"The Theoretical Core Of The Problem That 'Unit Complexes' Raise"

Fawcett (2010: 320):

We come now to the theoretical core of the problem that 'unit complexes' raise for the concept of the 'rank scale'. Halliday's descriptions of these additional layers of structure are always in terms of what he terms their "elements", e.g., the 'hypotactic' ones are said to be in a series of 'modifier-head' relationships to each other (IFG p. 217-8), represented by the symbols "α β γ" etc. But these elements are not treated as elements of a unit (as in the case of the modifier and head of a nominal group), but as elements that are somehow able to function in relation to each other without the use of the concept of 'unit'. Yet in SFL the concepts of 'unit' and 'element' are mutually defining. In other words, an element is by definition an element of the structure of something, and in SF theory that "something" is a unit. Yet in IFG we are presented with 'elements' that are shown in the diagrams as relating directly to each other, without any indication of the unit of which the element is a component — or indeed of the unit that fills the element. In other words, the concept of a 'unit' is in fact covertly present, even through it is not referred to at any point.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading. On the one hand, a hypotactic structure is not a series of "modifier-head" relationships. A hypotactic structure comprises one Head and one Modifier, either of which may nest a hypotactic or paratactic subcomplex. In a clause structured as α β γ, α constitutes the Head and β γ the Modifier, as demonstrated in Halliday (1994: 217). And, on the other hand, modification is only a first step in understanding hypotaxis. Halliday (1994: 218):

As a first step, therefore, we can interpret the relationship between these clauses as one of modification … . The concept of modification needs to be enriched by allowing for systematic alternatives along two separate dimensions: (i) type of INTERDEPENDENCY or TAXIS; (ii) the LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATION.

[2] This misrepresentation is misleading. To be clear, on the one hand, the elements of a unit complex are the units that are complexed. For example, the elements of a clause complex are clauses. Taxis is a relation between forms (units on the rank scale). This is distinct from elements of a (multivariate) function structure of a unit, such as Predicator as a functional element of clause structure. And on the other hand, these units (elements) relate to each other in the unit complex. Viewed in terms of constituency, a clause complex is the "unit" of which the clauses are "components".