Seriously Misrepresenting Halliday On Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 268):

What, then, is the place of embedding in Halliday's current theory? As we saw in Section 5.3 of Chapter 5, the concept is not mentioned at all in "Systemic theory". However, it is present in IFG — and in a version that is far more restrictive than in "Categories". Halliday's definition is as follows:

Embedding is a mechanism whereby a clause or phrase comes to function as a constituent within the structure of a group [my emphasis], which is itself a constituent of a clause. Hence there is no direct relationship between an embedded clause and the clause within which it is embedded; the relationship [...] is an indirect one, with a group as intermediary. The embedded clause functions in the structure of the group, and the group functions in the structure of the clause. (Halliday 1994:242)

Unfortunately, Halliday does not explain why he thinks it desirable that a clause should not be permitted to fill an element of another clause. This omission is especially surprising, given that this was permitted in his earlier S&C grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The version of embedding (rankshift) in SFL Theory (IFG) is not at all more "restrictive" than the version in Scale & Category Grammar ("Categories"). This false claim arises from Fawcett's misunderstanding of embedding, as demonstrated below.

[2] This is very misleading indeed, and a very serious misunderstanding of Halliday (1994). In Fawcett's terms, an embedded clause does "fill" an element of clause structure. In terms of SFL Theory, a clause that is embedded in a clause is shifted to the rank of group, and it is units at the rank of group that realise elements of clause structure, such as Senser and Phenomenon in the following example: