Misrepresenting Scale and Category Grammar As A Model Of Syntax

Fawcett (2010: 160):

At the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s there was a spate of text books that functioned as introductions to Scale and Category syntax — rather as there was to be a second spate of introductory grammars in the theory in the 1990s, this time based on Halliday's IFG. Each of those early textbooks had its st[r]ong points, but two stood out because of their clear vision of a model of language in which one component was systemic and presented the system networks that constituted the 'meaning potential' of the language, and another component which provided for the structures — using the familiar Scale and Category concepts (minus 'system'). The first was Muir's two-part text book, with one part on structures and one on systems, and the other was the two-volume work that became the standard introduction to the theory (Berry 1975 and 1977). Berry (1977) is particularly noteworthy for providing, in a book that was essentially designed to enable its readers to analyse texts, a sketch of how a generative version of the model would operate.³ But the key point here is that in both Muir's and Berry's books the picture of syntax that was presented was that of "Categories".

³ This set of books also included Strang (1962/69), Leech (1966), Scott, Bowley et al 1968 (where Bowley was the principal contributor), Turner & Mohan (1970) and Sinclair (1972). One reason why Berry (1975 and 1977) quickly became established as the standard introduction to the theory was that she introduces more of the theory that underpins the description than Muir (1972), including an early picture of how 'realisation' works.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. To be clear, here Fawcett again strategically misrepresents Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, as a model of syntax, despite the fact that Halliday explicitly regarded 'syntax' as merely one component of grammar, which he modelled as a rank scale. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 51):

The distinction does, however, need a name, and this seems the best use for the terms “syntax” and “morphology”. Traditionally these terms have usually referred to “grammar above the word” (syntax) and “grammar below the word” (morphology); but this distinction has no theoretical status. It has a place in the description of certain languages, “inflexional” languages which tend to display one kind of grammatical relation above the word (“free” items predominating) and another below the word (“bound” items predominating). But it seems worthwhile making use of “syntax” and “morphology” in the theory, to refer to direction on the rank scale. “Syntax” is then the downward relation, “morphology” the upward one; and both go all the way.