Fawcett (2010: 83):
How, then, have the two other "fundamental" categories from "Categories" fared, i.e., unit and class (of unit)? Amazingly, these two terms are also missing from "Systemic theory". One reason why it is surprising that the concept of 'unit' is not listed as a "basic concept" is that it is a vital part of the 'rank scale' concept — and it is this concept which provides the main organising principle in "Categories" (as we saw in Section 2.3 of Chapter 2). We shall discuss the curious treatment of the related concept of 'rank' shortly, when we ask what status is given in "Systemic theory" to the 'scales' that were introduced in "Categories".
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, here Fawcett is amazed because two terms from an earlier theory, Scale and Category Grammar, are missing from a brief summary of a later theory, Systemic Functional Grammar. This is equivalent to being amazed because the term 'epicycle' from the earlier planetary model of Ptolemy is missing from the later planetary model of Copernicus. Clearly, Fawcett's presumption that the terms of an earlier theory should be included in a later theory is an instance of the 'red herring' logical fallacy. But see [2].
[2] This is very misleading indeed. In this instance, Fawcett switches from 'term' to 'concept'. Contrary to Fawcett's claim, the concept of 'unit' is included in Systemic Theory, because the concept of 'rank', which is included (Halliday 1993: 273), entails the concept of 'unit', since a rank scale is a scale of units. Readers can judge for themselves whether Fawcett is deliberately trying to deceive his readers.
[3] Here again Fawcett uses the rhetorical strategy of implying a critique ("curious") while promising an argument elsewhere. "We shall discuss" the misunderstandings that Fawcett deploys "shortly".
No comments:
Post a Comment