However, so far as the two 'rank scale' concepts of (1) 'accountability at all ranks' and (2) 'rank shift' are concerned, Halliday treats the 'unit complexes' as if they were not part of the 'rank scale'. He does not consider, therefore, that every clause should be analysed as serving a function in a clause complex, that every group should be seen as filling an element in a group complex, and so on. (And yet, as we shall shortly see, this is precisely what he does say, at some points.) Although he does not state in IFG why it is undesirable to treat 'unit complexes' as 'units' on the 'rank scale', we can infer that the reason is the additional layers of 'singulary branching' that would occur — because one of his reasons for introducing 'hypotaxis' in 1965 was to avoid the "somewhat artificial increase in 'depth' in number of layers [introduced by embedding]." ⁸
⁸ A defender of Halliday's position might be tempted to offer a modified model of the standard column of units on the 'rank scale', in which each type of unit complex was placed beside its equivalent basic unit rather than above it. But this would not resolve the problem, because it would leave the relationship between a 'unit' and its equivalent 'unit complex' undefined. There is in fact no alternative, in Halliday's framework, to accepting unit complexes as additional units on the 'rank scale'.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because it is the opposite of what is true. In SFL Theory, a clause complex is a complex of clauses, and 'clause' is a unit on the rank scale; a group complex is a complex of groups, and 'group' is a unit on the rank scale; etc.
[2] This is misleading. On the one hand, in SFL Theory, clauses in a clause complex do not function as elements of a clause complex because a clause complex is not a higher rank than the clause. Likewise, groups do not function as ("fill") elements of a group complex because a group complex is not a higher rank than the group.
On the other hand, in SFL Theory, a secondary clause in a clause complex functions either as an expansion of the primary clause in terms of elaboration, extension or enhancement or as a projection of it. Likewise, a secondary group in a group complex functions either as an expansion of the primary group in terms of elaboration, extension or enhancement or as a projection of it.
[3] This is misleading, because here Fawcett falsely implies an inconsistency in IFG where there is none.
[4] To be clear, Halliday frequently advised his students to write at a level that could be understood by an intelligent 12-year-old. We can infer from this that he assumed that an intelligent 12-year-old would understand that a unit complex is a complex of rank scale units.
[5] This is not only irrelevant, given the above, but also misleading. In this pre-Systemic paper, there can be no singulary branching in hypotactic structures. Halliday (2002 [1965]: 235):
In constituent terms, all hypotactic structures can in fact be represented as binary; that is, as having no more than two constituents at a single layer.
[6] This is very misleading indeed, because the quote from Halliday (1965) is not concerned either with Halliday's reason for introducing hypotaxis or with embedding. The "somewhat artificial increase in 'depth' in number of layers" is a disadvantage that results from treating hypotactic structures 'as having no more than two constituents in a single layer' (see [5]). And it is for this reason that Halliday (2002 [1965]: 235) instead proposes:
In the present analysis, hypotactic structures are not being treated as exclusively binary, but are considered as capable of extension on one layer as well as by layering one within another.
[7] As previously explained, unit complexes are complexes of units located on the rank scale. A clause complex is a univariate structure at the rank of clause.
[8] To be clear, in SFL Theory, there is no "relationship" between a unit and its equivalent unit complex, except in the tautological sense that one is a complex of the other. On the other hand, units in a unit complex are related in terms of interdependency and logico-semantic types.
[9] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The alternative "to accepting unit complexes as additional units on the 'rank scale' " is simply understanding that unit complexes are complexes of rank scale units.
No comments:
Post a Comment