So your description derived from observed proportionalities. It resonates with the topological description of logico-semantic relations across ranks and strata in IFG.As a typological description it conflicts with long-standing descriptions of complexing co-selected with systems at each rank. That is, rank is the entry condition for all grammatical systems, and units at each rank may be complexed.That description involves a very large set of empirically tested proportionalities. They are all inherently falsifiable, but would take a lot of labour to do so. So Ockham’s Razor suggests your proportionalities may be of another kind.
very fruitful example, thanks Tom
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. As demonstrated in the previous post, Bartlett's analysis did not derive from "observed" proportionalities, but from theoretical confusion, and from taking a formal, rather than functional, perspective on the grammar.
[2] Trivially, this is doubly misleading, since, on the one hand, there are no topological descriptions of logico-semantic relations (expansion and projection) in any of the four editions of IFG, and on the other hand, logico-semantic relations are only applied there to the one stratum, lexicogrammar.
[3] Here Rose misunderstands and misapplies the meaning of Occam's Razor:
Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions.
