Thursday, 31 January 2013

Paratactic Elaboration: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 398, 399):
In this case the secondary clause clarifies the thesis of the primary clause, backing it up with some form of expanation or explanatory comment. … The clarification often involves a shift in polarity … The clarification may be an evaluative comment.

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Paratactic Elaboration: Exemplification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 398):
Here the secondary clause develops the thesis of the primary clause by becoming more specific about it, often citing an actual example …

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Paratactic Elaboration: Exposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 397):
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 …

Monday, 28 January 2013

Clause Elaboration: Paratactic Vs Hypotactic

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 396, 397):
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.

Sunday, 27 January 2013

Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 396):
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.

Saturday, 26 January 2013

Expansion: Regions Of Continuous Semantic Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 395-6):
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.

Friday, 25 January 2013

Theme In A Hypotactic Clause Nexus: Regressive Sequences

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 393):
Here the dependent clause is given thematic status. … In general, thematic beta-clauses serve to set up a local context in the discourse for the alpha-clause: they re-orient the development (as in the staging of a narrative), often distilling some aspect of what has gone before to provide a point of departure for the dominant clause, thus creating a link to the previous discourse. … The textual domain of a thematic dependent clause is often a sub-complex rather than just a single clause, and it may even extend beyond the clause complex in which the clause serves.

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Clause Complex Representation & Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 389):
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.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Taxis & Ordering

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 387, 388): 
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. … 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 …

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Clause Dependency & Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 386-7):
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;

Monday, 21 January 2013

Taxis & Classes Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 386):
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. Linkers may also serve a cohesive function. With hypotaxis, binders are used, in the environment of both projection and expansion and also, in the case of certain non-finite clauses, conjunctive prepositions. Both parataxis and hypotaxis may involve correlative conjunctions, where a second conjunction marks the primary clause.

Sunday, 20 January 2013

Taxis, Logical Transitivity & Symmetry

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 384):
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.

Saturday, 19 January 2013

Hypotaxis: Logically Non-Symmetrical & Non-Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 384):
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’.

Friday, 18 January 2013

Parataxis: Logically Symmetrical & Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 384):
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.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Multivariate Structure Types By Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 384):
… 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.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 384):
A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships … .  Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

Univariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 383-4):
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, 14 January 2013

Nesting, Taxis & Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 382):
… internal nesting always occurs when there is a change in taxis. That is, any logical sequence of clauses is always either paratactic or hypotactic. 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, 13 January 2013

Projection: Idea (‘thinks’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 378):
one clause is projected through another, which presents it as an idea, a construction of meaning.

Saturday, 12 January 2013

Projection: Locution (‘says’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 378):
one clause is projected through another, which presents it as a locution, a construction of wording.

Friday, 11 January 2013

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 378):
one clause expands another by embellishing around it: qualifying it with some circumstantial feature of time, place, cause or condition.

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Expansion: Extending (‘and, or’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 378):
one clause expands another by extending beyond it: adding some new element, giving an exception to it, or offering an alternative.

Wednesday, 9 January 2013

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 378):
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, 8 January 2013

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 377):
(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).

Monday, 7 January 2013

Nesting (Internal Bracketing)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 376):
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 braketing — eg 1^ 2 (a ^ b);
  • (ii) or it can be represented as a simple string — eg 1 ^ 2a ^ 2b.

Sunday, 6 January 2013

Clause Nexus: Primary And Secondary Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 375, 376):
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.

Saturday, 5 January 2013

Taxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 373, 374):
All clauses linked by a logico-semantic relation are interdependent: that is the meaning of a relational structure — one unit is interdependent on another unit. Two clauses related as interdependent in a complex may be treated as being of equal status [paratactic] … each constitutes a proposition in its own right and could thus be tagged … They could in fact select for different moods
Alternatively, two clauses related as interdependent may be treated as being of unequal status [hypotactic] … While the main clause constitutes a proposition in its own right and can thus be taggedthe qualifying clause does not and cannot be tagged … the qualifying clause can be placed either before or after the ‘head’ clause … The choice is determined by textual considerations.

Friday, 4 January 2013

The Domain Of Subject Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 373):
… subject ellipsis is not possible outside the domain of the clause complex.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Types Of Relation Between Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 373):
Two basic systems determine how one clause is related to another … :
  • (i) the degree of interdependency, or taxis;
  • (ii) the logico-semantic relation.

Wednesday, 2 January 2013

Group: More Than A Word Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 371-2):
Although groups are word complexes, they cannot be fully accounted for as complexes. Groups have developed their own multivariate constituent structures with functional configurations such as the Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing of the nominal group in English. Here the elements are
  • (i) distinct in function,
  • (ii) realised by distinct classes, and
  • (iii) more or less fixed in sequence.
A configuration of such a kind has to be represented as a multivariate structure. Treating the group simply as a ‘word complex’ does not account for all these various aspects of its meaning. It is for this reason that we recognise the group as a distinct rank in the grammar.

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Nominal Group, Not Noun Phrase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 371n):
It is important to maintain the terminological distinction between group and phrase, which is lost if a nominal group is referred to as a ‘noun phrase’. Although group and phrase are both of intermediate rank as constituents, they have arrived there from different ends: a group is a bloated word, whereas a phrase is a shrunken clause.