Sunday, 20 October 2019

Pageviews by Countries

United States
United Kingdom

Saturday, 19 October 2019

Level Of Projection: Meaning Vs Wording

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509):
Through projection, one clause is set up as the representation of the linguistic “content” of another — either the content of a ‘verbal’ clause of saying or the content of a ‘mental’ clause of sensing. … There are thus two kinds of projections.  On the one hand, the projection may be a representation of the content of a ‘mental’ clause — what is thought; we call such projections ideas.  On the other hand, the projection may be a representation of the content of  ‘verbal’ clause — what is said; we call such projections locutions.  Projection may thus involve either of the two levels of the content plane of language — projection of meaning (ideas) or projection of wording (locutions).

Friday, 18 October 2019

Kinds Of Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509):
There are in fact three systems involved in the differentiation of different kinds of projection:
(i) the level of projection (idea vs locution),
(ii) the mode of projection (hypotactic reporting vs paratactic quoting), and
(iii) the speech function (projected proposition vs projected proposal).

Thursday, 17 October 2019


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 508):
… Projection [is] the logico-semantic relationship whereby a clause comes to function not as a direct representation of (non-linguistic) experience but as a representation of a (linguistic) representation.

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

Different Environments In Which Expansion Is Manifested

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 507-8):
The different environments in which expansion is manifested are summarised in Table 7-16.

Tuesday, 15 October 2019

Metaphenomena And Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 506-7):
Metaphenomena – projections – can be associated only with certain types of process, essentially saying and sensing, plus in certain circumstances being. Macrophenomena – expansions – can enter into material processes. Thus you can say [[ = crushing him like that]] broke his bones. But you cannot say it broke his bones that you crushed him like that, because finite that (‘indirect’) clauses can only be projections, not expansions. (You can on the other hand say it broke his heart that you crushed him like that, because heart-breaking, unlike bone-breaking, is a mental process.)
Complication arises because the names of metaphenomena, nouns such as belief and fact, can sometimes enter into material processes where the metaphenomena by themselves cannot. For example, although we cannot say it destroyed his life that the experiment had failed, we can say the knowledge that the experiment had failed destroyed his life – not the idea as such, but his knowledge of it, was the destroyer. We may also note abstract material processes used metaphorically to construe mental phenomena:
The passage of time, romantic travellers’ tales – of which Marco Polo’s supply the classic example – and wishful thinking, all combined to build up the late medieval belief [[ that Prester John was a mighty, if probably schismatical Christian priest-king ]].
We might also say the fact that the experiment had failed destroyed his life; here fact stands for a state of affairs, rather than for a projected metaphenomenon as in its prototypical sense. In other words, although projections cannot participate in processes other than those of consciousness, the names of projections can, because they can be used to label events or states of affairs. Here we have reached the borderline between expansion and projection; the two come together under conditions of nominalisation, where there is metaphor in the grammar and many of the semantic distinctions expressed in the clause tend to be neutralised.

Monday, 14 October 2019

Act (Macrophenomenon) vs Projection (Metaphenomenon)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505-6):
(2) Projections: we saw that the boats had been turned. If I say I can see the boats turning, this is an event. A process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as a single complex phenomenon – a ‘macrophenomenon’. If I say I can see that the boats are turning, this is a projection. The process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as the projection or idea of a phenomenon – a ‘metaphenomenon’, something not just bigger but of a different order of reality. So we can say I can see that the boats have been turned but not I can see the boats having been turned – because you cannot see a past event. You can see the state of affairs resulting from that past event; but the past event itself can only be treated as a projection. In the present, both are possible; but the meaning is slightly different. If the ‘seeing’ is understanding, or what is seen is a report in writing, then again the relationship must be one of projection.

Sunday, 13 October 2019

Process Nominal Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505):
We have now reached a point where we can relate these clauses to their close relatives that lie just beyond the bounds of expansion, on different frontiers. [i.e. process nominal groups and projections]
(1) Process nominal groups: we saw the turning of the boats. Here the process has been nominalised at the word rank, with turning as noun; cf. the departing/departure of the boats. The structure is that of a nominal group having a prepositional phrase with of as Postmodifier; the Complement of the of phrase corresponds to what would be the Complement if the process was realised as a clause. Examples:
| The building [ of [ the bridge ] ] | presented a problem.
Devaluation is taken to be | a humiliation [ akin to [ the defacing [ of [statues [ of [national heroes ] ] ] ] ] ] ] |
Where there would be an explicit Subject, if the process was realised as a clause, what corresponds to this is the ‘possessor’ of the process serving as Deictic in the structure of the nominal group, as in his handling of the situation, nobody’s peeling of potatoes is as careful as mine, or as Qualifier, marked by either by or of, as in Letters to the press indicate a ground-swell of rejection of this display, by catholic and non-catholic members of church communities and Yet another contributory factor is the disappearance of the horse from our farms.*
Since a possessor can also be realised as an of phrase, this leads to the well-known ambiguity of expressions such as the visiting of relatives: going to visit relatives, or having relatives come to visit?

Saturday, 12 October 2019

Perceived Acts: Imperfective vs Perfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505):
Here what is being perceived is again some action or event; the clause is typically imperfective, but sometimes perfective (without to) to highlight the end state as distinct from the process (cf. Kirsner & Thompson, 1976):
I saw the boats turning/(passive) being turned
I saw the boats turn/(passive) turned
If the embedded clause is used as Postmodifier the Head noun is usually one of sight or sound: I heard the noise of ... , I had a view of ... , etc. (cf. the smell of something burning); …
In this case the clause is always imperfective.

Friday, 11 October 2019

Environments Of Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 506):

Blogger Comments:

Mental: emotive examples:
I enjoy [[exposing the charlatan]] / [[exposing the charlatan]] pleases me
I hate [[him getting away with fraud]] / [[him getting away with fraud]] outrages me

Thursday, 10 October 2019

Typical Grammatical Environments Of Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 504):
[relational: attributive]
It was careless of him [[ = to put another man’s helmet on ]]
[relational: identifying]
[[ Not being much of a reader]] hardly affected the ascent of George W. Bush or his father.
These examples show typical contexts for such nominalisations: relational clauses, especially attributive ones where the attribute is an evaluative term and identifying ones where they are related to a nominalisation. There is one other common environment, namely that of clauses of perception, either mental (inert perception) or behavioural (active perception). Examples:
[behavioural + mental: perceptive]
We were watching [[ = the catch being brought in]] and you could see [[[ = the boats turn || × as they rounded the headland]]]
[behavioural: perceptive]
We went and watched [[ = these kids try to produce ‘Hair’ ]] .
[mental: perceptive]
Here you can see [[ = beer being brewed ‘on sight’]]

Wednesday, 9 October 2019

Embedded Clauses: Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 503):
There is one further function of embedded clauses which is related to expansion in that, although there is no Head noun (so the embedded clause itself functions as ‘Head’), the embedded clause is the nominalisation of a process. For example, [[threatening people]] will get you nowhere.  Such a clause is the name of an action, event or other phenomenon.  It represents a ‘macro-phenomenon’ … ; let us call it an act.
An ‘act’ clause may also occur as Postmodifier to a Head noun of the appropriate class, for example the act [[= of threatening people]].  Hence it is reasonable to treat these as elaborations.

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

A Typical Context For A Nominal Group With Embedded Enhancing Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 503):
A typical context for a nominal group with embedded enhancing clause is as Value in an identifying clause; cf. Figure 7-18. In this example the Token is also an embedded enhancing clause, this time functioning as Head. Such clauses often display a similar variation; for example:
Another reason is [[ that the quantity of the literature is not overwhelming yet]] .
Now the reason [[ they hired me]] is [[[ because they knew || I didn’t know anything about food]]] .
Identifying clauses of this kind, with nouns of expansion as the Head of the nominal group realising the Value, make an important contribution to the creation of discourse, making it possible to distribute information. Thus the textual impact of the time to leave is when people start to yawn is very different from that of you leave when people yawn: the former sets up the relationship as an exclusive identity, with the Value/Identified as Theme and the Identifier/Token as New (cf. the discussion of thematic equatives in Chapter 3, Section 3.2).

Monday, 7 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Non-Finite Clause As Qualifier: Imperfective vs Perfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 502-3 ):
There is the same difference between imperfective and perfective as with dependent clauses: other things being equal (that is, if occurring simply with their respective structure markers of and to), the imperfective is associated with the actual (e.g. the time of planting), the perfective with the potential, or virtual (e.g. the time to plant); sometimes the difference is minimal, as with the best way of finding out/the best way to find out – although even here can still be recognised. But the specific semantic force of the Head noun, or the conjunction or conjunctive preposition, will always dominate; e.g. the purpose of raising funds, the best occasion for trying out new methods.

Sunday, 6 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Non-Finite Clause As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 502):
The non-finite clauses may occur with or without explicit Subject, e.g.
I just don’t see the point [[ × of having three or four different lists of people]] .
That’s the reason [[ × for keeping the sheets]] .
Soon the time came [[[ × for Kukul to take his place among the men of his nation]]] .
Sometimes the enhancing relation is marked by an explicit binder, e.g. why, where, when; here the Subject has to be implicit:
Chinchilli day is a reason [[ why to go to Las Vegas]] .
Carrasco, a place [[[ × where to return from work || and feel on holidays]]]

Saturday, 5 October 2019

Expressions Beginning 'The Time ...'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 501-2):
An expression beginning the time ... may thus have three distinct functional values:
(1) as hypotactic enhancing clause ‘(on the occasion) when ... ’, e.g.
||| [×β:] the time we first met || [α:] he hardly spoke to me at all |||
(2) as nominal group with elaborating embedded clause ‘the time which ... ’, e.g.
||| the time [[ = (which) I like best ]] is the hour before dawn |||
(3) as nominal group with enhancing embedded clause ‘the time when ... ’, e.g.
||| the time [[ × (when/that) you should leave ]] is when the lights go out |||
A hypotactic enhancing clause introduced by the time is agnate with other hypotactic temporal clauses and, by a further step, with paratactic temporal clauses: when we first met, he hardly ... ; we first met in June; then he hardly ... . The expression the time has come to serve as a structural conjunction; and the item time can thus no longer be modified in the way the Head noun of a nominal group can be (an example such as the early time we first met, he hardly spoke to me at all is impossible).* In contrast, the nominal groups in (2) and (3) can be expanded, since they have the full potential of nominal groups: the early time (which) I like best is the hour before dawn; the latest time (when/that) you should leave is when the lights go out. As illustrated by the examples, such enhanced nominal groups typically serve as participants in ‘relational’ clauses.

* However, certain conjunctive features may be included in the nominal expression: the first time we met/the last time we met/the only time we met, he hardly spoke to me at all.

Friday, 4 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Finite Clause As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 501):
The special characteristic of the finite clauses is that, since these nouns are inherently ‘enhancing’ in sense, the circumstantial relation may, or may not, be restated within the clause: we may have either the day when/on which you came, with when, on signalling time, or simply the day (that) you came, with no indication of the temporal relation other than the Head noun day. In other words, the finite clauses are either like those of type (i) above or like elaborating clauses – that is, typical ‘defining relative’ clauses, except that they cannot take which without a preposition (you cannot say the day which you came). Examples:
I don’t see any particular reason [[ × why I should]]
This was the first occasion [[ × that I had to help in doing an experiment on a living man]] .
The only other place [[ × I would want to live ]] (is New Zealand)
The people downstairs – there’s no way [[ × they could have got out]] .
That’s the only reason [[ × I quit with Far Tortuga]] .
We shared a place in Italy the summer [[ × I was working on it]] .
All of these have four variants, two explicitly enhancing (e.g. the reason why/for which I like her) and two like elaborating (e.g. the reason (that) I like her).

Thursday, 3 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500-1):
There is a second type of embedded enhancing clause in which the circumstantial relation is construed not in the clause itself but in the Head noun to which the clause stands as Postmodifier. These nouns form a distinct class, with two subclasses: those that can take either finite or non-finite postmodifying clauses and those which can take only non-finite – see Table 7-14.

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Embedded Clauses Enhancing A Premodifying Element

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500):
Like elaborating clauses, enhancing clauses of this type may have some premodifying element as their strict semantic domain, typically either Numerative or Epithet in a nominal group or an intensifying Premodifier in an adverbial group; these are clauses of comparison and result used in comparative constructions, e.g.
I’m as certain of it [[ × as if his name were written all over his face ]] 
The actual formation of shale is somewhat more complex [[ × than indicated in Table 4-3]] . 
Another survivor, soaked, wide-eyed with shock and too distressed [[ × to give his name]] , said ‘We were having a wonderful time when it turned into a nightmare.’ 
Within the vortex, temperatures become cold enough [[ × to form stratospheric ice crystals]] . 
Then he told us anecdotes of how he had gone across the Channel when it was so rough [[ × that the passengers had to be tied into their berths, and he and the captain were the only two living souls on board who were not ill]] .
The embedded clauses relate respectively to [the underlined Premodifiers]. Again, however, there is no need to represent this relationship in terms of a different structure.

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Non-Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500):
The non-finite variant corresponds to the dependent enhancing clauses with conjunctive preposition; e.g.
death [[ × by drowning]]
a pain [[ × like having a red-hot needle stuck into you]]
Blu-ray: death [[ × by streaming]]
The trouble [[ × with predicting climate change]]
Children need help [[ × in learning to control their emotions]] .
In Seoul, there seems to be anger [[ × at being taken for granted as an American satellite]]
Since the noun functioning as Head is generally the name of a process or property, these often have close hypotactic parallels, e.g. he was angry || × β at being accused; if you help me || × β in cooking the dinner; it’s difficult || × β with everyone having a part
The non-finites could in fact be reworded in the same way as the finites; e.g. the trouble with everyone having a part as the trouble [[[ = which arises || × β with everyone having a part]]]. But there is no need to treat either kind as other than embedded enhancing clauses.

Monday, 30 September 2019

Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):
The finite variant is illustrated by examples such as the applause [[ × when she finished singing]], the scar [[ × where the bullet entered]], the difference [[ × since I started taking Brandex]]. These are condensed variants of an embedded nexus consisting of an elaborating clause with an enhancing clause dependent on it:
the applause [[ = which erupted || × β when she finished singing ]]
the scar [[ = which has formed || × β where the bullet entered ]]
The items when and where are structural conjunctions rather than relative adverbs; they do not have the sense of preposition + which: we cannot say e.g. the scar at which the bullet entered. Contrast Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[where volcanism releases abundant silica]]. Here where is a relative adverb; and it is related to the prepositional phrase in which: ... in areas in which volcanism releases abundant silica.

Sunday, 29 September 2019

Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):
Here the embedded clause is not a relative clause with a relative of enhancement; rather it is the same type of enhancing clause that occurs non-rankshifted in hypotactic nexuses. In general, the noun functioning as Head is the name of a process or property. There is (1) a finite variant and (2) a non-finite one.

Saturday, 28 September 2019

Embedded Enhancing Non-Finite Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):
The non-finite clause corresponds to the finite, having some variant of a WH- prepositional phrase as the relative; these may be ordinary imperfectives in -ing, e.g.
the solution [[now being experimented with]]
but perhaps the most typical are ‘destiny’ clauses with to or for*, e.g.
New progressivism is a cause [[ × to fight for ]]
Only the ‘destiny’ type allow an explicit Subject, with for:
Together they would create an artwork [[ × for the community to celebrate]].

* If the relative functions as means (instrument), where the usual preposition is with, there may in fact be no preposition, the sense of instrument being derived from the ‘destiny’ sense of the clause as a whole: e.g.
Alice had no more breath [[ × for talking]] , i.e. ‘for talking with’, ‘with which to talk’.
Contrast the elaborating type
no more water [[ = for drinking]], 
where there is no circumstantial sense (and therefore no preposition could occur).

Friday, 27 September 2019

Embedded Enhancing Finite Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-9):
Here the embedded clause contains a relative that serves as a circumstance in the clause. The clause may be either (1) finite or (2) non-finite. … If the embedded clause is finite, the relative is a WH- prepositional phrase: that is, a prepositional phrase with WH- Complement (e.g. in which) or one of its variants which ... in, that ... in, ... in:
(you’re) the one [[ × I’ve always done the most for ]]
Sometimes where or when can be used in this ‘defining relative’ function, for example:
Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[ × where volcanism releases abundant silica]].
We are at a juncture in history [[ × when the options are finished]].
Here where and when are relative adverbs serving as the Head of an adverbial group.

Thursday, 26 September 2019

Circumstantial Feature In The Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):
In this type it is the clause that expresses the temporal, causal or other enhancing relation (in the same way as in a dependent clause):
the house [[ × ~ (which/that) she lived in _ / where she lived ]]
I was invited to one [[ × ~ which I spent the entire time in _ ]]
Such clauses are defining relative clauses, like the elaborating ones except that here the definition is circumstantial. Enhancing embedded clauses are either (1) finite or (2) nonfinite. There are two types, (a) embedded enhancing relative clauses and (b) embedded enhancing clauses.

Wednesday, 25 September 2019

Embedded Expansions: Enhancing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-8):
Here the relation between the embedded clause and the Head noun is a circumstantial one of time, place, manner, cause or condition. There are two types, according to where this relationship is construed: (i) those where the circumstantial sense is located in the embedded clause itself; (ii) those where it is located in the noun functioning as Head. With both these types, the embedded clause may be either (a) a relative clause or (b) an enhancing clause. The different combinations are set out in Table 7.13 below, for both (1) finite and (2) non-finite clauses.

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

Embedded Expansions: Extending

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):
There are no embedded clauses corresponding to the paratactic and hypotactic categories of addition, replacement and alternation (and, instead, except, or). The only sense of extension which produces embedded clauses is that of possession, introduced by whose, of which/which … of or a ‘contact’ relative ending with of
In one of those cities – one [[ + whose name has long been forgotten]] – there lived an old halac uinic, or chief. 
Note that here, as elsewhere in the grammar, possession is generalised possession; it includes not only concrete ownership but various kinds of concrete and abstract association.

Monday, 23 September 2019

Elaborating Embedded Finite Clause As Head Of Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 496):
In all the examples that have been discussed so far, the embedded clause functions as Postmodifier. It was pointed out in Chapter 6 that there are structures in which the Head is fused with the relative element in the embedded clause: this happens with what, meaning ‘that which’, and with whoever, whatever, whichever meaning ‘anyone who, anything that/which’, as in what we want ‘the thing + that we want’, whoever gets there first ‘anyone/the one + who gets there first’. … The effect of this fusion is that the embedded clause comes to function as Head, although it may be helpful to represent it separately in the analysis (Figure 7-17).
This analysis brings out the fact that such embedded clauses function as nominals rather than as clauses; so they take on the range of roles we find with nominals that (cf. what = that which), s/he (cf. whoever = s/he who), the way (cf. how = the way in which), and so on. This is reflected in forms like the one who.

Sunday, 22 September 2019

Non-Finite Embedded Clause With The Preposition 'Of'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495):
Although a non-finite embedded clause with a preposition is generally circumstantial in meaning, and hence enhancing, there is one other type (in addition to the perfectives with to, already noted) that is elaborating; namely those with of where the relation is appositive, e.g. the job of cleaning the barracks where the job consists in cleaning the barracks. Some of these are uncertain, e.g. the advantage of shopping early, the problem with asking directions where shopping early, asking directions could be either elaborating (appositive) ‘which consists in’ or enhancing (circumstantial) ‘which results from’.

Saturday, 21 September 2019

Embedding On A Premodifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495-6):
Note that in examples such as the first person who came in, the best person to do the job, the embedded clause strictly has as its domain not the Head noun person but a premodifying element; the meaning is ‘the first-who-came-in person’, ‘the best-to-do-the-job person’. Compare a hard act to follow, the longest bridge ever built. We can express this relationship structurally as in Figure 7-16. 
But as already pointed out, constituency is not a very appropriate concept for representing semantic domain, and for most purposes it suffices to show the clause simply as embedded in the nominal group: a hard act [[to follow]].

Friday, 20 September 2019

Embedded Non-Finite Elaborating Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494-5):
The elaborating clause is either (a) finite, where the relative is who(m), which, that or implicit (a ‘contact’ relative), or (b) non-finite, where the relative is typically implicit; …With the non-finite clauses, note again the difference between imperfective and perfective, as in the following set:
(a) operative the person taking pictures (‘who is/was taking’)
(b) receptive the pictures taken by Mary (‘which were/are taken’) (according to the tense of the outer clause)
(a) operative
(1) the (best) person to take pictures (‘who ought to take’) [relative = Subject] 
(2) the (best) pictures to take (‘which someone ought to take’) [relative = Complement]
(b) receptive the pictures to be taken (‘which are/were to be taken’)
Glosses in parenthesis suggest the nearest equivalent finite form. In non-finite elaborating clauses, the implicit relative is normally the Subject, but in perfective operative clauses it may be either the Subject (as in the person to take pictures) or the Complement (as in the pictures to be taken). Here we thus see two principles in operation, viz. (1) the Subject may be presupposed in a non-finite clause; (2) the Complement may be presupposed in a defining relative clause. The second principle also extends to Adjuncts, as in the best time to take pictures (‘the best time at which to take pictures’); these are treated as enhancing.

Thursday, 19 September 2019

Embedded Elaborating Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494):
The typical defining relative clause, introduced by who, which, that, or in its so-called ‘contact clause’ form without any relative marker (e.g. he told in the tales he told), is elaborating in sense. The following example illustrates the contrast between an embedded, defining relative clause and a hypotactically dependent, non-defining one.
||| The only person [[ who was kind to him at all]] was the Skin Horse, || who had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. |||
The relative element in an embedded clause restates the nominal antecedent; thus in
the man [[ who came to dinner ]] stayed for a month
the man who came to dinner and the man who stayed for a month are the same man. This is the same principle by which non-defining relatives are also elaborating in function. The defining ones, however, do not form a separate tone group, because there is only one piece of information here, not two – who came to dinner is not news, but simply part of the characterisation of that particular participant.

Wednesday, 18 September 2019

Analysis Of A Clause Containing A Nominal Group Containing An Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):
Figure 7-15 shows the analysis of a clause containing a nominal group containing an embedded clause. (The analysis is given in terms of Mood; the embedding could, of course, equally well be incorporated into an analysis in terms of transitivity.)

Tuesday, 17 September 2019

Embedded Expansions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):
The meaning of an embedded clause, or phrase, that is functioning as an expansion is essentially to define, delimit or specify. Thus the characteristic embedded expansion is the ‘defining relative clause’ (also called ‘restrictive’), like that Jack built in the house that Jack built. Its function is to specify which member or members of the class designated by the Head noun, in this instance house, is or are being referred to.

Monday, 16 September 2019

Functions Of Embedded Clauses And Phrases

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491-2):
Embedding is thus the ‘rank shift’ by which a clause or phrase comes to function within the structure of a group. The characteristic function of an embedded element is as Postmodifier in a nominal group … . Other functions are: as Head of a nominal group (ie as a nominalisation); and as Postmodifier in an adverbial group. … These are summarised in Table 7-12. All embedding falls into one or other of these major categories; there are no further types. It should be remembered that the category of nominal group includes those having adjective (Epithet) as Head.

Sunday, 15 September 2019

Embedding And Hypotaxis Contrasted Diagrammatically

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491):
Embedding (rankshift) and hypotaxis are contrasted diagrammatically in Figure 7-14. We represent embedded clauses as [[ ]] and embedded phrases as [ ]:
the man [[ who came to dinner ]] / [[ coming to dinner ]]
the man [at the next table]

Saturday, 14 September 2019

Embedded Nominalisation As Head: Notational Simplification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491n):
Where the embedded element functions as Head, we may leave out the intermediate (nominal group) step in the analysis and represent the embedded clause or phrase as functioning directly in the structure of the outer clause, as Subject or whatever. This is a notational simplification; it does not affect the status of the embedded element as a nominalisation. Note that this still does not make it resemble hypotaxis; in hypotaxis one clause is dependent on another, but in no sense is it a constituent part of it.

Friday, 13 September 2019

Embedding: Premodifier–Postmodifier Agnation And Complexity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491n):
We can say that it’s a mechanism whereby a clause or word comes to function as a word, and there may be agnation between words as Premodifiers and phrases or clauses as Postmodifiers, e.g. an new car ~ a car [[that is new]]; a passenger car ~ a car for passengers; an electric car ~ a car [[ [that is] powered by electricity]]. This is reflected in the use of terms such as ‘adjective clause’ (for relative clauses serving as Postmodifier) and ‘noun clause’ (for clauses serving as Head). However, often downranked phrases and clauses construe meanings that are more complex than those lexicalised by words that can serve as Premodifiers. For example, relative clauses typically construe meanings that are in some sense more complex than those construed by adjectives, and the qualities they construe are often instantial ones rather than permanent ones inherent in the Thing; cf. his new car with his car [[that gave off macho growls at the traffic lights]] and the only kind person with the only person [[who was kind to him at all ]].

Thursday, 12 September 2019

Taxis Vs Embedding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490-1):
Whereas parataxis and hypotaxis are relations between clauses (or other ranking elements), embedding is not.  Embedding is a semogenic mechanism whereby a clause or phrase comes to function as a constituent within the structure of a group, which itself is a constituent of a clause, e.g. who came to dinner in the man who came to dinner. Hence there is no direct relationship between an embedded clause and the clause in which it is embedded; the relationship of an embedded clause to the ‘outer’ clause is an indirect one, with the group as intermediary.  The embedded clause functions in the structure of the group, and the group functions in the structure of the clause.

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

Imperfective vs Perfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490):
With [the bound non-finite clause (On) reaching the monument], however, we have a system of ASPECT: imperfective/perfective. The imperfective represents the real, or actual, mode of non-finiteness (‘realis’), while the perfective represents the potential, or virtual (‘irrealis’). So for example:
||| Reaching the monument, || continue straight ahead. |||
||| To reach the monument, || continue straight ahead. |||
Historically the imperfective combined with the preposition ‘at, in’ (cf. a-doing in the folksy what are you a-doing of?); the perfective combined – and still does, in the infinitive form – with the preposition ‘to’. The meaning of the two aspects is very fluid and indeterminate; in the most general terms, the imperfective means act in progress, actual, present, ongoing, steady state or (dependent) proposition, while the perfective means goal to be attained, potential, future, starting and stopping, change of state or (dependent) proposal. Sometimes the distinction is quite clear, as in the example above; sometimes it is very tenuous, as between the first person leaving and the first person to leave.

Blogger Comments:

Note that the source of this "folksy" construction is actually Irish (and Scottish Gaelic) in which the preposition ag /ə/ ('at') precedes such verbs.  The construction existed in Old Irish centuries before it came to English through bilingual speakers from Ireland and Scotland.

Tuesday, 10 September 2019

The Gradual Loss Of Information From Finite Free Clause To Prepositional Phrase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490):
There is a gradual loss of information, in the way a process is construed in the grammar, as one moves from the finite free clause to the prepositional phrase; for example ‘soon you will reach the monument; then continue straight ahead’:
(1) shows transitivity, with Process and Medium; bound mood, with Subject, and primary tense (system I). (2) shows transitivity, with Process and Medium; free mood, with Subject, and reduced primary tense (system II). (3) shows transitivity with Process but no Medium; no mood, and no explicit Subject; no primary tense (system III). (4) shows no transitivity (minor process only), no mood, and no tense.

Monday, 9 September 2019

Non-Finite Dependent Clauses Without Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490):
There is one type of non-finite dependent clause which is often not recognised because it has no verb in it; for example, with no-one in charge, with everyone so short of money.  These are in fact ‘attributive relational’ clauses, with zero alternation of the non-finite verb being (less commonly they may be identifying, eg with that the only solution).  The verb be will always be present in the agnate finite clause (eg since no-one is in charge); and in the non-finite it is always possible to insert being, with very little difference in meaning.

Sunday, 8 September 2019

Non-Finite Clauses With No Explicit Marker Of Dependent Status

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 489):
A non-finite clause, on the other hand, is by its nature dependent, simply by virtue of being non-finite. It typically occurs, therefore, without any other explicit marker of its dependent status. Hence when a non-finite clause occurs without a conjunction, there is no doubt about its hypotactic relation in a clause complex; but there may be no indication of its logical-semantic function. … 
The best solution here is to find the nearest finite agnate clause. If this is a non-defining relative clause, the non-finite is elaborating. If it is a coordinate clause, the non-finite is extending. If it is an enhancing clause, the non-finite is enhancing and could probably be introduced by a conjunctive preposition.

Saturday, 7 September 2019

Clause Finiteness & Dependency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487-8):
A finite clause is in principle independent; it becomes dependent only if introduced by a binding (hypotactic) conjunction. If it is joined in a clause complex, its natural status is paratactic. In this case its logical-semantic relationship to its neighbour is typically shown by a linking (paratactic) conjunction. 
Frequently, however, two or more finite clauses with no conjunction in them are nonetheless related by expansion; and this is recognised in writing by their being punctuated as one sentence. Typically in such instances the relation is one of elaboration as described above. But in both spoken and written English we find unconjoined sequences which seem to be functioning as clause complexes, yet which do not seem to be restricted to the elaborating type.

Friday, 6 September 2019

Multivalent Markers Of Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487):
Certain markers of expansion are multivalent: they can mark either elaboration and extension or extension and enhancement. … Examples of such conjunctive markers with two (or more) senses are listed in Table 7-11. …The best strategy [for analysis] is to explore close agnates and to see if these are elaborating, extending or enhancing expansions.

Thursday, 5 September 2019

Non-Finite Enhancing Clauses: Explicitness And Determinacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 486-7):
If the dependent clause is non-finite, the circumstantial relationship is made explicit by the structural conjunction or conjunctive preposition. The conjunctions are a subset of those occurring in finite clauses, and their meaning is essentially the same. The prepositions tend to be somewhat less specific, e.g. in turning the corner, on thinking it over, with you being away, without John knowing; and the meaning of the clause introduced by a preposition may vary according to the sense of the primary clause:
||| Without having been there || I can’t say what happened. |||
(cause: reason ‘because I wasn’t there’)
||| Without having been there || I know all that happened. |||
(condition: concessive ‘although I wasn’t there’)
||| Without having been there || I rather like the place. |||
Nevertheless, it is usually possible to assign these clauses to the categories of time, manner and cause, and to match the prepositions up in a general way with the conjunctions.

Wednesday, 4 September 2019

Perfective Non-Finite Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 485):
Note that perfective non-finite clauses (e.g. to jazz up the title) typically express purpose, but they sometimes express result instead, just as finite clauses introduced by so that may express either result or purpose; in other words, purpose (‘irrealis’) may shade into result (‘realis’).

Tuesday, 3 September 2019

Adverbial Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):
Adverbial conjunctions are as/so long as, as/so far as, (as) much as, e.g. as long as you’re here ... , as far as I know ... , much as I’d like to ... (compare non-finite as well as, which is extending not enhancing). In origin these express limitation, a particular point up to which a certain circumstance is valid.

Monday, 2 September 2019

Nominal Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):
Nominal conjunctions include in case, in the event that, to the extent that, and the + various nouns of time or manner, e.g. the day, the moment, the way. These last have evolved from prepositional phrases with the enhancing clause embedded in them, e.g. on the day when we arrived; but they now function to introduce hypotactic clauses just like other conjunctions, e.g. their daughter was born the day we arrived, the way they’re working now the job’ll be finished in a week. One clear indication that such constructions have been reanalysed from nominal groups with embedded clauses to nominal conjunctions introducing hypotactically dependent clauses is that the former ‘nominal groups’ no longer have the potential for modification; thus while we can say on the beautiful day when we arrived, it would be odd (or impossible) to say their daughter was born the beautiful day we arrived.

Sunday, 1 September 2019

Verbal Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):
Verbal conjunctions are derived from the imperative or from the present/active or past/passive participle + (optionally) that: provided (that), seeing (that/how), suppose/supposing (that), granted (that), say (that). In origin these are projections; their function as expanding conjunction reflects the semantic overlap between expansion and projection in the realm of ‘irrealis’: ‘let us say/think that ... ’ = ‘if ... ’, as in say they can’t mend it, shall I just throw it away?

Saturday, 31 August 2019

The Function Of The Conjunction In Finite Hypotactic Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):
With a finite clause, the conjunction serves to express both the dependency (the hypotactic status) and the enhancing relationship. As well as simple conjunctions such as because, when, if, and conjunction groups like as if, even if, soon after, so that, there are three kinds of complex conjunction, one derived from verbs, one from nouns and the third from adverbs.

Friday, 30 August 2019

Hypotactic Cause-Condition: Concession

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):
With concession, there is a special hypotactic construction that may be used when the β-clause is an attributive relational one: the Attribute is given the status of marked Theme and the Rheme begins with as or though — an item which would be the structural Theme in the unmarked case (as in tempting as it may be; little though it may be).

Blogger Comments:

A work that makes considerable use of this construction is Alan Bennett's The Uncommon Reader.

Thursday, 29 August 2019

Internal (Vs External) Enhancing Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):
… the enhancing relation may be internal rather than external; that is, the β-clause may relate to the enactment of the proposition or proposal realised by the α-clause rather than to the figure that it represents.  For example, if it is not too personal an inquiry, what limits do you set… means ‘if it is not…, I ask you…’; that is, the condition is on the act of questioning, not on the content of the question.

Blogger Comments:

Monty Python's Life Of Brian provides an easy–to–remember instance:
If it's not a personal question, are you a virgin?
Note that English Text: System And Structure (Martin 1992) is a major source of confusion on the internal/external distinction (evidence here), as is Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause (Martin & Rose 2007).

Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Introducing Finite vs Non-finite Hypotactically Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 482):
Hypotactically enhancing clauses may be finite or non-finite. The finite ones are introduced by a binder (‘subordinating conjunction’). The non-finite are introduced either (a) by a preposition such as on, with, by functioning conjunctively – note that sometimes the same word is both conjunction and conjunctive preposition, e.g. before, after; or (b) by one of a subset of the binders – there are a few of these, such as when, which can function also with a non-finite clause.

Tuesday, 27 August 2019

Hypotactic Vs Paratactic Chains Of Enhancement: Contributions To Discourse

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 482):
… in a hypotactic chain, each new link in the chain moves further away from the place in the discourse where the dominant clause is located. In contrast, paratactic chains of enhancement move the discourse forward, as happens in narratives and procedures.

Monday, 26 August 2019

Hypotactic Enhancement: ‘Adverbial Clauses’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 481): 
The combination of enhancement with hypotaxis gives what are known in traditional formal grammar as ‘adverbial clauses’. As with parataxis, these are clauses of time, place, manner, cause, and condition. Typically, hypotactically enhancing chains are limited to two clauses, with one clause (or sub-complex) qualifying another clause (or sub-complex);

Sunday, 25 August 2019

Paratactic Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 478):
The combination of enhancement with parataxis yields what is also a kind of co-ordination but with a circumstantial feature incorporated into it; the most frequently occurring subtypes are those of time and cause.  The circumstantial feature is typically expressed
(a) by the conjunctions then, so, for, but, yet, still
(b) by a conjunction group with and: and then, and thus, and so, and yet; or 
(c) by and in combination with a conjunctive (i.e. a conjunctive expression that is not structural but cohesive) such as at that time, soon afterwards, till then, in that case, in that way
Note also that some conjunctives, such as meanwhile, otherwise, therefore, however, nevertheless, are extending their use in modern spoken English so as to become paratactic structural conjunctions; in this function they are unaccented (spoken without salience).

Saturday, 24 August 2019

The Principal Categories And Markers Of Clause Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 476, 476n, 477-8):
the principal categories are set out in Table 7-10 together with the principal markers of enhancement. … Note that the cohesive conjunctives such as afterwards, nevertheless, in that way are simply examples of a large class of expressions that can co-occur with and in this context.

Friday, 23 August 2019

Clause Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 476-7):
In enhancement one clause (or subcomplex) enhances the meaning of another by qualifying it in one of a number of possible ways: by reference to time, place, manner, cause or condition. As with extension, the parallel between parataxis and hypotaxis is very close, although there are certain gaps in the paradigm;