Thursday, 27 February 2020

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Reality–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):
The reality-phase, or realisation, system is based on the contrast between ‘apparent’ (seems to be) and ‘realised’ (turns out to be); both are perfective, the first being unreal, the second unreal emerging into real.
Witnesses said || the sand dredger seemed to go past the Marchioness || but suddenly smashed into the side || and went right over it. 
This offensive appears to be a sign of their strength, || but their position is highly contradictory. 
Both in terms of quantity and quality, FY 1998 proved to be a very challenging recruiting year. 
The 22 bibliophiles turned out to trail clouds of glory. 
There is a variant of the ‘realised’ which is imperfective, e.g. she turns out knowing all about it; this is looking at it from the ‘real’ end, as reality emerging from appearance. We can also relate the passive voice to this general meaning, with its original sense of ‘is (in a state of) having been realised’.

Wednesday, 26 February 2020

Pageviews by Countries

United States
United Kingdom

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):
Here the verb in the primary group is a very general one of the ‘intensive: ascriptive’ class, and it is elaborated by the verb in the secondary verbal group. The semantic relation between the two is one of PHASE (see Table 8-3). The basic notion is ‘be (intensive) + do’, using ‘do’ to stand for any process. The two dimensions of phase are time-phase and reality-phase.

Tuesday, 25 February 2020

The Meaning Of Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568-9):
The difference in meaning between perfective and imperfective was referred to above. The general principle is that the perfective is ‘unreal’ and the imperfective is ‘real’; they may be opposed in any one of a number of contrasts, as future to present, appearance to reality, starting off to going on, goal to means, intention to action, or proposal to proposition; and sometimes the difference between them is minimal. The pairs of examples in Table 8-2 will give some feeling for the distinction.

Monday, 24 February 2020

The Secondary Verbal Group: Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):
The secondary group may be perfective, with or without to, e.g. (to) do; or imperfective, e.g. doing, in aspect. The other non-finite form, the ‘past/passive participle’, e.g. done, usually stands for the perfective, as in I want it (to be) done, consider it (to have been) done; but in itself it is neutral, and in other contexts it neutralises the distinction, e.g. I saw it (be/being) done.

Sunday, 23 February 2020

Non-Final Verbal Groups And Transitivity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568n):
Non-final verbal groups may realise features that relate to the transitivity of the clause (and this is always the case with causative constructions). For example, while phase does not constrain the interpretation of the Subject as a particular type of participant, connation does; it implies that the Subject is like a Behaver in addition to whatever other participant roles it serves. Contrast [phase:] she seemed to like him with [conation:] she tried to like him. This is why phased existential clauses present no problem, but conative ones are odd: there seemed to be a person on top of the hill vs. there tried to be a person on top of the hill. As we have seen in Chapter 5, there in existential clauses serves as Subject, but it does not play a participant role; so when a participant role interpretation is ‘imposed’ by a conative verbal group complex, there is a clash in the grammar.

Saturday, 22 February 2020

The Last Secondary Group Realises The Process Type Of The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):
It is the secondary group, or last secondary group if there is more than one, that realises the process type of the clause, e.g. [material:] she seemed to mend it, [behavioural:] she seemed to laugh, [mental:] she seemed to like him, [verbal:] she seemed to tell us, [relational:] she seemed to be nice.

Friday, 21 February 2020

Primary Vs Secondary Verbal Group: Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):
The primary group (α) may be finite or non-finite; it is the primary group that carries the mood of the clause, e.g. she tried to do it, what was she trying to do, was she trying to do it, try to do it, having tried to do it etc. The secondary group (β γ δ ...) is always non-finite, this being the realisation of its dependent status.

Thursday, 20 February 2020

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes Are Always Progressive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):
The hypotactic sequence is always progressive – α ^ β (as in tried to do), α ^ β ^ γ (as in began to try to do), α ^ β ^ γ ^ δ (as in wanted to begin to try to do) .... While the groups making up the complex are typically contiguous, as in the examples above, the complex may be discontinuous:
||| DPP lawmaker Chen Ting-nan will be the justice minister, || responsible [[ for helping Chen keep his promise [[ to clean up graft]] ]] . |||
||| Again, a first requirement is [[ to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[ that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[ where they are supporting programs [[ that are actually helping us to get on with the business [[ of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] ]] . |||

Wednesday, 19 February 2020

The Traditional Analysis Of Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567n):
The traditional analysis was to treat the primary group as Predicator in its own right and the secondary group together with elements following it in the clause as an embedded non-finite clause serving as Complement, and this type of analysis was taken over in modern formal approaches, at least initially. 
Comparing the two types of analysis in a meaningful way is not possible within the space available here. However, we can note that while the traditional analysis is forced on us if our only model of structural organisation is that of constituency, the analysis we present here becomes possible once we recognise tactic interdependency structures. It allows us to show the analogy, and agnation, between sequences of verbs, and sequences of clauses, with areas of indeterminacy between the two. It enables us to throw light on so-called ‘serial verb constructions’ in a range of languages, interpreting the findings that have emerged, particularly in the past 15 years or so. 
Further, it enables us to show how categories of the simple verbal group have evolved from verbal group complexes (cf. references below to tense, modality and voice). And it also makes it possible to avoid one of the major drawbacks of the traditional analysis: the secondary verbal group plus the elements following it do not in fact behave as Complements. For example, if they were Complements, the wh- interrogative should be what is she trying?; but it is not: it is what is she trying to do?
Verbal group complexes have also been discussed under the heading of ‘catenatives’, reflecting the fact that the verbs in such a series are concatenated.

Tuesday, 18 February 2020

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567-8):
Like a paratactic verbal group complex and a simple verbal group, a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. tried to do, serves only one set of functions in the clause (and only in the clause, since it cannot be embedded on its own): it is the Process in the experiential transitivity structure, and the Finite (...) Predicator in the interpersonal modal structure. For example:
||| We tried to open windows || to escape. ||| 
||| In 1960 he began to travel. ||| 
The centre is helping field the 150,000 inquiries [[ flooding in nationally each day]] . 
... these doctrines, || which are highly serviceable to power and authority, || but seem to have no other merits. 
||| I always tried to avoid tearing her web || and save her repair work, || but she was a quick and efficient spinner. ||| 
||| I’ve been reading a lot of Lawrence; || I’ve been trying to read most of the works of Lawrence. |||

Monday, 17 February 2020

'Narrowing' In Prepositional Phrases (Embedding) And Nominal Groups (Hypotaxis)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567):
Perversely, however, English tends to go the other way [see previous post], and this employs embedding not hypotaxis (hence many of the prepositions could be replaced by of):
(it’s) [ at [ the back right-hand corner [ in/of [ the top drawer [ in/of [ the small cupboard [ against [ the far wall [ in/of [ the main bedroom [ to the left of [ the landing [ upstairs]]]]]]]]]]]]]
The address on the outside of an envelope forms a similar sequence.
This ‘narrowing’ relationship is in fact the same as that found in the nominal group, where the ‘logical’ structure of the Premodifier is a hypotactic sequence of words. This also goes ‘in reverse’, hence the ordering ... γβα; but it is hypotactic, not embedded:
ζ those ε two δ splendid γ old β electric α trains

Sunday, 16 February 2020

Enhancing Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566-7):
With prepositional phrases and adverbial groups of place and time there is also a hypotactic relation of enhancement, with the special semantic feature of ‘narrowing’, as in tomorrow before lunch. Examples, starting with a constructed sequence:
(it’s) | α upstairs | ×β to the left of the landing | ×γ in the main bedroom | ×δ against the far wall | ×ε in the small cupboard | ×ζ in the top drawer | ×η at the back right hand corner | 
Starting from Narmada, || take the main turn-off south towards Praya.
From Beleka the road continues north, || rejoining the main east-west axis near Kopang, about 30km east of Mataram
You know || what’s happening tomorrow at five o’clock, don’t you?

Saturday, 15 February 2020

Extending Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):
The hypotactic extension of adverbial groups/prepositional phrases is essentially the same as that for nominal groups, with as well as, instead of, rather than, etc.:
In government as well as in commerce, obviously, power was being defined as wealth, the accumulation of economic resources [[[ by which to live more comfortably || and to command more authority]]] . 
It was far better for a weapon used for retaliatory purposes to be under the sea rather than on land
A very important development is the building of research stations on the farms instead of in neighbouring towns
By the time the Great Central was built || the trains could manage the gradients much more easily || and the Great Central line usually went across the valleys ... instead of round them like the earlier railways || so the distances were shorter || and you got better views.

Friday, 14 February 2020

Prepositional Phrase Complex Vs Prepositional Phrase With Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):
Note the difference between these, which have two prepositional phrases in hypotactic relation, and phrases with between, which consist of one prepositional phrase with two paratactic nominal groups as Complement:
(he stood) between [ the door + | 2 and the window ]
It may be helpful to diagram these, as shown in Figure 8-2.

Thursday, 13 February 2020

Elaborating Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):
This is the relationship that is found in sequences such as:
She remained in Lincoln from 1911 until 1919 when she moved owing to the illness of her father, one time Archdeacon of Leicester, and later Canon of Peterborough, and settled in Kettering. 
I took a freighter from New York, all the way up the Amazon into Peru ... 
This twists around a shady, lush river gorge [[ thick with bamboo]] to Bagudesa, || then continues through extensive rice-fields to Kumbung. 
In 1990, London prefixes had changed from 01 to 071 or 081. 
In the present period, the issues arise across the board, <<as they commonly do>>: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order
Here the hypotactic complex construes a path through time or space, including abstract space.

Wednesday, 12 February 2020

Hypotactic Adverbial Group And Prepositional Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):
As with parataxis, adverbial groups and prepositional phrases can be linked hypotactically: the tactic relationship is based on identity in function rather than difference in internal structure. Hypotaxis is used to construe spatial and temporal paths and to construe gradual narrowing of the specification of a location. It combines with (i) elaborating, (ii) extending and (iii) enhancing relations.

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

Extending Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):
In exactly the same way as with elaboration, a nominal group may be extended hypotactically by a prepositional phrase, the preposition having the same sense as when used to introduce a non-finite extending clause – (1) addition (positive): as well as, in addition to; (2) variation, replacement: instead of, rather than, unlike; (3) variation, subtraction: except for. Examples:
Its four levels include a sculpture garden, contemporary collections of Australian and European prints and drawings, 20th century British and European art, an impressionist exhibition as well as a new coffee shop and theatre space.
We have pursued a number of initiatives in recent years || to enhance the capabilities of both our forces forward-deployed on the peninsula and our reinforcing elements, as well as the forces of our South Korean Allies.
Our intent is [[ to develop the most advanced, reliable, and effective equipment || and to field it || when and where it’s needed, || using the Chairman’s Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund in addition to resources [[ allocated by the formal budget process]] ]] .
Venice was developed in 1904 || and was intended to be a western American cultural center like its Italian namesake, with canals instead of streets, and opera houses rather than amusement piers.
The nitrogen compounds (except for nitrous oxide) dropped from 8 to 10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to only 1.5 to 2 ppbv. 
Proteins, unlike carbohydrates and fats, cannot be stored for future use.

Monday, 10 February 2020

Hypotactically Elaborating Phrase vs Hypotactically Extending Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):
Note that with a little of me thrown in in the following example
Those two guys, << with a little of me thrown in, >> came together as Lewis Moon.
is a clause, not a phrase; there are two elements of transitivity (a little of me + thrown in):

Sunday, 9 February 2020

Elaborating Hypotactic Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):
We saw in Chapter 6 that a nominal group can have as Postmodifier not only an embedded clause (‘defining relative’ clause) but also an embedded prepositional phrase, as in the man = [ in the moon ]. There is the same contrast between embedding and hypotaxis with a phrase as there is with a clause. Parallel to
(a) || (this is) my new house, = || β which Jack built ||
(b) || (this is) the house = [[ that Jack built ]] ||
we have
(c) (have you seen) | my new hat, = | β with the feather in
(d) (have you seen) | my hat = [ with the feather in] |
The secondary element in (c) is a descriptive phrase, ‘note that it has a feather in it’, not a defining one as in (d). Examples:
It began with worship at St. John’s Episcopal Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House 
Before the Opera House was completed || the Town Hall’s Centennial Hall, with seating for 2,000, was Sydney’s main concert venue.

Saturday, 8 February 2020

Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):
In a hypotactic nominal group complex, the dominant element can, in principle, serve the same function as the whole complex, but dependent elements cannot. Thus instead of have you seen (α) my new hat, (β) with the feather in, we can also say have you seen my new hat, but not have you seen with the feather in. While the dominant element has to be a nominal group, dependent elements can be adverbial groups or prepositional phrases. In nominal group complexing, hypotactic relations are either (i) elaborating, or (ii) extending; but we do not find enhancing ones.

Friday, 7 February 2020

Hypotactic Group Complexes And Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):
When groups and phrases are linked hypotactically, they are given unequal status, one serving as the dominant element (α) and the remainder as dependent ones (β γ δ ...). Hypotactic verbal group complexes involve either expansion or projection, but hypotactic nominal group complexes and hypotactic adverbial group/prepositional phrase complexes are based only on expansion.

Thursday, 6 February 2020

Paratactic And Hypotactic Word Complexes Within Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563-4):
We are not in general going below the rank of the group. But note that paratactic relationships are also found within group structures, as relationships between words, as in three or four (days), bigger and better (bananas), (he) either will or won’t (object), (a) firm but gentle (voice). Figure 8-1 gives an example of a nominal group incorporating both a paratactic and a hypotactic word complex; the structure is:
Deictic / γ ^ Epithet / β 1 ^ β 2 δ ^ β 2 γ ^ β 2 β ^ β 2 α ^ Thing / α

Wednesday, 5 February 2020

Enhancing Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):
Here the semantic relationship involves a circumstantial relationship; this was not recognised as a distinct type in traditional accounts. As noted above, enhancing relationships are essentially between figures as a whole, and only rarely can they be interpreted as holding between particular elements of a figure. Examples are typically instances of time or cause:
[verbal group:]
(He) tried, but failed, (to extract the poison). ‘although he tried, he failed’ – concession 
[nominal group:]
All those on board, and hence all the crew, (must have known that something was amiss). 
Film hadn’t been important until the Italians with realism and Rossellini and De Sica, then the French nouvelle vague. 
Optimistu’s true nature dawned slowly. It became slightly nasty, then really rather awful, then unremittingly horrendous and then lethal only by degrees.
[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:]
(She took it) calmly enough, although not without some persuasion. 
I imagined my framed survey of Xitu hanging above the fire for a few years, then being moved to the spare room, then into the bathroom, then finally being confined to the attic. 
From this crossroads town follow the main road south through increasingly arid landscapes towards Rembitan, a pretty little village claiming a 17th-century mosque, then Sade, where tall, thatched lumbung (rice-barns) climb the slopes.
Again, there are some cliché-like instances, e.g. (he’s been here) thirty-five years if a day.

Tuesday, 4 February 2020

The Use Of Paratactic Extension To Indicate Degree

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):
Extension can be used iconically to indicate degree; for example:
Television is very dangerous || because it repeats and repeats and repeats our disasters instead of our triumphs.

Monday, 3 February 2020

Extending Paratactic Nominal Group Complex Reinforced By A Manner Circumstance

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 562-3):
An extending nominal group complex may be reinforced by a circumstantial Adjunct of Manner such as both, jointly, separately, individually, respectively:
||| We had a wonderful piece of property in Connecticut, back up in the hills, || and my brother and I were both very interested in snakes and birds. ||| 
||| Ross, << expected to go to the Middle East on Tuesday, >> intends to meet separately with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. ||| 
||| For FY99, our requests for regular and supplemental appropriations [[[ to fund these operations, || totalling $1.9 billion and $850 million respectively,]]] were also approved. ||| 
These indicate how the element realised by the nominal group complex takes part in the process of the clause – either jointly or separately.
A number of common expressions like slowly but surely, last but not least, by hook or by crook belong to this general pattern.

Sunday, 2 February 2020

Extending Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 562):
This is the traditional category of ‘coordination’. Here the semantic relationship is one of ‘and, or, nor, but, but not’, as in the following examples:
[verbal group:] 
(I) neither like nor dislike (it). 
America can – and should – be proud of its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 
There are, and can be, no general answers. 
[nominal group:] 
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men (couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again). 
Bruce and Philip were friends, || Jane and I were friends || and then you and –  
Either you or your head (must be off, and that in about half no time).  
[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:] 
Swiftly and without a moment’s hesitation (he leapt into the fray).
Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, ...

Saturday, 1 February 2020

Paratactically Elaborating Group vs Embedded Group As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 561):
It is important to distinguish between an elaborating group and an embedded group occurring as Qualifier: e.g. 
  • (taxis, elaborating) his latest book, ‘The Jaws of Life’
  • (embedded) his book ‘The Jaws of Life’
The former is related to a non-defining relative; it means ‘his latest book – which is “The Jaws of Life” ’, and is marked by tone concord:
//4 ^ his /latest /book the //4 jaws of /life was a //1 ghastly suc/cess //
The latter is related to a defining relative clause; it means ‘this particular book of his (he has written others)’ and has no tonic prominence on book.
Note that or in the sense of an alternative name for something is elaborating not extending; e.g.:
In one of those cities – one [[ whose name has long been forgotten]] – there lived an old halac uinic, or chief. 
I understand || that later, you come to an age of hope, or at least resignation.

Friday, 31 January 2020

Discontinuous Elaborating Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 561):
In an elaborating nominal group complex, the secondary nominal group may be used to include an embedded clause as Qualifier:
||| Near the San Diego Freeway interchange is the huge Shell Chemical Company plant, part of an industrial district [[[ that was established || before the plain became almost covered with tract housing]]] . |||
Note also that the secondary nominal group may be delayed for textual reasons, giving rise to a discontinuous complex:
While each of these elements is absolutely essential, || one must come first – people.
As with elaborating complexes in general, this is spoken on two tone groups, with tone concord.

Thursday, 30 January 2020

Elaborating Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 560-1):
This is the traditional category of ‘apposition’. As with clauses, appositional group or phrase complexes are characterised by tone concord, signalling the semantic relationship of elaboration. The elaborating group/phrase may restate or particularise; restatements include naming, explanatory glossing and shifts in perspective: a number of the themes of elaborating clause complexes are replayed on a smaller scale. Examples:
[verbal group:] 
(Unfortunately she) got killed, got run over, (by one of those heavy lorries). 
Yes, yes you can; || but then I think || emotion has to be – should be, anyhow – shaped by thought. 
[nominal group:] 
“Too often, human rights in the US are a tale of two nations – rich and poor, white and black, male and female.” 
... it’s because we, the elites, are so great [[ that we carried through the changes]] . 
Freedom and steam – a political ideal and a source of energy – these were the forces [[ that drove the new age on]]. 
How does it differ from other ideologies [[that are often associated with socialism]], such as Leninism? 
Have you read any poetry in the eighteenth century recently – any Pope? 
[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:] 
(I couldn’t have done it) alone, without help. 
This has just been when? – over the last few days? 
Aesthetically, in terms of the vision in your head, what is the relationship between the fiction and the nonfiction?

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

Paratactic Group And Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 560):
When groups and phrases are linked paratactically, they are given equal status; any of the members of the complex could, in principle, serve the same function as the whole complex. Thus alongside In the mid-’80s, Apple introduced the LaserWriter – the first PostScript laser printer, we could also have ... introduced the LaserWriter or ... introduced the first PostScript laser printer
Groups and phrases can be linked paratactically by apposition and by coordination. As with paratactic clauses the former are elaborating in function, the latter extending. Instances of the enhancing type are less common, since the meanings are too specific to be readily expressed as a relationship between units smaller than clauses; but they do occur. 
There are no paratactic group/phrase complexes linked by projection, except for nominal group complexes such as the examiner’s assessment, ‘a brilliant work’, seems hard to justify, which lie on the borderline of elaborating parataxis.

Tuesday, 28 January 2020

Taxis And Logico-Semantic Type At Group Rank

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 559):
Group and phrase complexes are formed out of series of nexuses just as clause complexes are formed out of series of clause nexuses. Groups and phrases form nexuses in the same way that clauses do, by a combination of parataxis or hypotaxis with some type of logicosemantic relation; the different possibilities are set out in Table 8-1. Only elements having the same function can be linked in this way. Typically this will mean members of the same class: verbal group with verbal group, nominal group with nominal group, and so on. But it also includes other combinations, especially: adverbial group with prepositional phrase, since these share many of the same circumstantial functions in the clause; and nominal group with prepositional phrase, as Attribute (e.g. plain or with cream).

Monday, 27 January 2020

The General Principle For Distinguishing Group And Phrase Complexes From Clause Complexes With Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 558):
Note that we have to differentiate group and phrase complexes from clause complexes involving ellipsis. In clause complexes where the Subject or the Subject and the Finite have been ellipsed in a continuing clause, it is easy to see that a whole clause is involved:
||| Then he went in the Navy || and [∅: he] helped design various gunnery training devices [[ used during World War II]] . |||
But the whole clause is still involved in cases where other elements have been ellipsed:
The Land-Rover was to take him to Santander, then the train [∅: was to take him] to Bilbao for the late afternoon flight.
Here the train to Bilbao for the late afternoon flight is an elliptical clause consisting of three explicit elements – Subject: the train + Adjunct: to Bilbao + Adjunct: for the late afternoon flight, with Finite/Predicator and Complement left out by ellipsis. The general principle is that as long as only one element is involved, we can analyse the complexing at group/phrase rank, but as soon as more than one element is involved, we have to analyse the complexing at clause rank and posit ellipsis in one of the clauses.

Sunday, 26 January 2020

Group And Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 558):
Group and phrase complexes thus serve to develop single elements within a clause (or, if these complexes are embedded, a single element within a group or phrase), serving the same function as a simple group or phrase would. Textually, this means there is a single message; interpersonally, it means there is a single proposition or proposal; and experientially, it means that there is a single figure.

Saturday, 25 January 2020

Clause Complex And Tone

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 553, 554):
Table 7-30 summarises the intonation patterns that have been discussed in this chapter as realising systemic selections within the clause complex. These include (i) tone concord: sequences of two or more instances of the same tone; (ii) tone sequences: sequences of two tones, 1 1, 3 1, 4 1; (iii) tonality: post-tonic prolongation of tone group.

Friday, 24 January 2020

Thematic β-Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 551-2):
In general, thematic β-clauses serve to set up a local context in the discourse for the α-clause: they re-orient the development (as in the staging of a narrative), often distilling some aspect of what has gone before to provide the point of departure for the dominant clause, thus creating a link to the previous discourse. For example:
||| I remember an example [[[ that happened || when I was probably no more than four years old]]] . ||| My brother and I were playing in a neighbourhood friend’s garage, || and he disappeared for a minute. ||| When our friend came back || he said || that we had to go home, || ‘because my father doesn’t want any niggers in his house.’ ||| We didn’t even know || what the word was. ||| 
||| The DMK is already annoyed with the BJP government at the Centre || for not favourably considering its demand [[ to recall TN Governor Fathima Bheevi for her swearing in Jayalalitha as CM]] . ||| If the Centre accepts the AIADMK government’s objection || and drops the earlier list, || facilitating the AIADMK government to appoint its choice of judges to the Madras High Court, || then the DMK may voice its opposition to such a move. ||| 
||| If ifs and ans were pots and pans, || there’d be no need for tinkers. ||| 
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, 23 January 2020

Theme In A Hypotactic Clause Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 550-1, 552):
Let us return briefly to thematic considerations within a hypotactic clause nexus. Compare the following two hypotactic nexuses from a procedural text:
α ^ β fry the onions until slightly brown
β ^ α if you want a more substantial stuffing add a little mashed potato 
In the first nexus, the sequence is α ^ β (progressive sequence). Here the dependent clause is given rhematic status. In the procedure, the process of frying the onions is started before the change of colour takes place: the sequence of clauses is iconic with the sequence of events. In the second nexus, the sequence is β ^ α (regressive sequence). Here the dependent clause is given thematic status: see the first structural layer (Theme₁ ^ Rheme₁) in Figure 7-27. This thematic clause signals a break in the procedure and introduces a variation on the basic method. This re-orientation in the development of the text is achieved by giving the conditional dependent clause thematic status.

Wednesday, 22 January 2020

The Clause Complex As Textual Domain: Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 550):
The sequence of clauses within a clause complex is also textually significant as a cohesive domain; in particular, the clause complex licenses certain pattern of ‘ellipsis’ that may involve co-reference. Thus in the paratactic sequence 1 He pointed his arrow, 2 but saw nothing, the Subject of the secondary clause is ‘elliptical’ (but [Subject:] ∅ [Finite/Predicator:] saw [Complement:] nothing), and is interpreted as co-referential with the Subject of the primary clause (he). Similarly, ‘elliptical’ Subjects of non-finite dependent clauses, tend to be interpreted as co-referential with the Subjects of their dominant clauses (as in α I went on to birds β starting with my mother’s feeder). Thus in a clause complex, paratactic and hypotactic co-referential ellipsis may work together to signal the continuity of thematic Subjects, e.g.:
||| 1 The scientific community is beginning to recognise the opportunity || 2α but [Subject:] ∅ has done little so far || 2β [Subject:] ∅ to provide useful conceptual tools and means of [[communicating these linkages]] [[[ that can be used || to build the social and political consensus necessary for action]]].

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

The Clause Complex As Textual Domain: Information & Tonality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 550):
In spoken English, the sequence of clauses within a clause complex may be mapped onto one or more information units; that is, there are textually different ways in which a clause complex can be mapped onto an information unit complex. The unmarked mapping is one (ranking) clause = one information unit. Thus the paratactic sequence 1 ^ 2 and the hypotactic sequence β ^ α would each be chunked into two information units (realised by different tone sequences, tone 3 followed by tone 1, and tone 4 followed by tone 1, respectively). However, there are regular departures from this unmarked pattern.
(1) When the dependent clause in a hypotactic nexus is included within the dominant clause, the nexus may be chunked into three information units, with three points of New information (as in //4 John //4 who arrived late //1 missed the speeches //). 
(2) When the dependent clause follows its dominant clause in a hypotactic nexus (progressive sequence), it may be included in the same information unit as the dominant clause, with the focus of New information within the dependent clause (as in //1 I came because he told me //). 
(3) When the logico-semantic relation of the nexus is one of projection, the projecting clause may be part of the same information unit as the projected clause, being tonally cliticised to it.

Monday, 20 January 2020

The Clause Complex As Textual Domain: Thematicity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549-50):
The sequence of clauses within a clause complex is textually significant from a thematic point of view. This sequence is fixed in the case of parataxis (with the exception of parataxis in the environment of projection); here the primary clause is in a sense thematic in relation to the secondary one even though the sequence is fixed: the primary clause may serve as a point of departure or orientation for the secondary clause. However, in the case of hypotaxis, the sequence is not fixed; it can be progressive (α ^ β) or regressive (β ^ α) – or the hypotactically dependent clause may be included within the dominant clause (α << β >>). For example, the hypotactic nexus β as he came to a thicket, α he heard the faint rustling of leaves is regressive, with the dependent clause as he came to a thicket given thematic status within the nexus. In hypotactic nexuses of certain logicosemantic types, the dependent clause may be the focus of theme predication.

Sunday, 19 January 2020

Clause Complex As Message Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549):
At the same time as it contributes to the rhetorical-relational organisation of text, the clause complex also serves as a domain of organisation within the textual metafunction. We have seen that from a textual point of view clauses serve as messages – as quanta of information in the flow of discourse; based on this insight into the textual nature of the clause, we can characterise the clause complex as a message complex.

Blogger Comments:

From a theoretical point of view, this might be seen as a poor choice of term, since 'complex', in every other case, is applied only to rank units — to forms, not functions — and concerned with the logical metafunction, not the textual metafunction.

Saturday, 18 January 2020

The Clause Complex And The Rhetorical-Relational Development Of Text

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549):
The clause complex is, as we have emphasised, the most extensive domain of grammatical patterning — of patterns of wording, patterns organised in terms of logical, recursive systems and structures. It makes a major contribution to the organisation of text, serving to realise (rhetorical) sequences within (rhetorical) paragraphs. In other words, it contributes to the rhetorical-relational development of text by providing grammatical resources for ‘choreographing’ local rhetorical complexes. The grammar also provides resources for guiding the development of text beyond the domain of the clause complex, but these resources are concerned with cohesion rather than with structure.

Blogger Comment:

The term 'paragraph' might be seen as a poor choice of term for a semantic unit, not least because it is not mode-neutral. A paragraph is an organisation of written language, and would be more appropriately applied to a unit on the stratum of graphology.

Friday, 17 January 2020


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549):
Such projections may be embedded as they stand, as nominalisations – equivalent to functioning as Head. But frequently they occur as Postmodifier to a noun of the ‘fact’ class, e.g. the fact that their team had won. Fact nouns include ‘cases’, ‘chances’ and ‘proofs’, related to propositions; and ‘needs’, related to proposals. We refer to these projections, therefore, as facts. Whereas any clause that is projected by another clause, verbal or mental, is either a quote (paratactic) or a report (hypotactic, or embedded if the process is a noun), any clause that has the status ‘projected’ but without any projecting process is a fact and is embedded, either as a nominalisation serving as Head or as Postmodifier to a ‘fact’ noun serving as Head. This includes some of those functioning in mental clauses, as mentioned above, and all projections functioning in relational clauses (since a relational process cannot project). It also includes ‘impersonal’ projections such as it is said ... , it is believed ... , it seems ... , where the ‘process’ is not really a process at all, but simply a way of turning a fact into a clause.

Thursday, 16 January 2020

Embedded Projections Serving As Phenomenon Of Mental Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549):
However, it is possible for an idea to be associated with a mental process while not being projected by it, as in they rejoiced that their team had won. When one clause projects another, the two always form a clause nexus; but here, where that their team had won comes readymade as a projection, rather than being turned into one by the process of rejoicing, the idea is embedded as Phenomenon and the whole forms a single clause. This happens particularly when a proposition is an object of emotion: when the fact that ... is a source of pleasure, displeasure, fear, surprise, amusement, interest or some other emotion.

Wednesday, 15 January 2020

The Projection Of Goods-&-Services (Proposals)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 548):
Parallel to projected information (propositions) is the projection of goods-&-services (proposals), which likewise may be paratactic, hypotactic, or embedded as Qualifier to a noun; and again the phenomenon may be verbal (locution, projected by the processes offer, command, suggest/suggestion, etc.) or mental (idea, projected by intend/intention, wish, hope, etc.). The difference in the mental processes is that propositions are projected by cognitive processes whereas proposals are projected by desiderative ones.

Tuesday, 14 January 2020

Projection By The Names Of Verbal And Mental Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 548):
Both verbal and mental acts have names, such as statement, query, belief, doubt; and these also serve to project, with the projected clause embedded as Postmodifier: the belief that the sky might fall on their heads. There is a point of overlap between these and embedded expansions of the elaborating type (relative clauses): both may be introduced by that, and this produces ambiguities such as the report that he had submitted disturbed everyone:
(a) the report [[ = that he had submitted ]]
‘the document which he had drafted’ 
(b) the report [[ “ I that he had submitted ]]
‘to hear that he had yielded’

Monday, 13 January 2020

Mode And Level Of Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 547):
Jill says something; this is a verbal event. To represent it, I use a ‘verbal’ clause Jill said, plus a quote of her verbal act ‘It’s raining’. The two have equal status (paratactic), because both are wordings. That is to say, both my locution Jill said and Jill’s locution it’s raining are lexicogrammatical phenomena. Fred thinks something; this is a mental event. To represent it, I use a ‘mental’ clause Fred thought, plus a report of his mental act (that) it had stopped. The two have unequal status (hypotactic), because one is a wording while the other is a meaning. That is to say, my locution Fred thought is a lexicogrammatical phenomenon, but Fred’s idea ‘that it had stopped’ is a semantic one.
Thus parataxis is naturally associated with verbal projections and hypotaxis with mental ones. But, as we have seen, the pattern can be inverted. I can choose to report a verbal act, presenting a locution as a meaning; and I can choose to quote a mental act, presenting an idea as a wording. If we report speech, we do not commit ourselves to ‘the very words’: if I say Henry said he liked your baking, you would not quarrel with this even if you had overheard Henry expressing his views and knew that what he had actually said was That was a beautiful cake.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, interdependency status turns on whether or not a clause in a nexus can 'serve on its own' (p509). Here Matthiessen claims, without supporting argument, that interdependency status turns on whether or not clauses in a nexus represent the same level of content, and concludes that there is a natural relation between verbal projection and parataxis and mental projection and hypotaxis.  That is, the argument is an instance of the logical fallacy known as petitio principii ('begging the question'), since the argument's premises assume the truth of its conclusion.

Sunday, 12 January 2020

Summary Of Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 548):

Blogger Comments:

 Note the error in table layout: the 'Fact' cell should be coterminous with the 'Nominal group' cell.

Saturday, 11 January 2020

Facts (Projections) And Acts (Expansions)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 547):
A fact is thus analogous, as a form of projection, to what we called an ‘act’ as a form of expansion. Each represents the least prototypical form of its own general category; and hence the least differentiated. Whereas there is a clear distinction between expansion and projection in their finite clausal forms – between, say, (projection) he never asked if/whether it was snowing and (expansion) he never came if/when it was snowing – there is only a minimal distinction, and perhaps even blending, between (projection: fact) she liked the snow falling (that the snow was falling) and (expansion: act) she watched the snow falling (as the snow was falling). Seeing that facts and acts come so close together in this way, we can understand how it is that the same scale of interdependency types (parataxis/hypotaxis/ rank shift) is associated with both these logical-semantic relations.

Friday, 10 January 2020

What Kind Of Projection Is A Fact?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 547):
What kind of projection is a fact? It is still a meaning, a semantic abstraction, not some third type differing both from meanings and from wordings (indeed, there is no third level to which it could belong). But it is not a meaning created in anybody’s consciousness, nor is it emitted by any signal source; it is simply got up so as to function as a participant in some other process – typically a relational process, but sometimes also a mental or a verbal one. Not, however, in a material process; facts cannot do things, or have things done to them.

Thursday, 9 January 2020

Embedded Proposals: Impersonal Form

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 547):
As with propositions, there is an impersonal form of expression, it is required/expected that you wait in line; these are the imperative (proposal) equivalents of it is said/thought that ... with propositions. They have an important function as explicitly ‘objective modulations’ whereby the speaker disclaims responsibility for making the rules.

Wednesday, 8 January 2020

Projected vs Embedded Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 546-7):
Like a proposition, a proposal may either be embedded as Qualifier to one of these nouns, as in the examples above, or may function on its own as a nominalisation e.g.
You’ve said that one of your editorial rules is [[not to publish your buddies]].
Again, a first requirement is [[ to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[ that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[ where they are supporting programs [[ that are actually helping us to get on with the business [[ of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] ]].
The title for king fell out of use because its final requirement was [[ that the man [[ who aspires to be king]] would first pay all the debt [[ owed by every single man and every single woman in the community]] ]]
and we can construct similar pairs, for example
(a) ||| he insisted || that they had to wait in line |||
         α                  ‘β
(b) ||| he resented (the rule) [[that they had to wait in line ]]
where in (a) it is the ‘mental’ clause he insisted that does the projecting, while in (b) the projected clause is embedded. The ‘mental’ clause with the embedded fact clause is of the ‘emotive’ subtype, just as with propositions. But the ‘mental’ clause projecting the idea clause in (a) is not a ‘cognitive’ one but rather a ‘desiderative’ one. With ‘mental’ clauses, the general principle is that embedded fact clauses serve as Phenomenon in ‘emotive’ clauses, whether the facts are propositions or proposals; and that propositions are projected by ‘cognitive’ clauses whereas proposals are projected by ‘desiderative’ ones.

Blogger Comments:

Note that insisted here serves as a verbal Process (projecting a locution clause), not a mental one (projecting an idea clause).

Tuesday, 7 January 2020

Proposals As Embedded Fact Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 546):
Finally, as may be expected an embedded projection may belong to the class of proposals rather than propositions, as in
The thorniest problem for next week’s conference is [[to settle the relationships between them and the rest of the country]]. 
The surprise was [[to meet Russians (not intellectuals, but common folk) [[who took a contrary view ]] ]]. 
You mentioned the need of the artist and the right of the artist [[to withdraw]] and yet you have lived consistently a public life. 
if I had not been asked to terminate a life, I would not be so vehement about the need [[to help people who are begging for death]] 
The two-year study by Amnesty International, its first comprehensive analysis of North America, accuses Washington of failing in its duty [[to provide a moral lead to the rest of the free world]].
This defines the fourth category of ‘fact’ nouns referred to earlier:
(4) needs (nouns of modulation) relate to proposals, which are inherently modulated – e.g. ‘it is necessary for ... to ...’.
These, again, have no corresponding mental process verbs; they differ from nouns like order (the name of a verbal process) and insistence (the name of a mental process) in the same way that fact differs from thought and statement — they do not imply a Sayer or a Senser.

Monday, 6 January 2020

Hypotactic Projection vs Embedded Fact Clauses Across Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 545):
Table 7-28 summarises the distribution of hypotactic projection of idea and locution clauses in clauses nexuses vs. embedded fact clauses across process types. The table includes both propositions and proposals; 

Blogger Comments:

Importantly, note that the table mistakenly presents the 'perceptive' example of projection, (we saw) that the boats had been turned, as a hypotactic report of a clause complex instead of an embedded fact serving as Phenomenon of a single clause. Perceptive mental processes do not project idea clauses into existence.  The Phenomenon that is seen here is the state of affairs resulting from a past event. See § 7.4.6 (pp505-6).

Sunday, 5 January 2020

Fact Serving As Range In Cognitive And Verbal Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 544-5):
But even with some cognitive and verbal processes, a projected element may occur which is not projected by that process; for example:
Just before dress rehearsal, under pressure from the company, he reluctantly accepted [[that such ideas were outmoded]], and dropped them. 
The second category of temple land was particularly important and it was accepted [[that the holders of this land could sub-lease it]]. 
‘That was pretty obvious,’ smiled Sir Cedric, ‘and I admit [[I once had doubts about you]]’. 
With sly winks and discreet sniggering he conveyed [[[that he knew very well || that there was a great deal more than Philip confessed]]]. 
And there will always be ‘borderline cases’, instances where the line is hard to draw.

Saturday, 4 January 2020

Fact vs Idea In Impinging Mental Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 544):
Like ‘middle mental’ clauses, ‘effective’ ones either project ideas within a clause nexus or include fact clauses as Phenomenon, e.g. 
The first means ‘in my opinion there’s no one here’, with there’s no one here as an idea. The second means ‘there’s no one here, and that worries me’, with there’s no one here as a fact. The fact exists prior to the occurrence of the mental process; but the idea does not – it is brought into existence in the course of the mental process. Thus the second is agnate with there’s no one here, which worries me; but we cannot say there’s no one here, which strikes me. The two are very distinct in speech, thanks to the intonation pattern (see below); the different analyses are given in Figure 7-25. 
The difference in structure is clear from the intonation pattern. That of (a) corresponds to I rather think there’s no one here, with falling tonic (tone 1) on here and perhaps a separate falling-rising tonic (tone 4) on strikes/think; that of (b) corresponds to it worries me, the emptiness of the place, a compound tone group with tone 1 on worries and tone 3 on here/emptiness, showing clearly that that there’s no one here is functioning as a postposed Subject. Again, it strikes me is a cognitive process clause, and so can project an idea, whereas it worries me is and emotive one and cannot.