Tuesday, 7 April 2020

Verbal Group Nexus As Intermediate Between Clause Nexus And Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 588):
A verbal group nexus is intermediate between a clause nexus and a verbal group: a verbal group construes a single event, and a clause nexus construes two distinct processes; but a verbal group nexus construes a single process consisting of two events. These different options are available to speakers and writers when they construe their experience of the flow of events. They choose whether they construe a given experience as a process consisting of a single event, as a process consisting of a chain of two (or more) events, or as a chain of two (or more) processes.

Monday, 6 April 2020

Pageviews by Countries

EntryPageviews
United States
75985
Russia
21762
Australia
15506
France
13284
Indonesia
10889
United Kingdom
9753
Germany
9567
Ukraine
4168
Canada
2129
China
2094

The Systems Of The (Non-Causative) Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 588, 589):
The various options open to non-causative hypotactic verbal group complexes are represented as a system network in Figure 8-15.

Sunday, 5 April 2020

The Anomaly Of Adjectival Forms Serving As The Event Of The Projecting Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 586-7):
Table 8-7 includes some verbal group nexuses with adjectival forms serving as the Event of the projecting verbal group: (i) desideration: be willing/keen/eager/anxious to do; (ii) fear: be afraid/scared to do. The forms afraid and scared are verbal in origin, but they function as adjectives now, as can be seen by the form taken by intensification (very rather than much): be very afraid/scared to do. Since these forms are adjectival, they are obviously anomalous as verbal groups. But they fit in systemically: they are agnate with verbal forms, and all the forms of the desiderative set are agnate expressions of modulation. We could try to push the analysis even further to include patterns with nominal forms such as (i) desideration: have a mind to do, and (ii) intention: make up one’s mind to do. But here we are really going beyond what can be accommodated within the verbal group since these constructions involve grammatical metaphor of the ideational kind.

Saturday, 4 April 2020

Types Of Projection In The Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585, 587):
To go into all the types of projection that cluster around this area would be beyond our present scope. Table 8-7 lists some of the more common types. 
All of them could be analysed as clause complexes; but there is a case for treating some of them as complexes of the verbal group – perhaps just those that are proposals, are perfective in aspect, and have the same Subject in both halves. This would exclude
(1) propositions, like pretend and claim (she claims to be infallible = she claims that she is infallible); 
(2) imperfectives, e.g. she doesn’t like/mind John leaving so early; and 
(3) ‘causatives’, e.g. I didn’t mean/expect you to notice, and all ‘indirect commands’ such as who asked you to comment?
It would also exclude those where the projecting process is itself causative, like tempt (‘make want’), decide in she tempted John to stay, what decided them to change their plans?
All these would thus be interpreted as projecting clause nexuses.

Friday, 3 April 2020

Projecting Verbal Group/Clause Nexuses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585, 586):
Despite the borderline cases, projection is, as we have pointed out, a different kind of relationship from expansion. It is always, in fact, a relationship between processes – between a mental or verbal process on the one hand, and another process (of any kind) that is mentalised or verbalised (projected) by it. Nevertheless it is not inappropriate on grammatical grounds to treat some projections as verbal group nexuses, on the analogy of the types of expansion to which they are somewhat similar in meaning. Figure 8-14 gives some analyses for purposes of comparison. Examples under (a) and (b) are analysed (i) as verbal group nexus, (ii) as clause nexus. Those under (c), with that clause, are analysed only as clause nexus, since here the alternative does not arise.

Thursday, 2 April 2020

'Wanting' And 'Causing': Where Projection Meets Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585):
It is in this area that expansion and projection come to meet and overlap. Causing something to be done means that it is done, with ‘external agency’ as a circumstantial feature. Wanting something to be done means that it is envisaged, or projected, but may or may not happen: its status is that of a metaphenomenon, not a phenomenon. But the line between the two is fuzzy. In general, if the relationship can be expressed by a finite that clause, as in she wished that he would come, then in principle it is a projection; but in this respect too there is a ‘grey’ area: she wanted that he should come is possible, but uncommon, whereas she allowed that he should come is uncommon, but possible.

Wednesday, 1 April 2020

Hypotactic Desiderative Projection Nexus: Clause Or Verbal Group?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585):
However, there are some respects in which they [i.e. desiderative clause nexuses] resemble nexuses of the verbal group. 
(1) The projected element, a (typically perfective) non-finite, has – like the expansion types – given birth to what are now tenses of the verb, namely the two future forms will and be going to
(2) The WH- probe is what does she want to do?, rather than simply what does she want?; compare what is she trying to do? not what is she trying?
(3) The command forms – those with change of Subject – resemble some of the causative expansions; compare the following pairs, including the passives:
she wants him to do it          she causes him/gets him to do it
he is wanted to do it             he is caused/got to do it
she wants it (to be) done      she causes it to be done/gets it done

Tuesday, 31 March 2020

Desiderative Projections: Offer vs Command

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):
… a mental process of desideration projects an exchange of the goods-&-services type, i.e. a proposal. If the Subject of the projection is the same as that of the mental process clause, the proposal is an offer, as in she wants to do it; if the two are different, then the proposal is a command, as in she wants you to do it. In the first type, the Subject is not repeated, but is carried over from the desiderative clause. (It can then be made explicit by a reflexive, as in she wants to do it herself.) All such projections could be treated as clause nexuses, as in Figure 8-13.

Monday, 30 March 2020

Time Reference Of Verbal Group Complexes: Expansion vs Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):
… a hypotactic verbal group complex of the ‘expansion’ type represented a single happening. Thus, there is only one time reference; if the reference is to tomorrow, then the tense of the primary group will be future:
(i) phase: he’ll start to do it tomorrow (not: he starts)
(ii) conation: he’ll try to do it tomorrow (not: he tries)
(iii) modulation: he’ll help to do it tomorrow (not: he helps)
An expression such as want to do looks at first sight very similar to these; but whereas we can say he’ll want to do it tomorrow, it is also quite normal to say he wants to do it tomorrow. The wanting and the doing have distinct time references. We can even say yesterday I wanted to do it tomorrow – but not yesterday I started to do it tomorrow.
The relation between want and to do is one of projection. A projection of do it, as in wants to do it, is a meaning, and thus does not imply ‘does it’ – whereas an expansion, such as tries to do it or starts to do it, does imply ‘does it’, even though the doing may be partial or unsuccessful.

Sunday, 29 March 2020

Saturday, 28 March 2020

Three Degrees Of Passive Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582-3):
Furthermore, causatives have passives; so we can have
(high)       they were made/forced/required to accept
(median:) they were got/obliged to accept
(low:)       they were allowed/permitted to accept
and this enables us to interpret modulation as it occurs within the verbal group:
(high)       they are required to accept          they must accept
(median:) they are obliged to accept           they should accept
(low:)       they are allowed to accept          they may accept
Verbal modulation with must, etc., is now a kind of modality; it is semantically related to those passive causative modulations which have the circumstantial senses of ‘do under compulsion/from obligation/with permission’. What links this semantically to modality in the other sense, that of probability, is that both represent a judgement on the part of the speaker: just as in that may be John the may expresses the speaker’s judgement of likelihood (‘I consider it possible’), so in John may go the may expresses the speaker’s judgement of obligation (‘I give permission’).

Friday, 27 March 2020

Three Degrees Of Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582, 582n):
Only one or two modulations have causative equivalents; e.g.
John remembered to do it
(caus.) Mary reminded John to do it
with the sense of ‘John did it according to attention’ and ‘Mary caused John to do it according to attention’. However, there is a special set that exist only as causatives, where the meaning is simply that of agency: make, cause, force, require, let, allow, permit, etc. These admit of three degrees of modulation:
(high:)      this made (forced, required) them (to) accept our terms
(median:) this had (got, obliged) them (to) accept our terms⁶
(low:)       this let (allowed, permitted) them (to) accept our terms
The concept of agency is inherently a circumstantial one. We have already seen in Chapter 5 that the Agent, which from one point of view is a participant in the clause (John did it), is from another point of view a kind of Manner (it was done by John). It is thus not surprising that the causative Agent enters into this kind of hypotactic structure, with the agency expressed as a process through verbs like force and allow.
 
⁶ Also imperfective: got them working, had him begging for mercy.

Thursday, 26 March 2020

Causative Conation: Potentiality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582):
Here there are causative forms as follows:
(1) potential: the patient can see clearly
(caus.)           this enables the patient to see clearly 
(2) achieval:  John learnt to fly
(caus.)           Mary taught John to fly
Again, these causatives have passives: the patient is enabled to see clearly, John was taught to fly by Mary.

Wednesday, 25 March 2020

Causative Conation: Reussive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):
There is no causative form of the conative – that is, no word meaning ‘make ... try’; this can, of course, be expressed analytically, for example
(she) | α made | (him) | ×β try | +γ to eat | (it)
The causative of the reussive has help, and perhaps enable:
reussive: John managed to open the lock
(caus.) Mary helped John to open the lock

Tuesday, 24 March 2020

Causative Time-Phase: Durative & Inceptive

 Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):
Here the same verbs keep, start/stop, also function causatively:
(1) durative:   the ball kept rolling
(caus.)            John kept the ball rolling 
(2) inceptive:  the ball started/stopped rolling
(caus.)             John started/stopped the ball rolling

Monday, 23 March 2020

Causative Reality-Phase?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580-1):
It would be possible to recognise causative forms of reality-phase, as follows:
(1) apparent: John seems to be responsible
(caus.)           Mary considers John to be responsible 
(2) realised:  John turns out to be responsible
(caus.)          that proves John to be responsible
But consider and prove are better treated as, respectively, mental and verbal processes, with the proposition/process being projected; note the closely agnate finite clauses with that, and cf. it seems/turns out that John is responsible.

Blogger Comments:

Lest this be misunderstood, at clause rank, the causative examples are relational processes with (1) mental assignment and (2) verbal assignment.

Sunday, 22 March 2020

Analytic Causative By Expansion Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580):
Causatives with make, get/have and let are of the enhancing type. But there are causative forms in all three types of expansion: see Table 8-6. 

Saturday, 21 March 2020

Analytic Causative: Discontinuous Verbal Group Complex Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 579-80):
In the transitive analysis we introduced the notion of an Initiator, a participant who brings about the action performed by the Actor. This function appears in the explicit causative structure with the verb make. We can then, of course, extend the agency further: Mary made John roll the ball, as in Figure 8-10:
Note that in the ergative analysis the function of Agent recurs, allowing for indefinite expansion along the lines of Fred made Mary make John ...
But there is still only one process, that of rolling; so we can still represent it as two verbal groups in hypotactic relationship. In this instance, however, they are discontinuous, as shown in Figure 8-11).

Friday, 20 March 2020

Analytic Causative: An Alternative Realisation Of ‘Effective’ Agency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578-9):
We shall now turn to hypotactic verbal group complexes of expansion that also include a feature of causation. Such complexes are involved in the realisation of the transitivity system of AGENCY. We saw in Chapter 5 that there is a causative element in the structure of the English clauseFor example, John rolled the ball can be interpreted either as ‘John (Actor) did something to the ball (Goal)’ or as ‘John (Agent) caused the ball (Medium) to do something’.
We can always express this agency analytically, by saying John made the ball roll, where made ... roll is a hypotactic verbal group complex. Here the causative verbal group complex is thus an alternative realisation of the feature of ‘effective’ agency: an additional participant is introduced into the clause through the expansion of the verbal group realising the Process. In the ergative analysis this looks the same as John rolled the ball; but in the transitive it does not, and this enables us to interpret the difference between them: in John rolled the ball, he acted directly on it, whereas in John made the ball roll he may have done so by leverage, psychokinesis or some other indirect force (Figure 8-9).

As always, it is the combination of the two analyses, the transitive and the ergative, that gives the essential insight.

Blogger Comments:

The transitive interpretation of the participants in John rolled the ball as Actor and Goal contradicts the discussion (pp351-2) where the participants of such clauses (the police exploded the bomb, the sergeant marched the prisoners) are interpreted as Initiator and Actor.

Thursday, 19 March 2020

Behavioural Conatives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578):
The hypotactic verbal group complexes we have looked at so far are, in principle, confined to features of the Process itself – features of phase, conation and modulation. But we have noted that conative hypotactic verbal group complexes with verbs of behaviour in the primary verbal group tend to add the role of Behaver to the experiential interpretation of the Subject, as is brought out by the contrast in voice.

Wednesday, 18 March 2020

Passive Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 577-8):
Many of the ‘enhancing’ verbal group complexes are simply inappropriate in the passive; they characterise an approach or attitude to the process, and this is likely to apply to an Actor but not to a Goal – it does not make much sense to say she hastened to be reassured, or your word ventures to be doubted. Others, such as happen and tend, are impersonal and so are indifferent to the selection of voice; e.g.
The house happened to have been built facing the wrong way. 
If the student is of the right calibre to pursue a course, which the Ministry enacts is a worthwhile full-time course, he shall receive the same justice from Britain whatever authority he happens to have been born under. 
How I happened to be marooned at Balicou doesn’t interest you in the faintest degree. 
One other aspect of oral work – the memorisation and speaking of prose and verse – tends to be considered by many teachers as quite extraneous to the normal class work. 
If conduct in prison were a deciding consideration selection would tend to be left to a time near the date of release.
Since they are all metaphorical, in the sense that the verbal group is representing a circumstance and not some aspect of a process, the functional analysis provides only a partial interpretation; to get the full picture we would need to take account of the congruent form, e.g. by chance the house had been built facing the wrong way. There would be no change of role in the passive (see Figure 8-8).

Tuesday, 17 March 2020

Conation Or Simple Negative?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576n):
Note the incongruence of the form people failed to accept her, meaning ‘people did not accept her despite her efforts’. Here failed to is functioning as a simple negative, such that there is a proportion
she was not accepted : people did not accept her ::
she failed to be accepted : people failed to accept her
Compare examples such as I sent them a letter but it failed to arrive, the banks failed to support them. These should perhaps be interpreted as a form of enhancement, meaning ‘do negatively’!

Monday, 16 March 2020

Conative Adjunct

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576-7):
The extending complex is a two-part process, in which the Subject fills a dual participant role: Behaver (in the conative component) plus Actor, or some other role, in the happening itself. For the same reason, Adjuncts in the clause may relate semantically to the conative component like hard, quickly in she tried hard to write well, she quickly learnt to tell them apart.
The Filipino tried hard to put in a storming finish, but his attacks were nearly all neatly countered by the clever champion.
There is no need in the analysis to tie these structurally to the primary verbal group; but it is useful to specify their function, by labelling them as ‘conative Adjunct’.

Sunday, 15 March 2020

Passive Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576, 577):
Here the relation of passive to active is different, because a conative verb, although not constituting a separate happening, does in fact represent a behavioural process, and it retains its behavioural sense when the clause is passive. Thus an elaborating active/passive pair such as people started to accept her/she started to be accepted is not paralleled by the corresponding extending pair
(people) | tried | + β to accept | (her)
(she) | tried | + β to be accepted |
(see analysis in Figure 8-7). Examples:
He tried to be pleased at the idea. 
Francesca and Grazie were habitual committee chairmen and they usually managed to be elected cochairmen, equal bosses, of whatever PTA or civic project was being launched.

Saturday, 14 March 2020

Passive Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575-6):
Here the transitivity functions remain the same whether the clause is passive or active; there is an exact proportion ants are biting me: I’m getting bitten by ants :: ants keep biting me: I keep getting bitten by ants:
(ants) | keep | = β biting | (me)
(I) | keep | = β getting bitten | (by ants)
Compare:
no one seems to have mended the lights yet
the lights don’t seem to have been mended yet
when will they start printing the book?
when will the book start being printed?
See Figure 8-6 for the analysis in mood and transitivity.

Friday, 13 March 2020

Verbal Group Complexes: Taxis And Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575):
A clause containing a verbal group complex is still a single clause, and represents a single process. It has only one transitivity and voice structure.
If it is a paratactic complex, this process consists of two happenings – two actions, events or whatever. If the verbal group complex is hypotactic, on the other hand, there is only one happening. Thus in a paratactic complex each verbal group has a definite voice, although the voice must be the same in each case; but in a hypotactic complex only the group that expresses the happening, the secondary group, actually embodies a feature of voice. The primary group is active in form, but there is no choice involved. (The exception to this is when the clause is causative.)
The different types of hypotactic complex have different potentialities as regards the passive. If the secondary verbal group is passive, the meaning of the categories of phase is unaffected; but there is an effect on the interpretation of conative forms.

Thursday, 12 March 2020

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 574):
Here the primary verbal group is again not a separate process; but this time it is a circumstantial element in the process expressed by the secondary verbal group. If we say Alice ventured to ask something, this means she did ask it; but she did so tentatively. (The doubtful one here is hesitate, which perhaps belongs with the ‘projection’ type as a mental process.) Probably all of these would turn out to be metaphorical … . One of the examples above is analysed in Figure 8-5.
 


Blogger Comments:

Again, the table cells misrepresent the analysis of Finite and Predicator. The Predicator is tend to open and the Finite is 'do' ('present').

Wednesday, 11 March 2020

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Examples

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573-4):
Examples:
||| Yeah, I think || a good many writers tend to open their books || and groan. ||| 
||| Well that would be my contention || but let me hasten to add || that since the first Speaker was also the first Member for Wakefield || I’m not that anxious to emulate the first Speaker. ||| 
||| They don’t really own them, you see, || they just happened to be lying around in the same place as these things. ||| 
||| You will cherish them on your bookshelves for a long time – || unless, of course, someone borrows them || and somehow ‘forgets’ to return them. ||| 
||| Perhaps we could start by talking about that. ||| 
||| I came to love it || from drinking it in the war years, || but the fact must be faced, || it is an acquired taste. |||

Tuesday, 10 March 2020

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573, 574):
Here the basic notion is that of ‘be (circumstantial) + do’, e.g. help to do ‘do being-with (someone)’. As with all instances of enhancement, there are a number of different kinds; the principal ones are set out in Table 8-5.

Monday, 9 March 2020

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Tense & Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):
Once again these forms are related to tense and modality, the hypotactic verbal group complex being intermediate between the simple verbal group, as in has done, has to do, and the clause complex, as in, say, by trying hard Alice reached the key. One of the examples given above is analysed below in Figure 8-4:

Sunday, 8 March 2020

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Perfective vs Imperfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):
Of the remainder of this type, most take the perfective form of the secondary verbal group, as in try to do. The imperfective occurs only (i) with the negative terms avoid, and (with in) fail: avoid doing, fail in doing; and (ii) with succeed (again with in). The difference between manage to do and succeed in doing is slight; the former implies attempt leading to success, the latter success following attempt. For try + imperfective (‘do as a means to an end’), e.g. try counting sheep, see the next subsection [on causal enhancement].