Misrepresenting "The Main Use Of" The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 242):

In practical terms, then, the main use of the 'rank scale' concept has been as a model that makes predictions that guide the text analyst as to how the units of a text-sentence relate to each other — though these have sometimes caused problems for the analyst. However, statements of 'filling probabilities', as in Appendix B, meet the same need in a more effective manner.

All of the probabilities discussed so far are instantial probabilities, i.e., probabilities that certain patterns will occur in instances, i.e. in text-sentences. They are moreover probabilities at the level of form. In contrast with these are the probabilities on features in system networks, which we might refer to as potential probabilities, these being at the level of meaning. See Section 2 of Appendix C for a discussion of the relationship between the two.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, the rank scale is the means by which formal constituency is modelled. Most importantly, in a systemic functional grammar, each rank is the entry condition for the systems that specify function structures at that rank.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, all the "problems" raised by Fawcett derive from his confusing the rank scale of forms with function-form relations.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's 'filling probabilities' are concerned with the relation between function and form, not with formal constituency. As such, they do not "meet the same need in a more effective manner".

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's 'filling probabilities' are concerned with the relation between function (element) and form (unit) — not with form alone.

[5] To be clear, as Section 2 of Appendix C (p315) explains, in Fawcett's model, potential probabilities are paradigmatic probabilities, whereas instantial probabilities are syntagmatic probabilities. That is, this reflects Fawcett's confusion of axis (paradigmatic/syntagmatic) with instantiation (potential/instance), as previously demonstrated in the examination of Figure 4 (p36):