"The Claims Of The 'Rank Scale' Hypothesis"

Fawcett (2010: 236-7):

For Halliday, it is upon the concept of the 'rank scale' that all of his generalisations as to what units may function at what elements rests. Since we are about to meet the set of concepts which is proposed as a replacement for the 'rank scale', it may be useful to remind ourselves of just what the claims of the 'rank scale' hypothesis are. They are as follows:

1. that the elements of clauses will be filled by groups, the elements of groups will be filled by words and the elements of words by morphemes (though it is clear from the passage cited above that Halliday recognises that there will be at least some exceptions);

2. that 'upward rank shift' does not occur (except, apparently, in the case of the 'Finite', as mentioned above);

3. that 'downward rank shift' is only permitted in the case of clauses and groups functioning as elements of groups (i.e., it is not the case that clauses may fill elements of clauses);

4. that the class of a unit is determined by the element or elements at which it occurs in the unit above it on the 'rank scale'.

(See Section 11.8.5 for the details of the very limited amount of embedding that Halliday allows, as specified in IFG.)

Here I propose a model in which none of the above four hypotheses has a place. The question therefore is: "What is wrong with the above set of generalisations, and what more useful alternative generalisations should replace them?"

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is seriously misleading, because the 'rank scale hypothesis' makes only the second of these 4 claims; but see further below.

[2] This is misleading, because the rank scale is not concerned with functional elements. The rank scale is a model of formal constituency. It posits that a clause consists of a whole number of groups, each of which consists of a whole number of words, each of which consists of a whole number of morphemes.

[3] This is misleading, because the Finite is not a case of any sort of rank shift, because the Finite is not a rank unit, but a functional element,.

[4] This is misleading, because it misrepresents IFG, as demonstrated, for example, by the following instance from IFG (Halliday 1994: 266) of an embedded clause serving as the Carrier element of a clause:

[5] This is misleading, because, on the one hand, the rank scale is not concerned with elements, and on the other hand, a unit does not "occur at" an element in the unit above in the rank scale. On the one hand, Fawcett again confuses the formal constituency of the rank scale with the realisation relation between function (element) and form (unit), and on the other hand, by "occurs at", Fawcett miscontrues these two distinct levels of symbolic abstraction as the same level of abstraction.

[6] See the upcoming examination of Section 11.8.5 for the misunderstandings on which this false claim is based.