Monday, 19 August 2019

Pageviews by Countries

United States
United Kingdom

Non-Finite Hypotactic Extending Clauses: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiesen (2014: 475):
Non-finite hypotactic extending clauses cover both (a) addition and (b) variation. Two subtypes are absent from the non-finite system: ‘negative additive’ addition and ‘alternative’ variation. The non-finite form of hypotactic extending is an imperfective clause; for example (structure α +β):
||| We used to go away at the weekend, || taking all our gear with us. |||

Sunday, 18 August 2019

Hypotactic Extension: Alternation (Finite Clauses)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 475):
The hypotactic form of the alternative relation is if ... not (i.e. ‘if not a, then b’, with the dependent clause typically coming first). For example,
||| If they’re not in their usual place || they could have fallen through onto the – |||
||| If it doesn’t come from [[ what’s outside us]] , from our experience, || it’s got to come from our inner nature. |||
||| If you haven’t lost it, || then it’s in that cupboard. ||| 
‘either you’ve lost it, or else it’s in that cupboard’. Either clause can be construed as the negative condition; we could just as well say if it’s not in that cupboard then you’ve lost it, the only difference being which one is chosen as Theme.

Saturday, 17 August 2019

Extension: Hypotaxis Or Parataxis [Diagnostic]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474-5):
Finite clauses with whereas, while, except that, if they follow the primary clause, have a strongly paratactic flavour. The line between parataxis and hypotaxis is not very sharp; as a working rule, if the extending clause could precede (thereby becoming thematic in the clause complex), the relationship is hypotactic (since +β ^ α is a possible sequence, but +2 ^ 1 is not). An example where the extending clause could not precede is
||| He pretended to know all about it || – whereas in fact he had no idea of what was happening. |||
This would be interpreted as paratactic. In such instances the conjunction is always unaccented.

Blogger Comment:

Not always.  In the above example, if fact attracts a tonic signalling contrastive New information, the rhythm is likely to be (with stressed syllables underlined):
/ ^ where/as in /fact /

Friday, 16 August 2019

Hypotactic Extension: Variation: Subtraction (Finite Clauses)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474):
There is no finite form for replacement. For subtraction the finite clause is introduced by except that, but (for the fact) that; e.g.
||| Camera pulls back to show Kane and Susan in much the same positions as before, || except that they are older. |||

||| Language began || when interjections ended || but that man still utters cries and uses interjections || and that their significance is merely affective, i.e., expressing fear, surprise, etc. |||

Thursday, 15 August 2019

Finite Hypotactic Clauses Of Extension: Addition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474):
Hypotactic clauses of addition are introduced by the conjunctions whereas, while. There is no clear line between the (positive) additive and the adversative; these clauses sometimes have an adversative component, sometimes not. (There is no negative additive type of hypotactic extension.) For example:
||| Whereas most children’s fathers worked at an office, || my father worked at the studio, || so I went on the set. |||
||| They have no patience with our official style or tempo, || whereas an Indian at home would accept the hurdles as inevitable Karma. |||
||| And yet Frank grows up, || while Huck never grew up. |||
||| He will be an institutional dealer in New York, || while Mr Hayward will be an equity salesman. |||
||| While ‘Joe Gould’s Secret’ and ‘The Sweet Hereafter’ played to small audiences in limited release, || Holm has a couple of potential blockbusters [[ coming up]] . |||

Wednesday, 14 August 2019

Hypotactic Extension: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474):
The combination of extension with hypotaxis also embraces (a) addition, (b) variation and (c) alternation, but with the extending clause dependent. The dependent clause may be finite or non-finite. Compared with paratactic extension, the hypotactic type appears to be fairly rare; it is, in fact, the least common of the combinations of types of expansion and types of taxis.

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Paratactic Extension: Alternation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 473-4):
Here one clause is presented as an alternative to another. Examples of clauses linked by the alternative relation:
||| Either you go ahead || and take the plunge || or you wait || till you think || you can afford it, || which you never will. |||
||| Can I go on the computer, || or have something to eat. ||| 
|| Guided tours of the Cathedral take place the first Sunday of every month, || or a self-guide booklet about the Cathedral can be picked up inside. ||| 
||| Did you have to educate yourself about traditional culture and mythology || or did you grow up with that? || 
||| The melt is then cooled at a few degrees per hour || until crystals start to form, || or alternatively the flux is evaporated at a constant rate. |||
Here one clause is offered as alternative to another. The correlative pairing is either – or, and the associated cohesive conjunctions include conversely, alternatively, on the other hand.

Monday, 12 August 2019

Paratactic Extension: Replacive & Subtractive Variation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 473):
Here, one clause is presented as being in total or partial replacement of another. Variation falls into two subtypes — ‘replacive’ (‘instead’) and ‘subtractive’ (‘except’). 
(a) Examples of clauses linked by the ‘replacive’ relation: 
||| The vortex is not a uniform cylinder || but has a shape [[ that varies with altitude || and is strongest and most isolated above the 400-K isentropic surface, around 15 km and above]] . |||
||| Witnesses said || the sand dredger seemed to go past the Marchioness || but suddenly smashed into the side || and went right over it. ||| 
||| They should not be broad statements [[ saying || where we hope to be]] , || but instead plans [[ specifying || what we want to do next || and exactly how we are going to do it]] . |||
The clauses related in this way often differ in polarity value, one being ‘positive’ and the
other ‘negative’. Note that the but here is not adversative, and so is not replaceable by yet; nor is it concessive — it does not correspond to hypotactic although. Cohesive expressions used with total replacement include instead, on the contrary
(b) Examples of clauses linked by the ‘subtractive’ relation:
||| He should have had them before, || only he hurt his shoulder at football or some such || and there was a long time spent in treatment, || so it was all deferred, || but finally he went. ||| 
||| Nelly looked rather put out || and replied || that he was quite all right, || only the poor little chap was highly strung. |||
Here the secondary clause presents an exception to what has been said in the primary clause.

Sunday, 11 August 2019

Paratactic Extension: Adversative 'But'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):
Examples of clauses linked by an ‘adversative’ relation:
||| We liked that breed of dog, || but we felt || we weren’t in a position [[ to own one at the time]] . |||
||| The solar elevation angle is comparatively low by October, || when the hole was at its deepest, || but is much higher in November, || when the ultraviolet (UV) effect might be stronger at the surface. |||
The linker but contains the semantic feature ‘and’, so we do not say and but. For the same reason we do not say although ... but, because that would be a mixture of hypotaxis and parataxis; whereas although ... yet is quite normal – there is no paratactic ‘and’ in yet.

Saturday, 10 August 2019

Paratactic Extension: Additive Negative 'Nor'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472-3):
Examples of clauses linked by an ‘additive: negative’ relation:
||| Untouchability was observed in matters of food even by Muslims; || they would never dine at the same table with Christians || nor touch what was cooked by them. |||
||| He could neither explain the whole situation to the editor || nor could he accept his rebuke. |||
Note that since the linker nor embodies negative (clausal) polarity, it attracts the Finite, so the sequence is nor ^ Finite ^ Subject (unless the Subject is ellipsed).

Friday, 9 August 2019

‘And’ As A Marker Of Paratactic Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):
When the clause starts with and that or and this, with the that/this referring back to (some part of) the previous clause, the sense may be one of elaboration, particularly if the continuing clause is a ‘relational’ one:
||| [1] But we’ve got to find those || [=2] and that is the hard part. |||
The nearest hypotactic equivalent would be a non-restrictive relative clause, which is the hard part. Note that many such examples lie on the borderline between elaboration and extension. We have already noted examples of this indeterminacy between elaboration and extension from the other side, with non-defining relative clauses with who where the sense is ‘and + personal pronoun’…

Thursday, 8 August 2019

‘And’ As A Marker Of Paratactic Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):
Paratactically related clauses that are introduced by and are often additive extensions; but other possibilities exist. When the sense is ‘and then’, ‘and so’ and the hypotactic version is an enhancing dependent clause, we can interpret the paratactic nexus as one of enhancement instead of one of extension.

Wednesday, 7 August 2019

Paratactic Extension: Addition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):
Here one process is simply adjoined to another; there is no implication of any causal or temporal relationship between them. Additon falls into three subtypes — (a) ‘additive: positive’ (‘and’), (b) ‘additive: negative’ (‘nor’) and (c) ‘adversative’ (‘but’ — ‘and conversely’). Paratactic additions are often accompanied by cohesive expressions such as too, in addition, also, moreover, on the other hand.

Tuesday, 6 August 2019

Paratactic Extension: Subtypes

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.  We can recognise three major subtypes of paratactic extension, (i) addition, (ii) variation and (iii) alternation.

Monday, 5 August 2019

The Markers Of Paratactic & Hypotactic Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):
The markers of paratactic extension are prototypically markers of extension; that is their core use – and, or, but, nor; in contrast, the markers of hypotactic extension are of mixed origin: most of them seem to have been pressed into service from other areas of the grammar – enhancing binders (while, if in if ... not (... then)), linkers followed by that (except that, but [for the fact] that) and conjunctive prepositions and preposition groups (e.g. besides, without, apart from, instead of, other than), and the two additive markers of finite clauses (while, whereas) are used both in the sense of ‘and’ (additive: positive) and in the sense of ‘but’ (adversative).

Sunday, 4 August 2019

The Principal Categories Of Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):
The principal categories are set out in Table 7-9, together with a summary of the principal markers of extending clause nexuses. As can be seen from the table, the gaps in the paradigm are found particularly with ‘hypotaxis’, and we can relate this fact to the skew in frequency between ‘parataxis’ (around 94%) and ‘hypotaxis’ (around 6%) in text…

Saturday, 3 August 2019

Clause Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):
In extension, one clause extends the meaning of another by adding something new to it. What is added may be just an addition, or else a replacement, or an alternative. There is a closer parallel with extension between parataxis and hypotaxis than we find with elaboration; we can operate with a single system of categories for both kinds of taxis, although there are certain gaps in the paradigm (e.g. negative additive relations are only paratactic, not hypotactic).

Friday, 2 August 2019


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 470):
Finally, before we leave elaboration, we should note examples that include asides:
||| For me, by the time I come to the end of a particular form || —The Greenlanders is an epic || and A Thousand Acres is a tragedy – || I am not all that pleased anymore with [[ what I got from it]] || and I’m fed up with [[ what I had to give up]] . |||
Such asides may be analysed as clauses or clause complexes that are enclosed within a clause complex but which are not part of the structure of that clause complex, having only a non-structural, cohesive link to the clause complex they are enclosed within. However, if there is felt to be a strong pressure to read or speak the enclosed clause or clause complex with tone concord, this suggests a relationship of elaboration, since tone concord is often the only marker of elaboration. Interpreted in this way, the tactic structure of the example would be xβ1 ^ xβ=21 ^ xβ=2+2 ^ α, where the aside is analysed as an elaboration of the hypotactically enhancing temporal clause by the time I come to the end of a particular form.

Thursday, 1 August 2019

Non-Finite Dependent Clauses Without An Explicit Conjunctive Marker

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 470n):
As with other cases of hypotactically dependent clauses that are non-finite and lack an explicit conjunctive marker, the logico-semantic relationship may be somewhat indeterminate; in the case of the intensive relational clause consisting of Attribute only, without an explicit Process, there may be a causal feature of enhancement, e.g. A Shi’a Muslim, Mr Sahhaf is an outsider in the Sunni-dominated government that has been in power since 1968 (‘since he is a Shi’a Muslim, Mr Sahhaf is an outsider ...’). Compare thematic circumstances of Role with a temporal connotation: As a child she lived at Herne Bay (‘when she was a child, she lived ...’).

Wednesday, 31 July 2019

‘Fronted’ Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469-70):
With non-finite elaborating hypotactic nexuses, there is a special construction where the dependent precedes the dominant; for example:
||| A science and transport museum || the Powerhouse has over 11,000 objects on display … |||
These elaborating clauses are always ‘intensive attributive relational’ ones where the Process is implicit and the Attribute is typically the only explicit element of the clause. In fact, such nexuses look like nominal group complexes when they only involve two juxtaposed nominal groups — as with a science and transport museum plus the Powerhouse. But when we probe further, we find that the nearest agnates are non-finite and finite non-defining relative clauses: being a science museumwhich is a science museum …; and this explains among other things why clausal elements may be present: reportedly a science and transport museum … . The effect of the construction is to give thematic status within the elaborating clause nexus to the Attribute of the elaboration

Tuesday, 30 July 2019

Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause: Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469):
In such cases, there may be an explicit Subject in the dependent clause, as in
||| It’s a much bigger house, || for the children to have their own rooms. |||
But in most cases of non-finite elaboration, the Subject is left implicit, to be presupposed from the primary clause; and it is often difficult to identify it exactly – e.g. in the hairy coat holds a layer of air close to the skin, insulating the body against changes in the outside temperature, is it the hairy coat which insulates the body, or is it the holding of a layer of air close to the skin? The question is really irrelevant; it is precisely the function of the non-finite to make it unnecessary to decide: the absence of the subject decreases the arguability of the clause.

Monday, 29 July 2019

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469):
When the non-defining clause is an ‘intensive’ relational one, the Process may be left implicit; for example:
||| DPP lawmaker Chen Ting-nan will be the justice minister, || responsible for helping Chen keep his promise to clean up graft. |||
where responsible for ... is Attribute; compare the non-finite version with the Process: [Process:] being [Attribute:] responsible for ... 
As is usual with non-finite clauses, the meaning is less specific; both in the domain of the dependent clause and its semantic relationship to its domain are left relatively inexplicit. There is no WH- form, as there is with finites (in this respect non-finite non-defining relative clauses differ from defining ones); nor is there usually any preposition acting conjunctively, as there typically is with non-finite clauses of extension and enhancement such as besides or on in besides selling office equipment, on leaving the building.

Sunday, 28 July 2019

Extending Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 468): 
There is one group of non-defining relative clauses which strictly speaking would belong with extension rather than elaboration; for example:
||| She told it to the baker’s wife || who told it to the cook |||
 Here the who stands for ‘and she’ and the clause is semantically an additive: the agnate paratactic variant would be … and she told it to the cook.  Compare also (where the sense is ‘and in that case’):
||| It might be hungry || in which case it would be very likely to eat her up |||
Note that such instances are not characterised by tone concord.  Also extending rather than elaborating are possessives with whose or its variants (of whom/which), which do not further characterise the noun that constitutes their domain but add a new one related to it by possession; contrast elaborating come and meet Mary, whose birthday we’re celebrating (‘the girl whose…’) with extending the shop was taken over by an Indian, whose family came out to join him.  But for most purposes these and all other non-defining relatives can be treated as elaborating clauses.

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Non-Defining Vs Defining Relative Clause: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 467):
In written English, a non-defining relative clause is marked off by punctuation — usually commas, but sometimes by being introduced with a dash; whereas a defining relative clause is not separated by punctuation from its antecedent. This in turn reflects the the fact that in spoken English, whereas the defining relative clause enters into a single tone group with its antecedent, a non-defining relative clause forms a separate tone group. Furthermore, the primary and secondary clauses are linked by tone concord: that is to say, they are spoken on the same tone. … 
Whichever tone is used, however, it will be the same in both parts; the tone selected for the (relevant portion of the) primary clause is repeated in the secondary clause. This tone concord is the principal signal of the apposition relationship in English, and applies also to paratactic clause complexes of exposition and exemplification referred to above (though not to clarification, where there is greater semantic distance between the primary and secondary clause). We should also note that this pattern is very frequently accompanied by a rhythmic feature, by which the secondary clause is introduced by a silent beat.

Friday, 26 July 2019

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: An Expression Of Time Or Place

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 466-7):
Clauses with when or where, having as domain some expression of time or place, e.g.
||| The first few days are a time for adjustment, || when the kitten needs all the love and attention [[ you can give it]] . |||
The meaning is ‘which is when . . .,’ ‘which is where . . .’. Those with where often refer to abstract space, as in
||| Now consider the opposite situation, || where the velocity decreases. |||
In this group also the secondary clause may be enclosed, as in
||| One evening, << when the boy was going to bed, >> he couldn’t find the china dog [[ that always slept with him]] . |||
As in the examples above, such clauses often elaborate marked Themes of time or place. In addition to when and where we also find elaborations of temporal expressions introduced by as, when; for example:
||| That night, << as Kukul slept on his straw mat, >> Chirumá came upon him. |||
As the examples illustrate, this strategy of a nominal group denoting a time plus a hypotactically elaborating clause is common in narratives when the time is being set or reset in the episodic sequence of events.

Thursday, 25 July 2019

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 466):
Clauses with which (occasionally that), who or whose whose domain is a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being personal references with he, she, it, they and their possessive equivalents); e.g.
||| This was the first English Department class at the University of Ibadan, || which had just been founded. |||
When the nominal group is non-final in the primary clause, the secondary clause is often enclosed, so as to follow immediately after it, as in
||| Yu, << who has been visiting Taiwan this week, >> did not elaborate. |||
Here the structure is α << =β >>; the angle brackets denote enclosure, doubled as always where the delimited element is a clause. (The paratactic agnate of an enclosed hypotactic elaborating clause would follow the primary clause, as in Yu did not elaborate; he has been visiting Taiwan this week.)

Wednesday, 24 July 2019

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: Whole Clause Or More Than A Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 465-6):
Clauses with which whose domain is either the whole of the primary clause or some part of it that is more than a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being extended text references with it or this); e.g.
||| He talks down to people, || which automatically puts people’s backs up. |||
meaning ‘talking down to people automatically puts people’s backs up’, and so on. Here the sequence is always α ^ =β. The elaborating β-clause is often an ‘attributive relational’ one, with an Attribute such as no good, a serious loss, odd that provides an evaluation of the primary clause (this thus being one grammatical strategy for ‘appraising’ a proposition).

Tuesday, 23 July 2019

Hypotactic Elaboration: Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 465):
If the secondary clause is finite, it has the same form as a defining relative clause of the WH- type, which is embedded as a Qualifier in a nominal group. It differs from a defining relative clause, however, in two ways: there is a distinction in the meaning, and there is a corresponding distinction in the expression, both in speech and in writing. 
As far as the meaning is concerned, these clauses do not define subsets, in the way that a defining relative clause does. In the only plan which might have succeeded the defining clause which might have succeeded specifies a particular subset of the general class of plans. A non-defining relative clause, on the other hand, adds a further characterisation of something that is already taken to be fully specific. This ‘something’, therefore, is not necessarily just a noun; the domain of a non-defining relative may be a whole clause, or any of its constituents.

Monday, 22 July 2019

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 464):
The combination of elaboration with hypotaxis gives the category of non-defining relative clause (also called ‘non-restrictive’, ‘descriptive’). This functions as a kind of descriptive gloss to primary clause … hypotactic elaboration is a strategy for introducing into the discourse background information, a characterisation, an interpretation of some aspect of the dominant clause, some form of evaluation (as can also happen with paratactic clarification).

Sunday, 21 July 2019

Paratactic Elaboration: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463-4):
In this case the secondary clause clarifies the thesis of the primary clause, backing it up with some form of explanation or explanatory comment. … The clarification often involves a shift in polarity … The clarification may be an evaluative comment. … 
Expressions such as in fact, actually, indeed, at least are common in this type; the nearest written abbreviation is again i.e., or sometimes viz. The conjunctives are cohesive rather structural markers of the paratactic relationship … 
Very often the two clauses are simply juxtaposed. This often makes it difficult to decide, in spoken language, whether they form a clause complex or not; but if the intonation pattern is repeated so that there is tone concord, and the semantic relationship of elaboration is clearly present, this can be taken as a criterion for treating them as forming a nexus. In written language the apposition may be signalled by a special punctuation mark, the colon; but this is a fairly recent innovation, never very consistently used, and the lack of any clear structure signal is no doubt the reason why the abbreviations i.e., e.g. and viz. were first introduced and why they continue to be used today. 

Saturday, 20 July 2019

Paratactic Elaboration: Exemplification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463):
Here the secondary clause develops the thesis of the primary clause by becoming more specific about it, often citing an actual example …