Misrepresenting The Theoretical Importance Of Unit And Rank In SFL Theory

  Fawcett (2010: 189):

Taken together, the above facts suggest (1) that those who work in the framework of the Sydney Grammar do not in fact find the concepts of 'unit' and 'rank' useful when they are engaged in the nitty gritty work of describing a language or of describing a text; (2) that they only find the concept of 'rank' useful when embedding occurs, and (3) that in any case the term "embedding" is to be preferred to "rank shift". However, this apparent down-grading of the theoretical importance of the 'rank scale' and 'rank shift' is accompanied by a far stronger claim about the limitations on when 'rank shift' can occur than the claim made in "Categories", as we shall see in Section 11.8.5 of Chapter 11.

Finally, I should perhaps point out that, while the term "unit" is used frequently in the writings of Cardiff grammarians, it is always with the meaning of 'class of unit' (this being the topic of Section 10.2).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As can be seen from the two preceding posts, 'the above facts' are a collection of misleading untruths.

[2] To be clear, this is a non-sequitur. Even if what Fawcett wrote about the concepts of 'unit' and 'rank' in Halliday's current framework had been true, it would still say nothing whatsoever about what Systemic Functional grammarians find useful.

[3] To be clear, each rank is the entry condition to a set of functional systems; for example, the rank of 'clause' is the entry condition to the systems of THEME, MOOD, and TRANSITIVITY. That is its paradigmatic function. By the same token, each unit is the syntagmatic domain that is structured; for example, the unit 'clause' is usually structured as Theme^Rheme. Moreover, the elements of function structure at a higher rank are realised by units of a lower rank; for example, Subject, at the rank of clause, is realised by a nominal group.

[4] This is still misleading, because it is still untrue; see the previous post.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. It is the rank scale that models syntax (and morphology) in SFL Theory. It is for this reason that Fawcett misrepresents its theoretical value in SFL Theory. Rank-shift, of course, is important in accounting systematically for instances in which a higher ranked unit realises a structural element of the same rank, or below, as, for example, when a clause realises the Subject of a clause: what you see is what you get.

[6] As we shall see in the examination of Section 11.8.5 of Chapter 11, Fawcett misrepresents Halliday (1994) on this matter, as well.

[7] As previously noted, the term 'class of unit' presupposes the notion of 'unit' (of which there are classes).