In his review of The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (2017), edited by Tom Bartlett and Gerard O’Grady, Chris Butler (2018: 114, 123) writes:
… the editors chose to represent in their handbook not only the Hallidayan model of SFL which has received the most attention (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014), but also the Cardiff model elaborated by Fawcett and his colleagues (e.g. Fawcett, 2008) …
A further very positive feature is the inclusion of a considerable quantity of material relating to the Cardiff Grammar, as well as to the approaches centred on the Sydney linguists. In my own writings I have strongly supported the view expressed by Huang at the end of his chapter:
We might say something here, as a concluding remark, that is important, but which may arouse controversy in the SFL community: that the Cardiff Grammar, an alternative model of language that is designed with the aim of being ‘an extension and simplification of Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar’ (Fawcett, 2008), has its own characteristics and needs more attention from SFL scholars other than those associated with Cardiff. (p. 176).
Blogger Comments:
[1] Note that this is one Cardiff grammarian (Chris Butler)
- remarking that two other Cardiff grammarians (Tom Bartlett and Gerard O'Grady) have "chosen" to include the Cardiff Grammar in their edited volume, and
- endorsing his own view expressed by another Cardiff grammarian (Guowen Huang).
[2] As the review of the Cardiff Grammar here demonstrates, it is only the lack of critical attention by theory-competent SFL scholars that keeps the model alive.
