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

Pageviews by Countries

United States
United Kingdom

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 …

Friday, 19 July 2019

Paratactic Elaboration: Exposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463):
Here the secondary clause restates the thesis of the primary clause in different words, to present it from another point of view, or perhaps just to reinforce the message … In the limiting case, the second clause more or less repeats the first through lexical repetition or synonymy, reinforcing the message …

Thursday, 18 July 2019

Paratactic Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 462):
Paratactic (notation 1 =2). The combination of elaboration with parataxis yields three types, the first two of which could be regarded as apposition between clauses:
(i) exposition ‘in other words’ P i.e. Q
(ii) exemplification ‘for example’ P e.g. Q
(iii) clarification ‘to be precise’ P viz. Q

Wednesday, 17 July 2019

Clause Elaboration: Paratactic Vs Hypotactic

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461-2):
In terms of realisation, the two tactic forms of elaboration have one property in common — tone concord. That is, each clause in an elaborating clause nexus is realised by a tone group, and each tone group selects the same tone … . However, hypotactic elaborating clauses differ from paratactic ones in that they have their own grammar — the grammar of relative clauses … . In terms of meaning, paratactic elaboration and hypotactic elaboration are largely complementary, covering different aspects of elaboration. Paratactic elaboration involves exposition, exemplification and clarification, while hypotactic elaboration involves description.

Tuesday, 16 July 2019

Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461):
In elaboration, one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further specifying or describing it; … The secondary clause does not introduce a new element into the picture but rather provides a further characterisation of one that is already there, restating it, clarifying it, refining it, or adding a descriptive attribute or comment. … The thing that is elaborated may be the primary clause as a whole, or it may be just some part of it — one or more of its constituents.

Monday, 15 July 2019

Expansion: Regions Of Continuous Semantic Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 460):
As with all other systems such as the system of process type, we have to think of the system of type of expansion as defining regions within a continuous semantic space … the different types of expansion shade into one another at certain points; and expansion itself can come very close to projection.

Sunday, 14 July 2019

Clause Complex Representation & Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 457):
The clause complex is of particular interest in spoken language, because it represents the dynamic potential of the system — the ability to ‘choreograph’ very long and intricate patterns of semantic movement while maintaining a continuous flow of discourse that is coherent without being constructional. This kind of flow is very uncharacteristic of written language. Since grammatical theory evolved as the study of written language, it is good at synoptic-type ‘product’ representations, with constituency as the organising concept, but bad at dynamic-type ‘process’ representations, which is what is needed for the interpretation of speech.

Saturday, 13 July 2019

Representing Dependency Structures

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 456-8):
The box diagram and the tree diagram both show how the clause complex is made up of clauses; but they have the disadvantage that they make the structure of the clause complex look like a constituency structure even though it is in fact a dependency structure. … we present a diagrammatic form of representation that brings out both constituency and dependency relations, as in Figure 7-13.

Friday, 12 July 2019

Taxis & Ordering

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 455-6): 
In parataxis there is no dependence of either element on the other; so there is no ordering other that which is represented by the sequence. This is why we use the numerical notation. … The only modification is that which arises through internal bracketing or nesting… 
In a hypotactic structure the elements are ordered in dependence, and this ordering is largely independent of the sequence. Hence we can have various sequences: dependent clause
(i) following dominant,
(ii) preceding dominant,
(iii) enclosed in or
(iv) enclosing dominant …
Hypotactic structures may also involve nesting …

Thursday, 11 July 2019

Clause Dependency & Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454-5):
In a hypotactic clause nexus, dependent clauses may be finite or non-finite … In a non-finite dependent clause, the Subject is typically ellipsed. … Other clauses in the clause complex are finite. Paratactically related clauses that are nested within a dependency are of course dependent for this purpose;

Wednesday, 10 July 2019

Taxis & Classes Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454):
Conjunctions may be used to mark the secondary clause in both parataxis and hypotaxis; but different classes of conjunction are used. With parataxis, linkers are used, but only when the logico-semantic relation is one of expansion (e.g. and, or, but). Linkers may also serve a cohesive function. With hypotaxis, binders are used, in the environment of both projection (that; whether, if) and expansion (e.g. when, while; because, since, if, although) and also, in the case of certain non-finite clauses, conjunctive prepositions (e.g. after, before; because of, despite). Both parataxis and hypotaxis may involve correlative conjunctions, where a second conjunction marks the primary clause.

Tuesday, 9 July 2019

Taxis & Symmetry

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):
This basic pattern may be modified by the nature of the logico-semantic relationship, for example, ‘quote’ as a paratactic relation is clearly not symmetrical: ‘John says, quote: its raining’ cannot be reworded as ‘it’s raining, quote: John says’. But whenever it is logically possible, a given semantic relationship will be symmetrical and transitive in combination with parataxis but not in combination with hypotaxis.

Monday, 8 July 2019

Hypotaxis: Logically Non-Symmetrical & Non-Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):
Hypotaxis is the binding of elements of unequal status … The dominant element is free, but the dependent element is not.The hypotactic relation is logically (i) non-symmetrical and (ii) non-transitive. For example, ‘when’: (i) ‘I breathe when I sleep’ does not imply ‘I sleep when I breathe’; (ii) ‘I fret when I have to drive slowly’ and ‘I have to drive slowly when it’s been raining’ together do not imply ‘I fret when it’s been raining’.

Sunday, 7 July 2019

Parataxis: Logically Symmetrical & Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):
Parataxis is the linking of elements of equal status … Both the initiating and the continuing elements are free, in the sense that each could stand as a functioning whole. In principle, the paratactic relation is logically (i) symmetrical and (ii) transitive. This can be exemplified by the ‘and’ relation. (i) ‘salt and pepper’ implies ‘pepper and salt’, so the relationship is symmetrical; (ii) ‘salt and pepper’, ‘pepper and mustard’ together imply ‘salt and mustard’, so the relationship is transitive.

Saturday, 6 July 2019

The Properties Of Parataxis And Hypotaxis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451-2, 453):
Parataxis and hypotaxis are general relationships that are the same throughout the grammar: they define complexes at any rank (clause complex, group or phrase complex, word complex; in addition hypotaxis defines the logical organisation of groups. (In contrast, multivariate structures differ from one grammatical unit to another.) The distinctive properties and patterns of realisation of parataxis and hypotaxis are summarised in Table 7-7.

Thursday, 4 July 2019

Multivariate Structure Types By Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):
… the relationships among the elements in a multivariate structure can be characterised as segmental from an experiential point of view but as prosodic from an interpersonal point of view and as cumulative from a textual one. A prototypical example of a segmental structure is the transitivity structure of a clause, a prototypical example of a prosodic structure is the tone contour that typically extends over a clause, and a prototypical example of a culminative structure is thematic prominence at the beginning of the clause (followed by rhematic non-prominence).

Wednesday, 3 July 2019

Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):
A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationshipslike Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.  Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Tuesday, 2 July 2019

Univariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):
The tactic structures of complexes are relational in nature; they are the kind of structure that we have called univariate, to distinguish it from the multivariate structures … .  A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship; … Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are formed out of logico-semantic relations.

Monday, 1 July 2019

Nesting, Taxis & Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 450):
… internal nesting always occurs when there is a change in taxis. That is, any logical sequence of clauses is always either paratactic (1 2 3 …) or hypotactic (α β γ …). It is never a mixture of the two; … If there is a switch in taxis, this automatically leads to nesting … . By the same token, any logical sequence of clauses is always constant in logico-semantic type — projection of ideas, projection of locutions, elaboration, extension or enhancement. It is never a mixture of types; … If there is a switch in logico-semantic type, then nesting automatically occurs

Sunday, 30 June 2019

Projection: Idea (‘thinks’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):
one clause is projected through another, which presents it as an idea, a construction of meaning.

Saturday, 29 June 2019

Projection: Locution (‘says’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):
one clause is projected through another, which presents it as a locution, a construction of wording.

Friday, 28 June 2019

Expansion: Enhancing (‘so, yet, then’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):
one clause expands another by embellishing around it: qualifying it with some circumstantial feature of time, place, cause or condition.

Thursday, 27 June 2019

Expansion: Extending (‘and, or’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):
one clause expands another by extending beyond it: adding some new element, giving an exception to it, or offering an alternative.

Wednesday, 26 June 2019

Expansion: Elaborating (‘i.e., e.g., viz.’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):
one clause expands another by elaborating on it (or some portion of it): restating in other words, specifying in greater detail, commenting, or exemplifying.

Tuesday, 25 June 2019

Subtypes Of Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):
Within the general categories of expansion and projection, we recognise first of all a small number of subtypes: three of expansion, and two of projection. The names of these, with suggested notation, are as follows:
(1) Expansion:
(a) elaborating = (‘equals’)
(b) extending + (‘is added to’)
(c) enhancing x (‘is multiplied by’)
(2) Projection:
(a) locution “ (double quotes)
(b) idea ‘ (single quotes)

Monday, 24 June 2019

Logico-Semantic Relations Between Primary & Secondary Members Of A Clause Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 443):
(1) Expansion: the secondary clause expands the primary clause by (a) elaborating it [= ‘equals’], (b) extending it [+ ‘is added to’] or (c) enhancing it [x ‘is multiplied by’].

(2) Projection: the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause, which instates it as (a) a locution [“ double quotes] or (b) an idea [‘ single quotes].

Expansion relates phenomena as being of the same order of experience, while projection relates phenomena to phenomena of a higher order of experience (semiotic phenomena — what people say and think).

Sunday, 23 June 2019

Nesting (Internal Bracketing)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 442):
This is where what is being linked by a logico-semantic relation is not a single clause but rather a ‘sub-complex’ — a clause nexus in its own right. …
We can show nesting in either of two ways.
  • (i) The nesting can be represented explicitly as internal bracketing — eg 1 ^ 2 (α ^ β);
  • (ii) or it can be represented as a simple string — eg 1 ^ 2α ^ 2β.

Saturday, 22 June 2019

Clause Nexus: Primary And Secondary Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 441-2):
a clause complex is formed by means of tactic relations; and it is developed or built up as a chain, one pair of clauses at a time.We will refer to any one pair of clauses related by interdependency, or ‘taxis’, as a clause nexus. … The clauses making up such a nexus are primary and secondary.  The primary is the initiating clause in a paratactic nexus, and the dominant clause in a hypotactic; the secondary is the continuing clause in a paratactic nexus and the dependent clause in a hypotactic. This is set out in Table 7-4.

Friday, 21 June 2019

Interdependency: Rejected Terminology

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440n):
An earlier name for the higher term in the dependency relation, that on which something is dependent, was terminant. The problem with this turns out to be that it is too readily misinterpreted as ‘coming last in sequence’. The dependency relation, however, is neutral as regards the sequence in which the elements occur. Another possible set of terms would be ‘main clause’ for the dominant clause and ‘subordinate clause’ for the dependent clause. However, this could lead to confusion since ‘subordination’ has usually been used to refer to both hypotaxis and embedding without the critical distinction between the two. Further, the term ‘parataxis’ does not correspond to ‘coordination’ (in contrast with ‘subordination’); it covers not only ‘coordination’ but also ‘apposition’.