Why Fawcett's Unit 'Cluster' Is Unnecessary

Fawcett (2010: 191):

The unit of the clause and various classes of group (or "phrase", as the group is termed in traditional grammars) are well-established in all theories of syntax. However, so far as I am aware no linguists other than those who use the Cardiff Grammar have yet recognised the unit of the cluster (though Quirk et al (1985:1276) come close to doing so in the case of the genitive cluster). For a brief discussion of this matter and an account of the various classes of cluster, see Sections 10.2.10 to 10.2.12.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, there is an important distinction between 'group' and 'phrase', though both are positioned on the same rank, because both realise functional elements at clause rank. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 362-3):

… a group is in some respects equivalent to a word complex — that is, a combination of words built up on the basis of a particular logical relation. This is why it is called a group (= ‘group of words’). …

A phrase is different from a group in that, whereas a group is an expansion of a word, a phrase is a contraction of a clause. Starting from opposite ends, the two achieve roughly the same status on the rank scale, as units that lie somewhere between the rank of a clause and that of a word.

[2] To be clear, one reason why Fawcett's 'cluster' is not recognised in SFL Theory is that it is not necessary. To explain, Fawcett (pp212-3) provides the following examples of 'genitive' cluster:

• a girl's bike (glossed as 'a bike that is suitable for a girl'),
• my sister's most precious doll, and
• the dog's back legs;

and the following example of a name cluster:

• This is my father's

SFL Theory provides the following analyses:

These will be discussed in more detail in the examination of Sections 10.2.10 to 10.2.12, but, for the moment, note the difference in function between Fawcett's first example (Classifier) and the other three (Deictic realised by embedded nominal group).