The Case Of The Missing Unit Complexes

Fawcett (2010: 320, 320n):

Is there any reason why Halliday should not include in his representations the 'unit-complexes' that the description implies? The reason why he does not address this question is, I would guess, that the additions to the 'rank scale' that such structures imply would threaten its viability because of the unacceptable quantity of 'singulary branching' that the maintenance of the principle of 'accountability at all ranks' would introduce. They are therefore unwelcome in Halliday's theory, both as 'units on the rank scale' and as the representation of such units on paper.¹⁰

¹⁰ A possible alternative answer might in principle be that, while this would suit 'hypotactic' structures quite well, it would not suit 'paratactic' structures, because co-ordination does not involve a 'modifier-head' relationship (as is recognised in all theories). However, given Halliday's view of the centrality of the 'rank scale' in the theory, it seems more likely that the reason suggested in the main text is the right one.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In all his representations Halliday does include the unit complexes that the description makes explicit ("implies"). For example, in the following representation (Halliday 1994: 216), the unit complex that is "included" is the clause complex:

[2] To be clear, one possible reason why Halliday does not address this question is that, because he writes at a level to be comprehensible to an intelligent 12-year-old, he would be justified in assuming that, for most readers, the question would not arise.