Misunderstanding 'Accountability At All Ranks' And The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 336):

Clearly, the abolition of the 'verbal group' seriously affects the standard claim of the concept of the 'rank scale' that there should be 'accountability at all ranks'. While it might just possibly be arguable that we should treat Linkers such as and, Binders such as because and even perhaps Adjuncts such as therefore as 'minor' exceptions (leaving aside for the moment the various other problems for the 'rank scale' concept that we have noted) it is simply not possible to claim that the elements of the clause are always (or even typically) filled by groups, once the Operator, the Auxiliaries and the Main Verb are all recognised as clause elements, because these are clearly not filled by groups. The abolition of the 'verbal group' therefore leaves a considerable hole in any description of a language that is expected to illustrate the 'rank scale' concept.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misunderstands the notion of 'accountability at all ranks'. In Scale-&-Category Grammar, Halliday (2002 [1966]: 120) defined this as 'chain-exhaustive assignment to constituents', and in SFL Theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 84), this is know as the principle of exhaustiveness:

The general principle of exhaustiveness means that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (cf. Halliday, 1961, 1966c).

That is, 'accountability at all ranks' does not refer to the units on the rank scale of formal constituency, such as the verbal group, but to the assignment of functions to the constituents of a rank unit.

[2] To be clear, the limiting case of a group is a single word: a one-word group is still a group, as demonstrated by nominal groups consisting of only one pronoun.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, these "problems" can indeed be left aside.

[4] To be clear, this repeats Fawcett's serious misunderstanding of the rank scale. The rank scale is a model of formal constituency: clauses consist of groups, which consist of words, which consist of morphemes. This is distinct from function-form relations in which a functional element at a higher rank is realised by a formal unit of the rank below. For example, the claim that a clause consists of groups ± phrases does not entail that a functional element of a clause, such as Theme, is realised by a single group or phrase.

[5] This would indeed be true, since the hole would be where the verbal group had been removed.

The First Fundamental Category Of The Cardiff Grammar: Class Of Unit

Fawcett (2010: 277-8):

The first fundamental category in the present theory is the concept of class of unit. However, the criteria used for recognising examples of classes of unit (and at the development stage of the grammar for setting up new units) are significantly different from those used in "Categories" and still used in IFG, so that it is effect a different concept from Halliday's 'class of unit'. In "Categories", the class of a unit is said to be determined by its potential for operation at given elements of the unit next above on the 'rank scale' — and in IFG classes of unit still appear to be assigned on the same principle (even though this leads to various anomalies, as pointed out in Section 10.2 of Chapter 10). 

Halliday has stuck by this criterion in spite of the fact that most of his grammatically-minded colleagues of the 1960s and 1970s (Huddleston, Hudson and Sinclair) seem to have given increasing weight to internal structure and semantics, as we saw in Section 10.2.2 of Chapter 10 — so effectively rejecting Halliday's criterion. 

In the present framework, as in Fawcett (1974-6/81), the class of a unit is identified solely by its internal structure, i.e., by its potential array of elements of structure. (But see below for their close relationship with the meanings that they realise.) For English five major classes of unit are recognised here: clause, nominal group, prepositional group, quality group and quantity group, together with the genitive cluster and a number of other classes of cluster that handle the internal structure of various types of 'name'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar recognises 'class of unit', but does recognise 'unit'. That is, it recognises the Classifier, but not the Thing classified. This is like recognising breeds of dogs without recognising dogs. The motivation for this oxymoron is Fawcett's association of 'unit' with the rank scale, which Fawcett vociferously rejects, because he knows the rank scale makes his theory redundant. In truth, 'unit' only implies constituency, not the rank scale approach to constituency.

[2] To be clear, this is not misleading, because it is true.

[3] To be clear, this is misleading, because it is not true, as demonstrated in the examination of Section 10.2. The "various anomalies" were shown to be (motivated) misunderstandings on Fawcett's part.

[4] To be clear, this criterion is fundamental to a functional theory of grammar, and distinguishes it from formal (syntactic) theories. A functional theory gives priority to the view 'from above': the function (e.g. Process) that is expressed by a form (e.g. verbal group). Fawcett's approach, on the other hand, is contrary to this fundamental principle, in that it gives priority to the view 'from below': how forms are expressed structurally.

[5] To be clear, on the one hand, Huddleston, Hudson and Sinclair do not use SFL Theory, and so take a different approach to language, founded on different assumptions. On the other hand, what matters intellectually is not the rejecting of a criterion, but the validity of the reasons for rejecting a criterion. Here Fawcett has once again indulged in the logical fallacies known as the appeal to popularity, since he suggests that his view must be preferred simply because it is held by others, and the argument from authority, since he presents Huddleston, Hudson and Sinclair as authorities whose opinions matter simply on that basis.

[6] To be clear, as explained above, and previously, Fawcett's approach, the view 'from below', is contrary to a functional approach to language.

[7] See, for example, the earlier post Limiting All Classes Of Semantic Unit To Experiential Meaning.

[8] To be clear, 'clause' is a unit, not a class of unit. An adverbial clause is a class of unit; a clause is the unit of which it is a class.

The Lack Of Distinction Between Phrase And Group In The Cardiff Grammar

Fawcett (2010: 203):

In the following four sub-sections I shall comment briefly on each of the four classes of group that are recognised in the Cardiff Grammar's description of English. No distinction is made here between a 'phrase' and a 'group', so that those who prefer the term "phrase" to "group" (e.g., Sinclair 1990) could rename them as classes of "phrase" without affecting the concept itself.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, there is an important distinction between 'phrase' and 'group'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 362-3):

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.

A group, as an expansion of a word, has a logical structure, whereas a phrase, like a clause, does not. For example, compare the structures of the preposition group long before and the prepositional phrase long before the flood:

As can be seen, like a clause, the constituents of a phrase are groups (preposition and nominal).

Presenting Bare Assertions As Supporting Argument: Sinclair

Fawcett (2010: 199):

Sinclair, who was one of Halliday's closest colleagues at the time, published in 1972 an introduction to systemic grammar in which he included all of the following as criteria for recognising units:

a) the guidance given by similar or different meanings (i.e., semantic criteria); 

b) the internal details or componence of structure; 

c) the external details, or syntax of structures. (Sinclair 1972:23)

Since the second and third criteria are often in conflict, this list should perhaps be taken as an indication of the order of Sinclair's preferences — and we note that Halliday's standard criterion is relegated to third place. In the present theory we go one step further, as in Fawcett (1974-6/81:10), and exclude the last criterion altogether. Sinclair does not explain what he intends by "semantic criteria", but at the very least his wording allows for the possibility that semantics influences syntax in the way described at the start of Section 10.2.1.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Sinclair's criteria, from 1972, are not supported by reasoned argument.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the criteria that Fawcett rejects, (c), are the those that take the view 'from above', and so are consistent with SFL as a functional theory, whereas the criteria that Fawcett accepts, (b), are those that take the view 'from below', and so are inconsistent with SFL as a functional theory.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, semantics does not "influence" syntax, semantics is realised by lexicogrammar. That is, they are in a relation of intensive identity, as two levels of symbolic abstraction, Value and Token, having originated as one, and dissociated in grammatical metaphor (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 26).

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.