Classes Of 'Cluster' And No Classes Of 'Word'

Fawcett (2010: 164):

Three classes of the new unit of the cluster were tentatively recognised in the 1974-6 edition: the genitive cluster (e.g., her boyfriend's)', the proper name cluster (e.g., Dr Ivy Idle) and the tempering cluster (e.g., much less in much less painful). By 1981 the 'tempering cluster' had been absorbed into the 'quantity-quality group', and later still the data that it covers became part of the evidence for the need to introduce the 'quantity group'. Further classes of 'cluster' are added in the current version of the grammar, as described in Part 2.

There was no discussion in "Some proposals" of the concept of 'class of word', because 'words' are treated there as items rather than as syntactic units (1974-6/81:67). (See Part 2 for a fuller justification for taking the position that the relationship of morphemes to a word is not the same as that between, let us say, groups and clauses.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, like the notions of 'quantity group' and quality group, the notion of a 'tempering cluster' mistakes a function of a cluster (tempering) for a class of a cluster.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'word' is used for two distinct abstractions: lexical item and grammatical rank scale unit. The word as lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features — just as the phoneme /b/ is the synthetic realisation of the features [voiced, bilabial, stop]. The word as grammatical unit is (i) a constituent of groups/phrases and realises elements of their function structures, and (ii) composed of morphemes. It is the word as grammatical unit that is differentiated by (grammatical) class.

[3] Fawcett's justification for his position will be critically evaluated in the examination of Part 2.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relationship of morphemes to a grammatical word, and of groups to clauses is the same: constituency. It is this commonality that allows Halliday to model syntax and morphology as a rank scale in both theories, Scale and Category Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar. For example, for Scale and Category Grammar, Halliday (2002 [1961]: 51) explains:

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. We can then say, simply, classes are syntactical and not morphological.