When someone uses the architecture of SFL, they mean what the theoretical architecture means. Inconsistencies arise when the architecture is not understood.
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.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. …
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).
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, SFL does propose only one architecture for language. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20) outline its dimensions as follows:
Importantly, all models proposed within SFL Theory use this architecture, including those of Martin and Fawcett. Importantly, because these dimensions are precisely specified, they can be used to identify models that misunderstand the architecture. For example, it can be seen that Fawcett's model (2010: 36) — which O'Donnell supports — misunderstands stratification and confuses axis with instantiation:
[2] To be clear, here O'Donnell confuses the architecture with models using that architecture. The 'multiple alternatives' are the models, not the architecture.
[3] For me, "the biggest threat to SFL" is the inability of its community of users to understand the theory and, consequently, to detect misunderstandings of the theory.
[4] To be clear, here O'Donnell betrays his own religious orientation by projecting it onto others. Importantly, SFL Theory is a scientific theory, in the sense that its theoretical architecture of language is systematically organised and precisely specified. This means that models within the theory are subject to scientific criteria, not just chosen like the sacred text of a preferred religious sect.
[5] To be clear, here O'Donnell reduces all the reasoned argumentation on this blog, using hard-won knowledge of SFL Theory, to "continual sniping'. The validity of the argumentation is of no interest to O'Donnell. The pedagogical value of blog is of no interest to O'Donnell.
[6] To be clear, the type of pluralism that O'Donnell advocates is not good. It exemplifies just the type of anti-intellectualism deplored by Asimov:
