Fawcett Rests His Case Against The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 338):

Thus the present book, together with Fawcett (2000) and (forthcoming b), contributes to the 'rank scale debate' in two ways: one negative and one positive. 

On the negative side, it provides a fuller set of reasons than is given by any previous presentation of the case for not building into the grammar the concept of the 'rank scale' (and its accompanying concept of 'accountability at all ranks'). 

On the positive side, it states clearly what the nearest equivalent concept is — i.e., that the model is built around the concept of a set of units, each of which is capable of filling several elements of one or more higher units in a tree representation of a text-sentence (including a unit of the same class). But the 'filling probabilities' vary greatly, and these probabilities are as much a part of the grammar as the bare fact that a unit may fill an element.

I rest my case that it is now time to replace the concept of the 'rank scale'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett (forthcoming b) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this book.

[2] To be clear, as this blog has demonstrated over and over, Fawcett confuses the rank scale of formal constituency with relations between form and function, and misunderstands the notion of 'accountability at all ranks', the principle that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 84) as "predictions as to what units will function as elements of what other units".

[3] To be clear, 'filling probabilities' are not the nearest equivalent concept to the rank scale, because 'filling probabilities' are concerned with form-function relations, whereas the rank scale is a way to model formal constituency. The alternative ("nearest equivalent") to ranked constituent analysis is immediate constituent analysis, as explained in Halliday (1994: 20-9).

[4] To be clear, as the term 'higher unit' discloses, in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, units are ranked on a scale from higher to lower: from text-sentence to clause to group/cluster to item.

[5]  Case dismissed. Release the prisoner. No conviction recorded.

"The Relevant Arguments From The Main Part Of The Book"

Fawcett (2010: 337):

We can summarise the relevant arguments from the main part of the book by saying that the essence of the new proposal for modelling syntax is 

(1) that classes of unit are defined in terms of their internal structures (this being quite different from the way in which Halliday defines 'classes of unit'), 

(2) that each of these classes of unit (or simply 'units') has an internal structure that reflects as directly as possible the types of meaning that they are required to realise, and 

(3) that for each such unit there is a set of statements about the general probability that it will fill each of the elements of each of the various units that are recognised in the grammar. In other words, it makes predictions as to what units will function as elements of what other units — rather as the 'rank scale' concept of 'accountability at all ranks' does, but in a far more flexible manner. 

Many of these predictions are absolute (just as the strong version of the 'rank scale' concept is), in the sense that many combinations are ruled out by not being mentioned as possibilities in summary diagrams such as those in Appendix B, but the vast majority of the statements in Appendix B are probabilistic. 

An important feature of this approach is that it allows for very low probabilities as well as for the high ones — so that it shows that a clause, for example, may occur occasionally (though typically in a truncated form) as a pre-head modifier in a nominal group, e.g., the underlined portion of her recently married sister and a very slowly running river.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in classifying units in terms of how they are structured, Fawcett is giving priority to the view 'from below'. This is in contradiction to the fundamental principle of SFL Theory of giving priority to the view 'from above' (system and function rather than structure and form).

[2] This is misleading, as demonstrated by the fact that, in Fawcett's model, the internal structure of the clause is the same regardless of the experiential meaning being realised. For example, the clause element Complement, in itself, does not distinguish between a Goal, Behaviour, Existent, Senser, Phenomenon, Verbiage, Target, Attribute, Token or Value.

[3] Again, this seriously misunderstands the concept of 'accountability at all ranks', which is the principle that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 84), and therefore is not concerned with "predictions as to what units will function as elements of what other units".

[4] This is misleading. On the one hand, there is no "strong" (or "weak") version of the rank scale; the rank scale is merely a way of modelling formal constituency. On the other hand, the rank scale makes no predictions about "what units will function as elements of what other units" because the rank scale is a model of form (units), not function (elements).

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, neither recently married nor very slowly running is a (rankshifted) clause:

Misrepresenting 'Filling Probabilities' As An Alternative To The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 337):

Interestingly, the concept of the 'rank scale' plays no role in a generative SF grammar. Its main practical value has always been as a model (if a problematical one) that makes predictions that guide the text analyst in how the units in a text-sentence relate to each other. And for this purpose we can now use the set of units supplemented by the concept of filling probabilities that is described in Section 11.2 of Chapter 11 and exemplified in Appendix B. From one viewpoint they are simply a drastic re-interpretation of the 'rank scale' concept, but in essence they are a replacement for it, as a guide for use in text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. It is only in Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar that the rank scale plays no acknowledged role.

[2] This is misleading, because the rank scale model of formal constituency is fundamental to SFL Theory since it is the means of modelling syntax and morphology. The rank scale provides the various entry conditions to grammatical systems and identifies the formal units that serve grammatical functions.

[3] This is misleading, because filling probabilities are concerned with form-function relations, not with form-form relations ("how units relate to each other"), they are neither a re-interpretation of the rank scale nor a replacement for it as a model of formal constituency.

Misrepresenting 'Filling' As An Alternative To The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 336-7, 337n):

Even if we set aside the case for abolishing the 'verbal group' set out in the last section, as well as the more general evidence of the value of a description of English such as that summarised in Appendix B, it is surprising that the evidence produced by Matthews, Huddleston and others summarised above has not persuaded Halliday to reconsider the status of the 'rank scale' concept.  

After all, it is clear that the strongest claim that can be made for it is that it characterises a tendency towards a pattern to which there are in fact a great many exceptions.  

One sometimes gets the impression that support for the 'rank scale' is maintained simply because of a general perception that 'there is no alternative'.²¹ 

But there now is an alternative: a simple unordered set of classes of unit, each of which is capable of filling several elements of one or more higher units, as presented in Section 10.2 of Chapter 10.

²¹ This is the 'TINA' attitude to change that is close to the heart of many a right-wing politician — and so not, one would assume, Halliday's.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason why the evidence produced by Matthews, Huddleston and others have not persuaded Halliday to reconsider the rank scale concept is that the evidence is no evidence at all, since it derives from theoretical misunderstandings, as demonstrated in previous posts.

[2] This is misleading. The rank scale is one of two ways of modelling formal constituency — the other being immediate constituent analysis (Halliday 1994: 20-8). In SFL Theory, it is the means of modelling morphology and syntax, which is why it leaves no room for Fawcett's 'functional syntax', which is why Fawcett is motivated to argue against its theoretical value. The theoretical value of the rank scale includes the fact that it identifies the entry conditions for networks at each rank, and, in doing so, identifies the formal units to which meanings are assigned.

[3] To be clear, this is a false impression, since the alternative to ranked constituent analysis (minimal bracketing) is immediate constituent analysis (maximal bracketing), as explained in Halliday (1994: 20-8).

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, Fawcett's notion of 'filling' is no alternative to the rank scale, because it is concerned with form-function relations, not with form-form relations (constituency). On the other hand, Fawcett's notion of 'higher' — and therefore 'lower' — units discloses the fact that his model ranks units on a scale from high to low.

[5] To be clear, Fawcett here invites the reader to associate the attitude he falsely attributes to Halliday, a lifelong communist, with the attitude of right-wing politicians. This is achieved textually by the punctuation, which places tonic prominence on the word 'assume', thereby making it the Focus of New information, and interpersonally through the most likely tone, tone 4, which expresses 'reservation' in declarative MOOD.

Misunderstanding 'Accountability At All Ranks' And The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 336):

Clearly, the abolition of the 'verbal group' seriously affects the standard claim of the concept of the 'rank scale' that there should be 'accountability at all ranks'. While it might just possibly be arguable that we should treat Linkers such as and, Binders such as because and even perhaps Adjuncts such as therefore as 'minor' exceptions (leaving aside for the moment the various other problems for the 'rank scale' concept that we have noted) it is simply not possible to claim that the elements of the clause are always (or even typically) filled by groups, once the Operator, the Auxiliaries and the Main Verb are all recognised as clause elements, because these are clearly not filled by groups. The abolition of the 'verbal group' therefore leaves a considerable hole in any description of a language that is expected to illustrate the 'rank scale' concept.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misunderstands the notion of 'accountability at all ranks'. In Scale-&-Category Grammar, Halliday (2002 [1966]: 120) defined this as 'chain-exhaustive assignment to constituents', and in SFL Theory (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 84), this is know as the principle of exhaustiveness:

The general principle of exhaustiveness means that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (cf. Halliday, 1961, 1966c).

That is, 'accountability at all ranks' does not refer to the units on the rank scale of formal constituency, such as the verbal group, but to the assignment of functions to the constituents of a rank unit.

[2] To be clear, the limiting case of a group is a single word: a one-word group is still a group, as demonstrated by nominal groups consisting of only one pronoun.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, these "problems" can indeed be left aside.

[4] To be clear, this repeats Fawcett's serious misunderstanding of the rank scale. The rank scale is a model of formal constituency: clauses consist of groups, which consist of words, which consist of morphemes. This is distinct from function-form relations in which a functional element at a higher rank is realised by a formal unit of the rank below. For example, the claim that a clause consists of groups ± phrases does not entail that a functional element of a clause, such as Theme, is realised by a single group or phrase.

[5] This would indeed be true, since the hole would be where the verbal group had been removed.

Fawcett's Case For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 336):

Thus the paper presents four major, mutually supportive types of evidence, such that each provides an independent set of reasons why the elements of the supposed 'verbal group' should be treated as elements of the clause. Moreover, each set of reasons applies not merely to one element, but to many of the relevant elements — and in some cases to all of them. In other words, the paper makes the case for abolishing the 'verbal group' four times over, so that even if only one of the four types of evidence were to be deemed to be admissible the case still stands.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because, as the four previous posts demonstrate, not one of these "four major, mutually supportive types of evidence" withstands close scrutiny.

Fawcett's Fourth Major Type Of Evidence For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 335-6):

The fourth type of evidence is that the 'full' version of the 'verbal group' (i.e., the version that includes the Finite) is so liable to interruption by other clause elements (the Subject, Complements and Adjuncts) that its status as a grammatical unit should be questioned on these grounds alone. Alternatively, if we interpret the 'verbal group' as consisting of what remains when the Finite and the Main Verb Extension are treated as elements of the clause, there is so little left that we might as well promote these elements to the clause as well (and so avoid the various problems with the 'verbal group' that the paper describes).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is no evidence against the verbal group. On the one hand, contrary to SFL Theory, it gives priority to the view 'from below': structural realisation instead of the meaning that is expressed. On the other hand, discontinuity of structure is textually motivated, and applies equally to nominal groups serving participant roles, as demonstrated by:

discontinuous Phenomenon

discontinuous Carrier

discontinuous Attribute

[2] To be clear, this is merely another restatement of Fawcett's first type of evidence (p335):

The first reason is that, if the Finite is to be promoted to function as an element of the clause, the other 'major' elements of the 'verbal group' must be promoted too.

Fawcett's Third Major Type Of Evidence For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 335):

The third major type of evidence is the fact that virtually every element of the supposed 'verbal group' needs to be generated in close conjunction with an established element of the clause — very much as the Operator needs to be generated as an element of the same unit as the Subject, as the co-realisation of meanings of MOOD. This was, of course, Halliday's reason for promoting the Finite (or Operator) in the first place. A well-constructed systemic functional grammar should provide for the interdependencies between, let us say, the 'tense' of the Operator or Main Verb and a Time Position Adjunct, preferably by (1) generating them on the same traversal of the system network and (2) realising them in the same unit. There are seven other similar types of inter-dependency between elements of the supposed 'verbal group' and well-established elements of the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this third type of evidence is just a restatement of Fawcett's first type (p335):

The first reason is that, if the Finite is to be promoted to function as an element of the clause, the other 'major' elements of the 'verbal group' must be promoted too.

[2] This is not misleading, because it is essentially true, except of course that, in SFL Theory, the Finite is not "promoted", but is a functional element of the structure of both the clause and the verbal group.

[3] To be clear, here Fawcett is describing his own model (Operator, Main Verb, Time Position Adjunct), not SFL Theory. In SFL Theory, the system of TENSE is realised by the logical structure of the verbal group, not by an 'Operator' or 'Main Verb'. 

[4] To be clear, one insight of SFL Theory is that enhancement categories like 'time' can be realised in multiple grammatical domains, not just in the same rank unit. 

On the other hand, for the validity of Fawcett's claim that one traversal through one of his networks generates a whole unit, see the previous application of his realisation operations  here.

[5] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.

Fawcett's Second Major Type Of Evidence For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 335):

Part 2 of the paper begins by presenting a set of reasons for dispensing with the 'verbal group' that are all based on the generation of the internal morphology of the elements concerned (e.g., be + en) and the portmanteau forms of some of the elements (e.g., is can function simultaneously as both Operator and Auxiliary, or as Operator and Main Verb). So this evidence too shows that the Operator, Auxiliaries and Main Verb should be in the same unit. In principle this could be either the 'verbal group' or the clause, but after the decision to promote the Finite to the clause it must clearly be the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here again, contrary to SFL Theory, Fawcett is arguing 'from below' — from form instead of function.

[2] To be clear, there has been no decision to "promote" the Finite. In SFL Theory, the Finite is an element of both clause and verbal group structure, as previously explained.

Fawcett's First Major Type Of Evidence For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 334-5):

The paper then sets out four major types of reason why this approach in both more workable (e.g., in a generative version of the grammar) and more insightful (e.g., for purposes of text-analysis). The first reason is that, if the Finite is to be promoted to function as an element of the clause, the other 'major' elements of the 'verbal group' must be promoted too. This is because, under the appropriate circumstances, each of the Auxiliaries or the Main Verb can be conflated with the Finite. And it would be a highly illogical grammar that treated an Auxiliary, let us say, as an element of the clause when it is conflated with the Finite and as an element of the 'verbal group' when it is not. Part 1 of the paper then introduces three other elements which must clearly also be promoted to the clause if the Auxiliaries and the Main Verb are, i.e., the Auxiliary Extension, the Infinitive (to) and the Negator (not). All of these are introduced in Appendix B.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because the Finite is not to be "promoted" to clause rank. The Finite is a function in the structures of both the verbal group and clause. The other elements of multivariate verbal group structure, however, only function at group rank, as explained in the previous post.

[2] On the one hand, this is misleading, because, in SFL Theory, the Finite can only conflate with the Event, not with an Auxiliary. On the other hand, and more importantly, inconsistent with SFL Theory, Fawcett here again takes the view 'from below', giving priority to how the meaning is expressed structurally — Finite conflated with Event — rather than to the meaning — finiteness — that is expressed.

[3] To be clear, even ignoring the invalidity of Fawcett's argument, on purely logical grounds, elements that are not elements of the verbal group — Main Verb, Auxiliary Extension, Infinitive — cannot be promoted to the clause.

Problems With Treating Verbal Group Elements As Clause Elements

 Fawcett (2010: 334):

The paper demonstrates that the solution to these problems is to treat all of the elements of the supposed 'verbal group' as direct elements of the clause, as is done in the Cardiff Grammar. Indeed, to do so is simply to carry through to its logical conclusion the change already initiated by Halliday in promoting the Finite to function as an element of the clause (a change that in fact dates back to Halliday 1967:218), and echoed in his treatment of off as an Adjunct in They called the meeting off.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a very problematic non-solution to (previously demonstrated) non-problems. In SFL Theory, the verbal group is the entry condition for the recursive system of TENSE, which is realised by a univariate structure. Fawcett's proposal would insert a univariate structure into part of the multivariate structure of a clause — the clause itself having no univariate structure. Moreover, such a proposal would transfer all the systems of the verbal group to the clause, even though they do not apply to the clause as a whole. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 410):

[2] This is misleading. The Finite operator was not "promoted" to clause structure; it is theorised as a functional element of both the clause and verbal group. The remaining multivariate structure elements of the verbal group, Polarity, Auxiliary and Event, on the other hand, operate only at group rank, with the Event, and any others present, corresponding to the Predicator at clause rank':

Accordingly, "promoting" these other verbal group elements to clause rank would not be a "logical conclusion".

[3] To be clear, the adverb off is irrelevant to matters concerning the verbal group because it serves as the Head element of an adverbial group, not as an element of a verbal group.

Fawcett's Claim That Phrasal Verbs Undermine The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 334):

In a rather similar manner, Halliday analyses the word off in They will call the meeting off as an Adjunct in IFG, i.e., as an element of the clause rather than as an element of the 'verbal group'. Yet we might have expected him to have analysed it as an element of the 'verbal group' since it is the co-realisation, with call, of the meaning of the single Process of 'calling off', and called is unequivocally an element of the 'verbal group' in IFG.

Blogger Comments:

 [1] This is not misleading, because it is true. See IFG (Halliday 1994: 208) on the phrasal verb as Process rather than Process + circumstance.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the reason why the word  off is not analysed as realising an element of the verbal group is that it serves no function in the verbal group. Instead, the word off is analysed as an adverb that serves as the Head element of an adverbial group.

Fawcett's Claim That The Finite Operator Undermines The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 333-4):

Interestingly, none of the previous critics of the concept of the 'rank scale' (except Hudson 1971, implicitly) have discussed the role of the 'verbal group' as either supporting or undermining the concept of the 'rank scale'. Yet the reasons for abolishing the 'verbal group' and promoting its elements to function as elements of the clause are so persuasive that this set of reasons alone is sufficient to cause one to re-think the viability of the concept of 'accountability at all ranks', and so the 'rank scale' itself. In the present section, therefore, I shall provide an outline of the argument set out in my two-part paper "In place of Halliday's 'verbal group'" (Fawcett 2000 and forthcoming b).

Part 1 begins by pointing out a number of inconsistencies, from the functional viewpoint, in the way in which Halliday labels the elements of his 'verbal group' in IFG. It then demonstrates the way in which these problems are resolved in the alternative approach taken in the Cardiff Grammar.

The most obvious of these inconsistencies is the way in which IFG presents the Finite (which is very roughly equivalent to the Cardiff Grammar's Operator). At one point (p. 72) Halliday describes the Finite as "part of the verbal group [my emphasis]", while at another (p. 79) he says that "the predicator ... is realised by a verbal group minus the Finite [my emphasis]". And the Finite is in fact shown in the analyses of clauses throughout IFG as part of the more delicate of the two analyses of 'interpersonal' meaning in the clause, i.e., as an element of the clause. (However, if it really is to be modelled an element of the clause as well as an element of the 'verbal group', this would bring horrendous problems in its train for a generative SF grammar.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the reason why critics of the rank scale have not cited the verbal group in their arguments is that it neither supports nor undermines the rank scale. The verbal group is merely the outcome of modelling formal constituency as a rank scale wherein clauses consist of groups.

[2] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett's argument against the verbal group with regard to the rank scale confuses form with function. In SFL Theory, the value of the verbal group includes the fact that it is the entry condition for the recursive system of TENSE.

[3] To be clear, the Finite operator is a functional element, not a formal constituent, and is thus irrelevant to the rank scale as a way of modelling formal constituency.

[4] This is not misleading, because it is true.

[5] To be clear, this is yet another bare assertion, unsupported by argument.

Fawcett's Contention That The Notion Of A Rank Scale Depends On Hypotaxis

  Fawcett (2010: 333):

In other words, the analyses of dependent clauses that Huddleston advocates in his review of IFG are indeed possible ones within SFL. But the fact that SF linguists agree that we should explore the value of both 'hypotaxis' and alternative concepts within the theory does not absolve us from the obligation to try to decide whether 'hypotaxis' is needed in all or some or none of the cases for which Halliday proposes its use. The key point for the present debate is that, if we replace 'hypotaxis' by embedding in the examples discussed here (as Huddleston and I advocate), the case for retaining the concept of the 'rank scale' is greatly weakened. Thus it is not the case, as M&M suggest (p. 28), that "Huddleston's objections are descriptive, not theoretical".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the theoretical value of hypotaxis is its explanatory potential. For example, with regard to projection, the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis models the distinction between reports and quotes, and the distinction between hypotaxis and embedding models the distinction between reports and pre-projected facts.

[2] This bare assertion, unsupported by argument, is misleading, because it is untrue. Whether clauses are analysed as ranking (dependent) or rankshifted (embedded) can have no bearing whatsoever on the theoretical status of the rank scale. If hypotaxis were excised from the theory, and all dependent clauses were interpreted as embedded, such clauses can still be interpreted as rank units, shifted to the rank of another unit on a rank scale.

[3] To be clear, the sense in which this is true is that SFL Theory provides both hypotaxis and embedding as potential descriptions of language, and the linguist chooses which of these to deploy in the description.

Criticising Martin For The Wrong Reasons

 Fawcett (2010: 332-3, 333n):

As M&M very fairly point out, "Fawcett (1980), [...] working within a theoretical framework closely related to Halliday's, treats all of Halliday's hypotactic clauses through embedding, the very position which Huddleston espouses." After also indicating that Martin (1988) suggests an analysis of such examples in which the experiential analysis at clause rank is in these terms, they go on: "The theory can thus be seen to accommodate a range of approaches to the question of subordination" (M&M 1991:29). ¹⁹ 

¹⁹ However, I am surprised to find Martin advocating this idea, because it involves an insuperable problem. This is that the second part of his proposal is that there should be a "simultaneous analysis" (showing the 'logical' structure) at the 'rank' of the "clause complex". This is, as we have seen, a different 'unit' on the 'rank scale' from the clause, so that if Martin's idea were to be adopted there would even more serious problems for the concept of conflating these two structures than those already specified in Section 7.4 of Chapter 7. It may be that Martin would now wish to reconsider this proposal.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from Fawcett's description, Martin's problematic analysis of he said he'd go would be something like:

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously demonstrated. As the term 'clause complex' suggests, the rank at which this unit complex is located is 'clause'.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained in the examination of Fawcett's Section 7.4, in SFL Theory, it is only elements of structure that can be conflated, not entire structures. The notion of structure conflation is nonsensical because a structure is the relation between elements. 

Throughout Section 7.4, Fawcett confused the false notion of 'structure conflation' with the notion of the integration of the three metafunction structures through their realisation in a syntagm of clause constituents: groups and phrases.

[4] To be clear, even if Martin were the type to reconsider his own proposals, and capable of doing so, at 71 years, he does not have enough years left him to reconsider all the proposals he needs to reconsider. See, for example, the clarifying critiques of Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007).

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.

Misrepresenting Halliday As Theoretically Inconsistent And Intellectually Dishonest

Fawcett (2010: 323n):

¹⁶ As with many other concepts, the idea that all groups can be handled as word complexes is one for which at least some support can be gleaned from Halliday's writings (e.g., "a group is in some respects equivalent to a word complex (IFG pp. 179-80), and "a group is the expansion of a word" (p. 180). Indeed, Halliday sometimes gives the concept of a group as a word complex more weight than the concept of a group as the expression of a semantic unit with its own set of functional elements. One clear case is his treatment of quality groups when they fill the modifier in a nominal group, as in the case of very small in some very small ones (IFG pp. 192 and 194). Thus very small is said to be a 'complex' of two words that are 'hypotactically related' rather than a group of words. Yet the same words would be a group for Halliday if they filled a Complement, as in The egg was very small. We can guess that the reason why he adopts this somewhat inconsistent position is that it at least has the virtue (from his viewpoint but not mine) that it avoids having to recognise such examples as yet another cased of the unwanted phenomenon of 'rank shift' — which, if acknowledged, would be further evidence against the concept of the 'rank scale'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading in a trivial way. The idea that all groups can be handled as word complexes does not find "at least some support" in Halliday's writings; it is Halliday's model.

[2] To be clear, with the nominal group, which is Fawcett's chief concern, Halliday gives equal weight to the logical ("word complex") and experiential ("its own set of functional elements") structures. With the verbal group, which is lacking from Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, the logical structure is of greater value, because it 'embodies the single most important semantic feature of the English verb, its recursive tense system' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 398). It is the groups that are of no concern to Fawcett — adverbial, conjunction, preposition — that are structured only logically.

[3] To be clear, the (ideational) semantic unit that is realised by the group is the element: participant, process, circumstance, relator; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 177-226).

[4] To be clear, quality groups do not feature in Halliday's model.

[5] This is misleading. In such instances, very small  is a subcomplex within the logical structure of the nominal group, corresponding to the Epithet in the experiential structure. Halliday (1994: 194):

To be clear, very small is a "group of words", but in this instance, it does not constitute an entire nominal group (of words).

[6] To be clear, in this instance, very small  is once again a subcomplex within the logical structure of the nominal group, once again corresponding to the Epithet in the experiential structure. The difference in this case is that the Epithet conflates with the Head of a nominal group with no Modifier:

In a functional grammar, where the view is 'from above', it is the function of words that is criterial, not the words as forms ("the same words").

[7] This is misleading, because Halliday does not adopt an inconsistent position, as demonstrated above. Once again, as throughout this book, Fawcett has falsely assumed that he correctly understands Halliday's model.

[8] This is misleading on three counts. Firstly, both examples involve internal bracketing, not rankshift, and so the question of recognising rankshift does not arise. Secondly, rankshift is not an "unwanted phenomenon"; for example, it provides a systematic explanation of how the complexity of written language (lexical density) is brought about. Thirdly, rankshift is not "evidence against the concept of the rank scale" because it is consistent with the notion of a rank scale, with the rank scale providing the yardstick by which to identify the shift.

But it must be said, the really nasty thing here is that Fawcett has falsely accused Halliday of intellectual dishonesty: of trying to conceal what Fawcett wrongly claims to be a problem for the model. In this book of 12 chapters, only 3 were devoted to expounding Fawcett's model, but all 12 were devoted to misrepresenting Halliday's model in a way that favoured Fawcett's argument for his own model.

Misunderstanding Huddleston On Halliday's Group

Fawcett (2010: 322-3):

But Huddleston goes even further, apparently dismissing the concept of the 'group' (or 'phrase') altogether. So it is yet more surprising that he states:

Clause, word and morpheme are commonplace categories in syntactic theory; it is the group, among Halliday's basic ranks, that has no significantly close analogue in non-rank grammars, and it is difficult to see that this innovation has anything to recommend it" (Huddleston 1988:155).

Here Huddleston seems to be denying the value of the concept of the group (or 'phrase'). Presumably he would replace them with various types of 'word complex', each built up of simple 'modifier-head' relationships.¹⁵ Yet he himself uses the concept of 'phrase' throughout Huddleston & Pullum (forthcoming). It is therefore hard to understand what prompted him to make the statement cited above, unless he has moved from that position to a more conventional one in the period since 1988. But if the above remarks stand, he would not only do away with the 'rank scale', but also with any units other than the clause, the word and the morpheme. This would indeed be radical.

¹⁵ This passage reads as if Huddleston is suggesting that the concept of the 'group' (or 'phrase') is an "innovation" by Halliday, whereas it is in fact a commonplace of descriptive grammars — including Huddleston's own current grammar of English. Perhaps the "innovation" is intended to be the placing the group on the 'rank scale'? In any case, the syntax in Huddleston & Pullum (forthcoming) makes full use of familiar concepts such as 'noun phrase', 'adjectival phrase' and 'prepositional phrase' (Huddleston, personal communication 2000).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Huddleston uses the logical fallacy of relevance known as argumentum ad populum: a proposition is claimed to be false solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.

And from another angle, the absence of a component from Newton's Universal Gravitation in Einstein's General Relativity is clearly no argument against Einstein's theory.

[2] To be clear, here Huddleston uses the logical fallacy of relevance known as the argument from incredulity: 'I cannot imagine how it could be true; therefore it must be false'.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, it is only the group that Huddleston identifies as Halliday's innovation — not the phrase.

[4] To be clear, the innovation is simply Halliday's concept of the 'group'. As demonstrated above and previously, Fawcett does not understand the distinction between group and phrase.

Huddleston's Third Problem For The Rank Scale

Fawcett (2010: 321-2):

The third problem for the 'rank scale' that Huddleston's review brings out is the fact that the completive of a 'prepositional group/phrase' is practically always filled by one or more nominal groups. The problem is that 'phrase' and 'group' are at the same 'rank' on the 'rank scale'. As Huddleston says (1988:154), "for the prepositional phrase always to involve rankshift is contrary to the spirit of rankshift, since rankshift represents a departure from the normal or unmarked state of affairs".

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, if this were really a problem, it would also be a problem for nominal and adverbial groups since the Postmodifier of both groups is almost always realised by a rankshifted unit — "contrary to the spirit of rankshift". Clearly, whether or not rankshift "represents a departure from the normal or unmarked state of affairs" depends on the grammatical environment in which it occurs.

Seriously Misrepresenting Huddleston On Univariate Structure

Fawcett (2010: 320-1):

The above argument goes rather further in exploring the implications for the concept of the 'rank scale' of Halliday's proposals than does Huddleston's review, perhaps in part because he concentrates on different matters (relations between words and groups, and issues of left and right branching). While I shall not attempt to summarise these here, I shall cite his interesting concluding words. These deserve attention because he was, as we noted in Section 5.1 of Chapter 5, one of the small team (with Halliday, Hudson and Henrici) who worked on these problems in the 1960s. Indeed, it was Huddleston who wrote one of the key S&C papers on this topic (Huddleston 1965/81). Since he was so closely involved, we should give due weight to his statement that

historically, the layered univariate structure was introduced in the context of an attempt to solve certain problems stemming from the total accountability requirement of the rank model. [...] "The problems we have been discussing [layering in 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' structures] are created by the [rank scale] model". (Huddleston 1988:151)

The clear implication of this revealing statement is that the purpose of introducing the concepts of 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' relations in structure to the theory was less their inherent insightfulness than to shore up the ailing concept of the 'rank scale'. This is therefore secondary evidence for the position taken here, i.e., that the concept of the 'rank scale' is ultimately not a useful one. Moreover we now have a replacement for it, i.e., the concept of a set of units, each of which is capable of filling several elements of one or more higher units in a tree representation, supplemented for text analysis by filling probabilities.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, Fawcett's exploration of the implications on the rank scale proceeds from misunderstandings of unit complexes with regard to the rank scale.

[2] Again, to cite a conclusion without the argument on which it is based is a fallacious use of the argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

[3] This is very misleading indeed. Huddleston's point is that if a rank scale is assumed, then total accountability at all ranks entails layered univariate structures in the model.  Fawcett misrepresents this as meaning univariate structures were devised primarily as an attempt "to shore up the ailing concept of the rank scale".

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. Fawcett has merely misrepresented Huddleston — see [3] — in a way that agrees with his desires.

[5] To be clear, Fawcett ranks his units on a scale from higher to lower, but denies that his model includes a rank scale.