Summary Of The Differences Between "Categories" And IFG2 [2]

Fawcett (2010: 101-2):

We have seen that the influence of "Categories" on IFG does not at first appear to be very strong, in terms of the overt use of its concepts. But we have also seen that, if we read the descriptive chapters of IFG with "Categories" in mind, we find that the two concepts of 'element of structure' and 'class of unit' are present throughout the book (even though the latter is hardly ever referred to overtly). And the concept of 'units on a rank scale' (around which the "Categories" framework is structured) is also present, though it seems to be kept in the background except when it is brought in for the two purposes of (1) explaining the limitations on 'rank shift', and (2) providing the criterion by which the classes of group recognised in IFG are set up. Interestingly, however, Halliday injects a note of caution about the concept of the 'rank scale' (IFG p. 12), and we shall examine his words at this point more closely in the context of other such indications in the full discussions of 'rank' in Section 11.1 of Chapter 11 and of 'embedding' in Sections 11.8.3 to 11.8.5.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "Categories" (Halliday 1961) and IFG (Halliday 1994) present two different theories:  the superseded Scale & Category Grammar and the current Systemic Functional Grammar, respectively.

[2] To be clear, as previously pointed out, the IFG chapters on groups and phrases and group and phrase complexes are both organised on the basis of 'class of unit'.

[3] To be clear, the rank scale of units forms the basis of the book's organisation, and in terms of theory, each rank unit on the scale provides the entry condition to system networks of functions.

[4] As previously demonstrated, this is misleading because it is the opposite of what is true. See Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On The Concept Of Rank Scale.

[5] It will be seen in the examination of Chapter 11 that Fawcett confuses embedding with nesting (internal bracketing).