Fawcett's 2nd, 3rd & 4th Reasons For Dispensing With The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 238, 238n):

The second reason for dispensing with 'rank' is that in the present theory there are only two major candidates for 'ranks of unit' in the present description of English (and other languages): i.e., 'clause' and 'group', in contrast with the five 'units' of "Categories".³ Can a 'rank scale' of which only two of the supposed 'ranks' occur in most instances really be regarded as a 'scale'?

The third reason for dispensing with the concept of 'rank' is that, while the 'rank scale' model raises problems even for Halliday's own description of English (as described in detail in Appendix C), the problems are far greater when we also take into account the extensions to the internal structure of groups that have been introduced in the Cardiff Grammar'. And the difficulty of sustaining [t]he 'rank scale' hypothesis becomes even greater with the abolition of the 'verbal group' (the reasons for which are given in Fawcett 2000 and forthcoming b, and summarised in Section 4 of Appendix C).

The fourth reason for abandoning the 'rank scale' model is a positive one. It is that there is now an alternative model of relationships between units that enables us to predict much more accurately what units will occur within what other units in natural texts. Let us now see what this alternative model is.

³ There is also the 'cluster', as we saw in Section 10.2 of Chapter 10, but this occurs only infrequently and its existence is therefore an embarrassment for the 'rank scale' concept rather than a support for it. See Section 11.6.2 for the concept of 'variation in depth of exponence', which is often used in conjunction with the concept of the 'cluster' in the Cardiff Grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This reason for dispensing with the rank scale is misleading, because it is untrue. SFL Theory posits four ranks: clause, group/phrase, word and morpheme. In any case, the number of ranks is not grounds for dispensing with the rank scale.

[2] This reason for dispensing with the rank scale is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the rank scale does not raise problems for Halliday's description of English. Instead, Fawcett's critique relies on confusing the rank scale of forms with relations between form and function.

[3] These reasons for dispensing with the rank scale are comical. Here Fawcett claims that the rank scale should be dispensed with simply because his own model is inconsistent with it. See other posts on this blog for the problems with Fawcett's model.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett's positive reason for dispensing with Halliday's rank scale is that his own model has a predictive advantage in modelling form. Evidence for this claim will be examined when it is tendered.