Misrepresenting The Rank Scale And Rankshift

Fawcett (2010: 266, 267):

The concept of the 'rank scale' expresses a hypothesis about the 'natural' depth of layering in a structure (although Halliday himself has never suggested that this was a motivation for introducing it). Thus it predicts that, in the unmarked case, groups will occur at a depth of one, words at a depth of two, and morphemes at a depth of three. However, few natural texts conform to this pattern. …

The crucial notion, then, is not that of embedding in the strict sense of the term, but the amazing ability of human language to construct units that contain other units within them. This ability — of which the embedding of clauses within other clauses and within various classes of group is simply the most salient characteristic — is one of the chief glories of human language. Yet the use of terms such as 'rank scale' and 'rank shift' suggests a view of language in which embedding is regarded as an aberration from the right ordering of language — rather than being, as I believe it to be, a vital contribution to its elegant power to model our physical and mental worlds.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Like any theoretical approach, the rank scale is concerned with explanatory potential, not with what is 'natural'. 

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the rank scale model, all units are assigned to a specific number of ranks. Halliday (2002 [1966]: 119):

By a rank grammar I mean one which specifies and labels a fixed number of layers in the hierarchy of constituents, such that any constituent, and any constitute, can be assigned to one or other of the specified layers, or ranks.

However, in the case of rankshift, an embedded unit operates ("occurs") at a lower rank. For example, a clause embedded in a clause operates at group/phrase rank; a group embedded in a group operates at word rank; etc.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the rank scale model, in all texts, all units are either ranking or rankshifted. For example, a ranking nominal group operates at group rank, whereas a rankshifted nominal group operates at word rank.

[4] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, from the perspective of SFL Theory, all the cases that Fawcett claimed were not instances of embedding were, in fact, either cases of embedding or submodification.

[5] This bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, is misleading, because it is untrue. The terms 'rank scale' and 'rankshift' say nothing about "the right ordering" of language, and do not construe embedding as an aberration. On the contrary, together they provide a highly systematic means of modelling embedding as an integral feature of language.

[6] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the increased semiotic potential of rankshift (embedding) arises, for example, from making the meaning potential of the clause available at group rank, and the meaning potential of the group or phrase available at word rank.