Three Degrees Of Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582, 582n):

Only one or two modulations have causative equivalents; e.g.

John remembered to do it
(caus.) Mary reminded John to do it

with the sense of ‘John did it according to attention’ and ‘Mary caused John to do it according to attention’. However, there is a special set that exist only as causatives, where the meaning is simply that of agency: make, cause, force, require, let, allow, permit, etc. These admit of three degrees of modulation:

(high:)      this made (forced, required) them (to) accept our terms
(median:) this had (got, obliged) them (to) accept our terms⁶
(low:)       this let (allowed, permitted) them (to) accept our terms

The concept of agency is inherently a circumstantial one. We have already seen in Chapter 5 that the Agent, which from one point of view is a participant in the clause (John did it), is from another point of view a kind of Manner (it was done by John). It is thus not surprising that the causative Agent enters into this kind of hypotactic structure, with the agency expressed as a process through verbs like force and allow.

 

⁶ Also imperfective: got them working, had him begging for mercy.

Causative Conation: Potentiality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582):

Here there are causative forms as follows:

(1) potential: the patient can see clearly
(caus.)           this enables the patient to see clearly 

(2) achieval:  John learnt to fly
(caus.)           Mary taught John to fly

Again, these causatives have passives: the patient is enabled to see clearly, John was taught to fly by Mary.

Causative Conation: Reussive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):

There is no causative form of the conative – that is, no word meaning ‘make ... try’; this can, of course, be expressed analytically, for example

(she) | α made | (him) | ×β try | +γ to eat | (it)

The causative of the reussive has help, and perhaps enable:

reussive: John managed to open the lock
(caus.) Mary helped John to open the lock

Causative Time-Phase: Durative & Inceptive

 Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):

Here the same verbs keep, start/stop, also function causatively:

(1) durative:   the ball kept rolling

(caus.)            John kept the ball rolling 

(2) inceptive:  the ball started/stopped rolling

(caus.)             John started/stopped the ball rolling

Causative Reality-Phase?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580-1):

It would be possible to recognise causative forms of reality-phase, as follows:

(1) apparent: John seems to be responsible
(caus.)           Mary considers John to be responsible 

(2) realised:  John turns out to be responsible
(caus.)          that proves John to be responsible

But consider and prove are better treated as, respectively, mental and verbal processes, with the proposition/process being projected; note the closely agnate finite clauses with that, and cf. it seems/turns out that John is responsible.

Blogger Comments:

Lest this be misunderstood, at clause rank, the causative examples are relational processes with (1) mental assignment and (2) verbal assignment.

Analytic Causative By Expansion Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580):

Causatives with make, get/have and let are of the enhancing type. But there are causative forms in all three types of expansion: see Table 8-6. 

Analytic Causative: Discontinuous Verbal Group Complex Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 579-80):

In the transitive analysis we introduced the notion of an Initiator, a participant who brings about the action performed by the Actor. This function appears in the explicit causative structure with the verb make. We can then, of course, extend the agency further: Mary made John roll the ball, as in Figure 8-10:

Note that in the ergative analysis the function of Agent recurs, allowing for indefinite expansion along the lines of Fred made Mary make John ...

But there is still only one process, that of rolling; so we can still represent it as two verbal groups in hypotactic relationship. In this instance, however, they are discontinuous, as shown in Figure 8-11).

Analytic Causative: An Alternative Realisation Of ‘Effective’ Agency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578-9):

We shall now turn to hypotactic verbal group complexes of expansion that also include a feature of causation. Such complexes are involved in the realisation of the transitivity system of AGENCY. We saw in Chapter 5 that there is a causative element in the structure of the English clauseFor example, John rolled the ball can be interpreted either as ‘John (Actor) did something to the ball (Goal)’ or as ‘John (Agent) caused the ball (Medium) to do something’.

We can always express this agency analytically, by saying John made the ball roll, where made ... roll is a hypotactic verbal group complex. Here the causative verbal group complex is thus an alternative realisation of the feature of ‘effective’ agency: an additional participant is introduced into the clause through the expansion of the verbal group realising the Process. In the ergative analysis this looks the same as John rolled the ball; but in the transitive it does not, and this enables us to interpret the difference between them: in John rolled the ball, he acted directly on it, whereas in John made the ball roll he may have done so by leverage, psychokinesis or some other indirect force (Figure 8-9).

As always, it is the combination of the two analyses, the transitive and the ergative, that gives the essential insight.

Blogger Comments:

The transitive interpretation of the participants in John rolled the ball as Actor and Goal contradicts the discussion (pp351-2) where the participants of such clauses (the police exploded the bomb, the sergeant marched the prisoners) are interpreted as Initiator and Actor.

Behavioural Conatives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578):

The hypotactic verbal group complexes we have looked at so far are, in principle, confined to features of the Process itself – features of phase, conation and modulation. But we have noted that conative hypotactic verbal group complexes with verbs of behaviour in the primary verbal group tend to add the role of Behaver to the experiential interpretation of the Subject, as is brought out by the contrast in voice.

Passive Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 577-8):

Many of the ‘enhancing’ verbal group complexes are simply inappropriate in the passive; they characterise an approach or attitude to the process, and this is likely to apply to an Actor but not to a Goal – it does not make much sense to say she hastened to be reassured, or your word ventures to be doubted. Others, such as happen and tend, are impersonal and so are indifferent to the selection of voice; e.g.

The house happened to have been built facing the wrong way. 

If the student is of the right calibre to pursue a course, which the Ministry enacts is a worthwhile full-time course, he shall receive the same justice from Britain whatever authority he happens to have been born under. 

How I happened to be marooned at Balicou doesn’t interest you in the faintest degree. 

One other aspect of oral work – the memorisation and speaking of prose and verse – tends to be considered by many teachers as quite extraneous to the normal class work. 

If conduct in prison were a deciding consideration selection would tend to be left to a time near the date of release.

Since they are all metaphorical, in the sense that the verbal group is representing a circumstance and not some aspect of a process, the functional analysis provides only a partial interpretation; to get the full picture we would need to take account of the congruent form, e.g. by chance the house had been built facing the wrong way. There would be no change of role in the passive (see Figure 8-8).

Conation Or Simple Negative?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576n):

Note the incongruence of the form people failed to accept her, meaning ‘people did not accept her despite her efforts’. Here failed to is functioning as a simple negative, such that there is a proportion

she was not accepted : people did not accept her ::
she failed to be accepted : people failed to accept her

Compare examples such as I sent them a letter but it failed to arrive, the banks failed to support them. These should perhaps be interpreted as a form of enhancement, meaning ‘do negatively’!

Conative Adjunct

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576-7):

The extending complex is a two-part process, in which the Subject fills a dual participant role: Behaver (in the conative component) plus Actor, or some other role, in the happening itself. For the same reason, Adjuncts in the clause may relate semantically to the conative component like hard, quickly in she tried hard to write well, she quickly learnt to tell them apart.

The Filipino tried hard to put in a storming finish, but his attacks were nearly all neatly countered by the clever champion.

There is no need in the analysis to tie these structurally to the primary verbal group; but it is useful to specify their function, by labelling them as ‘conative Adjunct’.

Passive Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576, 577):

Here the relation of passive to active is different, because a conative verb, although not constituting a separate happening, does in fact represent a behavioural process, and it retains its behavioural sense when the clause is passive. Thus an elaborating active/passive pair such as people started to accept her/she started to be accepted is not paralleled by the corresponding extending pair

(people) | tried | + β to accept | (her)
(she) | tried | + β to be accepted |

(see analysis in Figure 8-7). Examples:

He tried to be pleased at the idea. 

Francesca and Grazie were habitual committee chairmen and they usually managed to be elected cochairmen, equal bosses, of whatever PTA or civic project was being launched.

Passive Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575-6):

Here the transitivity functions remain the same whether the clause is passive or active; there is an exact proportion ants are biting me: I’m getting bitten by ants :: ants keep biting me: I keep getting bitten by ants:

(ants) | keep | = β biting | (me)
(I) | keep | = β getting bitten | (by ants)

Compare:

no one seems to have mended the lights yet
the lights don’t seem to have been mended yet
when will they start printing the book?
when will the book start being printed?

See Figure 8-6 for the analysis in mood and transitivity.

Verbal Group Complexes: Taxis And Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575):

A clause containing a verbal group complex is still a single clause, and represents a single process. It has only one transitivity and voice structure.

If it is a paratactic complex, this process consists of two happenings – two actions, events or whatever. If the verbal group complex is hypotactic, on the other hand, there is only one happening. Thus in a paratactic complex each verbal group has a definite voice, although the voice must be the same in each case; but in a hypotactic complex only the group that expresses the happening, the secondary group, actually embodies a feature of voice. The primary group is active in form, but there is no choice involved. (The exception to this is when the clause is causative.)

The different types of hypotactic complex have different potentialities as regards the passive. If the secondary verbal group is passive, the meaning of the categories of phase is unaffected; but there is an effect on the interpretation of conative forms.

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 574):

Here the primary verbal group is again not a separate process; but this time it is a circumstantial element in the process expressed by the secondary verbal group. If we say Alice ventured to ask something, this means she did ask it; but she did so tentatively. (The doubtful one here is hesitate, which perhaps belongs with the ‘projection’ type as a mental process.) Probably all of these would turn out to be metaphorical … . One of the examples above is analysed in Figure 8-5.

 

Blogger Comments:

Again, the table cells misrepresent the analysis of Finite and Predicator. The Predicator is tend to open and the Finite is 'do' ('present').

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Examples

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573-4):

Examples:

||| Yeah, I think || a good many writers tend to open their books || and groan. ||| 

||| Well that would be my contention || but let me hasten to add || that since the first Speaker was also the first Member for Wakefield || I’m not that anxious to emulate the first Speaker. ||| 

||| They don’t really own them, you see, || they just happened to be lying around in the same place as these things. ||| 

||| You will cherish them on your bookshelves for a long time – || unless, of course, someone borrows them || and somehow ‘forgets’ to return them. ||| 

||| Perhaps we could start by talking about that. ||| 

||| I came to love it || from drinking it in the war years, || but the fact must be faced, || it is an acquired taste. |||

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573, 574):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘be (circumstantial) + do’, e.g. help to do ‘do being-with (someone)’. As with all instances of enhancement, there are a number of different kinds; the principal ones are set out in Table 8-5.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Tense & Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Once again these forms are related to tense and modality, the hypotactic verbal group complex being intermediate between the simple verbal group, as in has done, has to do, and the clause complex, as in, say, by trying hard Alice reached the key. One of the examples given above is analysed below in Figure 8-4:

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Perfective vs Imperfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Of the remainder of this type, most take the perfective form of the secondary verbal group, as in try to do. The imperfective occurs only (i) with the negative terms avoid, and (with in) fail: avoid doing, fail in doing; and (ii) with succeed (again with in). The difference between manage to do and succeed in doing is slight; the former implies attempt leading to success, the latter success following attempt. For try + imperfective (‘do as a means to an end’), e.g. try counting sheep, see the next subsection [on causal enhancement].

From Conation To Readiness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

The other form that has turned into a finite element within the verbal group is the potential form can, in the sense of ‘have the ability to’; it is cognate with know, so ‘know how to’. This is now also a modal form, again of the modulation type — in this case not obligation but readiness (inclination/ability).

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Potential vs Actual

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Again, there are two dimensions: there is the potential, and the actual. The potential means having, or alternatively not having, the ability to succeed. The actual means trying, or not trying; and succeeding, or not succeeding. The form with have has evolved like the forms with be above. Originally two verbal groups, it is now either (i) + done, a secondary tense form ‘past in’, e.g. has done ‘past in present’, will have done ‘past in future’, was going to have done ‘past in future in past’ and so on; or (ii) + to do, a modal form (of the ‘modulation’ type), e.g. has to do ‘must do’. In other words, ‘possessing’ a process, if combined with past/passive, means past (success); if combined with ‘unreal’, it means (future) obligation.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 572):

This too has provided the resources for another tense form and another modality (see Table 8-4).

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 572):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘have (possession) + do’; in other words, success. The semantic relation between the primary and the secondary verbal group is one of CONATION: trying, and succeeding. (The verb of the primary verbal group is usually one that can serve in a ‘behavioural’ clause.) … Examples:

||| Aware of his child’s ignorance of Indian life, the Indian parent tries to cram into the child’s little head all possible information during an ‘Excursion Fare’ trip to the mother country. |||

||| You try and do something responsible for your children || and you get forgotten. |||

||| I’m just going to try and attach my first semantics chapter for you || ’cause it’s not too big || and then you can start reading || when you have time. ||| 

||| If I tried to swan around, || I wouldn’t know how to behave. |||

||| I always tried to avoid tearing her web || and save her repair work, || but she was a quick and efficient spinner. |||

||| And, while our military strength remains unmatched, || state or non-state actors may attempt to circumvent our strengths || and exploit our weaknesses || using methods [[ that differ significantly from our own]] . |||

||| The wide range of potential contributions by the RC has proven to be a bright spot || as we strive to match available resources to a demanding mission load, || and demonstrates clearly the enduring value and relevance of the citizen-soldier. |||

||| We succeeded to take our last steps to freedom in conditions of relative peace. |||

||| He feels || that he rarely succeeded in reaching the fibre of the characters [[ that he desperately wanted to attain]]. |||

||| He learned to walk in a certain way |||

Verbal Group Complexes With Respect To Finite And Predicator

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

The analysis of one of the examples above is given in Figure 8-3. (Note that just like finite simple verbal groups, the primary verbal group splits into Finite and Predicator: Finite ‘did’ + Predicator ‘seem’. The Predicator then extends to include the secondary verbal group: ‘seem’ + ‘to go’. This is brought out by versions of the clause where Finite and Predicator are discontinuous, as with did ... seem to go in did the sand dredger seem to go past the Marchioness?)

Blogger Comments:

Figure 8-3 misrepresents the text (because of software limitations in splitting table cells).  The Finite is 'did' and the Predicator is 'seem to go':

the sand dredger	seemed		to go	past the Marchioness
Subject	Finite	Pre	dicator	Adjunct

Time-Phase And Reality-Phase: Stages Of Becoming

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

At the deepest level time-phase and reality-phase are the same thing: both are concerned with the stages of becoming. A process is something that emerges out of imagination into reality, like the rising of the sun. Before dawn, the sun shines only in the future, or only in the imagination — as future turns into present, imagination turns into reality. The two categories of phase are related to modality and tense; but whereas modality and tense are interpreted as subcategorisations of one process (they are grammatical variants within one verbal group), phase is interpreted as a hypotactic relation between two processes: a general one of becoming, that is then elaborated by the specific action, event, mental process or relation that is being phased in or out.

'Phase' Verb Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570n):

When the verbs serving in the primary, elaborated verbal group occur in simple, non-elaborated verbal groups that serve as Process in their own right, they tend to combine with metaphorical nominal groups, as in Tove Janson’s experimentation with slightly different themes began in 1957.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570-1):

The other part of the time-phase system that has remained as a category of phase is that of ‘duration/inception’: ‘durative’ going on, contrasting with ‘inceptive/conclusive’, starting and stopping. For example: 

||| I keep telling them || I give them the money || so long as they’ll leave. ||| 

||| The line needs to keep being shut down || to have mechanical work done on there. |||

||| If they stop performing their task, || they’re likely to be deprived of the opportunities [[ to dedicate themselves to intellectual work]] . |||

Of these, the ‘go on’ term takes the imperfective; starting and stopping take either, with little difference in meaning – except that stop requires imperfective; stop + perfective is now interpreted as a hypotactic clause complex of purpose, as in

||| α she stopped || ×β to think ||| ‘she stopped, in order to think’

There is also an inceptive-durative ‘start to go on’, as in they’ve taken to coming in at the back door instead of the front.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time–Phase (Lost Opposition)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570):

The time-phase system has split into two. The original opposition is doing/is to do (meaning, in modern terms, ‘keeps doing’ and ‘will do’) has disappeared, since both have turned into grammatical categories of the verbal group. The former has evolved into tense, defined along the dimension of future/present/past. Thus the be ... ing form, as in he is doing, which was originally two verbal groups like modern keeps doing, is now the secondary present tense form within the one group, meaning ‘present in ...’; e.g. is doing ‘present in present’, was doing ‘present in past’, will have been doing ‘present in past in future’, was going to be doing ‘present in future in past’, etc. The latter, the be to ... form, as in he is to do, similarly turned into a secondary future; but here there has been a further change: is to has now turned into a modal form, and its function as secondary tense has been taken over by is going to.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Reality–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):

The reality-phase, or realisation, system is based on the contrast between ‘apparent’ (seems to be) and ‘realised’ (turns out to be); both are perfective, the first being unreal, the second unreal emerging into real.

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

This offensive appears to be a sign of their strength, || but their position is highly contradictory. 

Both in terms of quantity and quality, FY 1998 proved to be a very challenging recruiting year. 

The 22 bibliophiles turned out to trail clouds of glory. 

There is a variant of the ‘realised’ which is imperfective, e.g. she turns out knowing all about it; this is looking at it from the ‘real’ end, as reality emerging from appearance. We can also relate the passive voice to this general meaning, with its original sense of ‘is (in a state of) having been realised’.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):

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

The Meaning Of Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568-9):

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

The Secondary Verbal Group: Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

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

Non-Final Verbal Groups And Transitivity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568n):

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

The Last Secondary Group Realises The Process Type Of The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

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

Primary Vs Secondary Verbal Group: Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

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

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes Are Always Progressive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The hypotactic sequence is always progressive – α ^ β (as in tried to do), α ^ β ^ γ (as in began to try to do), α ^ β ^ γ ^ δ (as in wanted to begin to try to do) .... While the groups making up the complex are typically contiguous, as in the examples above, the complex may be discontinuous:

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

||| Again, a first requirement is [[ to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[ that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[ where they are supporting programs [[ that are actually helping us to get on with the business [[ of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] ]] . |||

The Traditional Analysis Of Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567n):

The traditional analysis was to treat the primary group as Predicator in its own right and the secondary group together with elements following it in the clause as an embedded non-finite clause serving as Complement, and this type of analysis was taken over in modern formal approaches, at least initially. 

Comparing the two types of analysis in a meaningful way is not possible within the space available here. However, we can note that while the traditional analysis is forced on us if our only model of structural organisation is that of constituency, the analysis we present here becomes possible once we recognise tactic interdependency structures. It allows us to show the analogy, and agnation, between sequences of verbs, and sequences of clauses, with areas of indeterminacy between the two. It enables us to throw light on so-called ‘serial verb constructions’ in a range of languages, interpreting the findings that have emerged, particularly in the past 15 years or so. 

Further, it enables us to show how categories of the simple verbal group have evolved from verbal group complexes (cf. references below to tense, modality and voice). And it also makes it possible to avoid one of the major drawbacks of the traditional analysis: the secondary verbal group plus the elements following it do not in fact behave as Complements. For example, if they were Complements, the wh- interrogative should be what is she trying?; but it is not: it is what is she trying to do?. 

Verbal group complexes have also been discussed under the heading of ‘catenatives’, reflecting the fact that the verbs in such a series are concatenated.

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567-8):

Like a paratactic verbal group complex and a simple verbal group, a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. tried to do, serves only one set of functions in the clause (and only in the clause, since it cannot be embedded on its own): it is the Process in the experiential transitivity structure, and the Finite (...) Predicator in the interpersonal modal structure. For example:

||| We tried to open windows || to escape. ||| 

||| In 1960 he began to travel. ||| 

The centre is helping field the 150,000 inquiries [[ flooding in nationally each day]] . 

... these doctrines, || which are highly serviceable to power and authority, || but seem to have no other merits. 

||| I always tried to avoid tearing her web || and save her repair work, || but she was a quick and efficient spinner. ||| 

||| I’ve been reading a lot of Lawrence; || I’ve been trying to read most of the works of Lawrence. |||

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567):

Perversely, however, English tends to go the other way [see previous post], and this employs embedding not hypotaxis (hence many of the prepositions could be replaced by of):

(it’s) [ at [ the back right-hand corner [ in/of [ the top drawer [ in/of [ the small cupboard [ against [ the far wall [ in/of [ the main bedroom [ to the left of [ the landing [ upstairs]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The address on the outside of an envelope forms a similar sequence.

This ‘narrowing’ relationship is in fact the same as that found in the nominal group, where the ‘logical’ structure of the Premodifier is a hypotactic sequence of words. This also goes ‘in reverse’, hence the ordering ... γβα; but it is hypotactic, not embedded:

ζ those ε two δ splendid γ old β electric α trains

Enhancing Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566-7):

With prepositional phrases and adverbial groups of place and time there is also a hypotactic relation of enhancement, with the special semantic feature of ‘narrowing’, as in tomorrow before lunch. Examples, starting with a constructed sequence:

(it’s) | α upstairs | ×β to the left of the landing | ×γ in the main bedroom | ×δ against the far wall | ×ε in the small cupboard | ×ζ in the top drawer | ×η at the back right hand corner | 

Starting from Narmada, || take the main turn-off south towards Praya.

From Beleka the road continues north, || rejoining the main east-west axis near Kopang, about 30km east of Mataram. 

You know || what’s happening tomorrow at five o’clock, don’t you?

Extending Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):

The hypotactic extension of adverbial groups/prepositional phrases is essentially the same as that for nominal groups, with as well as, instead of, rather than, etc.:

In government as well as in commerce, obviously, power was being defined as wealth, the accumulation of economic resources [[[ by which to live more comfortably || and to command more authority]]] . 

It was far better for a weapon used for retaliatory purposes to be under the sea rather than on land. 

A very important development is the building of research stations on the farms instead of in neighbouring towns. 

By the time the Great Central was built || the trains could manage the gradients much more easily || and the Great Central line usually went across the valleys ... instead of round them like the earlier railways || so the distances were shorter || and you got better views.

Prepositional Phrase Complex Vs Prepositional Phrase With Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):

Note the difference between these, which have two prepositional phrases in hypotactic relation, and phrases with between, which consist of one prepositional phrase with two paratactic nominal groups as Complement:

(he stood) between [ the door + | 2 and the window ]

It may be helpful to diagram these, as shown in Figure 8-2.

Elaborating Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

This is the relationship that is found in sequences such as:

She remained in Lincoln from 1911 until 1919 when she moved owing to the illness of her father, one time Archdeacon of Leicester, and later Canon of Peterborough, and settled in Kettering. 

I took a freighter from New York, all the way up the Amazon into Peru ... 

This twists around a shady, lush river gorge [[ thick with bamboo]] to Bagudesa, || then continues through extensive rice-fields to Kumbung. 

In 1990, London prefixes had changed from 01 to 071 or 081. 

In the present period, the issues arise across the board, <<as they commonly do>>: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order

Here the hypotactic complex construes a path through time or space, including abstract space.

Hypotactic Adverbial Group And Prepositional Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

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

Extending Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

In exactly the same way as with elaboration, a nominal group may be extended hypotactically by a prepositional phrase, the preposition having the same sense as when used to introduce a non-finite extending clause – (1) addition (positive): as well as, in addition to; (2) variation, replacement: instead of, rather than, unlike; (3) variation, subtraction: except for. Examples:

Its four levels include a sculpture garden, contemporary collections of Australian and European prints and drawings, 20th century British and European art, an impressionist exhibition as well as a new coffee shop and theatre space.

We have pursued a number of initiatives in recent years || to enhance the capabilities of both our forces forward-deployed on the peninsula and our reinforcing elements, as well as the forces of our South Korean Allies.

Our intent is [[ to develop the most advanced, reliable, and effective equipment || and to field it || when and where it’s needed, || using the Chairman’s Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund in addition to resources [[ allocated by the formal budget process]] ]] .

Venice was developed in 1904 || and was intended to be a western American cultural center like its Italian namesake, with canals instead of streets, and opera houses rather than amusement piers.

The nitrogen compounds (except for nitrous oxide) dropped from 8 to 10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to only 1.5 to 2 ppbv. 

Proteins, unlike carbohydrates and fats, cannot be stored for future use.

Hypotactically Elaborating Phrase vs Hypotactically Extending Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

Note that with a little of me thrown in in the following example

Those two guys, << with a little of me thrown in, >> came together as Lewis Moon.

is a clause, not a phrase; there are two elements of transitivity (a little of me + thrown in):

Elaborating Hypotactic Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

We saw in Chapter 6 that a nominal group can have as Postmodifier not only an embedded clause (‘defining relative’ clause) but also an embedded prepositional phrase, as in the man = [ in the moon ]. There is the same contrast between embedding and hypotaxis with a phrase as there is with a clause. Parallel to

(a) || (this is) my new house, = || β which Jack built ||
(b) || (this is) the house = [[ that Jack built ]] ||

we have

(c) (have you seen) | my new hat, = | β with the feather in
(d) (have you seen) | my hat = [ with the feather in] |

The secondary element in (c) is a descriptive phrase, ‘note that it has a feather in it’, not a defining one as in (d). Examples:

It began with worship at St. John’s Episcopal Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House 

Before the Opera House was completed || the Town Hall’s Centennial Hall, with seating for 2,000, was Sydney’s main concert venue.

Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

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

Hypotactic Group Complexes And Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

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

Paratactic And Hypotactic Word Complexes Within Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563-4):

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

Deictic / γ ^ Epithet / β 1 ^ β 2 δ ^ β 2 γ ^ β 2 β ^ β 2 α ^ Thing / α

Enhancing Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):

Here the semantic relationship involves a circumstantial relationship; this was not recognised as a distinct type in traditional accounts. As noted above, enhancing relationships are essentially between figures as a whole, and only rarely can they be interpreted as holding between particular elements of a figure. Examples are typically instances of time or cause:

[verbal group:]
(He) tried, but failed, (to extract the poison). ‘although he tried, he failed’ – concession 

[nominal group:]
All those on board, and hence all the crew, (must have known that something was amiss). 

Film hadn’t been important until the Italians with realism and Rossellini and De Sica, then the French nouvelle vague. 

Optimistu’s true nature dawned slowly. It became slightly nasty, then really rather awful, then unremittingly horrendous and then lethal only by degrees.

[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:]
(She took it) calmly enough, although not without some persuasion. 

I imagined my framed survey of Xitu hanging above the fire for a few years, then being moved to the spare room, then into the bathroom, then finally being confined to the attic. 

From this crossroads town follow the main road south through increasingly arid landscapes towards Rembitan, a pretty little village claiming a 17th-century mosque, then Sade, where tall, thatched lumbung (rice-barns) climb the slopes.

Again, there are some cliché-like instances, e.g. (he’s been here) thirty-five years if a day.

The Use Of Paratactic Extension To Indicate Degree

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):

Extension can be used iconically to indicate degree; for example:

Television is very dangerous || because it repeats and repeats and repeats our disasters instead of our triumphs.

Extending Paratactic Nominal Group Complex Reinforced By A Manner Circumstance

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 562-3):

An extending nominal group complex may be reinforced by a circumstantial Adjunct of Manner such as both, jointly, separately, individually, respectively:

||| We had a wonderful piece of property in Connecticut, back up in the hills, || and my brother and I were both very interested in snakes and birds. ||| 

||| Ross, << expected to go to the Middle East on Tuesday, >> intends to meet separately with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. ||| 

||| For FY99, our requests for regular and supplemental appropriations [[[ to fund these operations, || totalling $1.9 billion and $850 million respectively,]]] were also approved. ||| 

These indicate how the element realised by the nominal group complex takes part in the process of the clause – either jointly or separately.

A number of common expressions like slowly but surely, last but not least, by hook or by crook belong to this general pattern.

Extending Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 562):

This is the traditional category of ‘coordination’. Here the semantic relationship is one of ‘and, or, nor, but, but not’, as in the following examples:

[verbal group:] 

(I) neither like nor dislike (it). 

America can – and should – be proud of its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 

There are, and can be, no general answers. 

[nominal group:] 

All the King’s horses and all the King’s men (couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again). 

Bruce and Philip were friends, || Jane and I were friends || and then you and –  

Either you or your head (must be off, and that in about half no time).  

[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:] 

Swiftly and without a moment’s hesitation (he leapt into the fray).

Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, ...

Paratactically Elaborating Group vs Embedded Group As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 561):

It is important to distinguish between an elaborating group and an embedded group occurring as Qualifier: e.g. 

• (taxis, elaborating) his latest book, ‘The Jaws of Life’, 
• (embedded) his book ‘The Jaws of Life’. 

The former is related to a non-defining relative; it means ‘his latest book – which is “The Jaws of Life” ’, and is marked by tone concord:

//4 ^ his /latest /book the //4 jaws of /life was a //1 ghastly suc/cess //

The latter is related to a defining relative clause; it means ‘this particular book of his (he has written others)’ and has no tonic prominence on book.

Note that or in the sense of an alternative name for something is elaborating not extending; e.g.:

In one of those cities – one [[ whose name has long been forgotten]] – there lived an old halac uinic, or chief. 

I understand || that later, you come to an age of hope, or at least resignation.

Discontinuous Elaborating Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 561):

In an elaborating nominal group complex, the secondary nominal group may be used to include an embedded clause as Qualifier:

||| Near the San Diego Freeway interchange is the huge Shell Chemical Company plant, part of an industrial district [[[ that was established || before the plain became almost covered with tract housing]]] . |||

Note also that the secondary nominal group may be delayed for textual reasons, giving rise to a discontinuous complex:

While each of these elements is absolutely essential, || one must come first – people.

As with elaborating complexes in general, this is spoken on two tone groups, with tone concord.

Elaborating Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 560-1):

This is the traditional category of ‘apposition’. As with clauses, appositional group or phrase complexes are characterised by tone concord, signalling the semantic relationship of elaboration. The elaborating group/phrase may restate or particularise; restatements include naming, explanatory glossing and shifts in perspective: a number of the themes of elaborating clause complexes are replayed on a smaller scale. Examples:

[verbal group:] 

(Unfortunately she) got killed, got run over, (by one of those heavy lorries). 

Yes, yes you can; || but then I think || emotion has to be – should be, anyhow – shaped by thought. 

[nominal group:] 

“Too often, human rights in the US are a tale of two nations – rich and poor, white and black, male and female.” 

... it’s because we, the elites, are so great [[ that we carried through the changes]] . 

Freedom and steam – a political ideal and a source of energy – these were the forces [[ that drove the new age on]]. 

How does it differ from other ideologies [[that are often associated with socialism]], such as Leninism? 

Have you read any poetry in the eighteenth century recently – any Pope? 

[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:] 

(I couldn’t have done it) alone, without help. 

This has just been when? – over the last few days? 

Aesthetically, in terms of the vision in your head, what is the relationship between the fiction and the nonfiction?

Paratactic Group And Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 560):

When groups and phrases are linked paratactically, they are given equal status; any of the members of the complex could, in principle, serve the same function as the whole complex. Thus alongside In the mid-’80s, Apple introduced the LaserWriter – the first PostScript laser printer, we could also have ... introduced the LaserWriter or ... introduced the first PostScript laser printer. 

Groups and phrases can be linked paratactically by apposition and by coordination. As with paratactic clauses the former are elaborating in function, the latter extending. Instances of the enhancing type are less common, since the meanings are too specific to be readily expressed as a relationship between units smaller than clauses; but they do occur. 

There are no paratactic group/phrase complexes linked by projection, except for nominal group complexes such as the examiner’s assessment, ‘a brilliant work’, seems hard to justify, which lie on the borderline of elaborating parataxis.

Taxis And Logico-Semantic Type At Group Rank

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 559):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 558):

Note that we have to differentiate group and phrase complexes from clause complexes involving ellipsis. In clause complexes where the Subject or the Subject and the Finite have been ellipsed in a continuing clause, it is easy to see that a whole clause is involved:

||| Then he went in the Navy || and [∅: he] helped design various gunnery training devices [[ used during World War II]] . |||

But the whole clause is still involved in cases where other elements have been ellipsed:

The Land-Rover was to take him to Santander, then the train [∅: was to take him] to Bilbao for the late afternoon flight.

Here the train to Bilbao for the late afternoon flight is an elliptical clause consisting of three explicit elements – Subject: the train + Adjunct: to Bilbao + Adjunct: for the late afternoon flight, with Finite/Predicator and Complement left out by ellipsis. The general principle is that as long as only one element is involved, we can analyse the complexing at group/phrase rank, but as soon as more than one element is involved, we have to analyse the complexing at clause rank and posit ellipsis in one of the clauses.

Group And Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 558):

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

Clause Complex And Tone

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 553, 554):

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

Thematic β-Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 551-2):

In general, thematic β-clauses serve to set up a local context in the discourse for the α-clause: they re-orient the development (as in the staging of a narrative), often distilling some aspect of what has gone before to provide the point of departure for the dominant clause, thus creating a link to the previous discourse. For example:

||| I remember an example [[[ that happened || when I was probably no more than four years old]]] . ||| My brother and I were playing in a neighbourhood friend’s garage, || and he disappeared for a minute. ||| When our friend came back || he said || that we had to go home, || ‘because my father doesn’t want any niggers in his house.’ ||| We didn’t even know || what the word was. ||| 

||| The DMK is already annoyed with the BJP government at the Centre || for not favourably considering its demand [[ to recall TN Governor Fathima Bheevi for her swearing in Jayalalitha as CM]] . ||| If the Centre accepts the AIADMK government’s objection || and drops the earlier list, || facilitating the AIADMK government to appoint its choice of judges to the Madras High Court, || then the DMK may voice its opposition to such a move. ||| 

||| If ifs and ans were pots and pans, || there’d be no need for tinkers. ||| 

The textual domain of a thematic dependent clause is often a sub-complex rather than just a single clause, and it may even extend beyond the clause complex in which the clause serves.

Theme In A Hypotactic Clause Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 550-1, 552):

Let us return briefly to thematic considerations within a hypotactic clause nexus. Compare the following two hypotactic nexuses from a procedural text:

α ^ β fry the onions until slightly brown
β ^ α if you want a more substantial stuffing add a little mashed potato 

In the first nexus, the sequence is α ^ β (progressive sequence). Here the dependent clause is given rhematic status. In the procedure, the process of frying the onions is started before the change of colour takes place: the sequence of clauses is iconic with the sequence of events. In the second nexus, the sequence is β ^ α (regressive sequence). Here the dependent clause is given thematic status: see the first structural layer (Theme₁ ^ Rheme₁) in Figure 7-27. This thematic clause signals a break in the procedure and introduces a variation on the basic method. This re-orientation in the development of the text is achieved by giving the conditional dependent clause thematic status.

The Clause Complex As Textual Domain: Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 550):

The sequence of clauses within a clause complex is also textually significant as a cohesive domain; in particular, the clause complex licenses certain pattern of ‘ellipsis’ that may involve co-reference. Thus in the paratactic sequence 1 He pointed his arrow, 2 but saw nothing, the Subject of the secondary clause is ‘elliptical’ (but [Subject:] ∅ [Finite/Predicator:] saw [Complement:] nothing), and is interpreted as co-referential with the Subject of the primary clause (he). Similarly, ‘elliptical’ Subjects of non-finite dependent clauses, tend to be interpreted as co-referential with the Subjects of their dominant clauses (as in α I went on to birds β starting with my mother’s feeder). Thus in a clause complex, paratactic and hypotactic co-referential ellipsis may work together to signal the continuity of thematic Subjects, e.g.:

||| 1 The scientific community is beginning to recognise the opportunity || 2α but [Subject:] ∅ has done little so far || 2β [Subject:] ∅ to provide useful conceptual tools and means of [[communicating these linkages]] [[[ that can be used || to build the social and political consensus necessary for action]]].

The Clause Complex As Textual Domain: Information & Tonality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 550):

In spoken English, the sequence of clauses within a clause complex may be mapped onto one or more information units; that is, there are textually different ways in which a clause complex can be mapped onto an information unit complex. The unmarked mapping is one (ranking) clause = one information unit. Thus the paratactic sequence 1 ^ 2 and the hypotactic sequence β ^ α would each be chunked into two information units (realised by different tone sequences, tone 3 followed by tone 1, and tone 4 followed by tone 1, respectively). However, there are regular departures from this unmarked pattern.

(1) When the dependent clause in a hypotactic nexus is included within the dominant clause, the nexus may be chunked into three information units, with three points of New information (as in //4 John //4 who arrived late //1 missed the speeches //). 

(2) When the dependent clause follows its dominant clause in a hypotactic nexus (progressive sequence), it may be included in the same information unit as the dominant clause, with the focus of New information within the dependent clause (as in //1 I came because he told me //). 

(3) When the logico-semantic relation of the nexus is one of projection, the projecting clause may be part of the same information unit as the projected clause, being tonally cliticised to it.