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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. |||
(indeterminate)

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.

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’).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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);

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).

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.

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;

Non-Finite Hypotactic Additive Extending Clauses: Relational Clause With Implicit Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 476):

With the additive, the Process of a relational dependent clause may be implicit; the marker is the conjunctive preposition with (positive) or without (negative):

||| I told the whole story of the six-minute Louvre at The Kennedy Centre || with President Carter there, || and I said, || ‘Mr. President, we have the man [[ who brought the six-minute Louvre back to America]] !’ ||| 

||| Without chlorine in the antarctic stratosphere, || there would be no ozone hole. |||

Non-Finite Hypotactic Extending Clauses Of Addition With No Conjunctive Expression

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 475-6):

With the additive and adversative, however, there may be no conjunctive expression; such clauses are therefore identical with non-finite elaborating clauses, except that in speech they are not marked by tone concord. Examples:

(additive)
||| So she wandered on, || talking to herself as she went. ||| (‘and talked’) 

(adversative)
||| Hardly knowing || what she did, || she picked up a little bit of stick || and held it out to the puppy. ||| (‘she hardly knew ... , but she picked up ... ’)

But where the sequence is β ^ α, such a nexus is likely to be neither elaborating nor extending but enhancing;

Blogger Comment:

The sequence in the 'extending: adversative' example is β ^ α (1 + 2).

Non-Finite Hypotactic Extending Clauses: Subtypes Of Addition And Variation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 475):

The non-finite clause is often introduced by a preposition or preposition group functioning conjunctively, e.g. besides, apart from, instead of, other than, without; for example

(a) addition
additive
||| Apart from being amusing || what else does The Nun’s Priest’s Tale do? |||
||| Besides being gifted with literary talent, || Amir Khusrau was a musician, too. |||
||| Most families are dependent on two salaries coming into the home, || with women now constituting almost half the country’s workforce. ||| 

adversative
||| Until we do that, || the opportunities may come and go || without our having a compelling rationale [[ for pushing commitment and action]] . |||
||| The arrow changed its course || and fell to the ground || without harming anyone. ||| 

(b) variation
replacive
||| Instead of finding the perpetrators, || they criminally charged the Earth First! activist, || who was left crippled for life. ||| 

subtractive
||| We call him a murderer, || but for him there is no way out || other than doing the deed. |||

Non-Finite Hypotactic Extending Clauses: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiesen (2014: 475):

Non-finite hypotactic extending clauses cover both (a) addition and (b) variation. Two subtypes are absent from the non-finite system: ‘negative additive’ addition and ‘alternative’ variation. The non-finite form of hypotactic extending is an imperfective clause; for example (structure α +β):

||| We used to go away at the weekend, || taking all our gear with us. |||

Hypotactic Extension: Alternation (Finite Clauses)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 475):

The hypotactic form of the alternative relation is if ... not (i.e. ‘if not a, then b’, with the dependent clause typically coming first). For example,

||| If they’re not in their usual place || they could have fallen through onto the – |||
||| If it doesn’t come from [[ what’s outside us]] , from our experience, || it’s got to come from our inner nature. |||
||| If you haven’t lost it, || then it’s in that cupboard. ||| 

‘either you’ve lost it, or else it’s in that cupboard’. Either clause can be construed as the negative condition; we could just as well say if it’s not in that cupboard then you’ve lost it, the only difference being which one is chosen as Theme.

Extension: Hypotaxis Or Parataxis [Diagnostic]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474-5):

Finite clauses with whereas, while, except that, if they follow the primary clause, have a strongly paratactic flavour. The line between parataxis and hypotaxis is not very sharp; as a working rule, if the extending clause could precede (thereby becoming thematic in the clause complex), the relationship is hypotactic (since +β ^ α is a possible sequence, but +2 ^ 1 is not). An example where the extending clause could not precede is

||| He pretended to know all about it || – whereas in fact he had no idea of what was happening. |||

This would be interpreted as paratactic. In such instances the conjunction is always unaccented.

Blogger Comment:

Not always.  In the above example, if fact attracts a tonic signalling contrastive New information, the rhythm is likely to be (with stressed syllables underlined):

/ ^ where/as in /fact /

Hypotactic Extension: Variation: Subtraction (Finite Clauses)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474):

There is no finite form for replacement. For subtraction the finite clause is introduced by except that, but (for the fact) that; e.g.

||| Camera pulls back to show Kane and Susan in much the same positions as before, || except that they are older. |||

||| Language began || when interjections ended || but that man still utters cries and uses interjections || and that their significance is merely affective, i.e., expressing fear, surprise, etc. |||

Finite Hypotactic Clauses Of Extension: Addition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474):

Hypotactic clauses of addition are introduced by the conjunctions whereas, while. There is no clear line between the (positive) additive and the adversative; these clauses sometimes have an adversative component, sometimes not. (There is no negative additive type of hypotactic extension.) For example:

||| Whereas most children’s fathers worked at an office, || my father worked at the studio, || so I went on the set. |||
||| They have no patience with our official style or tempo, || whereas an Indian at home would accept the hurdles as inevitable Karma. |||
||| And yet Frank grows up, || while Huck never grew up. |||
||| He will be an institutional dealer in New York, || while Mr Hayward will be an equity salesman. |||
||| While ‘Joe Gould’s Secret’ and ‘The Sweet Hereafter’ played to small audiences in limited release, || Holm has a couple of potential blockbusters [[ coming up]] . |||

Hypotactic Extension: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 474):

The combination of extension with hypotaxis also embraces (a) addition, (b) variation and (c) alternation, but with the extending clause dependent. The dependent clause may be finite or non-finite. Compared with paratactic extension, the hypotactic type appears to be fairly rare; it is, in fact, the least common of the combinations of types of expansion and types of taxis.

Paratactic Extension: Alternation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 473-4):

Here one clause is presented as an alternative to another. Examples of clauses linked by the alternative relation:

||| Either you go ahead || and take the plunge || or you wait || till you think || you can afford it, || which you never will. |||

||| Can I go on the computer, || or have something to eat. ||| 

|| Guided tours of the Cathedral take place the first Sunday of every month, || or a self-guide booklet about the Cathedral can be picked up inside. ||| 

||| Did you have to educate yourself about traditional culture and mythology || or did you grow up with that? || 

||| The melt is then cooled at a few degrees per hour || until crystals start to form, || or alternatively the flux is evaporated at a constant rate. |||

Here one clause is offered as alternative to another. The correlative pairing is either – or, and the associated cohesive conjunctions include conversely, alternatively, on the other hand.

Paratactic Extension: Replacive & Subtractive Variation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 473):

Here, one clause is presented as being in total or partial replacement of another. Variation falls into two subtypes — ‘replacive’ (‘instead’) and ‘subtractive’ (‘except’). 

(a) Examples of clauses linked by the ‘replacive’ relation: 

||| The vortex is not a uniform cylinder || but has a shape [[ that varies with altitude || and is strongest and most isolated above the 400-K isentropic surface, around 15 km and above]] . |||

||| Witnesses said || the sand dredger seemed to go past the Marchioness || but suddenly smashed into the side || and went right over it. ||| 

||| They should not be broad statements [[ saying || where we hope to be]] , || but instead plans [[ specifying || what we want to do next || and exactly how we are going to do it]] . |||

The clauses related in this way often differ in polarity value, one being ‘positive’ and the

other ‘negative’. Note that the but here is not adversative, and so is not replaceable by yet; nor is it concessive — it does not correspond to hypotactic although. Cohesive expressions used with total replacement include instead, on the contrary. 

(b) Examples of clauses linked by the ‘subtractive’ relation:

||| He should have had them before, || only he hurt his shoulder at football or some such || and there was a long time spent in treatment, || so it was all deferred, || but finally he went. ||| 

||| Nelly looked rather put out || and replied || that he was quite all right, || only the poor little chap was highly strung. |||

Here the secondary clause presents an exception to what has been said in the primary clause.

Paratactic Extension: Adversative 'But'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):

Examples of clauses linked by an ‘adversative’ relation:

||| We liked that breed of dog, || but we felt || we weren’t in a position [[ to own one at the time]] . |||

||| The solar elevation angle is comparatively low by October, || when the hole was at its deepest, || but is much higher in November, || when the ultraviolet (UV) effect might be stronger at the surface. |||

The linker but contains the semantic feature ‘and’, so we do not say and but. For the same reason we do not say although ... but, because that would be a mixture of hypotaxis and parataxis; whereas although ... yet is quite normal – there is no paratactic ‘and’ in yet.

Paratactic Extension: Additive Negative 'Nor'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472-3):

Examples of clauses linked by an ‘additive: negative’ relation:

||| Untouchability was observed in matters of food even by Muslims; || they would never dine at the same table with Christians || nor touch what was cooked by them. |||
||| He could neither explain the whole situation to the editor || nor could he accept his rebuke. |||

Note that since the linker nor embodies negative (clausal) polarity, it attracts the Finite, so the sequence is nor ^ Finite ^ Subject (unless the Subject is ellipsed).

‘And’ As A Marker Of Paratactic Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):

When the clause starts with and that or and this, with the that/this referring back to (some part of) the previous clause, the sense may be one of elaboration, particularly if the continuing clause is a ‘relational’ one:

||| [1] But we’ve got to find those || [=2] and that is the hard part. |||

The nearest hypotactic equivalent would be a non-restrictive relative clause, which is the hard part. Note that many such examples lie on the borderline between elaboration and extension. We have already noted examples of this indeterminacy between elaboration and extension from the other side, with non-defining relative clauses with who where the sense is ‘and + personal pronoun’…

‘And’ As A Marker Of Paratactic Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):

Paratactically related clauses that are introduced by and are often additive extensions; but other possibilities exist. When the sense is ‘and then’, ‘and so’ and the hypotactic version is an enhancing dependent clause, we can interpret the paratactic nexus as one of enhancement instead of one of extension.

Paratactic Extension: Addition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):

Here one process is simply adjoined to another; there is no implication of any causal or temporal relationship between them. Additon falls into three subtypes — (a) ‘additive: positive’ (‘and’), (b) ‘additive: negative’ (‘nor’) and (c) ‘adversative’ (‘but’ — ‘and conversely’). Paratactic additions are often accompanied by cohesive expressions such as too, in addition, also, moreover, on the other hand.

Paratactic Extension: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 472):

The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known as co-ordination between clauses.  It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but.  We can recognise three major subtypes of paratactic extension, (i) addition, (ii) variation and (iii) alternation.

The Markers Of Paratactic & Hypotactic Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):

The markers of paratactic extension are prototypically markers of extension; that is their core use – and, or, but, nor; in contrast, the markers of hypotactic extension are of mixed origin: most of them seem to have been pressed into service from other areas of the grammar – enhancing binders (while, if in if ... not (... then)), linkers followed by that (except that, but [for the fact] that) and conjunctive prepositions and preposition groups (e.g. besides, without, apart from, instead of, other than), and the two additive markers of finite clauses (while, whereas) are used both in the sense of ‘and’ (additive: positive) and in the sense of ‘but’ (adversative).

The Principal Categories Of Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):

The principal categories are set out in Table 7-9, together with a summary of the principal markers of extending clause nexuses. As can be seen from the table, the gaps in the paradigm are found particularly with ‘hypotaxis’, and we can relate this fact to the skew in frequency between ‘parataxis’ (around 94%) and ‘hypotaxis’ (around 6%) in text…

Clause Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):

In extension, one clause extends the meaning of another by adding something new to it. What is added may be just an addition, or else a replacement, or an alternative. There is a closer parallel with extension between parataxis and hypotaxis than we find with elaboration; we can operate with a single system of categories for both kinds of taxis, although there are certain gaps in the paradigm (e.g. negative additive relations are only paratactic, not hypotactic).

‘Asides’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 470):

Finally, before we leave elaboration, we should note examples that include asides:

||| For me, by the time I come to the end of a particular form || —The Greenlanders is an epic || and A Thousand Acres is a tragedy – || I am not all that pleased anymore with [[ what I got from it]] || and I’m fed up with [[ what I had to give up]] . |||

Such asides may be analysed as clauses or clause complexes that are enclosed within a clause complex but which are not part of the structure of that clause complex, having only a non-structural, cohesive link to the clause complex they are enclosed within. However, if there is felt to be a strong pressure to read or speak the enclosed clause or clause complex with tone concord, this suggests a relationship of elaboration, since tone concord is often the only marker of elaboration. Interpreted in this way, the tactic structure of the example would be xβ1 ^ xβ=21 ^ xβ=2+2 ^ α, where the aside is analysed as an elaboration of the hypotactically enhancing temporal clause by the time I come to the end of a particular form.

Non-Finite Dependent Clauses Without An Explicit Conjunctive Marker

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 470n):

As with other cases of hypotactically dependent clauses that are non-finite and lack an explicit conjunctive marker, the logico-semantic relationship may be somewhat indeterminate; in the case of the intensive relational clause consisting of Attribute only, without an explicit Process, there may be a causal feature of enhancement, e.g. A Shi’a Muslim, Mr Sahhaf is an outsider in the Sunni-dominated government that has been in power since 1968 (‘since he is a Shi’a Muslim, Mr Sahhaf is an outsider ...’). Compare thematic circumstances of Role with a temporal connotation: As a child she lived at Herne Bay (‘when she was a child, she lived ...’).

‘Fronted’ Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469-70):

With non-finite elaborating hypotactic nexuses, there is a special construction where the dependent precedes the dominant; for example:

||| A science and transport museum || the Powerhouse has over 11,000 objects on display … |||

These elaborating clauses are always ‘intensive attributive relational’ ones where the Process is implicit and the Attribute is typically the only explicit element of the clause. In fact, such nexuses look like nominal group complexes when they only involve two juxtaposed nominal groups — as with a science and transport museum plus the Powerhouse. But when we probe further, we find that the nearest agnates are non-finite and finite non-defining relative clauses: being a science museum … which is a science museum …; and this explains among other things why clausal elements may be present: reportedly a science and transport museum … . The effect of the construction is to give thematic status within the elaborating clause nexus to the Attribute of the elaboration …

Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause: Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469):

In such cases, there may be an explicit Subject in the dependent clause, as in

||| It’s a much bigger house, || for the children to have their own rooms. |||

But in most cases of non-finite elaboration, the Subject is left implicit, to be presupposed from the primary clause; and it is often difficult to identify it exactly – e.g. in the hairy coat holds a layer of air close to the skin, insulating the body against changes in the outside temperature, is it the hairy coat which insulates the body, or is it the holding of a layer of air close to the skin? The question is really irrelevant; it is precisely the function of the non-finite to make it unnecessary to decide: the absence of the subject decreases the arguability of the clause.

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469):

When the non-defining clause is an ‘intensive’ relational one, the Process may be left implicit; for example:

||| DPP lawmaker Chen Ting-nan will be the justice minister, || responsible for helping Chen keep his promise to clean up graft. |||

where responsible for ... is Attribute; compare the non-finite version with the Process: [Process:] being [Attribute:] responsible for ... 

As is usual with non-finite clauses, the meaning is less specific; both in the domain of the dependent clause and its semantic relationship to its domain are left relatively inexplicit. There is no WH- form, as there is with finites (in this respect non-finite non-defining relative clauses differ from defining ones); nor is there usually any preposition acting conjunctively, as there typically is with non-finite clauses of extension and enhancement such as besides or on in besides selling office equipment, on leaving the building.

Extending Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 468): 

There is one group of non-defining relative clauses which strictly speaking would belong with extension rather than elaboration; for example:

||| She told it to the baker’s wife || who told it to the cook |||

 Here the who stands for ‘and she’ and the clause is semantically an additive: the agnate paratactic variant would be … and she told it to the cook.  Compare also (where the sense is ‘and in that case’):

||| It might be hungry || in which case it would be very likely to eat her up |||

Note that such instances are not characterised by tone concord.  Also extending rather than elaborating are possessives with whose or its variants (of whom/which), which do not further characterise the noun that constitutes their domain but add a new one related to it by possession; contrast elaborating come and meet Mary, whose birthday we’re celebrating (‘the girl whose…’) with extending the shop was taken over by an Indian, whose family came out to join him.  But for most purposes these and all other non-defining relatives can be treated as elaborating clauses.

Non-Defining Vs Defining Relative Clause: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 467):

In written English, a non-defining relative clause is marked off by punctuation — usually commas, but sometimes by being introduced with a dash; whereas a defining relative clause is not separated by punctuation from its antecedent. This in turn reflects the the fact that in spoken English, whereas the defining relative clause enters into a single tone group with its antecedent, a non-defining relative clause forms a separate tone group. Furthermore, the primary and secondary clauses are linked by tone concord: that is to say, they are spoken on the same tone. … 

Whichever tone is used, however, it will be the same in both parts; the tone selected for the (relevant portion of the) primary clause is repeated in the secondary clause. This tone concord is the principal signal of the apposition relationship in English, and applies also to paratactic clause complexes of exposition and exemplification referred to above (though not to clarification, where there is greater semantic distance between the primary and secondary clause). We should also note that this pattern is very frequently accompanied by a rhythmic feature, by which the secondary clause is introduced by a silent beat.

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: An Expression Of Time Or Place

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 466-7):

Clauses with when or where, having as domain some expression of time or place, e.g.

||| The first few days are a time for adjustment, || when the kitten needs all the love and attention [[ you can give it]] . |||

The meaning is ‘which is when . . .,’ ‘which is where . . .’. Those with where often refer to abstract space, as in

||| Now consider the opposite situation, || where the velocity decreases. |||

In this group also the secondary clause may be enclosed, as in

||| One evening, << when the boy was going to bed, >> he couldn’t find the china dog [[ that always slept with him]] . |||

As in the examples above, such clauses often elaborate marked Themes of time or place. In addition to when and where we also find elaborations of temporal expressions introduced by as, when; for example:

||| That night, << as Kukul slept on his straw mat, >> Chirumá came upon him. |||

As the examples illustrate, this strategy of a nominal group denoting a time plus a hypotactically elaborating clause is common in narratives when the time is being set or reset in the episodic sequence of events.

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 466):

Clauses with which (occasionally that), who or whose whose domain is a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being personal references with he, she, it, they and their possessive equivalents); e.g.

||| This was the first English Department class at the University of Ibadan, || which had just been founded. |||

When the nominal group is non-final in the primary clause, the secondary clause is often enclosed, so as to follow immediately after it, as in

||| Yu, << who has been visiting Taiwan this week, >> did not elaborate. |||

Here the structure is α << =β >>; the angle brackets denote enclosure, doubled as always where the delimited element is a clause. (The paratactic agnate of an enclosed hypotactic elaborating clause would follow the primary clause, as in Yu did not elaborate; he has been visiting Taiwan this week.)

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: Whole Clause Or More Than A Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 465-6):

Clauses with which whose domain is either the whole of the primary clause or some part of it that is more than a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being extended text references with it or this); e.g.

||| He talks down to people, || which automatically puts people’s backs up. |||

meaning ‘talking down to people automatically puts people’s backs up’, and so on. Here the sequence is always α ^ =β. The elaborating β-clause is often an ‘attributive relational’ one, with an Attribute such as no good, a serious loss, odd that provides an evaluation of the primary clause (this thus being one grammatical strategy for ‘appraising’ a proposition).

Hypotactic Elaboration: Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 465):

If the secondary clause is finite, it has the same form as a defining relative clause of the WH- type, which is embedded as a Qualifier in a nominal group. It differs from a defining relative clause, however, in two ways: there is a distinction in the meaning, and there is a corresponding distinction in the expression, both in speech and in writing. 

As far as the meaning is concerned, these clauses do not define subsets, in the way that a defining relative clause does. In the only plan which might have succeeded the defining clause which might have succeeded specifies a particular subset of the general class of plans. A non-defining relative clause, on the other hand, adds a further characterisation of something that is already taken to be fully specific. This ‘something’, therefore, is not necessarily just a noun; the domain of a non-defining relative may be a whole clause, or any of its constituents.

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 464):

The combination of elaboration with hypotaxis gives the category of non-defining relative clause (also called ‘non-restrictive’, ‘descriptive’). This functions as a kind of descriptive gloss to primary clause … hypotactic elaboration is a strategy for introducing into the discourse background information, a characterisation, an interpretation of some aspect of the dominant clause, some form of evaluation (as can also happen with paratactic clarification).

Paratactic Elaboration: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463-4):

In this case the secondary clause clarifies the thesis of the primary clause, backing it up with some form of explanation or explanatory comment. … The clarification often involves a shift in polarity … The clarification may be an evaluative comment. … 

Expressions such as in fact, actually, indeed, at least are common in this type; the nearest written abbreviation is again i.e., or sometimes viz. The conjunctives are cohesive rather structural markers of the paratactic relationship … 

Very often the two clauses are simply juxtaposed. This often makes it difficult to decide, in spoken language, whether they form a clause complex or not; but if the intonation pattern is repeated so that there is tone concord, and the semantic relationship of elaboration is clearly present, this can be taken as a criterion for treating them as forming a nexus. In written language the apposition may be signalled by a special punctuation mark, the colon; but this is a fairly recent innovation, never very consistently used, and the lack of any clear structure signal is no doubt the reason why the abbreviations i.e., e.g. and viz. were first introduced and why they continue to be used today. 

Paratactic Elaboration: Exemplification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463):

Here the secondary clause develops the thesis of the primary clause by becoming more specific about it, often citing an actual example …

Paratactic Elaboration: Exposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463):

Here the secondary clause restates the thesis of the primary clause in different words, to present it from another point of view, or perhaps just to reinforce the message … In the limiting case, the second clause more or less repeats the first through lexical repetition or synonymy, reinforcing the message …

Paratactic Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 462):

Paratactic (notation 1 =2). The combination of elaboration with parataxis yields three types, the first two of which could be regarded as apposition between clauses:

(i) exposition ‘in other words’ P i.e. Q
(ii) exemplification ‘for example’ P e.g. Q
(iii) clarification ‘to be precise’ P viz. Q

Clause Elaboration: Paratactic Vs Hypotactic

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461-2):

In terms of realisation, the two tactic forms of elaboration have one property in common — tone concord. That is, each clause in an elaborating clause nexus is realised by a tone group, and each tone group selects the same tone … . However, hypotactic elaborating clauses differ from paratactic ones in that they have their own grammar — the grammar of relative clauses … . In terms of meaning, paratactic elaboration and hypotactic elaboration are largely complementary, covering different aspects of elaboration. Paratactic elaboration involves exposition, exemplification and clarification, while hypotactic elaboration involves description.

Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461):

In elaboration, one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further specifying or describing it; … The secondary clause does not introduce a new element into the picture but rather provides a further characterisation of one that is already there, restating it, clarifying it, refining it, or adding a descriptive attribute or comment. … The thing that is elaborated may be the primary clause as a whole, or it may be just some part of it — one or more of its constituents.

Expansion: Regions Of Continuous Semantic Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 460):

As with all other systems such as the system of process type, we have to think of the system of type of expansion as defining regions within a continuous semantic space … the different types of expansion shade into one another at certain points; and expansion itself can come very close to projection.

Clause Complex Representation & Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 457):

The clause complex is of particular interest in spoken language, because it represents the dynamic potential of the system — the ability to ‘choreograph’ very long and intricate patterns of semantic movement while maintaining a continuous flow of discourse that is coherent without being constructional. This kind of flow is very uncharacteristic of written language. Since grammatical theory evolved as the study of written language, it is good at synoptic-type ‘product’ representations, with constituency as the organising concept, but bad at dynamic-type ‘process’ representations, which is what is needed for the interpretation of speech.

Representing Dependency Structures

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 456-8):

The box diagram and the tree diagram both show how the clause complex is made up of clauses; but they have the disadvantage that they make the structure of the clause complex look like a constituency structure even though it is in fact a dependency structure. … we present a diagrammatic form of representation that brings out both constituency and dependency relations, as in Figure 7-13.

Taxis & Ordering

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 455-6): 

In parataxis there is no dependence of either element on the other; so there is no ordering other that which is represented by the sequence. This is why we use the numerical notation. … The only modification is that which arises through internal bracketing or nesting… 

In a hypotactic structure the elements are ordered in dependence, and this ordering is largely independent of the sequence. Hence we can have various sequences: dependent clause

(i) following dominant,

(ii) preceding dominant,

(iii) enclosed in or

(iv) enclosing dominant …

Hypotactic structures may also involve nesting …

Clause Dependency & Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454-5):

In a hypotactic clause nexus, dependent clauses may be finite or non-finite … In a non-finite dependent clause, the Subject is typically ellipsed. … Other clauses in the clause complex are finite. Paratactically related clauses that are nested within a dependency are of course dependent for this purpose;

Taxis & Classes Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454):

Conjunctions may be used to mark the secondary clause in both parataxis and hypotaxis; but different classes of conjunction are used. With parataxis, linkers are used, but only when the logico-semantic relation is one of expansion (e.g. and, or, but). Linkers may also serve a cohesive function. With hypotaxis, binders are used, in the environment of both projection (that; whether, if) and expansion (e.g. when, while; because, since, if, although) and also, in the case of certain non-finite clauses, conjunctive prepositions (e.g. after, before; because of, despite). Both parataxis and hypotaxis may involve correlative conjunctions, where a second conjunction marks the primary clause.

Taxis & Symmetry

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

This basic pattern may be modified by the nature of the logico-semantic relationship, for example, ‘quote’ as a paratactic relation is clearly not symmetrical: ‘John says, quote: its raining’ cannot be reworded as ‘it’s raining, quote: John says’. But whenever it is logically possible, a given semantic relationship will be symmetrical and transitive in combination with parataxis but not in combination with hypotaxis.

Hypotaxis: Logically Non-Symmetrical & Non-Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Hypotaxis is the binding of elements of unequal status … The dominant element is free, but the dependent element is not.The hypotactic relation is logically (i) non-symmetrical and (ii) non-transitive. For example, ‘when’: (i) ‘I breathe when I sleep’ does not imply ‘I sleep when I breathe’; (ii) ‘I fret when I have to drive slowly’ and ‘I have to drive slowly when it’s been raining’ together do not imply ‘I fret when it’s been raining’.

Parataxis: Logically Symmetrical & Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Parataxis is the linking of elements of equal status … Both the initiating and the continuing elements are free, in the sense that each could stand as a functioning whole. In principle, the paratactic relation is logically (i) symmetrical and (ii) transitive. This can be exemplified by the ‘and’ relation. (i) ‘salt and pepper’ implies ‘pepper and salt’, so the relationship is symmetrical; (ii) ‘salt and pepper’, ‘pepper and mustard’ together imply ‘salt and mustard’, so the relationship is transitive.

The Properties Of Parataxis And Hypotaxis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451-2, 453):

Parataxis and hypotaxis are general relationships that are the same throughout the grammar: they define complexes at any rank (clause complex, group or phrase complex, word complex; in addition hypotaxis defines the logical organisation of groups. (In contrast, multivariate structures differ from one grammatical unit to another.) The distinctive properties and patterns of realisation of parataxis and hypotaxis are summarised in Table 7-7.

 

Univariate And Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Multivariate Structure Types By Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

… the relationships among the elements in a multivariate structure can be characterised as segmental from an experiential point of view but as prosodic from an interpersonal point of view and as cumulative from a textual one. A prototypical example of a segmental structure is the transitivity structure of a clause, a prototypical example of a prosodic structure is the tone contour that typically extends over a clause, and a prototypical example of a culminative structure is thematic prominence at the beginning of the clause (followed by rhematic non-prominence).

Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.  Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Univariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

The tactic structures of complexes are relational in nature; they are the kind of structure that we have called univariate, to distinguish it from the multivariate structures … .  A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship; … Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are formed out of logico-semantic relations.

Nesting, Taxis & Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 450):

… internal nesting always occurs when there is a change in taxis. That is, any logical sequence of clauses is always either paratactic (1 2 3 …) or hypotactic (α β γ …). It is never a mixture of the two; … If there is a switch in taxis, this automatically leads to nesting … . By the same token, any logical sequence of clauses is always constant in logico-semantic type — projection of ideas, projection of locutions, elaboration, extension or enhancement. It is never a mixture of types; … If there is a switch in logico-semantic type, then nesting automatically occurs …

Projection: Idea (‘thinks’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause is projected through another, which presents it as an idea, a construction of meaning.

Projection: Locution (‘says’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause is projected through another, which presents it as a locution, a construction of wording.

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by embellishing around it: qualifying it with some circumstantial feature of time, place, cause or condition.

Expansion: Extending (‘and, or’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by extending beyond it: adding some new element, giving an exception to it, or offering an alternative.

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by elaborating on it (or some portion of it): restating in other words, specifying in greater detail, commenting, or exemplifying.

Subtypes Of Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

Within the general categories of expansion and projection, we recognise first of all a small number of subtypes: three of expansion, and two of projection. The names of these, with suggested notation, are as follows:

(1) Expansion:

(a) elaborating = (‘equals’)
(b) extending + (‘is added to’)
(c) enhancing x (‘is multiplied by’)

(2) Projection:

(a) locution “ (double quotes)
(b) idea ‘ (single quotes)

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 443):

(1) Expansion: the secondary clause expands the primary clause by (a) elaborating it [= ‘equals’], (b) extending it [+ ‘is added to’] or (c) enhancing it [x ‘is multiplied by’].

(2) Projection: the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause, which instates it as (a) a locution [“ double quotes] or (b) an idea [‘ single quotes].

Expansion relates phenomena as being of the same order of experience, while projection relates phenomena to phenomena of a higher order of experience (semiotic phenomena — what people say and think).

Nesting (Internal Bracketing)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 442):

This is where what is being linked by a logico-semantic relation is not a single clause but rather a ‘sub-complex’ — a clause nexus in its own right. …

 

We can show nesting in either of two ways.

• (i) The nesting can be represented explicitly as internal bracketing — eg 1 ^ 2 (α ^ β);
• (ii) or it can be represented as a simple string — eg 1 ^ 2α ^ 2β.

Clause Nexus: Primary And Secondary Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 441-2):

a clause complex is formed by means of tactic relations; and it is developed or built up as a chain, one pair of clauses at a time.We will refer to any one pair of clauses related by interdependency, or ‘taxis’, as a clause nexus. … The clauses making up such a nexus are primary and secondary.  The primary is the initiating clause in a paratactic nexus, and the dominant clause in a hypotactic; the secondary is the continuing clause in a paratactic nexus and the dependent clause in a hypotactic. This is set out in Table 7-4.

 

Interdependency: Rejected Terminology

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440n):

An earlier name for the higher term in the dependency relation, that on which something is dependent, was terminant. The problem with this turns out to be that it is too readily misinterpreted as ‘coming last in sequence’. The dependency relation, however, is neutral as regards the sequence in which the elements occur. Another possible set of terms would be ‘main clause’ for the dominant clause and ‘subordinate clause’ for the dependent clause. However, this could lead to confusion since ‘subordination’ has usually been used to refer to both hypotaxis and embedding without the critical distinction between the two. Further, the term ‘parataxis’ does not correspond to ‘coordination’ (in contrast with ‘subordination’); it covers not only ‘coordination’ but also ‘apposition’.

Taxis: Degree Of Interdependency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440):

Degree of interdependency is known technically as taxis; and the two different degrees of interdependency as parataxis (equal status) and hypotaxis (unequal status). Hypotaxis is the relation between a dependent element and its dominant, the element on which it is dependent. Contrasting with this is parataxis, which is the relation between two like elements of equal status, one initiating and the other continuing.

Hypotaxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440):

Alternatively, two clauses related as interdependent may be treated as being of unequal status [hypotactic] … While the main clause constitutes a proposition in its own right and can thus be tagged … the qualifying clause does not and cannot be tagged … the qualifying clause can be placed either before or after the ‘head’ clause … The choice is determined by textual considerations.

Clause Complex Vs Cohesive Sequence

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 439-40):

When clauses are combined with the status of equal, there is a closely agnate version where the two clauses are not brought together structurally in a clause complex but rather form a cohesive sequence:

Kukul crouched low to the ground. He moved slowly.

In this version the elliptical Subject of the second clause has to be reinstated, since such Subject ellipsis is not possible outside the domain of a clause complex. 

The two versions are treated differently in the graphology: in the cohesive sequence, the two clauses are separated by a full stop; but in the clause complex, there is no full stop separating the clauses (though there could have been a comma or even semi-colon). 

This reflects the typical realisation in the phonology: in the cohesive sequence, the first clause would be spoken on tone 1 (falling), and then followed by the second clause also on tone 1; but in the clause complex, the first clause would be spoken on tone 3 (level), and then followed by the second clause on tone 1. Here tone 3 indicates that there is more to come – by the expansion of the clause to form a clause complex.

Parataxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

All clauses linked by a logico-semantic relation are interdependent: that is the meaning of a relational structure — one unit is interdependent on another unit. Two clauses related as interdependent in a complex may be treated as being of equal status [paratactic] … each constitutes a proposition in its own right and could thus be tagged … They could in fact select for different moods …

Types Of Relation Between Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

Two basic systems determine how one clause is related to another; they are set out in Figure 7-3, together with some more delicate subsystems that will be discussed below:

(i) taxis (degree of interdependency)
(ii) the logico-semantic relation.

 

Multivariate Sentence Structure?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437-8):

There are syntagms that may look as if they need to be interpreted in terms of a multivariate sentence structure, involving textual or modal Adjuncts or Vocative elements as Theme:

||| However << after the results of many studies were published, >> there was a shift towards the theory being quite unacceptable. |||
||| Interestingly, <<< as I left my small town || and explored the world via the military >>> I realised || I really like to learn, || and I was good at it. |||
||| Larry, Larry, Larry, << when you’re in the public eye >> you don’t do anything. |||

However, these can all be analysed as hypotactic clause combinations, where the dependent clause is included within the main clause after the textual and/or interpersonal Theme and before the topical Theme: main clause << dependent clause >> – more specifically, main clause [textual + interpersonal Theme] << dependent clause >> main clause [topical Theme ^ Rheme]. The motivation behind such sequences with included dependent clauses is thus textual: the main clause is powerfully contextualised first by its own textual and/or interpersonal Theme, and then, within the domain of the clause complex, by the dependent clause that qualifies it, and finally by its own topical Theme.

Blogger Comments:

Nevertheless, it will be seen later that there is one type of clause complex that is interpreted as a multivariate (Theme^Rheme) structure — though not acknowledged as such.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 552):