1. The Concept of Class and Function
SFG is also known to base heavily its analysis on the notion of rank. In defining rank, Halliday and Matthiessen 2004 refer to rank scale as hierarchy of
units related by what is called constituency, whereby rank is each step in the hierarchy. As Matthiessen et al. 2010: 170 points out that “units of one rank are
composed of the units of the rank immediately below”. Units set up to account for pieces of language, carrying different types of linguistic patterns Eggins, 2004;
Butler, 2003 in Ravelli, 2010. The units of lexicogrammar
1
rank scale can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2: The Units of Lexicogrammatical Rank Scale Eggins, 2004 Units of Lexicogrammar
Highest rank largest unit Clause
phrasegroup Word
Lowest rank smallest unit Morpheme
These concepts of rank and unit mark the potential for rank shift, “whereby a unit of one rank may be downranked downgraded to function in the
structure of a unit of its own rank or of a rank below. Most commonly, though not uniquely, a clause may be downranked to function in the structure of a group”
Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 9-10. Rank shift then leads to the foregrounding of the difference between class and function in the labeling of the
units Ravelli, 2010. Class is defined by Halliday 19632002: 96 as “a set of items which are alike in their own structure”. It is the systemic term for the term
1
As it has been pointed out earlier, despite its systemic approach to defining of the language, SFG uses structural representation for its discourse analysis Halliday, 1994. Therefore, units of lexicogrammar, which
represents structure, became the focus in the early part of SFG’s analysis for then to be reinterpreted with systemic description.
category in formal grammar and thus make up for the formal labeling Matthiessen et al., 2010; Eggins, 2004, indicating “in a general way its potential
range of grammatical functions” Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 52. On the other hand, as class label only classifies the class membership, there needs to be a
label which indicates which role an item is playing in the structure, the function. Functional label, according to Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 52, provides “an
interpretation of grammatical structure in terms of the overall meaning potential of the language”. The labeling of class and function is more comprehensively
exemplified by Eggins 2004 in Table 3 and 4. It is to be noted that there are no morpheme classes, since morpheme is the smallest unit in grammar which has no
structure Halliday, 19632002.
Table 3: Examples Class Labels at Each Rank Eggins, 2004 Rank
Class Labels
clause finite, non-finite, dependent clause, subordinate clause, relative
clause, ... etc. phrasegroup prepositional phrase, adverbial phrase, nominal group ... etc.
Word noun, adjective, article, adverb . . . etc
Table 4: Examples Function Labels at Each Rank Eggins, 2004 Rank
Function Labels
Clause Main clause, Qualifying clause, Projected clause, etc.
phrasegroup Subject, Finite, Object, Agent, Actor ... etc.
Word Deictic, Classifier, Thing, Head, Modifier ... etc.
One of the most problematic functional concepts, as Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 56 suggest, and one that is essential to the overall Halliday’s
functional theory, is that of the functional label of Subject. They point out that there are three different notions regarding Subject:
Kategori