Misrepresenting Halliday (1993 and 1994) On The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 187-8): 

Thus, while the concept of the 'rank scale' has survived into the reincarnation of S&C as Systemic Functional Grammar in the Sydney version, it has not in the Cardiff version. Its centrality in the Sydney version is given a visual manifestation in the well-known summary diagram of the lexicogrammar in which the two dimensions of organisation are (1) the 'rank scale' of units and (2) the four major 'metafunctions' (e.g., Halliday (1971/73b:141), Halliday (1977/78:132) and Martin (1992:18). A similar diagram with eight 'strands of meaning' can be found in Fawcett (1980:95). However, the crucial requirement of the 'units' dimension in such diagrams is not that the units should be arranged on a 'rank scale', but that the set of units should be complete. This may sound a small difference, but it is not, as we shall see.

However, while the "Categories" concept of the 'rank scale' is clearly still present in the Sydney Grammar, we have noted (in Section 5.3 of Chapter 5) that in "Systemic theory" Halliday defines 'rank' in a curious way that avoids mentioning the concept of a 'rank scale of units'. And we have also noted (in Section 6.2 of Chapter 6) that 'rank' has an apparently diminished role in IFG.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The arrangement of units on a rank scale is the theoretical point of such diagrams.

[2] To be clear, the question of whether the set of units is 'complete' or not depends on the criteria on which they are defined. Note that Fawcett's claim is that the concept of 'unit' plays no part in his Cardiff Grammar.

[3] To be clear, this does not sound like a small difference. The organisation of units in a compositional rank scale is distinct from the 'completeness' of a set of units.

[4] This is misleading, because it is still untrue; see the earlier post Misrepresenting Halliday (1993) On Rank. What Halliday (1993: 273) actually says is:

Systemic theory retains the concepts of 'rank,' 'realisation,' and 'delicacy' from scale and category grammar. 'Rank' is constituency based on function, and hence 'flat,' with minimal layering;

That is, Fawcett does not understand that a compositional hierarchy of units (constituency) is a scale from the highest rank (clause) to the lowest rank (morpheme).

[5] This is misleading, because it is still untrue, and indeed, it flatly contradicts Fawcett's previous claim (p85):

the concept of the 'rank scale' is still reflected quite strongly in IFG

To be clear, each unit on the rank scale provides the entry condition to the systems of that rank. For example, the unit 'clause' is the entry condition for the systems of THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY. Moreover, the following tables from IFG (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 20-1) put the lie to Fawcett's claim: