The Concepts Of Unit And Class Of Unit In Fawcett's "Some Proposals" (1974)

Fawcett (2010: 163-4):

"Some proposals" recognises a number of units (in precisely the same sense of "unit" as in "Categories"). These units are related to each other on a 'rank scale', and for English they are: clause, group and cluster. The unit 'cluster' is a new unit that is lower on the 'rank scale' than the group; see below for examples. (The concept of 'unit', which is mutually defining with that of the 'rank scale', is not used in the framework to be proposed in Part 2.)

"Some proposals" uses the concept of class of unit in a way that is loosely similar to its use in "Categories". It relates the concept of 'class of unit' to 'unit' essentially as in "Categories", except that the criteria for recognising a given class of unit are the elements of its internal structure, rather than its potential for operation in the unit above, as in "Categories". (For a full discussion of the criteria for recognising classes of unit, see Section 10.2.2 of Chapter 10.) On this criterion, "Some proposals" recognises only classes of groups and clusters (and not clauses or words). Thus it recognises that, at the 'rank' of clause rank in English, there is only one 'class' of clause, so that the concept of 'class of unit' is not applicable to this unit. At group rank "Some proposals" initially recognised four classes. These were the nominal group (e.g., she, Ivy and the man in black), the prepend group (e.g., in black), the adjectival group (e.g., very quick) and the adverbial group (e.g., very quickly). In the 1974-6 edition I further suggested (1974-6/81:31) that "in an introductory analysis it is probably helpful to make use of the traditional S&C concept of the 'verbal group'"(e.g., might have seen).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[2] This downplaying of difference is misleading, because the difference between Fawcett's notion of 'class of unit' and Halliday's notion is indeed significant. Halliday (1961) takes the view 'from above', distinguishing classes of unit according to the functions they realise, whereas Fawcett takes the view 'from below', distinguishing classes of unit according to the structures that realise them. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 50):

What is theoretically determined is the relation between structure and class on the one hand and unit on the other. Class, like structure, is linked to unit: a class is always a class of (members of) a given unit: and the class–structure relation is constant – a class is always defined with reference to the structure of the unit next above, and structure with reference to classes of the unit next below. A class is not a grouping of members of a given unit which are alike in their own structure. In other words, by reference to the rank scale, classes are derived “from above” (or “downwards”) and not “from below” (or “upwards”).

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) does not recognise classes of words: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions.

[4] To be clear, although not acknowledged, this is also the case in Halliday (1961).