Fawcett's First Reason For Dispensing Wth The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 237-8, 238n):

Let us begin with the last of the four assumptions listed above. We have already seen in Section 10.2 of Chapter 10 the reasons why, in the new theory, we prefer to determine the class of a unit by its internal structure. This leaves just the concept of the 'rank scale' itself. There are four interrelated reasons for dispensing with this concept.

Firstly, the idea that there is a "consists of' relationship of 'constituency' between the units — which is what the concept of the 'rank scale' states — is not sufficiently precise to be useful. A unit does not in fact function directly as a constituent of another unit; as later sections of this chapter will demonstrate in detail. Instead, the concept of 'constituency' must be broken down into a number of other relationships. In the present theory we shall say that a unit is composed of a number of elements, and that any such element will be either filled by another unit or expounded by an item. (For the concepts of 'componence', 'filling' and 'exponence' see Sections 11.3, 11.5 and 11.6 respectively.) In other words, there is not in fact a 'consists of' relationship between units, but a rather more complex series of relationships.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed in the examination of Section 10.2, classifying units by their internal structure ('from below'), rather than by their function ('from above'), is inconsistent with the notion of a functional grammar.

[2] To be clear, this is irrelevant to the notion of a rank scale, because the rank scale is a model of form, not function.

[3] To be clear, the notion of a unit being composed of elements confuses formal constituency (unit) with function structure (elements). In SFL Theory, a unit (e.g. clause) consists of lower ranked units (e.g. groups) each of which serves a function (e.g. Process) in the structure of the higher ranked unit.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Clearly, units of form do consist of other units of form, as demonstrated by any clause consisting of groups. The "more complex series of relationships" are those between form and function, not between form and form.