Misrepresenting Halliday (1961) And (1994) On The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 282):

Let us now turn to Halliday's concept of the 'rank scale', as presented in "Categories". This predicts that every element of the clause will be filled by a group or by a 'rankshifted' clause, and that every element of a group will be expounded by a word (unless filled by a 'rankshifted' group or clause). Thus what Halliday terms "upward rank shift" is permitted, but "downward rank shift" is not. However, we saw in Chapter 7 that the picture changes in IFG, so that Halliday now only permits embedded clauses to function within groups (at least, in English).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained, the rank scale is a model of formal constituency, not function structures. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 43):

The units of grammar form a hierarchy that is a taxonomy. … The relation among the units, then, is that, going from top (largest) to bottom (smallest), each consists of one, or of more than one, of the unit next below (next smaller). The scale on which the units are in fact ranged in the theory needs a name, and may be called rank.

In SFL Theory, the rank scale is the theoretical dimension wherein clauses consist of groups and phrases which consist of words which consist of morphemes. Each unit on this rank scale is the entry condition for systems that specify the functions (e.g. mental Process) of the constituents (e.g. verbal group) of each unit (e.g. clause).

[2] This is misleading because it is the direct opposite of what is true, as even Fawcett knows.

[3] This is misleading, because it misrepresents rankshift. Clauses can be shifted from clause rank to 

• group rank, where they realise elements of clause structure, such as the Token and Value elements of [[what you see]] is [[what you get]] and
• word rank, where they realise the Postmodifier element of group structure.