Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On The Concept Of Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 100):

Interestingly, Halliday seems to be sounding a note of caution about the concept of the 'rank scale' when he writes that, while "the guiding principle [when one is describing a text] is that of exhaustiveness at each rank, [...] 

it is an integral feature of this same guiding principle that there is indeterminacy in its application. [...] The issue is whether, in a comprehensive interpretation of the system, it is worth maintaining the global generalisation, because of its explanatory power, even though it imposes local complications at certain places in the description [my emphasis]" (Halliday 1994:12). 

Blogger Comments:

Here Fawcett misleads through strategic omission. This can be demonstrated by restoring the text — in green below — that Fawcett chooses to omit. Halliday (1994: 12):

There is a clearly defined hierarchy in writing, with just a few ranks, or layers of structure, in it: sentence, some sort of sub-sentence, word and letter. The guiding principle is that of exhaustiveness at each rank: a word consists of a whole number of letters, a sub-sentence of a whole number of words, a sentence of a whole number of sub-sentences. At the same time, there is room for manœuvre: in other words, it is an integral feature of this same guiding principle that there is indeterminacy in its application; and we have met this already — for example, is there one layer of sub-sentences or are there two? Such issues will be resolved empirically; but not by single instances of jousting between examples and counter-examples. The issue is whether, in a comprehensive interpretation of the system, it is worth maintaining the global generalisation, because of its explanatory power, even though it imposes local complications at certain places in the description.

[1] As can be seen above, Halliday is not "sounding a note of caution about the concept of a rank scale".  The point he makes is that, even under the constraints imposed by the principle of exhaustiveness at each rank, there is still a degree of indeterminacy (for which, see [3] below).

[2] As can be seen above, Halliday is not concerned with describing a text, but with elaborating on his theoretical approach.

[3] As can be seen above, the complication Halliday refers to is exemplified by the indeterminacy in the number of ranks between word and sub-sentence (clause).  This is the complication of treating phrase and group as the same rank — despite the fact that a phrase includes a group — because both realise functions at clause rank.