Expressions Of Probability In The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 688-9):

There is, in fact, a wide range of variants for the expression of modality in the clause, and some of these take the form of a clause nexus. This range is comparable to what we found with other types of modal assessment. If we limit ourselves first to the meaning of ‘probability’, the principal categories are as shown in Table 10-7; …

What happens is that, in order to state explicitly that the probability is subjective, or alternatively, at the other end, to claim explicitly that the probability is objective, the speaker construes the proposition as a projection and encodes the subjectivity (I think), or the objectivity (it is likely), in a projecting clause. (There are other forms intermediate between the explicit and implicit: subjective in my opinion, objective in all probability, where the modality is expressed as a prepositional phrase, which is a kind of halfway house between clausal and non-clausal status.)

An Interpersonal Metaphor Of Modality

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 686):

With modality, it is very clear that certain grammatical environments constitute metaphorical realisations of modality. … (see Figure 10-3). 

Here the cognitive mental clause I don’t believe is a metaphorical realisation of probability: the probability is realised by a mental clause as if it was a figure of sensing. Being metaphorical, the clause serves not only as the projecting part of a clause nexus of projection, but also as a mood Adjunct, just as probably does. The reason for regarding this as a metaphorical variant is that the proposition is not, in fact, ‘I think’; the proposition is ‘it is so’. This is shown clearly by the tag; if we tag the clause I think it’s going to rain we get I think it’s going to rain, isn’t it? not I think it’s going to rain, don’t I?. In other words the clause is a variant of it’s probably going to rain (isn’t it?) and not a first-person equivalent of John thinks it’s going to rain, which does represent the proposition ‘John thinks’ (tag doesn’t he?). …

What’s happened here is that there has been a realignment in the realisational relationship between semantics and grammar. … in examples such as the one analysed in Figure 10-3, a modalised proposition is realised as if it was a sequence, by a clause nexus of projection. The effect is that the modality and the modalised proposition are separated, each being realised by a clause in its own right: the modality is realised by the projecting mental clause and the proposition by the projected idea clause.

Manifestations Of Interpersonal Assessment: Clause vs Group

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 686):

The range of assessments assigned to propositions within the domain of the clause and the range of assessments assigned to things within the domain of the nominal group are not, of course, the same. They overlap; but there are kinds of assessment specific to the realm of propositions, just as there are other kinds specific to the realm of things. The common foundation is that they are both projections of the speaker’s assessment. This explains why clausal assessment can in fact be transformed into nominal assessment, as in disappointingly they forecast that ... => the disappointing forecast.

Modal Assessment: Domains Of Realisation

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 679-85):

The full range of modal assessment is shown in Table 10-6. The table indicates the different realisational domains of modal assessment, and it gives an indication of where categories of modal assessment correspond to categories of appraisal as described by Peter White and others. We have also noted assessments that may be realised as the Epithet of a nominal group. Such nominal groups serve as the Attribute of an intensive attributive relational clause with a fact as Carrier – the explicitly objective form of assessment. However, such Epithets of assessment may be assigned to things as well as to metathings: either the nominal group in which the Epithet serves is the Attribute assigned to a Carrier denoting a thing rather than a metathing, or else the Epithet is assigned directly to the Thing of the nominal group in which it serves.

Projection And Interpersonal Assessment

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 679):

Projection is thus dispersed across different grammatical environments. But the different manifestations of projection are not, of course, synonymous. The ideational manifestations make explicit the orientation of the assessment: the logical manifestation is explicitly subjective (e.g. I regret) whereas the experiential manifestation is explicitly objective (e.g. it’s regrettable). In contrast, the interpersonal manifestation leaves the orientation implicit:

ideational, logical – nexus:      explicit orientation: subjective (I regret)
ideational, exper. – 2 clauses: explicit orientation: objective (it’s regrettable)
interpersonal – 1 clause:          implicit orientation (regrettably)

The difference between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ orientation in the ideational manifestation follows from the general difference between a projecting ‘mental’ or ‘verbal’ clause with a Senser or Sayer and a ‘relational’ clause without such a ‘projector’. When the assessment is explicitly ‘subjective’, the Senser or Sayer has to be the speaker I if the clause is ‘declarative’ or the addressee you if it is ‘interrogative’ (as in Do you regret that it’s taken so long for you and your dad to get to work together?). If it is a person other than the speaker or addressee, the clause will still be a projecting one; but it will not be agnate with an interpersonal assessment.

Interpersonal Manifestations Of Projection: Subjective vs Objective Modal Assessment

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 678):

… projection includes both hypotactic projection of ideas/reports and pre-projected facts serving in a ‘mental’ or ‘relational’ clause. A hypotactic projection is always ‘subjective’; the speaker is represented explicitly as the Senser (e.g. I presume) or Sayer (e.g. I admit). A pre-projected fact in a ‘mental’ clause is like hypotactic projection in representing the assessment as ‘subjective’ – the speaker is explicitly represented as the Senser (e.g. I regret). In contrast, a pre-projected fact in a ‘relational’ clause represents the assessment as ‘objective’ (e.g. it is regrettable); but it may be ‘prefaced’ by a ‘mental’ clause with a ‘subjective’ orientation [e.g. I think it is regrettable].

Ideational vs Interpersonal Manifestations Of Projection

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 676-8):

When the need arises in discourse to attribute information to some source, this can be done logically by means of clause nexus of projection; but it can also be done experientially by means of a circumstance of Angle. …

Projection can also be manifested interpersonally in the form of a modal Adjunct … Unlike the logical and experiential manifestations, the interpersonal manifestation does not represent the Sayer or Senser; rather it enacts the speaker’s opinion – an enactment of his or her degree of commitment to the proposition: the proposition is assessed as being projected by somebody other than the speaker. This type of assessment is known as ‘evidentiality’: the modal Adjunct is used to indicate the evidential status of the proposition. The nearest logical equivalent would be ‘people say/they say that ...’, or ‘I hear that’: evidentiality is related to ‘verbal’ clauses and ‘mental’ clauses of perception.

In Chapter 4, we called this kind of modal assessment presumption; the comment Adjunct is realised by adverbial groups with adverbs as Head such as evidently, supposedly, reportedly, allegedly; arguably; presumably and they may have cognate verbs such as report, allege, argue serving as Process in a ‘verbal’ clause or suppose, presume serving as Process in a ‘mental’ clause. …

Projection is thus manifested interpersonally as modal assessment of the presumption type; but it extends beyond presumption to cover quite a few other types of modal assessment as well.

Grammatical Manifestations Of Projection vs Expansion

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 676):

Like expansion, projection is manifested both logically and experientially within the ideational metafunction; but outside the ideational domain, it is manifested interpersonally rather than textually, thus contrasting with the textual manifestation of expansion: see Table 10-5.

That is, while there are conjunctions marking rhetorical relations of elaboration, extension and enhancement, there are no conjunctions marking relations of quoting or reporting; and while there are interpersonal resources for realising projection (e.g. allegedly ‘they allege’; probably ‘I think’), there are no interpersonal Adjuncts or other interpersonal manifestations of expansion. There is thus a significant difference between expansion and projection.

Interpersonal Differences In Grammatical Manifestations Of Cause

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 675-6):

Just as the different domains of manifestation are textually distinct, they are also interpersonally distinct. When the domain of manifestation is a cohesive sequence of clauses, or a paratactic nexus of (free) clauses, the two figures related by expansion are enacted interpersonally as propositions or proposals. This means that each of them can be negotiated in their own right – accepted or denied, complied with or refused, and so on, as in she didn’t know the rules – oh yes, she certainly did. The same is true of the dominant (α) clause of a hypotactic nexus, since if it is a free clause, it realises a negotiable proposition or proposal. However, while the dependent (β) clause supports a proposition or proposal, it does not constitute one itself ; and if it is non-finite, it is even further removed from the realm of negotiation. A causal dependent clause (e.g. because she didn’t know the rules) is thus not presented as directly accessible to negotiation; it has to be accepted without argument.

When the domain of manifestation is a simple clause, there is just a single proposition rather than two. This obviously restricts the scope for negotiation; but when the causal relation is construed within the Process, it has become propositionalised or proposalised, and can be assessed … and negotiated … Here it is no longer the cause or the effect that is held up for negotiation but rather the causal relation. Being construed as nominal groups, the cause and the effect are not negotiable at all.

Textual Differences In Grammatical Manifestations Of Cause

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 674-5):

The different domains of manifestation of expansion, illustrated for cause in Table 10-4, are textually distinct. When the domain of manifestation is a cohesive sequence of clauses or a nexus of tactically related clauses, the conjunction group realising the causal relation is given a textual status within the clause in which it appears: it is either textual Theme or part of the Rheme. While a conjunction group with a structural conjunction such as so or because as Head is obligatorily thematic, there is a choice for conjunction groups with a cohesive conjunction such as consequently as Head …

In a hypotactic nexus, there is a further textual contrast that is not open to cohesive sequences and paratactic nexuses: the dependent β clause representing the cause may be either thematic or rhematic within the clause nexus; …

When the domain of manifestation of expansion is a simple clause, the potential textual status of the manifestation of the cause depends on how it manifested – (1) as minor Process within a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstance of Cause, (2) as Process, or (3) as Thing within a nominal group serving as a participant in a circumstantial relational clause.

(1) When it is manifested within a circumstance of Cause, the cause may be given the status of either Theme or Rheme, and, if it is Theme, it may be given the status of predicated Theme; …

(2) When the causal relation is manifested as Process (either in a hypotactic verbal group complex in a clause of any process type, or as the nuclear process in a circumstantial relational clause), its textual status will most likely be rhematic. More specifically, it is likely to be (part of) the transition between Theme and New. …

(3) When the cause is manifested as the Thing in a nominal group serving as a participant, it will have the thematic status assigned to that nominal group as a whole – either thematic or rhematic. But, in addition, it will be within the domain of operation of another textual system – the system of REFERENCE. This means that it is given a textual status as a discourse referent – either recoverable (identifiable) or non-recoverable (non-identifiable), and that it can be tracked in the development of the discourse.

Ideational Differences In Grammatical Manifestations Of Cause

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 673-4):

From an ideational point of view, the difference in meaning relates most directly to the question of what is construed as a quantum of change in the flow of events. The examples in Table 10-4 form a scale extended between two poles. At one pole, the experience of the flow of events is construed as two distinct quanta of change, realised by two independent clauses that are related cohesively but not structurally (She didn’t know the rules. Consequently, she died.). At the other pole, the experience of the flow of events is construed as a component part of a quantum of change – a participant that can itself be an element of some other quantum of change (cf. the quite incredible ignorance on which it is based must be a cause for grave concern), realised by a single nominal group (her death through ignorance of the rules). Intermediate between these two poles are various manifestations that represent a move from two distinct quanta of change via two interdependent ones to a single one.

The scale is thus one of degree of integration of two quanta of change. This scale of integration is based on the rank scale. At one pole, the sequence of cohesively related clauses transcends the rank scale, and, at the other, the nominal group is located at the rank below that of the clause. These two poles are thus connected by a move down the rank scale. At the same time, this move involves a shift in metafunction: textual – logical – logical + experiential – experiential. Here the meaning of expansion changes with the change of metafunctional manifestation. For example, the manifestation of cause changes from rhetorical relation (textual: consequently) via logico-semantic relation (logical: so, because) to process or minor process and even participant (experiential: cause, through; cause). This means that the category meaning of ‘cause’ changes; so while, for example, consequently and through share the meaning of cause, they differ in the category meanings they assign to it. (We shall see below that some of these realisations of cause are, in fact, ideational metaphors within the domain of the grammar.)

Grammatical Manifestations Of Cause

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 669, 673):

… for any given type of expansion we want to express, we have at our disposal a range of resources. For example, if we want to express an enhancing relationship of cause, the opportunities made available by the grammar include the one set out in Table 10-4.

These patterns of wording are agnate, but just like agnate patterns in general they are not synonymous: agnation always embodies both similarity and difference. The similarity is the basis for interpreting the patterns as alike, bringing them together within a paradigm, while the difference is the basis for treating them as variant types rather than as tokens of the same type. The patterns are similar in that they are all manifestations of different kinds of expansion, as illustrated by the examples of the enhancing notion of cause above. But how do the agnate variants differ in meaning? As always with questions of meaning, the answer can be found in its metafunctional organisation: differences turn out to be (i) ideational, (ii) textual and (iii) interpersonal.

Synoptic Summary Of Expansion

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 669-72):

Let us now present a systematic and comprehensive summary of the different grammatical environments in which elaboration, extension and enhancement are manifested: see Table 10-3. As the table shows, the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of (i) metafunction – textual (CONJUNCTION), logical (INTERDEPENDENCY; MODIFICATION) and experiential (CIRCUMSTANTIATION; PROCESS TYPE: relational), and (ii) rank – clause and group/phrase. (The table could, in fact, be extended downwards along the rank scale to take account of patterns below the rank of group/phrase within the logical metafunction: word and morpheme complexes also embody interdependency relations that combine with expansion.)

From a grammatical point of view, the environments set out in Table 10-3 are, of course, all different. But seen from above, from the vantage point of semantics, they are all agnate ways of construing expansion. Collectively they thus construe expansion as a semantic system.

Logical vs Experiential Manifestations Of Expansion

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 666-7):

… the three subtypes of expansion (elaboration, extension and enhancement) combine with tactic relations to link one clause to another in the formation of clause complexes. The same pattern was found to operate in the formation of group and phrase complexes. In clause complexes and in group/phrase complexes, expansion is manifested within the logical mode of the ideational metafunction.

But we had already met two experiential manifestations of expansion within the system of transitivity. On the one hand, expansion is manifested in the augmentation of the clause by circumstances: these circumstantial augmentations cover all three types of expansion, with enhancement being the most highly developed one. On the other hand, expansion is manifested in the process of a ‘relational’ clause: ‘intensive’ clauses embody elaboration, ‘possessive’ clauses extension, and ‘circumstantial’ clauses enhancement. In the domain of the nominal group, there are also various manifestations of the three types of expansion. Thus the Qualifier may elaborate, extend or enhance the Thing;

Dispersed vs Compact Grammatical Realisations Of Semantic Systems

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 666, 667):

The semantic system of EXPANSION may be contrasted in this respect with that of FIGURATION: see Figure 10-2. The grammatical realisation of FIGURATION is ‘compact’, being confined to the TRANSITIVITY system of the clause. In contrast, the grammatical realisation of EXPANSION is ‘dispersed’, ranging over more than one grammatical unit. (We shall see later that compactly realised systems such as configuration may become dispersed in their realisation through the process of grammatical metaphor.)

 

Semantic Systems Realised In More Than One Grammatical Domain: Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 666):

There are two fundamental semantic domains of this kind – expansion and projection. For example, the expanding relation of ‘addition’ may be realised (1) cohesively by a conjunction such as also or (2) structurally by (a) an additive paratactic clause nexus marked by the structural conjunction and, (b) a circumstance of accompaniment marked by the preposition with or (c) an additive paratactic group nexus marked by and:

(1) She went to the market. Her son also went to the market.
(2a) She went to the market and so did her son.
(2b) She went to the market with her son.
(2c) She and her son went to the market.

These realisational variants are dispersed in the grammar, since they constitute different grammatical environments; but they are semantically agnate in that they all have the feature of ‘addition’. The fact that they are semantically agnate does not mean that they are synonymous; they share the feature ‘addition’ but they differ in other respects. For example, (2b) and (2c) construe one event, whereas (2a) and (1) imply two events. One semantic system, the system of EXPANSION, has thus evolved to bring together patterns of wording within grammatically distinct units, thereby extending its overall meaning potential.

Semantic Systems Realised In More Than One Grammatical Domain: Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 666):

Every lexicogrammatical system realises some semantic system. For example, we have seen that the grammatical system of MOOD [clause] realises the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION [proposition/proposal]. Here one lexicogrammatical domain, the clause, corresponds to one semantic domain, the proposition/proposal. In addition, there are semantic systems that are realised by grammatical systems operating in more than one place in the grammar. These semantic domains range over two or more grammatical domains, spanning two or more grammatical units, as in the case of MODALITY noted above.

Metaphorical Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 665):

(ii) On the other hand, there are realignments in the realisational relationship between semantic units and grammatical ones. According to Table 10-1, a sequence is realised by a clause complex; the combination of a figure, a proposition/proposal and a message is realised by a clause; and we could add further realisational correspondences: for example, a participant is realised by a nominal group, a process by a verbal group and a circumstance by an adverbial group or a prepositional phrase. But once these couplings between the two strata of the content plane have been established, ‘cross-couplings’ become theoretically possible. 

For example, while sequences are realised by clause complexes and figures by clauses, it is theoretically possible that, under certain conditions, sequences would be realised by clauses – that is, as if they were figures. This is the possibility of metaphorical realisation, which has been taken up in English and many other languages, creating a more complex relationship between semantics and lexicogrammar than the one shown in Table 10-1. 

For example, instead of saying we and this common homeland are spiritually and physically united, so we were deeply pained as we saw ..., we can say that spiritual and physical oneness we all share with this common homeland explains the depth of the pain we all carried in our hearts as we saw .... But the two forms of realisation are not, of course, synonymous, so the effect is one of expanding the meaning potential of the language.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 665):

(i) On the one hand, there are semantic domains that range over more than a single grammatical unit. Thus the semantic domain of modality is realised in more than one place in the grammar; for example, it is realised by ‘mental’ clauses such as I suppose and by ‘relational’ clauses such as it is possible, by verbal groups with finite modal operators such as may and by adverbial groups with modal adverbs such as perhaps. These modal patterns within different grammatical units are not interchangeable synonyms; they have distinct values within the overall semantic system of modality. As we shall see below, while the forms above can all realise ‘low probability’, I think is explicitly subjective, it is possible is explicitly objective, may is implicitly subjective and perhaps is implicitly objective. This means that the semantic system of modality is more extensive than the modal features of any one given grammatical unit would suggest; it is realised not by a single grammatical unit but by a range of units: semantic unit a ↘ grammatical units m, n & o.

Summary Of Semantic Units In Relation To Grammar

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 664, 665):

The account that we have outlined is summarised in Table 10-1. The table shows the intersection of two content strata (semantics and lexicogrammar) with the three metafunctions. Within each metafunction there are semantic patterns that are intermediate between (1) the local semantic units that are realised by the clause and the clause complex and (2) the global semantic unit, i.e. the text.

Table 10-1 shows how semantic units are mapped onto grammatical ones. The principle is that of rank-based constituency – semantic unit a ↘ grammatical unit m; the key grammatical unit is the clause, as shown diagrammatically in Figure 10-1. But while this is the foundation on which the relationship between semantics and lexicogrammar is based, there are two other principles affecting this relationship, making it more complicated but also extending the meaning potential of language: (i) transgrammatical semantic domains – domains of meaning extending across different grammatical units, and (ii) metaphor – incongruent realisational relations between semantics and lexicogrammar.

Intermediate Ideational Semantic Units: Episodic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 663):

Ideational. Figures combine to form sequences; and these, in turn, may combine to form episodic patterns, as in narratives and other chronologically organised texts or chronological passages within other kinds of text.

Intermediate Interpersonal Semantic Units: Patterns Of Exchange

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 661, 663):

Interpersonal. Propositions/proposals combine to form patterns of exchange involving two or more interactants… . At least in some registers such as interviews, classroom discourse and quiz shows, the patterns are regular and predictable enough to appear to be compositional in nature: interpersonal units of exchange consisting of certain sequences of propositions/proposals. But whatever the status is of such exchange patterning, the critical point is that it is interpersonal rather than textual or ideational, and that it is intermediate between propositions/proposals and the whole text.

Intermediate Textual Semantic Units: Information Flow Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 661):

Textual. Messages combine to form periodic movements of information… . Such phases of messages help construct the flow of information as the text unfolds and we can refer to them simply as information flow patterns.

Intermediate Semantic Units

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 661):

What is intermediate in the semantics between text on the one hand and message, proposition/proposal and figure on the other hand? Messages, propositions/proposals and figures can combine with units of the same metafunctional type to form more extensive semantic patterns in the creation of text. These patterns are distinct for each metafunction.

Semantic Units Realised By The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 661, 662):

However, even though we have to leave open the question of whether there is a single semantic compositional scale or more than one, we can say something about the lower region of such a scale or such scales. This is the region where semantic units are realised by lexicogrammatical ones. We have already referred to these semantic units throughout the book, and the principle that emerges here is the familiar metafunctional one. The clause is a multifunctional construct in the grammar, one that realises three different semantic units, one for each metafunction: textual – message, interpersonal – proposition/proposal, and experiential – figure. These relationships are shown in Figure 10-1: the three semantic units deriving from the three metafunctions are all mapped onto the clause, which thus unifies the three metafunctional strands of meaning.

A Single Compositional Scale For Semantics?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 660-1):

The upper bound of the semantic stratum is, as we have said, the text: this is the most extensive unit of meaning. The upper bound of the lexicogrammatical system is the clause: this is the most extensive unit of wording. In the grammar, there is a single, generalised compositional scale – the grammatical rank scale (clause – group/phrase – word – morpheme); and we can specify not only the upper and lower bounds of this scale – the clause and the morpheme, respectively – but also the intermediate units of patterning: group/phrase and word. But in the semantics, it is far from clear whether there is a single compositional scale: such a scale would have to be generalised across all registerial varieties of a language, but we know that texts vary considerably from one register to another. It is quite possible that different registers operate with different compositional scales; for example, one such scale was identified in the organisation of class room discourse by Sinclair & Coulthard (1975) and another in the organisation of certain types of conversation by Cloran (1994). This issue can only be settled after a great deal more research into the semantics of text has been carried out.

Text

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 660):

A text is thus a unit of meaning – more accurately, a unit in the flow of meaning that is always taking place at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. How does this semantic unit relate to the units and unit complexes of grammar – the clause (clause complex), the groups (group complexes) and so on? The folk view is that a text consists of clauses (or ‘sentences’); but this is a misleading simplification of a more indirect – but much more flexible and powerful – relationship. A text does not ‘consist of’ clauses (clause complexes) – there is no part-whole or ‘constituency’ relationship between a text and a clause (complex) and there is no single rank scale with text and clause as ranks. Rather a text is realised by clauses (clause complexes), the two being located on different strata – semantics (the stratum of meaning) and lexicogrammar (the stratum of wording) respectively.

Blogger Comments:

It is important to understand (and maintain) the difference between a text as semantic unit, and text as an instance of language. A text as semantic unit is the highest unit on the semantic stratum, and so, realised by the clauses of lexicogrammar. A text as an instance of language is an instance of language as a whole, not just the semantic stratum.

Logogenetic Patterns And Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 659-60):

Through the accumulation of logogenetic patterns and through the resources of cohesion, lexicogrammar makes a considerable contribution to the development of patterns in a text that extend beyond a single grammatical unit such as the clause, or even a complex of units such as the clause complex; and this is, of course, why lexicogrammatical analysis of a text can tell us so much about how it works. The patterns that are developed in this way are, however, patterns of meaning, not patterns of wording; they are patterns at the level of semantics rather than at the level of lexicogrammar. This is so because text is, as we have emphasised, a semantic phenomenon in the first instance; it is meaning unfolding in some particular context of situation. For example, the grammatical system of conjunction gives speakers and writers the resources to mark transitions in the development of a text – i.e., to mark rhetorical relations used to expand the text step by step; and the rhetorical relations that are marked in this way by conjunctions are semantic relations organising the text as a flow of meaning.

Blogger Comments:

A logogenetic pattern is a pattern of instantiation; that is, a pattern of feature selection and realisation statement activation. Different patterns identify different texts, and different patterns of patterns identify difference 'above' the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. A logogenetic pattern thus includes selections from the lexicogrammatical system of cohesion.

The System Of Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 659):

… lexicogrammar has evolved textual resources for creating cohesive links that have the ability to indicate semantic relationships in the unfolding text beyond the domain of grammar. These resources are known collectively as the system of COHESION. Cohesion includes (1) the system of CONJUNCTION for marking textual transitions in the unfolding of text and (2) the systems of REFERENCE, ELLIPSIS & SUBSTITUTION, and LEXICAL COHESION for giving elements different textual statuses in the unfolding of text.

Logogenetic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 659):

… in the course of unfolding of text, lexicogrammatical selections create logogenetic patterns at all ranks. This is patterning in the text that has nothing to do with composition or size: instead of composition (the relationship between a whole and its parts), the patterning is based on instantiation (the relationship between an instance and a generalised instance type). The patterning represents a slight move up this cline from the single instance to a pattern of instances, as in a news report where one projecting verbal clause after another is selected until this emerges as a favourite clause type. The logogenetic patterns that emerge as a text unfolds form a transient system that is specific to that text; but from repeated patterns over many such transient systems may, in turn, emerge a generalised system characteristic of a certain type of text or register.

The Complementarity Of Clause Complexing And Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 655, 657):

These two resources complement one another in the grammatical realisation of transitions in text. The general principle of complementarity is this: clause complexing does relatively more work locally, while conjunction does relatively more work non-locally and even globally. Clause complexing ‘choreographs’ the local development of text by means of univariate structure, indicating both taxis and type of logico-semantic relation. Conjunction can work together with clause complexing, reinforcing local relations, but it tends to take over from clause complexing as the relations become less local and more global. Looked at from the point of view of lexicogrammar, this means that the local organisation tends to be ‘tighter’ whereas the more global organisation tends to be ‘looser’. At the same time, looked at from the point of view of context, the more global organisation is subject to more contextual guidance in the form of generic structure. In this way, grammar and context complement one another in their contributions to the semantic organisation of text. …

However, this pattern of complementarity varies significantly across registers. In particular, in unselfconscious spoken text, clause complexing does relatively more work and conjunction relatively less. Here clause complexes can extend well beyond local relations, reaching a span of up to 20 to 30 clauses. Conversely, in planned written text, clause complexing does relatively less work and conjunction relatively more.

Textual Transitions: Conjunction And Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 655):

While textual statuses are assigned to components of messages, textual transitions hold between whole messages, or groups of whole messages. Such transitions may, of course, be left to the listener or reader to infer, without the help of any explicit markers; but they may also be marked explicitly by means of textual or logical resources. The textual resource for indicating such transitions is the system of CONJUNCTION. Here the type of relation is indicated, but there is no distinction between paratactic and hypotactic relations. The logical resource combines type of relation with TAXIS in the univariate structure of clause complexing.

Textual Status And Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 654):

Unlike REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS, the resource of LEXICAL COHESION is, in general, neutral with respect to textual statuses; that is why we have not included it in Table 9-4. A given lexical item can be assigned any of the textual statuses; it is not predisposed to any particular status. Similarly, a given lexical relation is also neutral with respect to textual statuses. However, a particular lexical chain in a text is very likely to show some systematic pattern in relation to textual status.

Textual Statuses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 652):

The systems of THEME, INFORMATION, REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS are all concerned with textual statuses. Speakers assign these statuses to components of messages to help themselves produce texts and to help their listeners interpret them. These textual statuses are independently variable. For example, thematic status may be combined with either given or new, and the same is true of rhematic status. However, there are certain unmarked combinations: in the unmarked case, Theme is Given and New falls within Rheme. The thematic statuses and the favoured combinations are shown in Figure 9-5.

Textual Grammatical Resources Viewed 'From Above'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 650, 652):

Looked at ‘from below’, these textual resources fall into two categories – those that engender grammatical structure (theme and information) and those that do not (conjunction, reference, ellipsis, lexical cohesion). Looked at ‘from above’, these textual resources are concerned either with textual transitions between messages or with textual statuses of components (elements) of these messages. These two classificatory perspectives are intersected in Table 9-19. 

The table indicates that structural and cohesive resources work together in the marking of textual transitions and in the marking of textual statuses. In the latter case, all the resources are indeed textual; but in the former, the structural resources are logical rather than textual – the logical relations of clause complexing. … The table does not include lexical cohesion. This is like reference and ellipsis in that it involves components of messages rather than whole messages; but it often works together with conjunction in the creation of relations in text. We shall thus have occasion to refer to it both in our discussion of textual statuses and in our discussion of textual transitions.

The Textual Resources Of The Lexicogrammar Of English

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 650):

We have identified the following features as those which combine to make up the textual resources of the lexicogrammar of English:

(A) structural

1 thematic structure: Theme and Rheme
2 information structure and focus: Given and New

(B) cohesive

1 conjunction
2 reference
3 ellipsis (that is, ellipsis and substitution)
4 lexical cohesion

Collocation: Register Variation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 650):

Notice, finally, that collocations are often fairly specifically associated with one or another particular register, or functional variety of the language. This is true, of course, of individual lexical items, many of which we regard as ‘technical’ because they appear exclusively, or almost exclusively, in one kind of text. But it is also noteworthy that perfectly ordinary lexical items often appear in different collocations according to the text variety. For example, hunting, in a story of the English aristocracy, will call up quarry and hounds (or, at another level, shooting and fishing); in an anthropological text, words like gathering, agricultural and pastoral; as well as, in other contexts, bargain, souvenir, fortune and such-like.

Collocation: Types Of Relation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 649):

In general, the semantic basis of many instances of collocation is the relation of enhancement, as with dine + restaurant, table; fry + pan; bake + oven. These are circumstantial relationships (for collocations involving Process + Manner: degree, e.g. love + deeply, want + badly, understand + completely), but as the example with smoke + pipe illustrates, participant + process relationships also form the basis of collocation – the most important ones involving either Process + Range (e.g. play + musical instrument: piano, violin, etc.; grow + old) or Process + Medium (e.g. shell + peas, twinkle + star, polish + shoes); and there are also combinations involving functions in the nominal group, in particular, Epithet + Thing (e.g. strong + tea, heavy + traffic, powerful + argument) and Facet + Thing (e.g. pod + wales, flock + birds, school + fish, herd + cattle, gaggle + geese).

While we can typically find a semantic basis to collocation in this way, the relationship is at the same time a direct association between the words; if pipe is in the text then smoke may well be somewhere around, at least with considerably greater probability than if we just pulled words out of a hat on the basis of their overall frequency in the language. We get ready for it, so to speak; and hence if it does occur it is strongly cohesive (cf. Hoey’s, 2005, notion of lexical priming).

Collocation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 648-9):

At the same time there are other instances of lexical cohesion that do not depend on any general semantic relationship of the types just discussed, but rather on a particular association between the items in question – a tendency to co-occur. This ‘co-occurrence tendency’ is known as collocation. For example,

A little fat man of Bombay
Was smoking one very hot day.
But a bird called a snipe
Flew away with his pipe,
Which vexed the fat man of Bombay.

There is a strong collocational bond between smoke and pipe, which makes the occurrence of pipe in line 4 cohesive. Clearly there is a semantic basis to a collocation of this kind; a pipe is something you smoke, and the words pipe and smoke are typically related as Range to Process in a behavioural process clause. Hence pipe here will be interpreted as ‘the pipe that he was smoking at the time’.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, smoke is not a behavioural Process, if only because pipe is not a Behaviour (the Range of a behavioural Process).

Meronymy vs Hyponymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 648):

There is no very clear line between meronymy and hyponymy, especially with abstract terms; and a given set of items may be co-hyponyms of one term but co-meronyms of another – for example, chair, table, bed are ‘kinds’ (hyponyms) of furniture, but ‘parts’ (meronyms) of furnishings; forward, half-back, back are ‘kinds’ of players but ‘parts’ of a team, and so on. But since either relationship is a source of lexical cohesion it is not necessary to insist on deciding between them.

Meronymy: Examples

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 648):

The occurrence of any pair of items within the set will be cohesive; for example

||| On the left of the park lies the Exhibition Centre [[ which covers a massive 25,000 square metres of column-free space under the one roof]] . ||| Opened in January 1988, || the Centre is designed to hold major international exhibitions. ||| The glassed eastern facade is stepped back in five separate stages [[ that can be partitioned off to form smaller halls]]. ||| The fifth hall is linked by covered walkway to the Convention Centre. ||| 

||| Elfrida had a beautiful little glass scent-bottle. ||| She had used up all the scent long ago; || but she often used to take the little stopper out ||| ... 

||| She knelt down || and looked along the passage into the loveliest garden [[ you ever saw]] . ||| How she longed to get out of that dark hall, || and wander about among those beds of bright flowers and those cool fountains, || ... 

where roof, facade, hall are meronyms of centre, stopper is a meronym of bottle, and flowers and fountains are co-meronyms of garden.

Hyponymy vs Meronymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 647-8):

The general sense of hyponymy is ‘be a kind of’, as in ‘fruit is a kind of food’. There is a similar relation in the extending domain (Kinds of lexical relations playing a role in lexical cohesion). This is meronymy – ‘be a part of’. These two lexical relations are contrasted diagrammatically in Figure 9-4: given a lexical set consisting of either hyponyms, where x, y and z are all ‘kinds of’ a, or meronyms, where p, q and r are all ‘parts of’ b.

 

Hyponymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 646-7):

Repetition and synonymy are both elaborating relations based on identity; one lexical item restates another. There is a second kind of elaborating relationship – attribution. This is based on classification (specific to general): the first lexical item represents a class of thing and the second either (i) a superclass or a subclass or (ii) another class at the same level of classification. For example:

And do you know anything about mediæval literature; have you ever heard of any other kinds of literature in the mediæval period besides Chaucer? 

Most limestone probably originates from organisms that remove calcium carbonate from sea water. The remains of these animals may accumulate to form the limestone directly, or they may be broken and redeposited. 

Noah’s wife and his sons’ wives went to the fields to gather fruit and grain and vegetables. They would need plenty of food for themselves and the animals on the ark. The remains of these animals may accumulate to form the limestone directly, or they may be broken and redeposited.

Thus in the last example, fruit, grain and vegetables are co-hyponyms of food.

Antonymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 646):

A special case of synonymy is its opposite, antonymy. Lexical items which are opposite in meaning, namely antonyms, also function with cohesive effect in a text. For example, woke and asleep in

He fell asleep. What woke him was a loud crash.

Synonymy Without Identity Of Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 646):

The occurrence of a synonym even where there is no particular referential relation is still cohesive; for example, see Text 9-11

Text 9-11: Recreating – narrating (written, monologic): limerick
There was a man of Thessaly
And he was wondrous wise.
He jumped into a hawthorn bush
And scratched out both his eyes.
And when he saw his eyes were out
With all his might and main
He jumped into a quickset hedge
And scratched them in again.

where the quickset hedge is not the same entity as the hawthorn bush but there is still cohesion between the synonyms hedge and bush.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, referential relations are distinct from, and irrelevant to, the functioning of lexical cohesion.

Tracking A Participant Through The Discourse

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 645-6):

In fact we might have (disregarding the scansion, of course) any of the following sequences:

four-&-twenty blackbirds ... the blackbirds began to sing
                     "                     the birds began to sing
                     "                     the creatures began to sing
                     "                     they began to sing

the reference item they being simply the most general of all. Compare ankylosaur ... creature in the following description of a dinosaur:

As an added means of self-defence the ankylosaur had a club on its tail. The creature may have been able to swing the club with great force and aim a savage blow at an enemy.

Such instances are typically accompanied by the reference item the. This interaction between lexical cohesion and reference is the principal means for tracking a participant through the discourse. Instead of the creature we might simply have had the personal reference it; and earlier in the same text, we find such examples:

Ankylosaurus – the “fused lizard” – was the largest of the ankylosaurs, but in spite of its size and frightening appearance it fed only on plants.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the source of the notion of 'tracking a participant through the discourse' — which Matthiessen again fails to acknowledge — is not Halliday, but Martin (1992), further elaborated in Martin & Rose (2007). This misunderstanding derives from Martin's confusion of textual reference with ideational denotation (and deixis), and consequently, his confusion of reference with lexical cohesion. Evidence here (Martin 1992) and here (Martin & Rose 2007). In Martin's model, speakers are said to track themselves through a text, and participants are said to be tracked by being omitted.

Synonymy With Identity Of Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 645-6):

Here the range of potentially cohesive items includes synonyms of the same or some higher level of generality: synonyms in the narrower sense, and superordinates. For example, in

Four-&-twenty blackbirds, baked in a pie.
When the pie was opened, the birds began to sing.

we have one instance of repetition (pie ... pie) and one of synonyms (blackbirds ... birds). birds, however, is at a higher level of generality than blackbirds; it is a superordinate term. …

Related to these are examples such as the following, where there is still identity of reference, although not to a participant, and the synonym may not be in the same word class (cheered ... applause; cried ... tears):

Everyone cheered. The leader acknowledged the applause.
I wish I hadn’t cried so much! I shall be punished for it, I suppose, by being drowned in my own tears!

Synonymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 645):

In the second place, lexical cohesion results from the choice of a lexical item that is in some sense synonymous with a preceding one; for example sound with noise, cavalry with horses in

He was just wondering which road to take when he was startled by a noise from behind him. It was the noise of trotting horses. ... He dismounted and led his horse as quickly as he could along the right-hand road. The sound of the cavalry grew rapidly nearer ...

Here again the cohesion need not depend on identity of reference. But once we depart from straightforward repetition, and take account of cohesion between related items, it is useful to distinguish whether the reference is identical or not, because slightly different patterns appear.

Lexical Item: Inflectional And Derivational Variants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644-5):

… in order for a lexical item to be recognised as repeated it need not be in the same morphological shape. For example, dine, dining, diner, dinner are all the same item, and an occurrence of any one constitutes a repetition of any of the others. Inflectional variants always belong together as one item; derivational variants usually do, when they are based on a living derivational process, although these are less predictable. (For example, rational and rationalise are probably still the same lexical item, though the relationship between them has become rather tenuous; but neither now goes with ration — rational is closer to reason, though not close enough to be considered the same item.)

In Landor’s line

I strove with none, for none was worth my strife

there is a strongly felt cohesion between strife and strove, suggesting that strive, strove and strife are one and the same lexical item.

Repetition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644):

The most direct form of lexical cohesion is the repetition of a lexical item; e.g. bear in

Algy met a bear. The bear was bulgy

Here the second occurrence of bear harks back to the first. In this instance, there is also the reference item the, signalling that the listener knows which bear is intended; and since there is nothing else to satisfy the the, we conclude that it is the same bear. But this referential link is not necessary to lexical cohesion; if we had Algy met a bear. Bears are bulgy, where bears means ‘all bears’, there would still be lexical cohesion of bears with bear. In this case, however, there would be only one tie; whereas in the example cited first there are two, one referential (the) and one lexical (bear).

The Primary Types Of Lexical Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4):

The primary types of lexical relations are listed in Table 9-17. They derive from either the paradigmatic or the syntagmatic organisation of lexis. (i) The paradigmatic relations are inherent in the organisation of lexis as a resource, as represented in Roget’s Thesaurus. They can be interpreted in terms of elaboration and extension, two of the subtypes of expansion … . (ii) The syntagmatic relations hold between lexical items in a syntagm that tend to occur together, or collocate with one another. Collocates of a lexical item can be found in the entries of certain modern dictionaries based on corpus investigations. Since syntagmatic organisation and paradigmatic organisation represent two different dimensions of patterning, any pair of lexical items can involve both.

⁹ Collocation includes, but is not confined to, relationships that can be interpreted as enhancing.

Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 642-3):

The types of cohesion we have discussed so far all involve grammatical resources – grammatical items (conjunctions, reference items, substitute items) and grammatical structure (absence or substitution of elements of structure). However, cohesion also operates within the lexical zone of lexicogrammar. Here a speaker or writer creates cohesion in discourse through the choice of lexical items. … lexical cohesion comes about through the selection of items that are related in some way to those that have gone before.

Just as ellipsis and substitution take advantage of the patterns inherent in grammatical structure (ellipting and substituting particular elements of structure such as the Head of a nominal group), so lexical cohesion takes advantage of the patterns inherent in the organisation of lexis. Lexis is organised into a network of lexical relations such as the ‘kind of’ relations obtaining between fish and salmon.

Ellipsis–&–Substitution vs Co-Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 642):

But the most important distinction, which again follows from the different nature of the two types of relationship, is that in ellipsis the typical meaning is not one of co-reference. There is always some significant difference between the second instance and the first (between presuming item and presumed). If we want to refer to the same thing, we use reference; if we want to refer to a different thing, we use ellipsis: Where’s your hat?—I can’t find it.—Take this (one). Each can take on the other meaning, but only by making it explicit: another hat (reference, but different), the same one (substitution, but not different). Thus reference signals ‘the same member’ (unless marked as different by the use of comparison); ellipsis signals ‘another member of the same class’ (unless marked as identical by same, etc.). The difference is most clear-cut in the nominal group, since nouns, especially count nouns, tend to have clearly defined referents; it is much less clear-cut in the verbal group or the clause.

Within the nominal group, ‘another member’ means a new modification of the Thing; Deictic (this one, another one, mine), Numerative (three, the first (one)), or Epithet (the biggest (one), a big one). In the verbal group, it means a new specification of polarity, tense or modality through the Finite element (did, might (do), hasn’t (done)); and there is a slight tendency for ellipsis to be associated with change of polarity and substitution with change of modality. This tendency is more clearly marked with the clause, where ellipsis adds certainty (yes or no, or a missing identity), whereas substitution adds uncertainty (if, maybe, or someone said so); this is why, in a clause where everything is ellipsed except the modality, it is quite usual to use a substitute (possibly so, perhaps so) unless the modality is one of certainty – here we say certainly (elliptical), rather than certainly so:

Have you got a nicorette on you? – Certainly.

Blogger Comments:

Reference: Steve played badly and he was soon eliminated.
Ellipsis: Steve played badly and Ø was soon eliminated.

That is, in these typical uses of reference and ellipsis, the relation in both is one of "co-reference".

Ellipsis–&–Substitution vs Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 641-2):

We remarked earlier that ellipsis is a relationship at the lexicogrammatical level: the meaning is ‘go back and retrieve the missing words’. Hence the missing words must be grammatically appropriate; and they can be inserted in place. This is not the case with reference, where, since the relationship is a semantic one, there is no grammatical constraint (the class of the reference item need not match that of what it presumes), and one cannot normally insert the presumed element. Reference, for the same reason, can reach back a long way in the text and extend over a long passage, whereas ellipsis is largely limited to the immediately preceding clause.

The Fusion Of A Nominal Substitute With Modifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 641):

In some instances the nominal substitute fuses with a Modifier, as in yours, none in the following:

I haven’t finished the crocodile story completely. And then we’ll hear yours [your story], okay? 

But he won’t get any benefit for his early plea of guilty or contrition. – No absolutely none [no benefit].

These can be analysed as elliptical, the elements my, your, no, etc. having a special form when functioning as Head.

The Parallel Developments Of The Verbal And Nominal Substitutes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 641):

Like do in the verbal group, the nominal substitute one is derived by extension from an item in the structure of the full, non-elliptical group – in this case the indefinite numeral one, via its function as Head in a group which is elliptical as in

Anyone for teas or coffees? – Yeah, I’ll have one; I’ll have a coffee. …

The parallel development of the two substitutes, verbal do and nominal one, is as shown in Table 9-15:

Substitution vs Ellipsis In The Nominal Group: Count vs Mass Nouns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 640-1):

There is a nominal substitute one, plural ones, which functions as Head; it can substitute for any count noun (that is, any noun that is selecting for number, singular or plural); for example,

A: But I’ve got a depression quilt at home. – B: You’ve got that one that Marcia gave you. – A: That Marcia gave me from the American. – B: The Amish one, isn’t it?

She’s got she’s got Big Pond which she said which is apparently not a terribly good provider. – No. – Mmm. No. I thought Yahoo was one of the better ones [providers].

I have always had hot water bottles. I think they’re, the last couple disintegrated. I had a nice bright yellow koala shaped one.

There’s reefs around bloody Australia, isn’t there? – Yeah; a Great Barrier one, I believe. – It’s a big one, I think.

With mass nouns, ellipsis is used instead of substitution:

Do you want some more wine? White or red [∅: wine]? – White [∅:wine].

Ellipsis Within The Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 640):

Ellipsis within the nominal group was referred to in Chapter 6, where it was shown that an element other than the Thing could function as Head; for example any in

I’ll ask Jenny about laptops and find out whether we have got any [∅: laptops].

Substitution In The Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 640):

Substitution in the verbal group is by means of the verb do, which can substitute for any verb provided it is active not passive, except be or, in some contexts, have. The verb do will appear in the appropriate non-finite form (do, doing, done). Examples:

Does it hurt? –Not any more. It was doing last night. 

Yeah but I’m doing night shift too. If I have to teach people on night shift as I have done, I do night shift and then I do day shift and get a couple of hours off and then do night shift and day shift.

As we have seen, this do typically substitutes for the whole of the Residue (or, what amounts to the same thing, when the verb is substituted by do, the rest of the Residue is ellipsed). Since there are no demonstrative verbs – we cannot say he thatted, he whatted? – this need is met by combining the verb substitute do with demonstratives that, what (serving as Range in the transitivity structure). For example:

I did cross-eye in the middle of my art. – I can’t do that. – I can.

What did your father do? – He was an architect.

What are you going to do with Blubba? – Oh, I don’t know.

This is one thing I haven’t worked out with this phone whether, cause my old phone used to ring you to let you know you had a message. – Yeah. Does this one not do it?

The form do not functions as a single reference item.

Ellipsis In The Verbal Group (Complex)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 639):

Since the verbal group consists of Finite plus Predicator, it follows automatically that any clausal ellipsis in which the Mood element is present but the Residue omitted will involve ellipsis within the verbal group: the Predicator will be ellipsed together with the rest of the Residue, as in Have a shower! – I can’t [∅: have a shower]. There is no need to repeat the discussion of this phenomenon. The ellipsis may affect only part of the Predicator, as when the Predicator is realised by a verbal group complex and only the first part of the complex is retained together with the infinitive marker to:

Have you do you read very much Kafka? I am trying to [∅: read very much Kafka], yes, ... [Text 125] 

“Can you hop on your hind legs?” asked the furry rabbit. – “I don’t want to [∅: hop on my hind legs],” said the little Rabbit. [Text 28]

Here the rest of the verbal group serving as Predicator is ellipsed together with the remainder of the Residue.

The Cohesiveness Of Ellipsis And Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 639):

The elliptical or substitute clause requires the listener to ‘supply the missing words’; and since they are to be supplied from what has gone before, the effect is cohesive. It is always possible to ‘reconstitute’ the ellipsed item so that it becomes fully explicit. Since ellipsis is a lexicogrammatical resource, what is taken over is the exact wording, subject only to the reversal of speaker-listener deixis (I for you and so on), and change of mood where appropriate.

Clausal Ellipsis Substitution And Unmarked Information Focus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 639):

Thus clausal ellipsis/substitution occurs typically in a dialogue sequence where in a response turn everything is omitted except the information-bearing element. … A clause consisting of Mood only, such as I will, could equally occur in either the yes/no or the WH- environment; typically, in a yes/no environment, the focus would be on will, which bears the polarity (‘Will you ... ?’ – I will.), whereas in a WH- environment, the focus would be on I, which carries the information (‘Who will ... ?’ – I will.).

WH- Ellipsis And Substitution: Part Of The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 638-9):

Sometimes in a WH- clause, or its response, the Mood element is left in and only the Residue is ellipsed. For example, with WH- Subject:

Has the time come for these local divinities [[to give way to perhaps a [ bigger concept of deity, a bigger concept of religion]]? – Who knows [∅: whether the time has come ...]? 

And Hugo told you that, too. – Who did [∅: tell me that too]?

Similarly if the WH- element is part of the Residue:

||| I think || that’s why my generation is so tediously over-serious. ||| How could we not be [∅: so tediously over-serious]? ||| 

Yes, I think you’d better look at it. – I don’t see any particular reason why I should [∅: look at it].

The Mood element may be represented by negative polarity alone:

Yes, Dad, but we mustn’t even lean on this guitar today. – Why [∅: must we] not [∅: lean on this guitar today]?

WH- Ellipsis And Substitution: The Whole Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 638):

In a WH- sequence the entire clause is usually omitted except for the WH- element itself, or the item that is the response to the WH- element:

I desperately, desperately need them. – What? – The scissors.

What have you read? – [∅: I have read] Lord of the Flies. 

Well I prefer Lord of the Flies. – Why [∅: do you prefer Lord of the Flies]? – Because I don’t think I understood Pincher Martin.

The substitute not may appear in a WH- negative:

The kind of approach to reality and to ideas which the book offers us, is it a realistic book? – No, I don’t think so. – Why [∅: do you] not [∅: think so]?

Substitution is less likely in the positive, except in the expressions how so?, why so?.

Yes/No Substitution: The Residue

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637-8):

With a declarative response, if there is a change of Subject only, we may have substitute so, nor, neither in initial position ( = ‘and so’, ‘and not’) followed by the Mood element.

... but I heard some water in it. – I did too. – So did I. 

I love them. – So did I. – Me, too. 

||| This drags down the bibliophiles’ score; || and so does the disgraced Nixon, || ranked at 23 in Siena. ||| 

I didn’t want to see it all. – No, neither did I.

The order is Finite ^ Subject (to get the Subject under unmarked focus). If the Subject is unchanged, so that the focus is on the Finite, the order is Subject ^ Finite:

S04: At their age you were an orphan. You didn’t have to. – S05: Not quite. – S04: You were. – S05: Oh yes. So I was.

The negative has various forms:

They’ve never replied. – So they haven’t/Nor they have/Neither they have [∅: replied].

Not infrequently, the Residue is substituted by the verbal substitute do, as in:

They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. – It should do [∅: keep the doctor away], if you aim it straight.

If the focus is on the Residue (and hence falls on do), the substitute form do so may be used (as an alternative to ellipsis):

||| Tempting as it may be, || we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue [[ that comes along]]. ||| When we do so || we use precious limited resources || where other players with superior resources are already doing an adequate job. |||

Yes/No Ellipsis: Part Of The Clause: Residue

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637):

As an alternative to the ellipsis of the whole clause, there may be ellipsis of just one part of it, the Residue. For example:

||| Mum, you’re not enjoying your dinner, are you? ||| – ||| I am [∅: enjoying my dinner]. ||| 

||| I’ve had a headache. ||| – ||| Have you [∅: had a headache]? ||| 

||| Could you put your issue of Rapale literacy in the numeracy study. ||| – ||| Oh I suppose || I could [∅: put my issue of Rapale literacy in the numeracy study]. |||

Negative Clause Substitution vs Positive Clause Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637):

In addition, the substitute not is used when the answer is qualified by a negative in some way:

||| Is that [[ what it really is about]] , a cock and a fox? ||| – ||| No, not really. |||

where a positive clause is simply presupposed by ellipsis:

||| Did you feel || that you were taking a risk || in being so open about [[ what you were doing]] ? ||| – ||| Oh, sure, in some ways. |||