[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).