Notice therefore that there is a proportion such that
Saturday, 30 November 2019
Friday, 29 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 527-8, 527n):
As with those that are projected verbally, so with those that are projected mentally the exact limits are fuzzy; they merge with causatives and with various aspectual categories. The relevant criteria are similar to those set up for propositions, except that we cannot realistically test for quoting, since mental proposals are rarely quoted.* For reporting, however, if the process in the dominant clause is one of desire, and the dependent clause is a future declarative, or could be replaced by a future declarative, then the structure can be interpreted as a projection; for example we hope you will not forget. In Chapter 8, Section 8.8, we shall suggest an alternative interpretation for those where the dependent clause is non-finite and its Subject is presupposed from the dominant clause, e.g. he wanted to go home (where it is difficult to find a closely equivalent finite form); but there will always be a certain amount of arbitrariness about where the line is drawn.
* Note that ‘I wish he’d go away,’ thought Mary is a quoted proposition incorporating a reported proposal, not a quoted proposal, which would be ‘Let him go away!’ wished Mary. As with mental propositions, so also with mental proposals: the notion behind quoting is generally that of ‘saying to oneself’, or saying silently to a deity as in prayer.
Thursday, 28 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 527, 517):
With the ‘mental’ reporting of ideas, there is an important distinction between propositions and proposals, deriving from their fundamental nature as different forms of semiotic exchange. Whereas propositions, which are exchanges of information, are projected mentally by processes of cognition – thinking, knowing, understanding, wondering, etc. – proposals, which are exchanges of goods-&-services, are projected mentally by processes of desire, as illustrated by the examples given above under ‘mental’ (for examples of verbs of desire, see above Table 7-21). Thus, while propositions are thought, proposals are hoped.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526, 523):
The parallel between quoting and reporting is not so close with proposals as with propositions, because reported proposals merge gradually into causatives without any very clear line in between. Thus not only are there many verbs used in quoting which are not used in reporting – again the complex ones: we would not write his driver soothed him to be steady or soothed that he should keep steady – but also there are many verbs used to report that are not used to quote, verbs expressing a wide variety of rhetorical processes such as persuade, forbid, undertake, encourage, recommend, as illustrated above; see Table 7-23.
Tuesday, 26 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526):
However, these typically differ with respect to the status of the Subject of the reported proposal. With reported locutions, the Subject is implicit; it is presumed from the Receiver of the reporting ‘verbal’ clause: he told/promised me || to wash the car. This is shown by the agnate finite variant (he told me || that I should wash the car; he promised me || that he would wash the car) and by the fact that the ‘verbal’ clause has a passive variant with the Receiver as Subject – I was told || to wash the car.
In contrast, with reported ideas, the Subject is explicit as part of the projected proposal: he wanted || me to wash the car; he intended/planned/hoped || for me to wash the car. Here there is no passive variant of the reporting clause – we cannot say I was wanted || to wash the car, I was hoped || (for) to wash the car; but there is a passive variant of the reported idea clause – we can say he wanted || the car to be washed (by me). Not surprisingly, there are intermediate cases; more specifically, certain nexuses of reported locutions have properties usually associated with nexuses of reported ideas. Thus with order we can say I was ordered || to wash the car (cf. I was told || to wash the car); but we can also say he ordered || the car to be washed (by me) (cf. he wanted || the car to be washed (by me)).
Monday, 25 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526, 526n):
Unlike reported propositions, reported proposals take the same form regardless of whether they are giving or demanding in orientation:* (giving) he promised me to wash the car; (demanding) he told me to wash the car. This applies to both locutions and ideas.
* This is true of the form of non-finites; but they differ with respect to the source of the presumed Subject of the non-finite clause, as is shown by the agnate finite variant of the reported clause: when the orientation is demanding, the source is the Receiver of the verbal clause (he told me || to wash the car – that I should ...); when it is given, the source is the Sayer (he promised me || to wash the car – that he would ...). Finites differ between giving and demanding in the choice of modal: (giving: inclination) he promised that he would wash the car; (demanding: obligation) he demanded that we should wash the car.
Sunday, 24 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525-6):
The non-finites are typically perfective, e.g.
||| I tell people || to say thank you. |||
||| And then, finally, I was invited || to create the interior of the United States Pavilion at the New York World’s Fair in 1964. |||
||| Of course I want || Labour to win || but I don’t think || they will. |||
||| Do you want || me to explain that? |||
However, a few verbs take imperfective projections, e.g. she suggested talking it over.
Saturday, 23 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525):
In American English in particular, reported proposals are often in the ‘subjunctive’ (where the third person singular is the base form of the verb); for example:
||| The negotiations were suspended in January || when Syria insisted || Israel commit to returning to prewar 1967 borders. |||
||| Did they suggest || the attorney general investigate? |||
||| When Evans returned to Sydney with glowing reports of this fertile land [[he’d found]], || the Governor ordered || that a road be built. |||
||| Perhaps it was history that ordained || that it be here, at the Cape of Good Hope [[that we should lay the foundation stone of our new nation]]. |||
Friday, 22 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525):
The finites are declarative, usually modulated with a modal auxiliary of obligation (should, ought to, must, has to, is to, might, could, would) serving as Finite, e.g.
||| The doctor ordered || that all the books and toys [[that the Boy had played with in bed]] must be burned. |||
||| Yet somebody told me || that I mustn’t repudiate my non-fiction, || because it’s saying very much || what the fiction is saying. |||
||| He told Philip || that he should demand higher wages, || for notwithstanding the difficult work [[he was now engaged in]], he received no more than the six shillings a week [[with which he started]]. |||
||| I wish || you’d do something about that wall, Jane. |||
||| But until you’ve got kids || and are bringing them up ||| ... I wish || mine would hurry up || and grow up || and leave home. |||
Thursday, 21 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525, 525n):
With propositions, the reported clause is finite.* With proposals, it may be (a) finite or (b) non-finite.
* Except for certain projected ideas, which may take a non-finite form on the model of the Latin ‘accusative + infinitive’, e.g. ||| I understood || them to have accepted ||| he doesn’t consider || you to be serious |||. These shade into attributed intensive relational clauses, e.g. [Attributor:] he [Process:] doesn’t consider [Carrier:] you [Attribute:] serious.
Wednesday, 20 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 524-5):
Like propositions, proposals can also be reported: projected hypotactically (1) by ‘verbal’ clauses as ‘indirect speech’ or (2) by ‘mental’ clauses as ‘indirect thought’. The former involves indirect commands, offers and suggestions; the latter desired (ideas of) states of affair. One central feature they share is the mode of the projected proposal: it is ‘irrealis’, or non-actualised, and the projecting clause represents the verbal or mental force of actualisation. The mode is reflected in the realisation of the reported clause. (Both mental and verbal reporting of proposals can be used to realise direct proposals).
Tuesday, 19 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 524):
As with verbs used to quote propositions, verbs such as moan serve in ‘behavioural’ clauses pressed into quoting service; for example:
||| ‘Say something nice to me,’ || she murmured. |||
||| ‘Oh, don’t go yet,’ || he cried. ||| ‘I must,’ || she muttered. |||
||| ‘Oh, don’t take him away yet,’ || she moaned. |||
These are the ‘direct commands’ of traditional grammar, to which we would need to add ‘direct offers (and suggestions)’; in other words, all proposals projected as ‘direct speech’. Just like non-projected proposals, quoted proposals may be realised by ‘imperative’ clauses; but they may also be realised by modulated ‘indicative’ ones:
||| ‘Then please tell him’, || Liz begged like a child. |||
||| ‘Don’t be ridiculous’, || Julia snapped. |||
||| ‘Perhaps you and your wife would like to look around together’, || Richard suggested with frosty politeness. |||
||| ‘You could still apply for it, you know – the managership’, || Andrew was suggesting helpfully. |||
||| ‘I shouldn’t keep him waiting, || if I were you’, || Eleanor tossed over her shoulder || as she left. |||
Matthiessen's interpretation of the quoting clause as behavioural is problematic, because it creates unnecessary inconsistency and complication in the theory. The simplest (and Hallidayan) interpretation is that the quoting clause is verbal, not behavioural, and that the lexical choice adds a behavioural feature to the process of saying.
This use of lexis is a common strategy in English, as shown by clauses like she talked her way into the press conference. In this instance, the lexical selection 'talk' adds a (near-verbal) behavioural feature to a material Process. We know the clause isn't behavioural because the Range of the Process her way is not a Behaviour (as it would be for behavioural clauses).
Monday, 18 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 523-4):
Offers and commands, and also suggestions which are simply the combination of the two (offer ‘I’ll do it’, command ‘you do it’, suggestion ‘let’s do it’), can be projected paratactically (quoted) in the same way as propositions, by means of a verbal process clause having a quoting function. For example (using an exclamation mark as an optional notational variant),
||| If we’re talking || when she’s writing up on the board, || all of a sudden she’ll turn round || and go || ‘will you be quiet!’ |||
||| she’ll go || will you be quiet |||
Here the verb go is the quoting verb. Further examples:
||| I said to Peter, || ‘Don’t say anything.’ |||
||| ‘The ark must be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high,’ || he said, || ‘big enough for you and your wife, your three sons, and their wives’. |||
||| He said, || ‘I could fix that hot-water heater!’ |||
||| ‘Let’s celebrate today, || because beginning tomorrow || there’s a lot of work [[to do]],’ || he said. |||
Sunday, 17 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522-3):
This combination of a verbal process with ‘reporting’, although we are treating it as logically subsequent to quoting, being arrived at by analogy with the reporting of a mental process, is the normal way of representing what people say, in most registers of English today. The opposite combination, that of a mental process with ‘quoting’, is also found, although considerably more restricted. Here a thought is represented as if it was a wording, for example
I saw an ad in the paper for dachshunds, and I thought ‘I’ll just inquire’ – not intending to buy one, of course.
||| I thought || ‘I’ll just inquire’ |||
||| ‘The gods must watch out for Kukul,’ || he thought to himself. |||
||| So I figured ||‘Well, then obviously it’s going to be a nineteenth-century American novel’. |||
||| ‘When all’s said and done,’ << he reflected, >> ‘she hasn’t had much chance.’ |||
The implication is ‘I said to myself ... ’; and this expression is often used, recognising the fact that one can think in words. Only certain mental process verbs are regularly used to quote in this way, such as think, wonder, reflect, surmise.
Saturday, 16 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522, 523):
In addition to the verbs listed in Table 7-23, we also find a pattern with verb: express + a noun of sensing such as belief, confidence, suspicion; hope, desire; apprehension, concern, disappointment, frustration, fear(s), anger, outrage, regret (+ to nominal group) + that-clause.
This pattern could be analysed as a ranged ‘verbal’ clause: Process: express + Verbiage: [nominal group: Head: fear, etc. + Qualifier: that-clause]; we also find such nouns of sensing (often nominalisations of verbs of sensing) serving as Head and configured with phrases as Qualifier, as in express + fear of attack / childbirth / for safety / about labour unrest.
However, looked at ‘from above’, this pattern can be interpreted as a strategy for construing processes of saying externalising processes of consciousness. They may be configured with an element that can be interpreted as Receiver, and they often occur in the environment of hypotactically projecting verbal clauses; for example:Assange expressed fears that cyberspace had its limits.
The coach of the Peruvian Football, Sergio Markarian, expressed confidence that their pupils achieve a victory over Colombia and said it is in the semi-finals of the Copa America.
Many viewers have expressed frustration that the supposedly feminist Joss Whedon would create a story about a glorified, high-tech form of prostitution. However, I argue here that in his feminist repertoire, Dollhouse gives us just as much fodder for thinking about gender, feminism, and power as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which drew its appeal by resisting the very forms of systemic oppression, both male and female disempowerment, that Dollhouse sought to make explicit.
After Warren died from HIV in 1995, I expressed regret to Kirk that I hadn’t seen more of Warren in his last years, and Kirk suggested that one way I could respond would be by seeing more of him – which I did, and was glad to do.
Friday, 15 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522, 522n):
On the other hand, many verbs that assign interpersonal and/or behavioural features to the speech event, and are used to quote especially in narrative contexts, are never used to report because they do not contain the feature ‘say’. Thus we are unlikely to find … Poirot mused that discretion was a great thing, and even more unlikely to find examples involving behavioural processes that are closer to the physiological end of the behavioural end of the spectrum.*
*But they do occur when they embody assessment, as is illustrated by the following selection from the web:(a) Drinking in the view across the Potomac River, Kennedy reportedly mused that he could stay in that spot forever;
(b) When we invented the wheel, people moaned that we’d forget how to walk;
(c) Citizens have long grimaced that their votes are the only input they gave into government;
(d) I muttered, embarrassed, something about having never been to see him all this time and she frowned that I had never gone to see him;
(e) The careful telephonic questions of Dictator Mussolini were followed by abrupt commands. Consul Riccardi gulped that he understood, hung up, donned resplendent attire, and fairly strutted to the residence of Provincial Governor Stumpf.
However, there do not (at the time of writing!) appear to be examples of reporting with hiccupped (hiccoughed) that, coughed that, spat that.
Thursday, 14 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 521-2):
Many semantically complex verbs for elaborated speech functions are used only in reporting, e.g. insinuate, imply, remind, hypothesise, deny, make out, claim, maintain. These verbs are seldom used to quote; there is too much experiential distance between them and the actual speech event.
Wednesday, 13 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 521):
In quoting, the word say can project sayings of every mood, whereas in reporting we find say, ask and tell: see examples in Table 7-22.
Tuesday, 12 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 521):
Verbs used in reporting statements and questions are often the same as those used in quoting; but there is one significant difference. In quoting, the independent status of the proposition, including its mood, is preserved; hence the speech function is as explicit as in the ‘original’. In reporting, on the other hand, the speech function is, or may be, obscured, and is therefore made explicit in the reporting verb.
Monday, 11 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 520):
While minor clauses can be quoted, they cannot be reported; that is, the quoting clause nexus He said ‘Ah!’ has no reporting agnate. Similarly, while non-linguistic sounds can be quoted (often with go as the Process, as in she went (sound of a sigh)), they cannot be reported.
Sunday, 10 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 519-20):
It is possible to ‘report’ a saying by representing it as a meaning. This is the ‘reported speech’, or ‘indirect speech’, of traditional Western grammars; for example, the noble Brutus hath told you Cæsar was ambitious. In this instance, Brutus had, indeed, said those very words …
But the principle behind this hypotactic representation of a verbal event is that it is not, in fact, being presented as true to the wording; the speaker is reporting the gist of what was said, and the wording may be quite different from the original …
This is not to suggest, of course, that when a speaker uses the paratactic, ‘direct’ form he is always repeating the exact words; far from it. But the idealised function of the paratactic structure is to represent the wording; whereas with hypotaxis the idealised function is to represent the sense, or gist.
Saturday, 9 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 519):
As pointed out earlier, the hypotactic relationship implies a different perspective. If we contrast the following pair of examples:
(a) Mary said: ‘I will come back here to-morrow’.
(b) Mary thought she would go back there the next day.
then in (a) the standpoint in the projected clause is that of the Sayer, Mary; she is the point of reference for the deixis, which thus preserves the form of the lexicogrammatical event, using I, here, come, tomorrow. In (b) on the other hand the standpoint in the projected clause is simply that of the speaker of the projecting one; so Mary is ‘she’, Mary’s present location is ‘there’, a move towards that location is ‘going’, and the day referred to as that immediately following the saying is not the speaker’s tomorrow but simply ‘the next day’. Furthermore, since the saying clause has past time the projected clause carries over the feature of temporal remoteness: hence would (future in past – the past defined by thought), not will (simple future). Hypotactic projection preserves the deictic orientation of the projecting clause, which is that of the speaker; whereas in paratactic projection the deixis shifts and takes on the orientation of the Sayer. And while paratactic projection can represent any dialogic features of what was said, hypotactic projection cannot; for example, vocative elements and minor speech functions can be quoted but not reported …
Friday, 8 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 518):
When something is projected as a meaning, we are not representing ‘the very words’, because there are no words. If we want to argue about whether or not the experts held this opinion, we have no observed event as a point of reference. Hence, in combination with the tactic system, the basic pattern for projecting meanings is not parataxis, which treats the projection as a free-standing event, but hypotaxis, which makes it dependent on the mental process clause. In other words, the typical pattern for representing a ‘thinking’ is the hypotactic one …
Thursday, 7 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 518):
So, for example, the phenomenon of water falling out of the sky may be construed as a meaning, by a mental process of cognition, in (she thought) it was raining; but when the same phenomenon is represented by a verbal process, as in (she said:) ‘it’s raining’, it is the meaning ‘it is raining’ that has been reconstrued to become a wording. A wording is, as it were, twice cooked. … We are unconsciously aware that when something has the status of a wording it lies not at one but at two removes from experience; it has undergone two steps in the realisation process.
Wednesday, 6 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 517-8):
Something that is projected as a meaning is still a phenomenon of language – it is what was referred to above as a ‘metaphenomenon’; but it is presented at a different level – semantic, not lexicogrammatical. When something is projected as a meaning it has already been ‘processed’ by the linguistic system – it is a phenomenon of experience that has been construed as a meaning; but processed only once, not twice as in the case of a wording, where a phenomenon of experience is construed first as a meaning and then in turn as wording.
Tuesday, 5 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 517):
But they also include clauses where the uncertainty is represented grammatically in the projecting clause by a feature of negative polarity or interrogative mood, or by projection or expansion within the verbal group serving as Process, or by perfective aspect in a purpose clause; for example:
||| I do not know || whether you have seen it. |||
||| It is not known || whether the mystics could give objective certainty to their experiences. |||
||| Who knows || whether his debt was true or false? |||
||| So I want to know || whether this devious and hypocritical me could have been whole and innocent at least as a boy. |||
Monday, 4 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 516):
The projected idea clause is either an indirect statement or an indirect question; … different sets of verbs are associated with these two types. In the environment of ‘mental’ projection, the contrast between statement and question is not concerned with the speech functional orientation of giving vs. demanding information but rather with the status of the validity of the information. In a statement, it is fixed with respect to the polarity and the elements of transitivity (realised by an indirect declarative clause optionally introduced by that), but in a question, it is open with respect to the polarity (realised by an indirect yes/no interrogative clause introduced by whether or if) or one (or more) of the elements of transitivity (realised by an indirect wh- interrogative clause introduced by who, which, when, where, etc.). Consequently, mental clauses representing an ‘undecided’ state of mind are used to project indirect questions. These include clauses of wondering and doubting, finding out and checking, and contemplating, which tend to be characterised by special lexical verbs such as wonder, ascertain; for example:
||| Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday || he doubted || President Clinton could broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before the end his presidential term on Jan. 20. |||
||| I’ll ask Jenny about laptops || and find out || whether we have got any. |||
||| She had not been in || when he had phoned || to check || whether they were going out for dinner that night. |||
||| It should be noted || that the first step taken by the underwriter or agent is [[[ to examine the policy || to ascertain || whether the loss is recoverable thereunder]]] . |||
||| He investigated || whether his feeling [[ that the veena produced the most exquisite musical sound]] was a subjective reaction || or has a sound physical basis. |||
||| Let us now consider || whether the arrangement of the stanzas in the particular order bears out any such meaning [[ as we have got from it]] . |||
Sunday, 3 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 516, 517):
Examples of verbs serving as Process in ‘mental’ clauses projecting ideas are set out in Table 7-21. The verbs are largely restricted to two of the four types of sensing – cognition and desideration (but usually not perception and never emotion). So far we have concentrated on clauses of the ‘cognitive’ type; these always project propositions. Here a proposition is, as it were, created cognitively; it is brought into existence by a process of thinking.
Saturday, 2 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 516):
As with nexuses projecting locutions, nexuses projecting ideas consist of a phenomenon — the projecting clause — and a metaphenomenon — the ‘content’ of the projecting clause; for example, in some experts believe that people someday will have their unique genetic code on smart cards ... , the phenomenon is some experts believe and the metaphenomenon is that people someday will have their unique genetic code on smart cards ... .
Friday, 1 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 515):
The uses of this kind of projecting nexus include(i) the representation of the speaker’s thinking in dialogue (often as a way of assessing what is projected, where the projecting clause comes to stand for a modality of probability);
(ii) the representation of the addressee’s thinking in dialogue, often as a way of probing for information;
(iii) the representation of a character’s consciousness in narrative;
(iv) the representation of institutional or expert opinions and beliefs in news reporting and scientific discourse;
(v) the representation of the speaker’s angle in scientific discourse, often as the result of a chain of reasoning.