ABSTRACT
Problems with the requirement of ‘total accountability’ (Halliday 1966) – that is, that each clause function must be realised by a group structure and that each word must be a realisation of a group function – have led some scholars to suggest that rank scale be done away with altogether, on the basis that it is neither descriptively useful nor theoretically coherent that each word must be part of a group in order to be part of a clause (Fawcett 2000a: ch. 10; Matthews 1966;). Moreover, because the conceptualisation of classes of word is dependent on their function in classes of group, which are in turn dependent on their function in the clause, only those word classes that commonly function as the Heads of groups are ‘assigned’ to a discrete group class. So, for example, the adjective in English is assimilated to the group class of the noun, the most common Head of groups in which the adjective appears (an analysis with deep roots in European linguistics, as we shall see later in this chapter), leading some scholars to claim that its own individual patterning is neglected (for example Tucker 1998, and in this volume). Furthermore, the experiential bias of the constituency-based rank scale has led some scholars to suggest that it be restricted to experiential structure only (for example McDonald 2004; McGregor 1991, 1996).
