Sunday, 26 February 2012

Adjunct: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 124):
An Adjunct is typically realised by an adverbial group or prepositional phrase (rather than by a nominal group). … A prepositional phrase, however, has its own internal structure, containing a Complement within it … which … could become Subject.

Three Degrees Of Interpersonal Elevation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 123-4):
We thus have three degrees of interpersonal ranking or elevation in the clause: Subject — Complement — Adjunct.

Adjunct (& Subject) [Defined]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 123):
An Adjunct is an element that has not got the potential of being Subject; that is, it cannot be elevated to the interpersonal status of modal responsibility. This means that arguments cannot be constructed around those elements that serve as Adjuncts; in experiential terms, they cannot be constructed around circumstances, but they can be constructed around participants, either actually, as Subject, or potentially, as Complement … .

Complement Vs Traditional Object/Complement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 123):
It will be noted that the Complement covers what are ‘objects’ as well as what are ‘complements’ in traditional school grammar. But that distinction has no place in the interpersonal structure; it is imported from the experiential analysis, that of transitivity.

Complement (& Subject) [Defined]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 122-3):
A Complement is an element within the Residue that has the potential of being Subject but is not; in other words, it is an element that has the potential for being given the interpersonally elevated status of modal responsibility — something that can be the nub of the argument. It is typically realised by a nominal group. … Any nominal group not functioning as Subject will be a Complement; and this includes nominal groups of one type which could not function as Subject as they stand, namely those with adjective as Head … There is an explanation of this ‘from above’ in terms of function in transitivity: nominal groups with adjective as Head can function in the clause only as Attributes, and the Attribute cannot be mapped onto the interpersonal rôle of Subject. This is because only participants in the clause can take modal responsibility, and the Attribute is only marginally, if at all, a participant.

The Fourfold Function Of The Predicator

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 122):
(i) It specifies time reference other than reference to the time of the speech event, that is, ‘secondary’ tense: past, present or future relative to the primary tense.
 (ii) It specifies various other aspects and phases such as seeming, trying, hoping.
(iii) It specifies the voice: active or passive.
(iv) It specifies the process (action, event, mental process, relation) that is predicated of the Subject.

The Traditional Term ‘Predicate’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 121n):
['Predicate'] has been used in traditional grammar, formal grammar and logic. From a functional point of view, its use in accounts of grammar represents an attempt to characterise Rheme and/or Residue.


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 121):
The Predicator is present in all major clauses, except those where it is displaced through ellipsis. It is realised by a verbal group minus the temporal or modal operator, which … functions as the Finite in the Mood element … The Predicator itself is thus non-finite; and there are non-finite clauses containing a Predicator but no Finite element

The Residue

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 121):
The Residue consists of functional elements of three kinds: Predicator, Complement and Adjunct. There can be only one Predicator, one or two Complements, and an indefinite number of Adjuncts up to, in principle, about seven.

Semantic Function Of The Mood Element

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 120):
… the Mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event. So it remains constant, as the nub of the proposition, unless some positive step is taken to change it …

Subject: Natural Dialogic Interaction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 120):
But to see the interpersonal significance of Subject, we have to take natural dialogic interaction seriously as a source of insight into the grammar; if we only focus on monologic discourse such as narrative, Subject will appear to be the same as Theme since Subject = Theme is the unmarked mapping.