Fawcett On Classes Of Clause

Fawcett (2010: 201, 201n):

We have noted that, in the "Categories" framework, there is a 'unit' on the 'rank scale' called the "clause". From the 'rank scale' viewpoint it is surely odd that, unlike the 'rank scale units' of 'group' and "word', there is only one class of the "clause", namely the clause. Yet this fact is never commented on.⁷ 

⁷ Clauses can of course be classified in terms of the features in the network that generates them, e.g., as 'independent' or 'dependent' clauses, and as 'action' or 'mental' or 'relational' clauses — but this should not lead one to set up "classes of clause". These differences are quite unlike the distinction between a nominal group and a prepositional group; rather, they are like the distinction between a nominal group that has a modifier and one without one — i.e., they are different from each other, but they are still the same 'class of unit'. If a grammar did set up 'classes of clause' along these lines, there would be as many different classes of clause as there are combinations of semantic features realised in the clause — i.e., millions of millions. Surprisingly, Matthiessen (1995:77) describes the following as "grammatical classes" of clause: 'major' and 'minor' clauses and, within 'major clauses', 'free' and 'bound' clauses. Yet these are simply early features in the sub-network for the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. As Fawcett knows, since he has been arguing against it, Halliday classifies units in terms of the functions they serve at a higher rank. Halliday (2002 [1963]: 95-7):

I have assumed, for the purpose of the main points made in the paper, that this category of “class” is to be defined syntactically. By this I mean that the concept is introduced into the description of a language in order to bring together those sets of items that have the same potentiality of occurrence; in other words, sets of items which are alike in the way they pattern in the structure of items of higher rank. 

Clearly, since the clause is the highest ranked unit, it cannot be classified in terms of its functions at a higher rank.

[2] This is not misleading, because it is true. In treating 'major' and 'minor' as classes of clause, Matthiessen (1995: 77-8) is inconsistent with the criteria that Halliday uses to distinguish classes of unit in SFL Theory. Instead of using the scale of rank, Matthiessen has used the scale of delicacy to classify the clause by its features.

In 201 pages, this is Fawcett's first valid critique. Happy New Year!