Misrepresenting An Argument Against Parataxis As An Argument Against Hypotaxis

Fawcett (2010: 331):

In the second part of their case, M&M suggest a second analysis of Huddleston's example, i.e., as two co-ordinated clauses with ellipsis in the second, thus: He left before the debate or (he left) (at least) before the vote was taken. But again, I am afraid, I have to point out a problem. While their analysis appears at first to be another possible one, we need to take account of the fact that one can insert either to the left of before the debate, so that it becomes He left either before the debate or (at least) before the vote was taken. And this fact demonstrates clearly that the grammar must allow for the possibility of generating the prepositional group and the clause as jointly filling an Adjunct.

Thus M&M suggest that two possible analyses should be allowed (the first being Huddleston's and mine). They therefore do not address the question of which of the two is systemically preferable, and why. Moreover, Huddleston's criticism of IFG stands. In other words, he is right that Halliday's decision to treat all clauses embedded directly in clauses as 'hypotaxis' means that the Sydney Grammar cannot handle examples such as Huddleston's.

Finally, to demonstrate that Huddleston's example is not a 'special case', consider the following example with a simple 'additive' Linker: On average, people died earlier in those days, both from diseases such as diphtheria and because they worked such dreadfully long hours. Notice that here (as in Huddleston's example) the item both prevents the M&M analysis in terms of two co-ordinated clauses with ellipsis. The conclusion, then, must be that we should treat all such 'beta' clauses as embedded clauses. … Withe respect to the areas of the grammar described here, then, M&M fail to rebut Huddleston's critical comments. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is an argument about parataxis, and as such, not relevant to the question of hypotaxis. Moreover, this being the case, it could be equally directed against Fawcett's model of co-ordination.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, Huddleston's criticism does not stand, with regard to hypotaxis, because it is an argument about parataxis. On the other hand, SFL Theory (IFG, Halliday) does not treat all such "embedded" clauses as hypotaxis. By distinguishing between embedding (rankshift) and hypotaxis, SFL Theory provides such explanatory advantages as distinguishing between

• defining relative clauses (embedded) and non-defining relative clauses (dependent), and
• pre-projected facts (embedded) and reported projections (dependent).

The conclusion, then, is the distinction between rankshifted and dependent clauses has explanatory advantages over the lack of distinction.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1994) On Rankshift

Fawcett (2010: 330-1):

Here we shall consider M&M's response to Huddleston's "co-ordination" argument. This begins, perhaps surprisingly, with M&M's agreement that his analysis is indeed a possible one (i.e., the analysis in which before the vote was taken is treated as a clause embedded as an Adjunct). However, they move quickly on from this apparent olive branch to a robust defence of what they take to be the IFG position on this matter — claiming that Huddleston is wrong to criticise IFG for ruling out his analysis, because "there is nothing in Halliday's system to block this analysis" (p. 27). 

But on this matter Huddleston is right and M&M are wrong, as is shown by Halliday's own specification of the types of rankshift that his model permits. Thus he states (IFG p. 242) that "the relationship of an embedded clause to the 'outer' clause is an indirect one" — i.e., the embedded clause must fill an element of a group, not a clause. (See Section 11.8.5 of Chapter 11 for a summary of Halliday 's statement on this matter.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, if a clause is shifted to the rank of group, then it functions as a group and so serves as ("fills") an element of a clause. For example:

On the other hand, it is when a clause is shifted to the rank of word, that it serves as ("fills") an element of a group. For example:

[2] See the post on Section 11.8.5: Seriously Misrepresenting Halliday On Embedding.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [6]

 Fawcett (2010: 328-9):

If we put this evidence together with that of my alternative analyses of the examples of Halliday's ten major categories for 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' relations between clauses (as set out in Section 11.9 of Chapter 11), we have two separate pieces of evidence that the grammar should not in fact foreground the contrast between 'parataxis' vs. 'hypotaxis' as a system that is to be entered simultaneously with one for 'expansion' vs. 'projection', etc. 

The alternative is that each type of 'co-ordination' and each type of 'dependence' should be modelled in terms of the systemic choices that are available to it, so avoiding the ever present temptation to the grammarian, i.e., that of modifying the description to conform to the theory.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, neither of these constitute evidence about the system of TAXIS (parataxis vs hypotaxis). The argument Fawcett has just made relies on misrepresenting expressions of systemic features as systemic features (see the preceding five posts), and his alternative analyses in Section 11.9 are merely presented rather than supported by argument; see:

• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion
• Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

[2] To be clear, this is precisely how the two types of interdependency — parataxis ("co-ordination") and hypotaxis ("dependence") — are modelled in SFL Theory, in conjunction with the systems of LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE and RECURSION. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

[3] To be clear, it is not the description that is at risk of being modified so as to conform to theory, but the data that is described in terms of a theory. More importantly, Fawcett's insinuation here is that Halliday has succumbed to the temptation of intellectual dishonesty.

Agreeing With Huddleston's Conclusion

Fawcett (2010: 324):

There is much in Huddleston's review, therefore, with which I disagree. However, it will be clear that I share his conclusion that most of the uses to which 'hypotaxis' has been put by Halliday are better handled by a simple embedding relationship (but one by co-ordination; see Section 11.9 of Chapter 11). And I also share his view (though for a set of reasons that only partly overlap with his) that "the constraints this [i.e., the requirement of 'accountability at all ranks'] imposes on the grammar have numerous unsatisfactory consequences" (Huddleston 1988:141). Indeed, I would also agree with his statement (though again for reasons that only partly overlap with his) that

the unsatisfactory nature of the constituent structures given in [IFG] derives in very large measure from their foundation in rank theory. (Huddleston 1988:155)

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, agreeing with someone's conclusion is not reasoned argument. Fawcett has still not provided Huddleston's actual argument, and it is clear from previous posts that Fawcett does not understand hypotaxis, especially with regard to how unit complexes relate to the rank scale.

The rhetorical purpose of providing Huddleston's conclusion before providing his argument is to prime the reader to prejudge the argument through prior alignment with the conclusion.

Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

Fawcett (2010: 272):

To summarise: we treat four of Halliday's five types of 'hypotaxis' and two of his five types of 'parataxis' as embedding, and one type of 'hypotaxis' and his three 'expansion' types of 'parataxis' as co-ordination. Thus the features that generate these examples are found in various parts of the system network. This approach, then, is less novel than Halliday's, but it is equally systemic and functional. And it has all been implemented in COMMUNAL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the relation of the Cardiff Grammar's embedding and co-ordination to tactic and logico-semantic relations in SFL Theory is represented below: 

[2] To be clear, Fawcett neither provides the system network that generates his examples, nor names the features, nor specifies the various locations of these features in the network.

[3] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument. Moreover, it evades the issues of whether this approach is theoretically inconsistent or has less explanatory potential than the SFL approach.

How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion

 Fawcett (2010: 271-2):

Finally, IFG's three types of 'paratactic expansion' (with clauses linked by a semi-colon, and and so) are simply three types of co-ordination.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in treating all types of paratactic expansion as co-ordination, Fawcett simply equates co-ordination with parataxis — independent of expansion type. This creates a theoretical inconsistency with his equation of co-ordination with hypotaxis, in the case of elaboration.

How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"

 Fawcett (2010: 271):

However, Halliday's third type of 'hypotactic expansion' [i.e. elaboration] is analysed as a special type of co-ordination, termed a 'pseudo-relative', as follows:

[John[S] ran[M] away[Mex], [Cl]][which[S] surprised[M] everyone[C] [CI]].

Here which surprised everyone is treated as equivalent to and this surprised everyone, and the two clauses jointly fill a sentence (which is omitted above).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the combination of elaboration and hypotaxis yields a non-defining relative clause as the dependent (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 464), whereas it is the combination of extension and parataxis that yields co-ordination (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 472).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, strictly speaking, this is not a case of elaboration, since the meaning of the relative clause does not elaborate the meaning of the primary clause. Instead, it is a case of extension, since it adds meaning to the meaning of the primary clause; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 468). This is also borne out by the lack of tone concord in its phonological realisation, since tone concord characterises genuine instances of hypotactic elaboration; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 467).

In short, Fawcett here exemplifies elaboration with a case of extension in order to justify treating elaboration as co-ordination (extension).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the two clauses are hypotactically related in a clause complex.

Confusing Word Complexing With Group Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 264):

Occasionally we need to allow for embedding in co-ordinated structures, as in examples such as ten boys and girls (where ten quantifies both the boys and the girls). The linker and is attached to girls (for the reasons given above) and the two nominal groups of (1) boys and (2) and girls jointly fill the head of a higher nominal group whose quantifying determiner is ten.

One notable characteristic of co-ordination is that the semantic and syntactic similarities between two units often result in a partial syntactic parallelism — and that this in turn often leads to ellipsis. Thus, in The thieves have stolen our TV and drunk all my whisky, the two elements of they (and not, it should be noted, the thieves) and have have been ellipted from the second clause. Ellipsis in co-ordinated clauses can become quite complex, as in Ivy is going out with Paul and not Fred. Here, to provide an adequate analysis, we need to reconstruct the ellipted elements, as follows: Ivy is going out with Paul and (she is) not (going out with) Fred. It is often the presence of the Negator not or an Adjunct that alerts the analyst to the presence of an ellipted clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, in this instance, boys and girls is a ranking — not embedded — extending paratactic word complex realising the Thing/Head of a nominal group.

[2] To be clear, since this is clause rank ellipsis, it is an element of clause structure, the Mood element comprising Subject and Finite, that has been ellipsed in this instance:

On the basis of the first clause, the ellipsed Subject is the thieves, not they. Since the speaker did not select this personal reference item as the Subject of the first clause, it cannot be understood as the Subject of the second clause, without presuming a reference that was not actually made.

[3] The ellipsed Subject here is Ivy, not she; see [2] above.

[4] To be clear, a more reliable diagnostic of clause rank ellipsis is the absence of one or more Mood or Residue elements from clause structure.

Fawcett's 'Co-ordination' Viewed Through The Lens Of SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 263-4):

The first type of recursion is co-ordination. Here two or more units fill a single element of structure. It occurs between all units: clauses and all classes of groups and occasionally clusters. Typically the units are (or in the case of the genitive cluster, contain) potential referring expressions, because co-ordination is ultimately not between syntactic units but between mental referents.

Co-ordination is typically marked by an overt Linker, such as and or or, and these two Linkers can occur with all units. (The linker has a lower case "l" when it co-ordinates groups.) A Linker or linker may co-occur with intonational marking or a punctuation mark (e.g., the two commas in Peter, his brother, his brother's wife and their children).

While some co-ordinators (e.g., and and or) occur with all units, each class of unit has its own set, with its own probabilities. Thus there is not a single set of choices in co-ordination for all units, as some grammars imply.

Sometimes the meaning of 'co-ordination' is re-enforced by another linker that introduces the first unit, as in both my wife and myself. This suggests that the L/linker should be treated as an element of the unit that it introduces, rather than as a 'structural signal' that is not part of either unit (cp. Halliday 1966).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's co-ordination largely corresponds to paratactic extension (but see a later post for anomalies in this regard).

[2] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's "mental referents" correspond to ideational meanings — prototypically participants (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999) — and, grammatically, paratactic extension ("co-ordination") obtains between formal units of the rank scale. Fawcett's notion of "mental referents" is inconsistent with the epistemological assumptions of SFL Theory (see, e.g., Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 416, 426, 442, 603).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, grammar is linguistic content, whereas graphology and phonology are linguistic expression. That is, importantly, they are different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, system choices are functional rather than formal. Here again, contrā SFL Theory, Fawcett takes the view 'from below', identifying systemic features with the expressions of meanings rather than the meanings they express.

[5] This is potentially misleading. In his reply to Matthews' criticisms of the concept of rank, Halliday (2002 [1966]: 125) wrote:

Given an adequate representation of the underlying grammar, there is no need to insist that every element should be assigned constituent status at all; it is quite usual not to recognise intonation features as constituents, and the same considerations could apply, as Matthews points out, provided limitations were stated, to markers such as and and or. I do not know how to specify in a general formation the conditions under which accountability in constituent terms would not be required.

In SFL Theory, the equivalents of Fawcett's L/linkers are analysed as constituents at all ranks; eg clause (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 457):

group (op cit: 566):

and word (op cit: 564):

and, at clause rank, they serve as structural Theme (op cit: 107-8).

Fawcett's 'Recursion' Viewed Through The Lens Of SFL Theory

Fawcett (2010: 263):

There are three types of recursive relationship in English: co-ordination, embedding and reiteration. Reiteration is much less central to the grammar of English than the other two, and it is used more in other languages. But do 'recursive structures' in fact occur in language? Strictly speaking, they do not.

Recursion occurs when a choice in the system network leads to a realisation rule which specifies a re-entry to the system network and the choice of the same feature again. What we find at the level of syntax is two types of the 'repetition' of a class of unit and, in reiteration, the repetition of an item (as in He's very very happy.). All three of these are cases of the realisation at the level of form of recursively selecting the same feature in the system networks. The effect of choosing such a feature is to generate a unit alongside an existing unit (this being is co-ordination) or inside another unit (this being second embedding [sic]. In the strict sense of embedding, a unit fills an element of the same class (most frequently a clause filling an element of a clause, as illustrated in Appendix B). In co-ordination the two or more co-ordinated units are typically of the same class — but not necessarily, as we will see in the next section. (We shall recognise a looser sense of 'embedding' in Section 11.8.3.)

It is the relationship of filling that makes possible the first two types of recursion, and the relationship of exponence that enables reiteration to occur.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these claims are theory-dependent and represent Fawcett's position on the phenomena.

[2] In SFL Theory, RECURSION is a system that specifies complexing at all ranks. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438) provide a clause rank example:

Importantly, recursion does not necessitate "the choice of the same feature again".

[3] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, these two types of repetition are both cases of complexing: the first at ranks above the word, the second at word rank.

[4] To be clear, SFL Theory makes a very important distinction between taxis ("co-ordination") and rankshift (embedding). This distinguishes, for example, non-defining relative clauses (taxis) from defining relative clauses (rankshift), and projected ideas (taxis) from pre-projected facts (rankshift).

[5] To be clear, contrary to this strict sense of embedding, Appendix B (p306) presents both a preposition group in Kew and a clause we've seen as elements (qualifiers) of a nominal group.

[6] To be clear, in this later discussion, it is the nominal group of a preposition group that is said to be embedded in a nominal group, thereby allowing him to overlook the prepositional group as an embedded unit. Fawcett (p264-5):

The second type of recursion is embedding. This occurs when a unit fills an element of the same class of unit — and also, in a looser sense, when a unit of the same class occurs above it in the tree structure. So we shall not say that we have a case of embedding in on the table, where the nominal group the table fills the completive of the prepositional group on the table … . However, if the table occurred in the box on the table, this is embedding in a looser sense of the term, because the nominal group the table fills the completive of the prepositional group on the table, and this in turn fills the qualifier of the higher nominal group the box on the table.

And, in an even looser use of the term, one could refer to any case in which a unit appears lower in the tree than the second layer as 'embedding'. Here, however, I shall normally use the term "embedding" in the sense of the occurrence (direct or indirect) of a class of unit within the same class of unit.

[7] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the "first two types of recursion", co-ordination and embedding, correspond to taxis and rankshift. However, clause complexes (taxis) do not realise ("fill") and element of a higher structure, though rankshifted units do. Fawcett's third type of recursion, reiteration, corresponds to a paratactic elaborating word complex realising ("expounding") an element of group structure.

Misconstruing Hypotaxis As Embedding

 Fawcett (2010: 251):

Filling may introduce a single additional unit to the structure, or it may introduce two or more co-ordinated units. (For co-ordination see Section 11.8.2). For example, an Adjunct that expresses 'Time Position' may be filled by a nominal group such as the day before yesterday, a prepositional group such as on Friday, a quality group such as quite recently, or a clause such as when I was last in London. (In the last case it introduces a clause that is embedded in another clause; see Section 11.8.3 for 'embedding'.) Alternatively, an element may be filled by two co-ordinated units, as in (I lost it) either last Monday or last Tuesday. …

In the Cardiff Grammar, the realisation operation that introduces this relationship of filling to a structure is "Insert a unit to fill Element X". The most surprising fact about the Sydney Grammar's list of realisation operations, as stated in their theoretical-generative publications, is the lack of any equivalent to this crucial operation (as discussed in Section 9.2.3 of Chapter 9).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To translate this into SFL Theory: a functional element of one rank may be realised by either a unit or a complex of units of the rank below. However, only in SFL theory, the complex may be either paratactic ("co-ordinated") or hypotactic.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, quite recently is an adverbial group.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the clause when I was last in London can be either rankshifted (embedded) or ranking:

Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar treats both of the above instance types as embedded, and so can not distinguish between them. Moreover, Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar treats such clauses as embedded (rankshifted) in cases of hypotaxis, but as co-ordinated (ranking) in cases of parataxis. That is, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Fawcett's model involves both reduced explanatory potential and theoretical inconsistency.

[4] This is misleading, because this fact is not surprising. As explained in the examination of Section 9.2.3 (here), Fawcett's realisation operation is unnecessary in SFL Theory, because a unit (clause, group, word, morpheme) is not "inserted" but selected from the rank scale in a system network.

Misrepresenting SFL Theory On Function-Form Relations

Fawcett (2010: 251):

Filling is the relationship between an element and the unit that 'operates at' it — this being the unit below it in a tree diagram representation. It can be argued that it is the fact that the Cardiff Grammar gives this concept a central position in the theory of syntax that enables it to solve a range of problems for which more complex solutions are proposed by Halliday. Thus it is filling that makes possible both co-ordination and embedding, and it is the extensive use of these that enables us to do without the somewhat problematical concepts of 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relation between an element (e.g. Senser) and the unit that "operates at" it (e.g. nominal group) is the realisation relation between function and form. A clause rank function structure, such as Senser ^ Process ^ Phenomenon, is realised by a group rank syntagm, such as nominal group ^ verbal group ^ nominal group.

[2] This is misleading, because it falsely implies that this relation between function and form is not part of the architecture of SFL Theory.

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. The realisation relation between function and form, in SFL Theory, is simpler, not more complex, than Fawcett's relation, filling, not least because that the latter is unnecessarily complicated by confusing formal constituency with function-form relations.

[4] To be clear, Fawcett (p272) relates his co-ordination and embedding to SFL tactic relations as follows:

To summarise: we treat four of Halliday's five types of 'hypotaxis' and two of his five types of 'parataxis' as embedding, and one type of 'hypotaxis' and his three 'expansion' types of 'parataxis' as co-ordination.

This "less problematical" approached will be carefully examined in the relevant future post.

The "Principle" Concepts Of A Replacement For 'Rank'

Fawcett (2010: 238-9, 239n):

The principle concepts of the alternative approach

In the approach to 'constituency' proposed here the two key concepts are:

1. that the predictions are made in terms of the relationship of filling that holds between a unit and an element of structure in a higher unit in the tree (rather than being about relations between units), and

2. the use of filling probabilities.⁴ (We shall look at the precise nature of 'filling probabilities' in Section 11.2.2.)

 

⁴ It may be significant that, although the concept of 'filling' was indirectly present in the S&C model (and so is still implicitly there in IFG), it has never been presented as one of the 'basic concepts' of the theory, as it is here (in Section 11.5 of Chapter 11). As we shall see, it is the concept of 'filling' that gives us a principled way to handle co-ordination as a phenomenon that is different from the usual 'componence' relationship of elements in a unit — a difference that all good grammars recognise but for which few have an adequate notation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not an alternative approach to modelling the rank scale — constituency relations between forms (units) — because it is instead concerned with the relation between function (element) and form (unit).

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In Scale & Category Grammar, what Fawcett calls 'filling' is termed exponence, which Halliday (2002 [1961]: 41, 55) explicitly identifies as one of the three scales of abstraction in the architecture of the theory. Halliday (2002 [1961]: 57):

The fact that by moving from structure to class, which is (or can be) a move on the exponence scale, one also moves one step down the rank scale, is due to the specific relation between the categories of class and structure…

However, from the perspective of SFL theory, the term 'exponence' covered both realisation and instantiation (the relation of theory to data). So in SFL theory, the relation is explicitly one of realisation, as illustrated by Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 52):

[3] To be clear, Fawcett's componence is 'the part-whole relationship between a unit and the elements of which it is composed' (p244). That is, it confuses form (unit) with function (element). On the other hand, Fawcett's co-ordination is largely* the relation of paratactic expansion between units; *but see further in the upcoming examination of co-ordination.

Fawcett's Two Types Of Sequential Relationship And Recursion

Fawcett (2010: 166):

Two types of sequential relationship between sister elements of structure are recognised in "Some proposals": the segmental relationship of adjacency and the discontinuous relationship that occurs when elements are non-adjacent. These are not explicitly mentioned in "Categories", but every theory of syntax must have adequate ways of handling the various types of discontinuity found in language. Part 2 will introduce these concepts in Section 11.7 of Chapter 11.

Finally, two types of recursion are recognised. The first is embedding, in which a unit is 'rankshifted' (to use Halliday's original term) to fill an element of structure in a unit of the same or a lower rank. The second is co-ordination, in which two or more units fill a single element of structure.

With the exception of the concept of 'rank' — and so the derived concept of 'rank shift' — all of these 'relationships' are retained in the model of syntax to be presented in Part 2, and a small number of additional concepts that are not included in "Some proposals" are added to them. There is no need, therefore, to discuss the concepts of "Some proposals" any further at this point.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL Theory proposes different structural relations for each metafunction, with 'segmental' describing experiential structures only. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 85):

[2] As previously noted, Fawcett's "Some proposals" (1974) was oriented to Halliday's first theory, Scale and Category Grammar, after it had been superseded by Halliday's second theory, Systemic Functional Grammar.

[3] To be clear, in formal theories, unlike SFL Theory, the term 'embedded' covers both rankshift and hypotaxis. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 382):

Such items are said to be ‘rankshifted’ – by contrast with ranking ones, which function prototypically as constituents of the higher unit. We may also use the term ‘embedded’, taken from formal grammars; but with the proviso that this term is often used to cover both rankshift (where the item is downgraded as a constituent) and hypotaxis (where the item is dependent on another one but is not a constituent of it. Here we shall use embedded only as an alternative term synonymous with rankshifted.

As will eventually be seen, Fawcett uses 'embedding' to include hypotactic relations between ranking clauses.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the traditional notion of co-ordination is treated as paratactic extension. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472).

The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known as co-ordination between clauses. It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but.

Fawcett (p272), on the other hand, uses co-ordination and embedding to replace parataxis and hypotaxis, depending on the logico-semantic relation involved:

we treat four of Halliday's five types of 'hypotaxis' and two of his five types of 'parataxis' as embedding, and one type of 'hypotaxis' and his three 'expansion' types of 'parataxis' as co-ordination.

The problems with this approach will be identified when Fawcett's model is finally presented.

[5] To be clear, rank is the means by which SFL Theory models the phenomena of language known in other models as 'syntax'.

[6] To be clear, Fawcett's model includes embedding, but not rank-shift.