic theories begin with the lowest levels of symbolic abstraction: structure and form, and assign them categories, SFL Theory begins the highest levels of symbolic abstraction: system and meaning, and asks how these are realised in structure and form.

Its intellectual challenges and contrary methodology make SFL Theory and its argumentation comparatively difficult to understand. This creates a culture in the SFL community where the theory is less understood than taken on trust, like religious faith.

In a faith community, a doctrine is held as a revelation to be believed, rather than a theory to be in/validated by reasoned argumentation. In such a community, experts are providers or interpreters of revelations, rather than experts in reasoned argumentation, and in matters of interpretation, it is such individuals that are criterial, rather than reasoned argumentation. With individuals as criterial in doctrine interpretation, communities form around those individuals. 

Where, in a scientific community, interpretations of theory are on a scale from accurate to inaccurate, in a faith community, interpretations of doctrine are on a scale from orthodox to unorthodox (if tolerated), or to heretical (if not tolerated).

Expressions of the faith culture in the SFL community are sometimes expressed as projections onto others. For example, the belief that it is individuals that are criterial, rather than reasoned argumentation, was disclosed by O'Donnell (on the sys-func email discussion list):

To me, the biggest threat to SFL as a continuing school is the attitude that only the word of God (MAKH) is true, and everything else is heresy.

[7] The Dominant SFL Faith Fellowships

In an academic community where a significant proportion of its members have insufficient understanding of a theory, and the reasoning that underlies it, such that they are obliged to take it on trust, like a religious faith, the potential arises for the community of faith to be split into factions, based on differences of belief. 

In the SFL community, the two significant religious factions are those that take the theorising of Fawcett and Martin as their doctrinal source of belief, and members of each faction are, accordingly, faithful to the individual theorist in each case.

The reason why the doctrines of Fawcett and Martin can only be taken on trust is that neither is logically self-consistent, let alone consistent with SFL Theory, as demonstrated here for Fawcett's theory, the Cardiff Grammar, and here, here and here for Martin's theories of discourse semantics and context. 

As these reviews demonstrate, neither Fawcett nor Martin understand SFL Theory sufficiently well to be able to develop the theory without compromising its scientific rigour.

Fawcett's model (2010: 36), inter alia, confuses meaning with form, and axis with instantiation. And Martin's model (1992: 495-6), inter alia, relabels lexicogrammar (cohesion) as discourse semantics and misconstrues varieties of language, register and genre (text type) as context instead of language. For each doctrine, the internal contradictions invalidate the architecture of the model.

But such shortcomings are inaccessible to community members who themselves do not sufficiently understand SFL theory, nor recognise that the theory is scientifically rigorous, and so these doctrines continue to be supported as an act of faith.

[8] The Promotion Of The Fawcett Doctrine

Fawcett's general strategy is to present the Cardiff Grammar as complementary to what he terms Halliday's "Sydney Grammar" (Systemic Functional Grammar). This is an appeal to the type of anti-intellectualism that Asimov identified, which, in turn, relies on community members not knowing that SFL is a scientific theory (or knowing what being a scientific theory entails).

In truth, however, under the cover of this strategy, Fawcett presents his model, not as complementary to SFL Theory ('X and Y'), but as the preferred alternative ('X or Y'). For example, the following misleading comments on Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), made on the Sysfling list on 29 June 2011, are typical:

Indeed, if Michael Halliday and Christian Matthiessen had formed a clear view of the way in which the choices described in their Construing Experience through Meaning determine the choices in the major system networks of the lexicogrammar, they would surely have said so in that book. I have looked hard for a section that makes this connection, but I have yet to find it. This suggests that the model proposed there is simply one possible, half-complete hypothesis that needs to be subject to the normal process in science of development, testing, evaluation, revision (or rejection), retesting, re-evaluation, and so on.

More to the point, in his major statement on his model, A Theory Of Syntax For Systemic Functional Linguistics (Fawcett 2000, 2010), Fawcett devotes only 3 of its 12 chapters to outlining the Cardiff Grammar in any detail, while all 12 chapters feature arguments against Fawcett's own misleading misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Systemic Functional Grammar (evidence here). Fawcett even goes so far as to falsely accuse Halliday of intellectual dishonesty (evidence here).

Again, the Dunning-Kruger Effect provides a means of understanding Fawcett's behaviour:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realise it. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than in actuality; by contrast, the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.

[9] The Defence Of The Fawcett Doctrine

Consistent with the Cardiff Grammar community being a faith community rather than a scientific community, the way it deals with reasoned criticism of its doctrine is to attack the non-believer rather than to provide reasoned argument in return.

For example, when criticisms of the Cardiff Grammar by Halliday & Matthiessen were posted on a blog, Fawcett misrepresented the criticisms as those of the person who quoted Halliday & Matthiessen, as recorded here.

I have checked on those blogs that refer to the model of language known as 'the Cardiff Grammar' … they show no understanding of the alternative SFL framework that they criticise; and they are almost completely lacking in reasons for their critical stance, simply presenting quotations from IFG as a self-evident proof that the IFG approach is the correct one, so assigning it an unquestioned authority.

When a blog was set up to provide reasoned critiques of the Cardiff Grammar (here), Fawcett, using the pseudonym Dmytro Poremskyi, sent the following personal message to the Facebook page of the person who provided the critiques:

the lot could have easily discredited you but for the fact that you had already been discredited in the SFL community

Again, using the pseudonym Dmytro Poremskyi, Fawcett wrote the following on the Facebook site of the North American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association (NASFLA), misrepresenting the reasoned critiques of the Cardiff Grammar as a personal attack:

I've come across a most curious web of WordPress blogs entirely devoted to the grammatical aspects of Systemic Functional Linguistics, but here's the twist: its author, who goes by the name "Dr CLÉiRIGh", seems strangely obsessed with proving that Robin Fawcett in his Cardiff version of SFG grossly misrepresents Halliday's ideas and that Fawcett's contribution is nothing but ideological sabotage (this main line of attack is occasionally supported with his less active blogs where Dr CLÉiRIGh attacks Jim Martin, David Rose and some other figures in the SL community using more or less the same pattern: <NAME> misrepresenting <TOPIC>). 

My questions, therefore, are these: what do you make of this kind of theorising? To what extent do you think this criticism is justified? And, last by not least, who is Dr CLÉiRIGh and what is their contribution to the SFG theory beyond blogging?

This drew the following response from a fellow member of the Cardiff Grammar community, Fontaine, who did not recognise the author as Fawcett:

Whether any SFL scholars agree with Robin Fawcett or not, he has always made a case for engaging with debate and supporting one's arguments. … I do not feel that attacks are productive for our community. I'm not convinced that what we find on that blog is theorising. It is certainly one person's opinion. Given we are all invested in the theory, I think it is useful for us to discuss ideas and positions but people do really have to find their own way and decide what works for them. This is helpful, I think, whether you are primarily applying the theory or developing the theory.

Fontaine uncritically accepted Fawcett's misrepresentation of the reasoned arguments as attacks and denied that they are reasoned arguments (which Fontaine claims to favour), but merely one person's opinion, as opposed to "theorising". (Fontaine later used the same tactic in defence of her own publication, as recorded here.)

Significantly, Fontaine also expressed support for the anti-intellectualism identified by Asimov that is an important feature of the culture of the Fawcett faith community.

Fontaine then abused her position as list manager to unsubscribe the critic of the Cardiff Grammar from the international systemic email discussion list, Sysfling — recorded here — putting the lie to her stated commitment to the importance of "engaging with debate and supporting one's arguments".

[10] The Disciplinarian Head Of The Martin Faith Fellowship

Because Martin's doctrine is riddled with the theoretical misunderstandings and self-contradictions identified here and here and here, Martin also has to rely on members of his faith community not understanding the scientific status of SFL Theory, and approving of the 'socially democratic' anti-intellectualism identified by Asimov.

But Martin also exploits two further cultural motifs in the SFL community: the valuing of social activism and the valuing of social cohesion. This focus is consistent with Martin's socio-political orientation as a disciplinarian, rather than a libertarian. As Bertrand Russell, explains in his History Of Western Philosophy (pp 21-2):

Throughout this long development, from 600 BC to the present day, philosophers have been divided into those who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them.  With this difference, others have been associated.

The disciplinarians have advocated some system of dogma, either old or new, and have therefore been compelled to be, in greater or lesser degree, hostile to science, since their dogmas could not be proved empirically.  They have almost invariably taught that happiness is not the good, but that ‘nobility’ or ‘heroism’ is to be preferred.  They have had a sympathy with irrational parts of human nature, since they have felt reason to be inimical to social cohesion.

The libertarians, on the other hand, with the exception of the extreme anarchists, have tended to be scientific, utilitarian, rationalistic, hostile to violent passion, and enemies of all the more profound forms of religion.

Martin advocates his theorising as dogma in the sense that his students are compelled to produce work that is consistent with his model of SFL Theory. Martin expresses his hostility to science as an hostility to scientists, by whom he actually means linguists who expect him to support his assertions with argument. Martin expresses his preference for heroism by focusing on the work of people like Nelson Mandela in his publications. And Martin expresses his preference for strong social cohesion through work on affiliation and 'bondicons'.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, it is likely that Martin's faithful would regard him as a libertarian — their own preferred affiliation — rather than a disciplinarian.

Nevertheless, Martin (1992: 577, 581, 584, 585, 587) explicitly denounces 'liberal humanism', and instead advocates (p588) what he claims to be 'neo-marxism':

Answering questions such as these takes linguists far from the liberal humanist paradigm that has informed their work throughout most of the development of their theories in this century. The answers form the basis for a neo-marxist theory of language and culture in which language functions as base and connotative semiotics as sociosemantic superstructure.

[11] The Tactics Of The Disciplinarian Head Of The Martin Faith Fellowship

Martin exploits the desires for social activism and strong social cohesion to construct himself as an icon that his community members can rally around.

The way Martin constructs himself as icon is to identify himself with genuine role models of social activism, such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. For example, in Working with Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), he makes much use of Mandela's Long Walk to Freedom, and in case the reader does not automatically attribute Mandela's qualities to Martin, he makes the attribution explicit (p62):

His [Martin's] communion with Mandela, at such a distance in so many respects …

The way Martin constructs a socially bonded community around him is to invoke a 'siege mentality', both with regard to the SFL community in relation to the rest of the linguistic community, and with regard to his own community in relation to the rest of the SFL community. In the following post on Sysfling in November 2020, Martin referred to both states of siege, though through the voice of a colleague:

She communed by relaying her concern that we were indeed living in difficult times – times reminding her in fact of the 60s… but now with different strata and institutional struggles now in play.

This binding of his community to him is further reinforced by much of the work Martin has his students engaged in, focusing on commitment, social bonding, social affiliation, and 'bondicons' around which communities rally.

As Zimbardo (2007) points out, in The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates that the need to belong can be 'perverted into excessive conformity, compliance, and in-group versus out-group hostility', and 'the need for autonomy and control can be perverted into an excessive exercise of power to dominate others or into learned helplessness'.

Related to this compliance and learned helplessness is the condition known as Stockholm syndrome, in which hostages develop a psychological bond with their captors during captivity.

[12] The Detrimental Effects Of The Culture Of The SFL Community

It is clear from the above analysis that the culture of the SFL community is detrimental to both the theory and its members.

It is detrimental to the theory in that it fosters misunderstandings of the theory, which undermines attempts of newcomers to understand the theory in a consistent way. This, in turn, undermines the ability of the community to develop the theory in a scientifically rigorous way. In short, the culture of the SFL community encourages intelligent people to act unintelligently. 

It is detrimental to community members in that it fosters the type of virulent hostility that is typical of fundamentalist religious organisations. In this way, the culture of the SFL community encourages otherwise decent, honest people to support, actively or passively, toxic behaviour like the following:

Jim Martin Publicly Vilifying a Deceased Colleague As A Plagiarist At A Symposium Convened To Honour Her
David Rose Publicly Vilifyng The Same Deceased Colleague
David Rose Publicly Vilifying A Colleague Whose Mother Had Just Died Tragically
Yaegan Doran Publicly Vilifying The Same Colleague As Racist
Mick O'Donnell Publicly Vilifying The Same Colleague As Misogynist

David Rose Likening A Disfigured Cancer Survivor To The Elephant Man

∞

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

— John Stuart Mill

Bullies may be the perpetrators of evil, but it is the evil of passivity of all those who know what is happening and never intervene that perpetuates such abuse. 

 — Philip Zimbardo The Lucifer Effect