Monday, 16 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 535):
… the noun is the name of a locution or an idea, and the clause that it projects serves to define it in exactly the same way that a ‘restrictive’ relative clause defines the noun that is expanded by it. Hence any noun that belongs to a projecting class may be defined (restricted) in either of these two ways, either by projection (e.g. the thought [[that she might one day be a queen]]) or by expansion (e.g. the thought [[that came into her mind]]). This leads to ambiguities such as the report [[that he was submitting]].
Sunday, 15 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 535, 536):
Nouns that project belong to clearly defined classes, verbal process nouns (locutions) and mental process nouns (ideas); they correspond rather closely to, and in many instances are derived from, the verbs used in the projecting clause, especially the reporting ones. Some of the principal nouns of projection are set out in Table 7-26.
(a) stating: projected clause either (i) finite, that + indirect indicative, or (ii) non-finite, of + imperfective
(b) questioning: projected clause either (i) finite, if/whether or WH- + indirect indicative, or (ii) nonfinite, whether or WH- + to + perfective
(a) offering (incl. suggesting): projected clause either (1) non-finite, to + perfective or of + imperfective, or (ii) finite, future indirect indicative
(b) commanding: projected clause either (i) non-finite, to + perfective, or (ii) finite, modulated or future indirect indicative
Saturday, 14 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 534-5):
The fact that the projected clause is embedded as the Qualifier in a nominal group means that it can occur in a range of grammatical environments not open to non-embedded, tactically related projected clauses. This is important in the creation of discourse; one of the central uses of nominal groups with embedded projections is in the representation of arguments, as in newspaper reports and scientific discourse:
There is bitter opposition to his proposal [[that Palestinians renounce their demand [[for more than three million refugees to return to areas inside Israel that were abandoned in the 1948 war]] ]].
Israelis have rejected Mr Clinton’s proposal [[that they give up control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s walled Old City, the holiest place in Judaism and the third most sacred in Islam]].
Boyle’s tentative suggestion [[that heat was simply motion]] was apparently not accepted by Stahl, || or perhaps it was unknown to him.
Here proposals and demands are opposed, renounced and rejected. The contribution to the creation of discourse is further enhanced by the fact that such nouns of projection can be used anaphorically to refer back to propositions and proposals already established in the discourse:
The Labour Party opposed Thor missiles, because, he said, they were out of date and vulnerable and would attract enemy action. That argument did not apply to the Polaris submarine.
The cohesive effect is similar to that created by text references achieved by means of this, that, it:
The talks lasted for three hours. This was a surprise, for they had only been scheduled to last two hours.
(cf. it was a surprise that the talks lasted for three hours with a fact clause; but nouns of projection make it possible to construe the class of projection explicitly.
To be clear, here Matthiessen seriously misrepresents Halliday's model of cohesive reference. It is not the noun of projection (argument) that makes anaphoric reference, but the reference item that precedes it (that). It would appear that Matthiessen has been fooled by the misunderstanding of Halliday in Martin (1992). For evidence that Martin misunderstands the principles on which reference is theorised, see any of the 153 posts here.
Friday, 13 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 534):
The structure of a nominal group with an embedded projection is shown in Figure 7-22, part [i].
Such instances are still projections; but here the projecting element is the noun that is functioning as Thing, in this case assertion. … such instances of projection are all metaphorical: a projecting sequence is realised congruently as a clause nexus of projection – part [ii] of Figure 7-22, but it may alternatively be realised metaphorically as a nominal group – part [i] of Figure 7-22. When we align them as in Figure 7-22, we see how the nominal group construction with an embedded projection clause is agnate with a clause nexus of projection: the nominal group is a metaphorical, nominalised version of the clause nexus; and the noun assertion serving as Head/Thing is in fact a nominalised variant of the verb assert serving as Process in the agnate clause. The congruent Sayer may be left out in the nominal group; or it may be represented either as the Deictic (their assertion that ...) or as a Qualifier (the assertion by the government that ...). Part of the rhetorical power of the metaphorical group is the potential for leaving the Sayer unspecified.
Thursday, 12 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 533-4):
Like the three types of expansion, both locutions and ideas can be embedded. Besides entering into paratactic and hypotactic clause nexuses, they can be ‘rankshifted’ to function as Qualifiers within a nominal group, as in:Leaders of both a publicly-funded project and a competing private company issued statements Friday [[that they jointly would announce the status of their work on Monday]].
I was very intrigued by your take on Huck Finn in that piece, and your argument [[that the great American novel of that century was Uncle Tom’s Cabin]].
To what extent do you buy into the belief [[[that if the individual becomes enlightened, || that adds to the betterment of the universe in and of itself]]]?
AT&T’s stock slid 14 percent Tuesday as the company issued its first profit warning under chief executive C. Michael Armstrong, fuelling worries about [[whether his radical remake of the nation’s largest long-distance company will succeed]].
The man was impressive in some ways, Oxford educated, very twenties British bohemian, a great dancer and seducer of women, who suppressed his wife’s desire [[to be a ‘real’ archaeologist]] and whose own career really was a joke up until his early death from a sudden illness.
Wednesday, 11 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 532):
The intonation pattern of free indirect speech is still further anomalous, since it follows that of quoting and not that of reporting: the projected clause takes the intonation that it would have had if quoted (that is, identical with its straight, unprojected form), and the projecting clause follows it as a ‘tail’. This is because the projected clause still has the status of an independent speech act.
Tuesday, 10 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 532, 533):
To accommodate free indirect speech in our account, we thus need to expand Table 7-18 by dissociating the quote vs. report variable from the parataxis vs. hypotaxis one: see Table 7-25. As the table shows, free indirect speech can be projected both verbally and mentally, and includes both propositions and proposals – everything, in fact, that can be both quoted and reported (thus excluding minor speech functions since they can only be quoted).
Monday, 9 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 532, 532n):
… there is another mode of projection which is sometimes described as ‘intermediate between direct and indirect speech’, namely free indirect speech:³²Quoted (‘direct’) ‘Am I dreaming?’ Jill wondered
‘Free indirect’ Was she dreaming, Jill wondered
Reported (‘indirect’) Jill wondered if she was dreaming
Strictly speaking it is not so much intermediate as a blend: it has some of the features of each of the other two types. The structure is paratactic, so the projected clause has the form of an independent clause retaining the mood of the quoted form; but it is a report and not a quote, so time and person reference are shifted – was she not am I. This is another example of the semogenic principle whereby the system fills up a slot it has created for itself.
³² ‘Free indirect speech’ encompasses a range of different feature combinations; it is a projection ‘space’ rather than a single invariant pattern. The account given here represents it in its prototypical form.
Sunday, 8 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 531):
With ‘mental’ process clauses the picture is more complex, since the reference form that tends to be associated with certainty and the substitute so with uncertainty; the principle is actually the same, but it is operating in a different environment (cf. the different senses of thought in quoting and reporting, referred to above). The principle is that a substitute does not refer; it simply harks back. It thus has the general semantic property of implying, and so excluding, possible alternatives; cf. the nominal substitute one as in a big one, meaning ‘there are also small ones, and I don’t mean those’. This is why so, which is a clause substitute, has the general sense of ‘non-real’, by contrast with what is ‘real’; besides (i) projection, where it signifies what is asserted or postulated, it is used in two other contexts: (ii) hypothetical, as opposed to actual, and (iii) possible, as opposed to certain. Hence:
(i) I think so but I know [that] not I know so
(ii) if so but because of that not because so
(iii) perhaps so but certainly not certainly so
Saturday, 7 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 530-1):
The sky is about to fall. (i) – Who said that? (ii) – Who said so?
It is clear that both that and so stand for something that is projected, as shown by the verb said. In (i) this projected element is being treated as a quote: ‘who produced that verbal act?’ – hence we can ask who said that? if we want to identify a speaker from among a crowd, like a teacher finding out who was talking in class. In (ii), on the other hand, the expression the sky is about to fall is being treated not as anybody’s verbal act but as a text; the meaning is ‘who affirmed that that was the case?’, with the implication that the contrary is conceivable.
In ‘verbal’ process clauses, therefore, he said that simply attests his production of the wording, whereas he said so raises the issue of whether what he said is in fact the case.
Friday, 6 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 530):
There are different ways of referring back to what is quoted and what is reported. Typically a reference item, usually that, is used to pick up a quoted passage, while a substitute, so/not, is used with a report. For example,She said, ‘I can’t do it.’– Did she really say that?
She said she couldn’t do it.– Did she really say so?
This is because the act of quoting implies a prior referent, some actual occasion that can then be referred back to, whereas in reporting there is nothing but the reported text. This explains the difference in meaning between I don’t believe that ‘I do not accept that assertion as valid’ and I don’t believe so ‘in my opinion such is not the case’.
Thursday, 5 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 530):
Traditional school exercises of the kind ‘turn into direct/indirect speech’ suggest that the two always fully match. This is true lexicogrammatically, in that it is always possible to find an equivalent – although not always a unique one: given Mary said she had seen it, the quoted equivalent might be I have seen it, I had seen it or I saw it, or she (someone else) has seen it, etc. But it is not true as a general statement about usage. Semantically the two do not exactly match, and there are many instances where it does not make sense to replace one by the other. Note, for example, Alice thought that that was the jury-box, where we should have to change Alice thought to something like Alice said to herself in order to avoid the sense of ‘held the opinion’, which is the natural interpretation of a verb of thinking when it is projecting by hypotaxis.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 530):
With the imperative the relationship is less clear. We noted in Chapter 4 that the imperative is a somewhat indeterminate category, having some features of a finite and some features of a non-finite clause. Similarly the category of reported imperative (‘indirect command’) is not very clearly defined. But non-finite clauses with to, following a verb such as tell or order, can be interpreted as reported proposals. They likewise display the properties of ‘indirect speech’, although without sequence of tenses, since the verb does not select for tense. For example,‘I know this trick of yours.’ She said || she knew that trick of his.
‘Can you come tomorrow?’ He asked || if she could come the next day.
‘Why isn’t John here?’ She wondered || why John wasn’t there.
‘Help yourselves.’ He told them || to help themselves.
‘We must leave to-night.’ She said || they had to leave that night.
Tuesday, 3 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 530):
If the reported clause is interrogative it typically shifts into the declarative; the declarative is the unmarked mood, and is used in all clauses that do not select for mood independently, including all dependent clauses. A yes/no interrogative becomes declarative, introduced by if or whether (he asked ‘is she coming at noon?’ : he asked whether she was coming at noon); a WH- interrogative becomes declarative with the WH- element remaining at the front (he asked ‘when is she coming?’ : he asked when she was coming).
Monday, 2 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 529):
As we have seen, a reported proposition typically takes on a set of related features collectively known as ‘indirect speech’. What happens is that all deictic elements are shifted away from reference to the speech situation: personals away from first and second person (speaker and listener) to third, and demonstratives away from near (here-&-now) to remote. A part of this effect is the ‘sequence of tenses’: if the verb in the reporting clause has ‘past’ as its primary tense, then typically each verb in the reported clause has its finite element in the corresponding System II (‘sequent’) form: see Table 7-24.
In other words, an additional ‘past’ feature is introduced at the Finite element in the mood structure of the projected clause. The use of the sequent form is not obligatory; it is less likely in a clause stating a general proposition, for example they said they close at weekends. But overall it is the unmarked choice in the environment in question.
Sunday, 1 December 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 528):
Quoting and reporting are not simply formal variants; they differ in meaning. The difference between them derives from the general semantic distinction between parataxis and hypotaxis, as it applies in the particular context of projecting. In quoting, the projected element has independent status; it is thus more immediate and lifelike, and this effect is enhanced by the orientation of the deixis, which is that of drama not that of narrative. Quoting is particularly associated with certain narrative registers, fictional and personal; it is used not only for sayings but also for thoughts, including not only first-person thoughts, as in... and watching that trial wondering whether in fact he was innocent or not and I couldn’t make up my mind, after a while I thought ‘No, I’m sure he’s guilty’.
but also third-person thoughts projected by an omniscient narrator, as in‘And that’s the jury-box,’ thought Alice.
So after about two hours he thought ‘Well they’re not coming back’ and he started hitchhiking.
Reporting, on the other hand, presents the projected element as dependent. It still gives some indication of mood, but in a form which precludes it from functioning as a move in an exchange; the mood is projected, not straight. And the speaker makes no claim to be abiding by the wording.
Saturday, 30 November 2019
Friday, 29 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 527-8, 527n):
As with those that are projected verbally, so with those that are projected mentally the exact limits are fuzzy; they merge with causatives and with various aspectual categories. The relevant criteria are similar to those set up for propositions, except that we cannot realistically test for quoting, since mental proposals are rarely quoted.* For reporting, however, if the process in the dominant clause is one of desire, and the dependent clause is a future declarative, or could be replaced by a future declarative, then the structure can be interpreted as a projection; for example we hope you will not forget. In Chapter 8, Section 8.8, we shall suggest an alternative interpretation for those where the dependent clause is non-finite and its Subject is presupposed from the dominant clause, e.g. he wanted to go home (where it is difficult to find a closely equivalent finite form); but there will always be a certain amount of arbitrariness about where the line is drawn.
* Note that ‘I wish he’d go away,’ thought Mary is a quoted proposition incorporating a reported proposal, not a quoted proposal, which would be ‘Let him go away!’ wished Mary. As with mental propositions, so also with mental proposals: the notion behind quoting is generally that of ‘saying to oneself’, or saying silently to a deity as in prayer.
Thursday, 28 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 527, 517):
With the ‘mental’ reporting of ideas, there is an important distinction between propositions and proposals, deriving from their fundamental nature as different forms of semiotic exchange. Whereas propositions, which are exchanges of information, are projected mentally by processes of cognition – thinking, knowing, understanding, wondering, etc. – proposals, which are exchanges of goods-&-services, are projected mentally by processes of desire, as illustrated by the examples given above under ‘mental’ (for examples of verbs of desire, see above Table 7-21). Thus, while propositions are thought, proposals are hoped.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526, 523):
The parallel between quoting and reporting is not so close with proposals as with propositions, because reported proposals merge gradually into causatives without any very clear line in between. Thus not only are there many verbs used in quoting which are not used in reporting – again the complex ones: we would not write his driver soothed him to be steady or soothed that he should keep steady – but also there are many verbs used to report that are not used to quote, verbs expressing a wide variety of rhetorical processes such as persuade, forbid, undertake, encourage, recommend, as illustrated above; see Table 7-23.
Tuesday, 26 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526):
However, these typically differ with respect to the status of the Subject of the reported proposal. With reported locutions, the Subject is implicit; it is presumed from the Receiver of the reporting ‘verbal’ clause: he told/promised me || to wash the car. This is shown by the agnate finite variant (he told me || that I should wash the car; he promised me || that he would wash the car) and by the fact that the ‘verbal’ clause has a passive variant with the Receiver as Subject – I was told || to wash the car.
In contrast, with reported ideas, the Subject is explicit as part of the projected proposal: he wanted || me to wash the car; he intended/planned/hoped || for me to wash the car. Here there is no passive variant of the reporting clause – we cannot say I was wanted || to wash the car, I was hoped || (for) to wash the car; but there is a passive variant of the reported idea clause – we can say he wanted || the car to be washed (by me). Not surprisingly, there are intermediate cases; more specifically, certain nexuses of reported locutions have properties usually associated with nexuses of reported ideas. Thus with order we can say I was ordered || to wash the car (cf. I was told || to wash the car); but we can also say he ordered || the car to be washed (by me) (cf. he wanted || the car to be washed (by me)).
Monday, 25 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526, 526n):
Unlike reported propositions, reported proposals take the same form regardless of whether they are giving or demanding in orientation:* (giving) he promised me to wash the car; (demanding) he told me to wash the car. This applies to both locutions and ideas.
* This is true of the form of non-finites; but they differ with respect to the source of the presumed Subject of the non-finite clause, as is shown by the agnate finite variant of the reported clause: when the orientation is demanding, the source is the Receiver of the verbal clause (he told me || to wash the car – that I should ...); when it is given, the source is the Sayer (he promised me || to wash the car – that he would ...). Finites differ between giving and demanding in the choice of modal: (giving: inclination) he promised that he would wash the car; (demanding: obligation) he demanded that we should wash the car.
Sunday, 24 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525-6):
The non-finites are typically perfective, e.g.
||| I tell people || to say thank you. |||
||| And then, finally, I was invited || to create the interior of the United States Pavilion at the New York World’s Fair in 1964. |||
||| Of course I want || Labour to win || but I don’t think || they will. |||
||| Do you want || me to explain that? |||
However, a few verbs take imperfective projections, e.g. she suggested talking it over.
Saturday, 23 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525):
In American English in particular, reported proposals are often in the ‘subjunctive’ (where the third person singular is the base form of the verb); for example:
||| The negotiations were suspended in January || when Syria insisted || Israel commit to returning to prewar 1967 borders. |||
||| Did they suggest || the attorney general investigate? |||
||| When Evans returned to Sydney with glowing reports of this fertile land [[he’d found]], || the Governor ordered || that a road be built. |||
||| Perhaps it was history that ordained || that it be here, at the Cape of Good Hope [[that we should lay the foundation stone of our new nation]]. |||
Friday, 22 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525):
The finites are declarative, usually modulated with a modal auxiliary of obligation (should, ought to, must, has to, is to, might, could, would) serving as Finite, e.g.
||| The doctor ordered || that all the books and toys [[that the Boy had played with in bed]] must be burned. |||
||| Yet somebody told me || that I mustn’t repudiate my non-fiction, || because it’s saying very much || what the fiction is saying. |||
||| He told Philip || that he should demand higher wages, || for notwithstanding the difficult work [[he was now engaged in]], he received no more than the six shillings a week [[with which he started]]. |||
||| I wish || you’d do something about that wall, Jane. |||
||| But until you’ve got kids || and are bringing them up ||| ... I wish || mine would hurry up || and grow up || and leave home. |||
Thursday, 21 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525, 525n):
With propositions, the reported clause is finite.* With proposals, it may be (a) finite or (b) non-finite.
* Except for certain projected ideas, which may take a non-finite form on the model of the Latin ‘accusative + infinitive’, e.g. ||| I understood || them to have accepted ||| he doesn’t consider || you to be serious |||. These shade into attributed intensive relational clauses, e.g. [Attributor:] he [Process:] doesn’t consider [Carrier:] you [Attribute:] serious.
Wednesday, 20 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 524-5):
Like propositions, proposals can also be reported: projected hypotactically (1) by ‘verbal’ clauses as ‘indirect speech’ or (2) by ‘mental’ clauses as ‘indirect thought’. The former involves indirect commands, offers and suggestions; the latter desired (ideas of) states of affair. One central feature they share is the mode of the projected proposal: it is ‘irrealis’, or non-actualised, and the projecting clause represents the verbal or mental force of actualisation. The mode is reflected in the realisation of the reported clause. (Both mental and verbal reporting of proposals can be used to realise direct proposals).
Tuesday, 19 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 524):
As with verbs used to quote propositions, verbs such as moan serve in ‘behavioural’ clauses pressed into quoting service; for example:
||| ‘Say something nice to me,’ || she murmured. |||
||| ‘Oh, don’t go yet,’ || he cried. ||| ‘I must,’ || she muttered. |||
||| ‘Oh, don’t take him away yet,’ || she moaned. |||
These are the ‘direct commands’ of traditional grammar, to which we would need to add ‘direct offers (and suggestions)’; in other words, all proposals projected as ‘direct speech’. Just like non-projected proposals, quoted proposals may be realised by ‘imperative’ clauses; but they may also be realised by modulated ‘indicative’ ones:
||| ‘Then please tell him’, || Liz begged like a child. |||
||| ‘Don’t be ridiculous’, || Julia snapped. |||
||| ‘Perhaps you and your wife would like to look around together’, || Richard suggested with frosty politeness. |||
||| ‘You could still apply for it, you know – the managership’, || Andrew was suggesting helpfully. |||
||| ‘I shouldn’t keep him waiting, || if I were you’, || Eleanor tossed over her shoulder || as she left. |||
Matthiessen's interpretation of the quoting clause as behavioural is problematic, because it creates unnecessary inconsistency and complication in the theory. The simplest (and Hallidayan) interpretation is that the quoting clause is verbal, not behavioural, and that the lexical choice adds a behavioural feature to the process of saying.
This use of lexis is a common strategy in English, as shown by clauses like she talked her way into the press conference. In this instance, the lexical selection 'talk' adds a (near-verbal) behavioural feature to a material Process. We know the clause isn't behavioural because the Range of the Process her way is not a Behaviour (as it would be for behavioural clauses).
Monday, 18 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 523-4):
Offers and commands, and also suggestions which are simply the combination of the two (offer ‘I’ll do it’, command ‘you do it’, suggestion ‘let’s do it’), can be projected paratactically (quoted) in the same way as propositions, by means of a verbal process clause having a quoting function. For example (using an exclamation mark as an optional notational variant),
||| If we’re talking || when she’s writing up on the board, || all of a sudden she’ll turn round || and go || ‘will you be quiet!’ |||
||| she’ll go || will you be quiet |||
Here the verb go is the quoting verb. Further examples:
||| I said to Peter, || ‘Don’t say anything.’ |||
||| ‘The ark must be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high,’ || he said, || ‘big enough for you and your wife, your three sons, and their wives’. |||
||| He said, || ‘I could fix that hot-water heater!’ |||
||| ‘Let’s celebrate today, || because beginning tomorrow || there’s a lot of work [[to do]],’ || he said. |||
Sunday, 17 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522-3):
This combination of a verbal process with ‘reporting’, although we are treating it as logically subsequent to quoting, being arrived at by analogy with the reporting of a mental process, is the normal way of representing what people say, in most registers of English today. The opposite combination, that of a mental process with ‘quoting’, is also found, although considerably more restricted. Here a thought is represented as if it was a wording, for example
I saw an ad in the paper for dachshunds, and I thought ‘I’ll just inquire’ – not intending to buy one, of course.
||| I thought || ‘I’ll just inquire’ |||
||| ‘The gods must watch out for Kukul,’ || he thought to himself. |||
||| So I figured ||‘Well, then obviously it’s going to be a nineteenth-century American novel’. |||
||| ‘When all’s said and done,’ << he reflected, >> ‘she hasn’t had much chance.’ |||
The implication is ‘I said to myself ... ’; and this expression is often used, recognising the fact that one can think in words. Only certain mental process verbs are regularly used to quote in this way, such as think, wonder, reflect, surmise.
Saturday, 16 November 2019
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522, 523):
In addition to the verbs listed in Table 7-23, we also find a pattern with verb: express + a noun of sensing such as belief, confidence, suspicion; hope, desire; apprehension, concern, disappointment, frustration, fear(s), anger, outrage, regret (+ to nominal group) + that-clause.
This pattern could be analysed as a ranged ‘verbal’ clause: Process: express + Verbiage: [nominal group: Head: fear, etc. + Qualifier: that-clause]; we also find such nouns of sensing (often nominalisations of verbs of sensing) serving as Head and configured with phrases as Qualifier, as in express + fear of attack / childbirth / for safety / about labour unrest.
However, looked at ‘from above’, this pattern can be interpreted as a strategy for construing processes of saying externalising processes of consciousness. They may be configured with an element that can be interpreted as Receiver, and they often occur in the environment of hypotactically projecting verbal clauses; for example:Assange expressed fears that cyberspace had its limits.
The coach of the Peruvian Football, Sergio Markarian, expressed confidence that their pupils achieve a victory over Colombia and said it is in the semi-finals of the Copa America.
Many viewers have expressed frustration that the supposedly feminist Joss Whedon would create a story about a glorified, high-tech form of prostitution. However, I argue here that in his feminist repertoire, Dollhouse gives us just as much fodder for thinking about gender, feminism, and power as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which drew its appeal by resisting the very forms of systemic oppression, both male and female disempowerment, that Dollhouse sought to make explicit.
After Warren died from HIV in 1995, I expressed regret to Kirk that I hadn’t seen more of Warren in his last years, and Kirk suggested that one way I could respond would be by seeing more of him – which I did, and was glad to do.