Misunderstanding Halliday's 'Lexis As Most Delicate Grammar'

Bateman (1998: 16): 

The basic statement of belief for systemic approaches to lexis is generally given in terms of Halliday’s (1961) ‘grammarian’s dream’, that is, lexis is to be seen as ‘most delicate grammar’. When sufficiently fine-grained lexicogrammatical distinctions have been drawn (including cross-classification along distinct metafunctional dimensions), then the realisational consequences of those distinctions will be in terms of particular lexical items, rather than in broader structural configurations. The ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ position is very attractive in its integration of lexical and grammatical phenomenon — an orientation in fact now shared by most modern linguistic approaches. However, its ‘subordination’ of the details of lexis to the broader organisation of grammar has not yet been shown to work in detail.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Bateman has digressed from reviewing Martin's Chapter 5 to discussing the notion of 'lexis as most delicate grammar', by which Halliday (2002 [1961]: 54) means:

The theoretical place of the move from grammar to lexis is therefore not a feature of rank but one of delicacy. It is defined theoretically as the place where increase in delicacy yields no further systems; this means that in description it is constantly shifting as delicacy increases. The grammarian’s dream is (and must be, such is the nature of grammar) of constant territorial expansion. He would like to turn the whole of linguistic form into grammar, hoping to show that lexis can be defined as “most delicate grammar”. The exit to lexis would then be closed, and all exponents ranged in systems.

[2] This misunderstanding is misleading.  Theoretically, lexicogrammatical networks specify both lexical items and grammatical structures (of units along the rank scale).

[3] To be clear, 'phenomenon' is the singular form; the plural form is 'phenomena'.

[4] This misunderstanding is misleading.  In SFL theory, the details of lexis are not "subordinated" to the broader organisation of the grammar; they are specified by the networks of lexicogrammar.  What is missing is the theoretical development of networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items, as previously explained.