Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Embedding

 Fawcett (2010: 264-5):

The second type of recursion is embedding. This occurs when a unit fills an element of the same class of unit — and also, in a looser sense, when a unit of the same class occurs above it in the tree structure. So we shall not say that we have a case of embedding in on the table, where the nominal group the table fills the completive of the prepositional group on the table (as Halliday would; see p. 242 of IFG). However, if the table occurred in the box on the table, this is embedding in a looser sense of the term, because the nominal group the table fills the completive of the prepositional group on the table, and this in turn fills the qualifier of the higher nominal group the box on the table.

And, in an even looser use of the term, one could refer to any case in which a unit appears lower in the tree than the second layer as 'embedding'. Here, however, I shall normally use the term "embedding" in the sense of the occurrence (direct or indirect) of a class of unit within the same class of unit.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is the direct opposite of what is true. That is, Halliday (1994: 242) does not say that a nominal group serving as the Range of a prepositional phrase is embedded; instead, he says that a prepositional phrase (or clause) serving as the Postmodifier of a nominal group (or adverbial group) is embedded:

[2] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL theory, this is an instance of embedding in the strict sense, since the prepositional phrase on the table is shifted to word rank where it serves as the Postmodifier/Qualifier element of the nominal group the box on the table:

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL theory, rankshift is not limited to embedding with the same class of unit. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 492) provide examples of rankshifted clauses and prepositional phrases embedded in nominal groups and adverbial groups: